Dallasblog.com, the Dallas, Texas news blog and Dallas, Texas information source for the DFW Metroplex. - DALLAS BLOG - What is the GOP rules committee afraid of?

What is the GOP rules committee afraid of?

by Will Lutz

Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 02:13 AM

Republicans who wanted to attend a meeting of the party’s rules committee were greeted by a rather ominous sign Thursday evening. “The use of any electronic recording equipment will not be allowed during any meeting of the rules committee including but not limited to video or audio recording.” After enquiring further, I was told that the committee passed a rule banning recordings. I believe the committee’s action is ill-advised, improper, and inconsistent with the principles of open government. I will explain my concerns in more detail later.

But in all fairness, I would say that Republican Party of Texas spokesman Hans Klingler handled my concerns (and a rather pointed question) on this topic diplomatically and professionally, which is in marked contrast to several of his predecessors.

“I don’t know that there is fear on anybody’s part,” said Klingler in response to my question on the matter. “As they pass these rules each convention, certain parameters are set up around those meetings. I think it is something that definitely is going to be addressed. You and I visited about it last night. And I know that, obviously, you are a 110 percent open meetings guy and we respect that. Obviously, the party in its platform also agrees with that. I think it’s something that will definitely be addressed and taken up, and I brought it to the chairman’s attention.”

I hope Tina Benkiser (the chairman of the Texas GOP) does take this seriously. Here’s why I disagree with the rules committee’s action:

1. It’s totally unnecessary. Yes, the current leadership of the party has its critics who are vocal. But recording meetings makes it harder – not easier – to misrepresent what was said.

2. Every local and state governmental entity in Texas is required to allow recordings at its meetings (Government Code, section 551.023). Why should the Republican Party do in the conduct of its affairs what its elected officials are prohibited from doing. Let me be clear here, I’m not necessarily accusing the GOP of breaking the law. But just because something might be legal doesn’t make it right.

3. The Republican Party of Texas accepts public funds to administer its primary, and its rules pertain to such matters as the allocation of delegates, selection of presidential electors, and review of the platform by the party’s elected officials. (The party should be careful about arguing it’s a purely private entity. The Texas Democratic Party made that argument in the early part of the 20th century when defending a segregated primary, something Republicans emphatically reject.)

4. The Legislature does have some requirements for transparency in the party’s operations, which shows this is not a purely private matter. The election code discusses the composition of the state executive committee (section 171.002), requires filing of the party’s rules with the secretary of state (section 163.005), requires notice to delegates of the party convention (section 174.093), and expressly requires admittance of the print and broadcast media (section 174.002).

5. Democrats don’t do this stuff. The Democratic Party had a very tense discussion over who would be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. The meeting was conducted in public with tape recorders running, despite the disagreements and acrimony.

6. The rules committee’s actions create the appearance of a lack of transparency, which validates some of the claims the leadership’s critics make about the conduct of the convention.

The party is in a rather unique position. It’s not purely a governmental entity. The party could justify, for example, closing a meeting on which races to target financially. On the other hand, it’s not a purely private organization either, as it runs public elections.

The State Republican Executive Committee can’t have it both ways. Many of the party faithful believe that executive committee resolutions and the platform are the product of the elected representatives of the grassroots and as such merit an almost binding deference from the party’s elected officials. Well, the downside of elective office is one has to take recorded votes on controversial issues, which someone might criticize or voters might decide to use as a basis for not re-electing an incumbent. (The party in its own platform calls for recorded votes on all bills.) The party’s officers can’t expect the deference accorded to elected officials without the public accountability associated with elective office.

I hope the party addresses this matter on its own. If not, the Texas Legislature should address it in 2009 by applying the Texas Open Meetings Act to both major party conventions and any committees of those conventions.

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (23) add comment

...
written by xyz , June 15, 2008

Hell hath no fury like a reporter curtailed. Big overreaction, Will. Can't you take notes, or has your profession lost that talent?

...
written by ex GOP , June 15, 2008

GOP - ultimate supporters of the "rule of law" - now just who's law is that?

...
written by Holy Roller , June 16, 2008

Id be scared too, when Ive seen items from their convention like the sign for the "EdJEWcation caucus"

...
written by lol , June 16, 2008

I was there and I never saw that or anything like it. Anybody else see it? If it was there I would be interested if it was an official sign or one somebody dashed off, for whatever motivation. Something like that would have made the news, I would think. Will Lutz, did you see it?

BTW,Will, the rule against recordings could have been on the advice of counsel, as the RPT was being sued when the committee met. The suit was later dismissed.

...
written by Paul Perry , June 18, 2008

The rule against recordings was a new one on me. It did fit a pattern of behavior that was consistent with many of the other reasons I ran for State Chairman.

That rule was supposed to apply to the entire convention I have been told.

...
written by Malachi , June 18, 2008

I was there and sat through both full days of the Rules Committee meetings. There was a supplemental rule that was passed early on that did indeed forbid the use of recording equipment during the Rules Committee meeting. The fear (I believe) was that they didn't want the "Democrats" knowing what we were doing and being able to see it on YouTube. Signs were posted on each door into the Rules Committee meeting to this effect.

Now, with that said...There WAS a minority report issued by the Rules committee with about 1/3 of the members signing on that was then PASSED on the floor by the general assembly. The minority report was a very slight modification to RPT Rule 27.b.2 which forces the SREC Officials Committee to meet IN OPEN SESSION when discussing Credentials Challenges in the future.

This Rule compels the Party Leadership to be just a little more open in their meetings. Perhaps next time we can add something to the effect that recording equipment can NOT be banned at an otherwise open meeting.

...
written by Toni Marek , June 18, 2008

I saw the signs. They were indeed there. In fact, some people in my SD (18) noticed them and inquired as to why they were there.

Weren't meeting open? What are we hiding?

When told it was the Party's doing, a telling silence took place of their previous questions. Sad.

You make some great points, Perry, if only the Party Leadership would wake up from their power trip and realize that you can't rule from your throne when no one is beneath you.

The Republican Party in Texas is going to go down in flames because our leadership uses big speeches with God and the Bible in them to get votes.

It is time to FOLLOW THE RULES. They are clear. They are simple.

If we little people can understand that - why not our leadership?

...
written by ricknhouston , June 18, 2008

BTW,Will, the rule against recordings could have been on the advice of counsel, as the RPT was being sued when the committee met. The suit was later dismissed.....

I'm flabbergasted! Does Tina B. know your spreading such vicious rumor and untruth? With our own ears we all heard her say, albeit immediately prior to her calling for the ballot vote on her own re-election, that "the lawsuit had been decided in favor of the RPT and herself"...and that "the Courts had also taken the unusual and extraordinary steps to award cost's, attorney fees and sacntions to us, as well". Isn't that what you heard? I have a video of it somewhere! But, yes! You are correct, it was DISMISSED on a technicality, that being because the Plaintiff's were not seeking "money damages". No evidence, no witnesses, no testimony, no record of fact ... only attorney arguments on the various motions ... pretty boring stuff actually! Oh, and the ONLY thing ordered in the "Judgement" issued by the 1st Court of Appeals was cost's of court!
I have a copy of it if you would like to see it.

Have a nice day!

P.S.
For the record ... Klingler, get a real job cuz you suck at this one! Can you say "bobblehead"?

...
written by Denny Church , June 18, 2008

This "rule" effectively mandated by Chairman Rene Diaz of Credentials Committee as well, and I argued right from the start that it should not be so. I was informed that it was for the protection of children since, in Texas, you cannot photograph any child without parental consent. There would be Paige’s about underage and it could not be done. Even though I argued vehemently against it as I think it WAS absolutely wrong, Rene Diaz's change was passed.

IMO, this was not about protecting children at all- but it was about protection.

DC
SD27
Permanent Credentials
Committee RPT 2008

...
written by Kevin , June 18, 2008

"here WAS a minority report issued by the Rule committee ..."

The assembly showed some integrity when it passed this minority report! That was the only time I was pleased during the General Assembly (I was a delegate). That and when challenger Paul Perry was nominated on the floor.

The minority report was the one success we Republicans achieved for open deliberation and transparency during this convention.

...
written by Gina Rodriguez , June 18, 2008

This issue addresses the INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM. If you can't trust the system, then you become ineffective, which is definately NOT what the GOP needs right now. Irrespective of what actually occurred in those meetings, banning recording devices only creates suspicion and doubt. If there is nothing to hide, then there is no reason to be concerned about recording devices. In fact, if there is nothing to hide, then a committee should welcome recording devices because they would prove to be a their best defense should any legal action be taken. Personally, I think it would have been a better move on part of the GOP to record every meeting themselves, which would have built better bridges than their meager cries for unity. Fortunately, people are beginning to understand the importance of protecting the INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM and voted to approve open SOC meetings. You cannot have too much accountability when the future of our local, state and national government is at stake.

...
written by Gina Rodriguez , June 18, 2008

Quote: "The fear (I believe) was that they didn't want the "Democrats" knowing what we were doing and being able to see it on YouTube."

Malachi, I do appreciate your trying to remain impartial, so this is not directed at you. This comment is intended to educated the readers of this blog. My response to that argument is, "What is the danger of Democrats knowing what goes on at a GOP rules committee meeting and why would they even care?" No cigar.

...
written by Robert X. Johnson , June 18, 2008

The History - at the 2002 State Convention we took a video of the Rule Committee on every vote, which were taken by show of hands, then we counted and NAMED how each committee person voted on the proposed change to Rule 43 and published it before the SD caucuses. We held them accountable. When the committee re-convened in permanent meeting they would not vote by show of hands any more but only by voice. Clearly they did not like have their voting record used against them. This latest "rule" to ban recording is typical politics to avoid accountability.

...
written by Will Lutz , June 18, 2008

Wow. I appreciate all the comments posted to this item. I feel like responding to a few.

xyz: Journalists don't record things because they can't take notes. They record things to supplement their notes. It provides an accurate record of what was said so people are quoted accurately, and it provides a record that can be used later if someone questions the accuracy of what was printed.

Open government is not an overreaction. I believe it's appropriate to let all people record a committee of the party when it sets rules for how to fund a taxpayer-funded primary and how to select the nominee for President of the United States. If the GOP is afraid of being misrepresented, they can make their own recording. The GOP should have nothing to fear about an accurate transcription of what goes on at the party's committee meetings. When the GOP is discussing party rules or public policy involving tax dollars, it should be at a completely open and transparent meeting just like every one of the party's elected officials do on a regular basis.

lol: The signs were posted on the big placards on the entrance to the committee room. Antoher reporter saw them and commented on them to me.

The rest of what I would like to say has already been duly noted by other commenters.

...
written by Steve Irwin , June 18, 2008

This report is just a small part of the larger story, which is the overall heavy-handedness in which Tina B, Rene Diaz, et al. handled challenges and treated delegates.

It WAS about protection and self-preservation. Diaz's rulings as the chair of credentials erroneously limited the scope of testimony so most of the committee members never heard all the facts about the challenges. Tina further eliminated all debate on motions related to credentials - intentionally leaving the body uninformed.

Both of them are very clearly seen reading from scripts when responding to motions from the floor (Youtube) - this shows premeditation. Their responses were, again, erroneous. I'm no attorney, but isn't this stuff actionable?

I left the convention with a heavy heart, prepared to forever disengage from the party. However, after a few days of reflection I realized that's not the answer. Instead, I will better prepare myself for the next cycle and work tirelessly to restore this party.

...
written by nobody , June 19, 2008

I would think that we would want to hold the Party leaders to the same standard that we hold our Senators to. Perhaps every vote should be recorded an presented to the convention body before any votes are taken. That way everyone is on the record for their actions.

...
written by Liberty Lady , June 19, 2008

It's time to get the real story on this convention! (There are some shocking facts yet to be made public.) Let's make sure we elect new state party leaders who will welcome all delegates and treat them with respect.

...
written by Matt , June 19, 2008

As upset as I was leaving the convention, I'm staying active in the GOP. It is our party, not Tina's. She has got to go and we need to work tirelessly to get a solid candidate in place for 2010 and work like hell to get him/her elected as state chair.

...
written by ricknhouston , June 19, 2008

Will Lutz,
You seem to be a very hard working and honest journalist. Paul Perry has given us every assurance that you are trust
worthy and can be depended on to do the right thing. The following information has come to us today from a group of our delegates down in Nueces Cnty who were at the epicenter of the improprieties that had taken place at their SD/County Convention, on Mar 29.

This information was derived from a search of the Official Voter Rolls of Nueces Cnty. and is screaming to be let out into the light of day. This information substantiates the authenticity of the challenges that were the basis of the violations made by the sitting RPT leadership and her appointed "temporary committee chairs" and then covered up by Chairwoman Benkiser, who blocked any and all discussion and/or dissent, rightfully afforded to the seated delegates to the convention, bythe convention floor over ruling all attempts to properly and orderly dispense with them.

The following is a list of the names of the "delegates" whose challenges were summarily dismissed by the "chair of the temporary credentials committee" an appointee of Tina Benkiser, and were allowed to be seated with full voting powers, even though they had been properly challenged for flagrant RPT and Texas Election Code rules violations.

As you will plainly see, something is not Kosher here! It smells like a rat ... it walks like a rat ... and leaves a trail like a rat! Do you smell a rat, Mr. Lutz?

Nilza Gonzalez Seated as a GOP Delegate from Nueces Cnty. Voter rolls show she voted as a Democrat in the Mar 4,Primary.
Not qualified as GOP Delegate;

Phyllis Capps seated as GOP Alternate from Nueces Cnty. Voter roll show she voted as Democrat in the Mar 4 Primary. Not qualified as GOP delegate;

Gaye Dunkin seated as GOP Alternate from Nueces Cnty. Voter rolls show she is NOT REGISTERED to vote in Nueces Cnty. Not qualified as GOP delegate;

These people were illegally added as delegates to the Mar 29, Nueces Cnty SD Convntion following adjournment of Mar 4 Precinct Convntion.
(They were neither nominated or elected)Nueces Cnty Voter rolls indicate that thes individual registered and voted as Democrats on Mar 4:

Nilza Gonzalez
Phyllis Capps
Pedro Pinzon
Carmen Pinzon
Horace Arkadie
Ruby Arkadie
Diana Escamilla

These people were illegally added as delegates to the Mar 29, Nueces Cnty SD Convntion following adjournment of Mar 4 Precinct Convntion.
(They were neither nominated or elected)Nueces Cnty Voter rolls indicate that thes individual are NOT registered to vote in Nueces Cnty:

David Diaz
Jane Smith
Joseph Garza
Jackie Hellidge
Dina Dalton
Gaye Duncan

...
written by bigDinWise , June 19, 2008

As a delegate to the state convention for the first time, I was very disgusted at what transpired - especially in "credentials." I sat there all day Tuesday watching Reny summarily dismiss challenges. His pronouncement of being "fair" at the beginning turned out to be a joke.

During the GA, T. Benkiser acted like a tyrant. She even dismissed a motion from the floor by stating, "Your motion is not well received." What??? And the sheople clapped.

After getting home, there are many delegates that have stated they are going LP or CP instead of staying in a fascist party. It's been hard to persuade them to stay. The "leadership" is killing the party - although I'm not for a party as much as I'm for the platform.

This may not sound nice but its reality: the "greatest generation" will be dead in 15 - 20 years and represent a huge chunk of the party’s numbers. Treating the new/young folks as they were, and doing nothing/little about it, I have to wonder what is to become of the GOP. Gen X and younger won't stick around to drink the Kool-aid (Deb hit the nail on the head).

...
written by Jarrod R Atkinson , June 20, 2008

I was in the Rules Committee Meetings on Monday and Tuesday. I actually arrived just before they voted to ban recording devices. I'm still kicking myself for not speaking out against it, but it was my first day at my first convention, so I hadn't gotten over my initial apprehension. The sign was printed out by the RPT staffers and taped to the wall outside the three doors.
Paul, I have a copy of the Supplemental Rules for the Convention in front of me and they didn't ban recording devices during the Convention. Of course, they didn’t mention t-shirts in the rules either, but that didn’t prevent them from ordering that the Fair Convention t-shirts not be sold or even given away. We still have a few of the 700 that were made if anyone wants one. Should be a collector’s item….
The Credentials Committee passed a rule in the beginning stating that anyone involved in a challenge that had yet to be heard before the committee had to vacate the tiny room. I unknowingly violated that rule because they announced that while I was in the hall with the other 30 or more delegates who wanted to participate but couldn’t because of the lack of real estate. My presence for the rulings from the chair allowed me the opportunity to craft a response to Chairman Diaz’s question about whether or not I live in Tina Benkiser’s county or senate district.
Me: “It is my contention that I do live in Tina Benkiser’s district because she is the Chair of the Republican Party of Texas and, since she violated the rules in Dallas County, not Harris County, I should be allowed to file a challenge.”
Diaz: “I understand the sentiment, but you live in Dallas County.”
Me: “Just so I understand, if someone in another county acts in a way to violate the rules and effects someone in another county, the effected party can’t file a challenge?”
Diaz: “Are you a lawyer Mr. Atkinson?” This was followed by the only laughter that committee could muster all day and then, “I meant that as a compliment,” followed my more laughter.
Me: “No, I am an Economist.”
(Obviously, there’s no way to verify that this is what actually transpired because there’s no record of it, so I took some liberties in my recollection. That’s the danger, as Mr. Lutz suggested in his blog. I should have added a fist fight or something, but there would have been evidence of that.)
The members felt quite insulted by the lack of personal space allowed by the tiny room, but more insulted by the unilateral decisions passed down from the chair. Diaz stated during the General Session that the Committee heard testimony from everyone involved in every challenge and then voted on them all. That's just not true. I Challenged the Credentials of the Chair of the Republican Party of Texas for violating Rule 22 b, but the committee didn't vote on it, I never gave testimony, and Tina Benkiser was never in the room. That's just one example of the lack of testimony, discussion, and fair disposition of challenges. In my mind, the real problem isn’t that they made up the rules as they went along; they didn’t seem to care about what is the right thing to do. Diaz, an attorney and judge, manufactured rules and misinterpreted laws that he used to dismiss almost every challenge before the committee had the privilege of voting on the issue. Yes, Vanessa from Nueces County did not send notice to every member of the challenged delegation, but, when you have a rump convention, that seems to be notice. “Hey! We’re leaving!” That would be my first indication.
Also, Rule 27, which says that you have to mail notice to anyone who has a challenged filed against them refers to “Challenges,” not “Contests,” as this was classified, or rump conventions. Rump Conventions have been seated at RPT State Conventions before, and I doubt that they went to the considerable expense of mailing notice to every member.
The leaders of the RPT, Tina Benkiser and David Barton, did accomplish their overall goal: they retained power. They forced us to focus on trying to enforce the rules, rather than discussing the future of our Party and the issues. That's really where we lost. Republicans are in desperate need of votes, financing, and volunteers and the conduct at the State Convention does not encourage the grassroots to hit the streets because we have no assurances that anything is going to change any time soon. Luckily, we have a few really good Republicans in Dallas who will be the recipients of some very experienced and motivated volunteers. Hopefully, our activism for these good Republicans will convince other Republicans to listen to the grassroots.

...
written by Steven heath , June 21, 2008

I was at the convention and was appalled by the violations of the Rules. The Establishment leaders chose to flaunt the rules and disregard the rights of its minority members, rather than risk losing the convention floor and being embarrassed by the truth which would come out if they lost the power of the gavel. There are a lot of older republican delegates who don't want to face up to the fact that the Republican leadership in this country has dropped the ball and lead the party (and the Country) to possible calamity. Not that the democrats are the answer to our problems, but I always thought the Republican party was the party of freedom, liberty, less government and individual and collective responsibility. How naive I have been to believe the rhetoric.

The good thing is that there is an ever growing minority of Republicans who want to take back this party and return to its roots. I suspect that after the disaster to come in November, the percentage of these Republicans will increase substantially at the 2010 convention.

...
written by aaron cloddotter , June 22, 2008

so, ricknhouston, are you saying the party leadership lied about the spoils of the lawsuit?

I am shocked, schocked, shocked, I tell you!!!

How about having the chair of rules tell the committee members the could NOT file a minority report on Nueces county?

one look at the vendors missing from this comvention will tell the real truth about attendance. if you took away candidate booths, there probably wouldn't have been 6 left. they know the crowds aren't there anymore and it doesn't have anything to do with the gubernatorial vote.

never seated much over 4,000 delegates, and that would have included seated alternates. hard to stretch that to the RPT's published number of over 12,000. I'll believe that when i see comparable numbers from the hoteliers.

Don't be fooled by the spin, Will.

Write comment

< Prev		Next >