|
Context for Question 1:
While meetings of the State Central Committee (governing body of the Utah Republican Party) are or have been open to the public, wide dissemination of its debate is impractical if each interested Republican must appear in person (at sometimes distant locations). Since the Party exists for individual Republicans and not the Central Committee, the refusal to allow non-disruptive recording of debate (on amendments to the publicly disclosed Constitution & Bylaws, for example) appears to be a mechanism for Central Committee members to avoid accountability for their statements and actions.
|
|
Question 1: The State Central Committee has banned the non-disruptive recording of its debate on such topics as its amendments to the Party Constitution & Bylaws that have the potential to directly affect every Republican in Utah. As a Party Officer, will you act to allow or require such debate to remain secret, or support full disclosure of such proceedings?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
I feel that a recording could be of value however it should be made by the party and be made available to all party officers including delegates. The idea of others recording official meetings does not seem to make for the kind of harmony and trust that we are trying to create as a party.
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
I will require that such proceedings have complete disclosure. Even if a strong argument could be made that there were some reason for secrecy that I cannot think of, the potential harm of such from secrecy exceeds all harms from disclosure. Let us not fall for arguments citing a need for secrecy.
|
|
Jared Law:
In the interest of transparency,
I would strongly prefer that recording can take place,
so long as those recording are
1) only made available to Registered Republicans and
2) the individual(s) recording central committee meetings are identified,
and they voluntarily agree to condition 1.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
I support open and accessible meetings. I support the right of the members of our party to be aware of the actions of their leaders and I support the right of the members of our party to record meetings and debates. It is important to note that on rare occassions and under situations where pending litigation is involved or where information of a personal and very sensitive nature is being discussed it is appropriate for deliberative bodies to "close the doors" so to speak, so long as it is not done to hide actions, votes, and deliberations that should otherwise be available to all members of our party.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
I reject the premise of this question. I also reject the general premise that members of the SCC who are selected to serve by the delegates immediately become an enemy to the delegates. The debate is not currently conducted “in secret”. The public is invited to attend. Although the no recording policy has never been reduced to writing, I believe that the SCC have the right to set the rules for their meetings.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 2:
Some past Party officers have been corporate lobbyists or have been employed in governmental positions. Others seeking Party offices have been employed by Republican officeholders. The potential for a conflict between personal financial interest and the interest of grassroots Republicans may exist. We believe these conflicts should be disclosed to allow delegates to determine if their interests might be subordinated to a candidate’s personal interest.
|
|
Question 2: Similar to the business world, do you believe that actual or potential conflicts of interest of party officer candidates should be fully and systematically disclosed to delegates in advance of the convention? If so, please disclose all actual or potential conflicts of interest involving employment, investments, or other financial interests affecting you or close family members (including parents, parents-in-law, husband or wife, children, brothers or sisters, and brothers or sisters in law).
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
yes should be part of an ethics packege
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
I cannot think of any conflicts in my life, but conflicts can happen. And they should be disclosed.
|
|
Jared Law:
Yes, conflicts of interest should be fully disclosed in advance.
I presently have no conflicts of interest, whatsoever, WRT the State Party Chair position.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
I do believe it is important that conflicts of interest be disclosed. I currently serve as the Legal Counsel and Government Affairs Director to Reagan Outdoor Advertising (ROA). ROA is a business that is heavily regulated by local governments (primarily cities). Due to the constant pressure that comes from cities to move or remove our signs we have found it necessary to appeal to the State Legislature to protect our private property rights and our rights wherein cities attempt to condemn our property. As the Legal Counsel and GA director I may be called upon to write legislation, conduct policy research, and meet and educate lawmakers regarding pending legislation that pertains to ROA. Due to the nature of my work I may be called upon during the Legislative session (45 days) to meet, educate, and work with legislators and in doing so I have registered with the state of Utah as a lobbyist.
I am proud to say that in the last legislative session and as the Legal Counsel for ROA I fought against the overlay of federal environmental zoning laws and controls through the Federal scenic byways program wherein small quasi-governmental entitites are allowed to overlay state roads, cities, and lands with federal controls in exchange for federal grant money and local sovereignty.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
I believe that any known conflict should be disclosed. I am unaware of any such conflicts on my behalf.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 3:
Without the information that specifies how delegates have been selected, it is not possible to determine if the rules are being followed. The Utah Republican Party either has, or can obtain, the information necessary to ensure that in accordance with the rules state delegates are either elected in a precinct, designated in a county convention (for underfills), or appointed by a precinct chairman (for vacancies resulting from death, resignation, or disqualification).
|
|
Question 3: To facilitate objective assurance that Party rules regarding delegate selection are being followed and a level playing field exists for all Party candidates and causes, will you support full disclosure of neighborhood caucus attendee sheets, enumeration of appointed and automatic delegates (though not authorized by Party Constitution), listing of delegates that have been elected at a county convention or selected by a precinct chairman, and those receiving credentials at state conventions?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
I believe that all party information should be made avaiulable to all party officers including delegates with the exceptions of email addresses and other privacy information as deemed necessary. A delegate list should be available except for the email address in my opinion. How a delegate is elected or appointed including the circumstances thereof should be available to party officers including delegates in my opinion.
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
I don't know of any way to verify legitamacy of delegates without that information. In fact, not having that information presents a stumbling block to enforcing the Republican Party Constitution's description as to who can be a delegate.
|
|
Jared Law:
Yes, I agree with full disclosure of neighborhood caucus attendee sheets,
enumeration of appointed and automatic delegates,
listing of delegates elected at a county convention or selected by a precinct chair,
and those receiving credentials at state conventions,
provided all such information is only disclosed to Registered Republicans.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
Absolutely, yes! I believe that this information needs to be available to our party members for greater fairness, openness, communication and collaboration within our party.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
I believe in the Republican principle of a grassroots, bottom-up process and am in favor of a level playing field and the disclosure of relevant information. The caucus information is collected at the county level. Each county should decide what information it intends to release. I do not believe it is the state party’s role to force county officers to disclose information against the county’s policies, bylaws, or procedures. These issue are best addressed by the county delegates in the counties in which the problems reside.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 4:
The advocates for appointed and automatic delegates claim that they are opposed to top-down rule by the State Party. However, their argument is contradicted by the change they attempted to make in 2006. The change would have made optional the requirement for all delegate positions to be allocated to the precincts. Power flowing up from the precincts would have been diluted by appointments and automatic assignments. Appointed and automatic delegates undermine a grassroots Republican Party.
|
|
Question 4: At the 2006 State Convention the State Central Committee presented an amendment to the Party Constitution (rejected 59% to 41%) that would permit county party leaders to take away some or all delegate positions required to be elected in the precincts in favor of appointments and automatic assignment. Did you support or oppose this amendment (or would you have supported or opposed it)?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
i oppose it. I feel that elected delegates should be favored and encouraged in all circumstances. The recent article in the Tribune really misquoted my position as i was only giving a summary of the issue not my opinion. Our constitution requires delegates to be elected by the neighborhoods not appointed or manipulated (which can corrupt the caucus system), As chairman, I am confident that you will have more oppurtunities to discuss and vote on this issue than my primary opponent will provide.
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
At that time I was running for United States Senate against Orrin Hatch and was concentrating on national issues. Now I know that automatic delegates are a buffer between our representatives and the people. We hear the term Level playing field. That is what we won't have until we eliminate automatic delegates. If automatic delegates alter races to the degree that I and many believe, then no race is really an indication of the will of the people. In my opinion, eliminating automatic delegates from the Utah Republican Party is more important than a U.S. Senate race.
|
|
Jared Law:
I was not at the 2006 State Convention, as that was before I was heavily involved, but if I had been, I would have opposed such an amendment.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
I was at law school at this time but had I been there I would have opposed the amendment.
|
Todd Weiler:
I reject the premise of the question for the reasons stated herein. I supported the amendment at the time because I believe that in grassroots, bottom-up principles. At the present time, I wish that all counties would follow Weber Counties lead and abolish automatic delegates as I am tired to the controversy that is stirred up ever year.
With that said, I do not believe that it is appropriate for the state party to exercise “top down” rule and force all 29 counties to conform to its will. Utah County has been using automatic delegates and appointed delegates for three decades. Who am I to tell them they have to change now? The Utah Republican Party Constitution affords each county party the authority to determine how its delegates are chosen.
Article XII, Section A, of the Utah Republican Party Constitution provides as follows:
Precinct Caucuses shall be held in each even-numbered year. The State Party shall designate the date thereof at least four weeks prior to the caucuses. The County Party shall designate the locations. The County Party shall designate, based upon the relative Republican strength of each precinct, the number of delegates to be elected in each individual caucus meeting. Relative Republican strength shall be calculated by aggregating the total combined county Republican votes cast at the previous election for governor/lieutenant governor, attorney general, state auditor, and state treasurer, excluding the vote for any candidate who had no opposition. Each precinct’s portion of the aggregate vote shall be calculated on a strict percentage basis, without rounding. The County Party shall give notice of each individual caucus meeting by notifying the local news media and requiring three notices to be posted in the precinct. Each individual caucus shall be open to any Utah citizen who resides in the precinct,
who will be at least 18 by the time of that year’s general election. The State Party, through its Bylaws, may restrict participation and voting in the precinct caucuses based on party affiliation. The caucus shall convene at 7:00 p.m.
In other words, the state party constitution provides no prohibition of “ex officio” or so-called “automatic” delegates. The fact that the verb “designate” is used three times recognizes the county party’s authority to make independent choices. The 29 county parties throughout the state choose the caucus locations and the numbers of the delegates elected at the caucuses. Proposed constitutional amendments to require the county parties to merely “allocate” delegates to the precincts, rather than “designate the number” were rejected by the 2002 and 2004 state conventions.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 5:
Article X provides two mechanisms to amend the Party Constitution. The first is by the State Central Committee with subsequent ratification by the delegates. The second is directly by the delegates (2/3 vote is required). The Central Committee has violated the second constitutional method, by which the delegates in the past have made beneficial changes such as preventing Democrats from voting in Republican primaries.
|
|
Question 5: In recent years the State Central Committee and its Constitution & Bylaws Committee have taken the position that it is impermissible for the Convention to propose amendments to the Party Constitution though the Constitution authorizes such amendments. As a Party Officer will you allow or oppose consideration of constitutional amendments brought directly to the convention by state delegates?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
I would allow consideration if properly brought before the convention with notice to all delegates that the matter was going to be brought up
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
I will allow them. In addition, I will search for a way to speed the way they are handled because the more time is spent on a given motion or proposal, the more likely the convention is to break down and act inapropriately.
|
|
Jared Law:
At the present time, I see no reason to oppose such amendments, and I would therefore permit such amendments.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
Allow.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
I agree with the current process. The SCC and C&B Committees are supposed to review submissions (Bylaws 1.3.b - "The CB Committee is the guardian of the Party Constitution and Bylaws") to make sure they're not running afoul of federal or state law, National Party Bylaws, and have no unforeseen adverse impacts to the party. The current system of checks and balances save the delegates from changing the governing documents one year, and then fixing them change the next - like we used to do.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 6:
Historically the Convention rules were presented to the delegates for their approval. On occasion amendments to the rules were proposed and were approved (such as requiring balloting to be performed in a fair and valid manner). By moving the rules into the Bylaws, any amendments would require approval by the State Central Committee before they could be considered by the delegates. Gaining approval by the State Central Committee represents a nearly insurmountable barrier that encroaches on the authority and power of delegates.
|
|
Question 6: The State Central Committee has frequently demonstrated that it is not in tune with the interests of state delegates by almost annually presenting proposals to legalize automatic and appointed delegates. Similarly, without the approval of delegates, it has taken away the ability of the convention to establish its own rules. Would you support an amendment to the Party Constitution that would allow the convention, by a majority vote, to repeal State Central Committee bylaws amendments such as those taking away rule-making authority from state delegates?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
yes i would suport such an amendment to the party constitution
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
Yes.
|
|
Jared Law:
Yes, I would support such an amendment at this time. I cannot see any reason to oppose such an amendment.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
Yes.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
Again, I reject the premise of the question that the SCC is not in tune and that it “almost annually” presents proposals regarding automatic delegates. A new SCC is formed every two years, including this year. And no, I would not support such an amendment as the SCC is the governing body of the Utah Republican Party.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 7:
The winner-take-all (WTA) rule allows a candidate who receives less than 50% of the vote to obtain all of the delegates from a state. This effectively disenfranchises the majority who did not support such a candidate. The proponents of WTA have argued that the Republican Party benefits from effectively ending the primary election process as soon as possible. If extended primaries based on proportional allocation of delegates were disadvantageous (such as occurred in the Democratic Presidential primary in 2008), then how could have the Democrats performed so well in the general election?
|
|
Question 7: Currently, most state parties have a winner-take-all rule for the selection of a presidential nominee, meaning that the candidate receiving most of the votes (a plurality, which is not necessarily a majority) in a presidential preference primary gets all of the votes (100%) cast by the state’s delegates to the national convention in the first round.
Proponents of this rule say it entices candidates to visit their states, and that it gives these states more "clout" in national politics. Opponents of this rule say that it has the effect of ending the contest after the first few primaries and denying many or most Republicans a role in the nominating process. 1) Do last year’s general election results and Democrat primary, which was contested to nearly the last state and in which some manner of proportional delegate allocation was applied in each state’s primary, provide evidence to continue the Republican Party current practice? 2) Should the Republican Party replace “winner take all” in favor of a process that provides proportional representation in Presidential primaries and that more likely requires that leading candidates negotiate with each other (as did Clinton and Obama) at the convention and beyond? 3) Do you support or oppose the winner-take-all rule, and why?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
no opinion. except that i personally feel that a winner take all is not advantagous to republicans in presidential elections and that congressional districts would be a better measure
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
I oppose the winner take all rule. It undermines the ability of the delegates to do their job which is to intelligently select the best candidate. It also shifts power away from delegates to party leaders. When I was in St. Paul as a national delegate I was threatened with expulsion from the convention floor for voting contrary to the state central committee's instructions. There was no reason for me to go to St. Paul to simply vote the committee's instructions- or any of the national delegates as well. If we as delegates fail to see and correct these movements of power from the delegates to the party elites, our elections will become meaningless and we will lose our freedoms. It is not the millitary that protects freedom as much as it is good governments. Dictatorships have millitary might but not freedom. We can restore the integrity of our elections at least at the state level and set an example for other states to follow.
|
|
Jared Law:
At the present time, I do not support a winner-take-all rule, and would be strongly in favor of proportional representation in Presidential Primaries. A winner-take-all system is part of the problem right now; it seems to make it easier for an inferior, "progressive" candidate, such as John McCain, to win the primaries & become the Republican Nominee, IMHO. The last qualified, principled Republican we have nominated for President was Ronald Wilson Reagan, and prior to that, not once dating back to the beginning of the 20th Century. It should be clear to all how badly our system is broken; the winner-take-all rule is part of the problem; it apparently aids "progressives."
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
1) No. 2) Yes, I support proportional representation as I feel it best reflects the will of the people. 3) I oppose the winner-take-all rule as it seems to stifle the will of the people by altering the voice of their representative.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
I think this issue is worthy of further study and will support whatever decision is voted upon by the delegates.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 8:
We believe that one’s words should match one’s deeds. If a candidate is committed to the ideals and principles of the Republican Party, then the candidate should be able to provide evidence of this commitment.
|
|
Question 8: Do you believe that a fundamental objective of the Republican Party is to have lower taxes, less government, and more individual liberty? If so, please cite two or three of your most significant accomplishments supporting or defending this objective.
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
as a county councilman and council chair i voted consistantly to accomplish all three of those items : lower taxes, opposed all tax increase requests: less government, proposed outsourcing and reductions of council staff and many depts:.lessen the burden: opposed many government requirements and systems that burdened the citizen i.e. property tax appeals reform
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
By running for office and continually and persuasively defending these extremely important pillars of freedom.
|
Jared Law:
Lower Taxes, Limited Government, and Individual Liberty. Absolutely. Less government, however, isn't enough...we need to limit our leviathan government to the confines established by our Inspired Constitution; it is truly a Heavenly Banner. But I do disagree with a couple of Amendments, such as the Sixteenth and Seventeenth, for example.
My significant accomplishments are limited, being so new to heavy involvement in politics, but between the end of February and now, I have organized the largest principle-based social network in America that I'm aware of: http://www.the912project.us (nearly 17,000 members nationwide & growing each hour), as well as the largest Utah-specific, principle-based social network: http://www.utah912.ning.com (nearly 1,000 members statewide, and growing daily). I plan to use these to help organize grassroots efforts to restore the principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, and to help roll back the horrible "progressivism" that is enslaving us, our children, and our grandchildren with trillions of debt, a declining dollar, a weakening national defense, political correctness, inflation, potential economic depression, horrible social decay, the decline of the Family, etc.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
Yes. As a state representative I opposed almost every appropriations bill put forward through the State House of Representatives as a protest to irresponsible spending, fees levied for taxation purposes, etc. Additionally, I was the sponsor of the Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarship which was the first and only educational voucher program to go into effect in the state of Utah; this bill gave parents with special needs children a way to go outside of our current public education system giving them more power and flexibility over their child's education. I was also the original sponsor of the bill that sough to eliminate public funding for abortions in Utah. As the candidate for Vice Chair I have continually spoken out regarding our need to reform our party from the inside, to clean up our rules so that we are keeping the power of our party and our conventions in the hands of our delegates and members.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
Absolutely yes, but I am not a policy maker as a party officer. I did, however, repeatedly vote against tax increases as a city councilman.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 9:
Most all of the candidates will proclaim a strong belief in the Party platform. We believe it is useful to understand how this belief translates to Republican officeholders whose votes include those for higher taxes, deficit spending, new entitlement programs, citizenship for those who violate immigration laws, corporate bailouts, and left-leaning judges.
|
|
Question 9: Do you believe that Utah’s federal Senators have done a good job of adhering to the principles proclaimed in the Utah Republican Party platform? If so, what specific accomplishments/actions would you cite? What actions have they taken in contradiction to the platform?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
I suppport our current senators, evan though i am perplexed by some of their voting records as compared to the party platform and I would speak out when that is not taking place. My proposed web system will provide a method for all delegates as a whole to send messeges to their senators and elected officials. I also support a flat and fair playing field for all prospective senators and would make all party assets available to all reppublican candidates.
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
Both of our Senators voted for NAFTA and CAFTA and trade organizations that claim jurisdiction over the United States. That is a surrendering of our sovereignty for free trade. Trade was more prolific before those trade agreements. Hatch sponsored the Patriot Act which is hundreds of pages of breeches of the United States Constitution. Bennet is the front runner in the U.S. Senate for supporting the U.S.' participation in programs that supercede our sovereignty.
|
|
Jared Law:
No, I do not believe that Utah's U.S. Senators have done a good job of adhering to the principles of the Utah Republican Party Platform, nor have they done an acceptable job in adhering to the Principles of Freedom Enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Both have embraced a so-called "progressive" stance on most issues, IMHO, while one has been undeniably worse. It is disgusting how far that one has drifted away from the party platform and the Constitution in his support of tyrannical government, and while I personally believe that that one doesn't deserve re-election this coming election cycle, I will be impartial if it is required of me.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
I have very little faith left in Congress. My faith in Congress is so diminished that I believe the greatest influence our Senators and Representatives can have is to stand as a Constitutional voice of warning against our spiral to socialism. Unfortunately our Republicans in Congress are only slightly less socialistic, secular, and fiscally irresponsible than their liberal counterparts.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
As a current party officer, I am required to remain neutral in contested elections between Republican candidates. Also, I do not believe it is the role of state party leadership to attack the elected officials that have been selected by the delegates. Once the delegates have spoken, the role of the state party is to support the Republican candidates and get them elected. If the delegates decide to nominate a challenger over a sitting incumbent, I would certainly do everything within my power to help the challenger win the general election. But again, those are decisions for the delegates – not party leadership – to make.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 10:
One must wonder if grassroots Republicans would be in a better position had the big government agenda during the Republican years been challenged. One must also wonder if the ongoing status quo of near silence with regard to Republican leadership will improve our future.
|
|
Question 10: The Republican leaders of the U.S. House and Senate have presided over disastrous results in the 2006 and 2008 elections in which the Republican majority was lost and minority position was further weakened. Do you believe that national Party leaders, including RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority leader John Boehner, are providing overall effective leadership to correct the course of the Party? If so, please cite the most significant beneficial aspects of their leadership. If not, please cite what actions they should take to enable future success.
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
WE need better leadership. particularly in the area of new ideas, more respect for the individual and less concern for big business and the lobby indusrty, they are not the base of the party.
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
I think not. The national party leadership is moderate. Calling someone a Moderate is a sophisticated way of saying that a candidate has strayed from the principles of the Republican Party Platform. We must return to our republican party principles if we are to command respect. No matter how much we talk about using new technology and good organizing and talented leadership, we will never recover the respect we once had until we return to the principles we once supported.
|
|
Jared Law:
At this point, I have nothing good to say about our National Republican Leadership. Under their failed leadership, we have drifted far enough toward support of tyranny in our party as to be indistinguishable enough from Democrats, to enough voters, to convince principled patriots to sit on their hands, if not leave the party, and to convince everyone else to feel lukewarm (instead of hot or cold) at best toward the Republican Party. THIS MUST END if we are to continue as an effective national party.
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
No, if these men want to be powerful leaders for the Republican Party they need to stand on Constitutional Principles and lead out as our founding fathers did; with faith in God and an unwaivering devotion to our founding documents. They also need to proudly stand for life, traditional marriage, and real fiscal conservatism but some even seem to have a tough time with that.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
Like many others, I am disappointed with the direction in Washington. I do not believe that in four months, however, Michael Steele has had a sufficient amount of time on the job to determine whether or not he has provided “effective leadership to correct the course of the Party”. With respect to the others, I would have to say NO, but hope that will change in the very near future.
|
| |
|
Context for Question 11:
By Republican Party leaders effectively taking away the ability of the delegates to establish rules for their convention and by sanctioning the taking of delegate position from precincts, power is concentrated in fewer hands than would otherwise be the case.
|
|
Question 11: Do you believe that too much decision-making authority is concentrated in the hands of Utah Republican Party leaders? If so, what specific actions would you take to return authority to the grassroots?
|
|
Chair
|
Steve Harmsen:
My power to the delegates through a web based communication system platform should be known to all the delegates by now. Yes, there is too much power at the top and we need to empower the delegates.
|
|
Brian Jenkins:
Yes. There are a number of things. The top two are to simply work with the counties to let them know that only duly elected delegates will be allowed to vote. The counties can send illegal delegates but only the legal ones will be credentialed. That means the chairman must appoint a credential committee that understands these issues. The second is to eliminate voting improprieties at conventions. We know how to do it. We just have to do it.
|
|
Jared Law:
This is a difficult question to answer; I don't know enough about party mechanics to honestly and effectively answer this, but it seems like too much authority is indeed concentrated into the hands of too few individuals; I don't have a specific plan to address this, however, I am open to suggestions. What suggestions do you have to offer?
|
|
Vice Chair
|
Morgan Philpot:
Yes. As the founding fathers knew man is flawed and corruptible; institutions are even more so.
To check this aggregation of power and to check the slow but sure institutional corruption, delgates need to elect new leaders who stand up for their sovereignty and their rights.
One of the problems that we have had over time is the creation of policies and rules that have sought to corral delegates at conventions, shorten conventions, and to give primary importance to secondary functions (i.e. we spend more time on leadership and delegation reports than we do getting to know or candidates), and we have sought to hinder the ability of delegates to meaningfully deliberate and alter our party documents.
The leaders of the party need to clean up our rules and allow the free flow of ideas at our conventions.
We need to allow the delegates to play a more dynamic role at the conventions.
People who direct our conventions also need to rid themselves of their personal agendas and allow the delegates to drive our convention agenda.
Additionally, we need to foster a culture of deliberation and patience at conventions; making party policy is not always fun, and not always quick but it is extremely important and we need people who are willing to stick around and deliberate in a meaningful way.
|
|
Todd Weiler:
No I do not. The true power of the Republican party in Utah remains in the hands of the delegates.
|
