Remember the post about Political Nerds? This weekend will be an illustration about the Nerds running the asylum of CRA.
BTW – ask yourself – would you want to join an organization like this? Perhaps this is why the CRA is down to 1,000 members statewide???
Kirk Uhler, President of the Placer CRA just lit in to the CRA’s Board of Directors and Tom Hudson. It appears that Mr. Hudson has melted down and has determined he must win the argument at all costs…
This entire exchange, though illuminating, has grown extremely tiresome. Your tortured logic and circular reasoning are completely emblematic of what compelled the PCRA to separate from the CRA by surrendering our charter in the first place.
However, I feel compelled to recap the salient points one last time.
First, after refunding our members their dues and voting unanimously (Past President and Deputy District 1 Director, Ed Rowan voting aye) to make three contributions to local charities, a majority of our Board voted to surrender our charter, consistent with section 5.07 of the CRA by-laws. You assert that the surrender of the charter is invalid, because we didn’t follow the procedure for resignation from the CRA, as outlined in section 5.06.
In order for your assertion to stand, there must be some directive that any action in the by-laws is conditioned precedent by the application of the previous section of the by-laws. Is that logical? Is there any reference in 5.07 to the action in 5.06? By your logic, in order to terminate or discipline a member of the CRA, (section 5.08) then the conditions of section 5.07 must first have been met. Or, more importantly for this example, by your logic in order for section 5.06 to bind our actions, wouldn’t section 5.05 have to have been invoked?
Or, perhaps, isn’t it more logical to assume that each subsection of the by-laws was written to deal with specific and unique events? When one looks at both section 5.06 and section 5.08 and sees that each specifies a vote requirement (two-thirds vote), and then looks at section 5.07 and sees that no such vote requirement exists, how does one make the stretch that the vote requirement, where not specifically detailed, should be applied in any regard?
More to the point, section 5.06 (Resignation) gives the authority to the CRA Board to either accept or reject the resignation. Section 5.07 (Surrender of Charter) has no such provision. In fact, section 5.07 almost seems to anticipate the abuse of local discretion that you have exhibited when it reads, “Any chartered Republican Assembly that has ceased to be part of the CRA for any reason, or that is seeking to leave the CRA, (emphasis added) shall relinquish the name…”. Section 5.07 allows a local chapter to leave the CRA without any review, as specified in other sections. Any other interpretation of the section is logically flawed or intentionally misconstrued.
Your next assertion is that the actions of the PCRA Board were not valid due to a failure of notification since the D1 Senate Director was not notified, even though the D1 assistant was notified and attended the meeting. I’m assuming that this assertion follows a long-standing practice of the CRA Board invalidating meetings of local chapters based upon notification failures? If so, please provide all minutes of disciplinary actions taken by the CRA Board against local chapters for failing to notify the district representatives of local Board meetings.
Next, you assert that even though the PCRA charter surrender was invalid, I am somehow no longer president of the Placer unit, insisting that I took an action to resign. In spite of numerous requests for you to provide evidence of my resignation (a letter, an email, a verbal communication of my resignation), you have been unable to provide any evidence, because no such evidence exists.
However, for the sake of discussion, by the by-laws of the PCRA, had I resigned, the Vice President, Tracy Mendonsa, would be the president of the PCRA. You acknowledged this on the morning of Friday, June 5, when you called Tracy and threatened him, as President due to my “resignation” with prosecution for “embezzlement” should he not cooperate with you.
How then, after threatening Tracy, by virtue of your assertion that he was president, do you unilaterally decide that past-president, Ed Rowan, is now the president of the PCRA?
Which is it, Tom? Is the PCRA still a chartered unit of the CRA, in spite of our utilization of section 5.07 in “seeking to leave the CRA”? If we are, is there any evidence that I took an action to resign my post as president? If so, is there a reason and authority for you to ignore the local by-laws that elevate our elected vice-president to president by selecting the past-president to be the new president?
Finally, let me thank you for so clearly demonstrating in your written and spoken words precisely the reasons why the PCRA sought to leave the CRA. Nothing that I could have done or said could have been more illustrative.