Act II (of RLCWA State Convention in Four Acts):
The By-laws and futility
A political convention is a powerful device. It can make or break coalitions, act unilaterally, unify diverse people around political ideals, form the foundations of campaigns for public office or ballot measures and it can literally transform ordinary people into political activists. In its declining years the GOP’s pseudo-conventions (by violating all the fundamentals of real conventions) have provided a platform for petty tyrants they have used to the Party’s destruction.
What would happen in Yakima on April 27?
The 2013 RLCWA Convention…
- established a meeting chair and
- meeting officers,
- meeting rules and agenda,
- elected national delegates,
- Party officers,
- Board Members,
- adjourned to and returned from Lunch,
- proposed and passed its first full Bylaws,
- adjourned to and returned from Dinner and
- considered Resolutions fully,
…without constraining debate, in less than ten hours, on a single day with only Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition to guide it.
Eat your heart out, WSRP.
The delegates even overcame the greatest time-waster of conventions, that is, the constant attempts to silence or cut off debate by those who oppose the process under the false pretense of “saving time.” The convention was constantly advised to, in essence, “quit thinking about stuff” and just rubber-stamp the proposals set before it as occurs in the GOP’s pseudo-conventions. They didn’t.
The “Just Rubber-Stamp It So We Can Get Out Of Here Brigade” (“JRSISWCGOOHB” for short) was led, early, by attorney Matt Dubin.
Dr. Robert Neff moved to amend the proposed By-laws by adding a fourth “action item” to the organization’s “purpose”:
“Erecting a strategic organization capable of restoring American Liberty.”
Dubin rose to oppose it. Did he oppose restoring American Liberty? He didn’t admit to it. Did he object to being part of an organization that had the capacity to do so? Not that he would confess.
Dubin opposed it, ostensibly on the ground that any wording in the Washington State Bylaws that wasn’t also contained in the National Bylaws, made Washington State susceptible to losing the State Charter(!!!). The assertion is so absurd it is not possible that Dubin, himself, believed it. The National Bylaws are to run the national organization. The State Bylaws are to run the state organization. MOST of the proposed (and adopted) State document is NOT contained in the National document and Dubin never challenged any of it.
But Dubin is a practicing attorney. He has been trained to make arguments that will convince untrained people even if they are falsehoods and has also been trained that making such arguments is morally acceptable. This is all in a days work for a hired tongue. He never actually disclosed his real purpose. He could not have been successful doing it openly… but it pretty clearly emerged throughout the day.
Dubin wanted the State organization to be shackled to the national organization, both ideologically and programmatically but couldn’t succeed by openly admitting it. The National organization, like Dubin, regards Cultural Marxism as “Liberty” (as we demonstrated here) and the Bylaws Dubin helped pass chain the State organization to the National RLC’s decisions, not only for national offices, like President, but for our state’s US Senators and Congressmen as well as all Washington’s Statewide offices (as we demonstrated here). No campaigns can take place without National’s approval. And the chemical/sexual latitude (however addictive or kinky) of consenting adults is every bit as important, historically, to the RLC National as are Free Markets. National would not be excited about the Freedom Agenda team.
Throughout the day, Matt strategized with State Party Establishment agent, Dani Bolyard, and the two gradually collected allies, but the most valuable ally they had in Bylaws debate was fear. Dubin was able to construct a majority to reject changes to the document by creating a blind fear of unknown (and false) consequences.
Doug Parris’ bylaws amendment was handed out (and his candidacy for the position it would create was disclosed) when Bylaws business began, but it was not introduced until the 15th motion under Bylaws discussion.
The measure would have created an office to create political campaigns at the direction, not of the RLCWA Board, (because they could not establish the crucial campaigns without National’s permission according to the bylaws Dubin and Bolyard supported) but instead under the authority of the Convention (see paragraph 1 of this article). But to further assure the delegates it would stay within the intent of the RLCWA, the Director of that office would be entirely under the authority of the RLCWA Chair, whom everyone understood, was, and would remain, Sandi Belzer Brendale. Because it did not come under the authority of the RLCWA Board, it was not subject to the National shackles. Because it was under the Convention and RLCWA’s chair, it was not a wildcat position, and, as we have previously noted, Sandi Brendale had been fully briefed beforehand and approved of the plan.
Dubin and Bolyard swung into action.
Bolyard (although we did not know she was responsible at the time) fashioned a subtle, brilliantly-crafted motion, made through a proxy, to entirely kill the proposal without appearing to do so, by amendment. The amendment effectively removed the office, the authority of the Convention it conferred, and even removed the intent to run campaigns by “reserving” the idea for some possible future action.
Dubin, predictably, argued against the proposal and FOR the amendment. His ostensible ground, this time, was that it would take away the authority of the Board. He failed to mention that the “shackling” provisions he supported had ALREADY taken that authority away from the State Board and given it to National.
Because it was amended in such a way as to kill the Parris proposal, he was not able to fill in the details of its operation during the summation of debate. “Doug’s” motion passed, but amended by Bolyard to completely eviscerate it of any power to accomplish its purposes.
The RLCWA will not be engaging in any significant political campaigns anytime soon. It will first be necessary to change the National bylaws or revisit the state bylaws..
For example in 2012, under the Bylaws now in place in Washington (courtesy of Dubin and Bolyard), the entire RLC in all America endorsed exactly ONE candidate for Governor of ONE state (Missouri). That candidate lost the primary for the Republican Nomination by a vote margin of 90, 651 to 333,578 to a candidate who then lost the general election to a Democrat.
Don’t Worry – Be Happy
The current state of RLC hope is that in every even-numbered year there is a National RLC Convention to which it will be possible to propose bylaws amendments and elect delegates to the national convention, where it will be theoretically possible to change the national bylaws to enable political campaigns by the RLC’s State Charters if we send delegates who, in contrast to Dubin and Bolyard, actually support such changes. When that happens (assuming, say, in 2014 or 2016) the RLCWA will then have two years following the reform to develop a system to recruit candidates for public office and then create momentum by its campaigns for those candidates with which to recruit members to file for PCO positions. Successful PCO candidates will then need to be trained to work to elect new County Republican officers to begin to reform the WSRP (hopefully, in January 2017 or 2019 if things go quickly or 2021 or 2023 if they don’t). Assuming that is successful (remember – change doesn’t happen overnight) the newly remodeled WSRP can then begin to change Washington State Government (not to mention reform the RNC) perhaps as early as the 2018 cycle and, if not, then 2020, 2022 or 2024. So it is entirely possible the RLC can help oppose President Hillary’s re-election in 2020… or help choose a candidate to succeed her in 2024. Change doesn’t happen overnight.
Don’t argue. Just grow the RLC.
Previously in this series: