Richard Bailey sent the following communication to Republican Party of San Diego County Central Committee members this morning (Thursday, April 4). It is shared with his permission.
From: Richard Bailey
Subject: Special Exec Republican Meeting Tonight 6pm
Dear Republican Central Committee Members,
Republicans pride themselves on adherence to and the equal application of laws for our society and rules for our Party.
Unfortunately, I am writing to inform you that Chairwoman Paula Whitsell of the Republican Party of San Diego County (“RPSDC”) is abusing her power as Chair to circumvent Party rules and past precedent to steal the 75th Assembly District Endorsement from Andrew Hayes.
On June 5, 2023, the Republican Executive Committee interviewed Jack Fernandes and Andrew Hayes for endorsement consideration of the 75th Assembly District. On June 12, 2023, the Republican Central Committee voted overwhelmingly to endorse Andrew Hayes. Carl DeMaio was a member of the Executive Committee and Central Committee at that time and was well aware of the endorsement process and rules, but decided to not pursue the Party’s endorsement.
Historically, the Party’s endorsement always remains with the candidate through the General Election, and the endorsement of Andrew Hayes was no different.
However, on April 1, at the RPSDC Executive Committee meeting, Chairwoman Whitsell made an unprecedented and unilateral move to strip Andrew of his endorsement. This action clearly violates Party Bylaws, the established process, past precedent and the previous endorsement vote of 2/3+ of Central Committee members. The Executive Committee rightly voted to oppose Chairwoman Whitsell’s motion and keep the endorsement with Andrew. Immediately after the meeting, Chairwoman Whitsell unilaterally removed Scott Sherman from the Executive Committee because “he did not support my [Paula’s] motion.”
Separate but related, an ethics complaint was filed against Matt Stockton for serving as a member of the committee for a district where he does not actually live. Matt is registered to vote at his parents’ home, but it’s well known by friends of Matt on the committee that he lives in a different district. Who is Matt’s alternate? Yep, Carl DeMaio. Since Monday, Matt has been added to the Executive Committee despite the ethics complaint and forthcoming investigation.
Now that Chairwoman Whitsell has changed the Executive Committee members, she is calling for a Special Executive Committee meeting tonight to take place via Zoom (which is a violation of the Bylaws) to consider her previously-defeated motion again (which is another violation of the Bylaws).
This is not about Carl or Andrew. I have supported, endorsed, and donated to both candidates over the years. This is about the rules that govern our Party. Rules that our Chairwoman is ignoring/abusing to overturn the will of 2/3+ of the Republican Central Committee members to strip Andrew Hayes of the endorsement. It is wrong and it needs to stop.
If any member of the Party feels an endorsement reconsideration is warranted, they may make such a motion during a regularly scheduled meeting. This is clearly stated in our Bylaws and has been the established process for many election cycles.
(Information regarding attending tonight’s meeting and how to contact Whitsell is not included here, as that is pertinent to Central Committee members only.)
I have considered Paula a friend for years and appreciate her service to the Party, but her recent actions undermine the integrity of the Party. We are either a Party of rules or we are not.
Richard
Comments 8
Respectfully I would have to disagree, according to the SDGOP bylaws section 2.03.04 (H) The chairman shall have the power to endorse Republican candidates for public office on behalf of the committee per section 3.01.01. You argue that this is unprecedented and circumventing party rules does not apply. If you take the names out of the equation the simple math is Candidate A had 42.91% of the general election votes vs. Candidate B at 18.68%. The smart investment would be on Candidate A. Why fight amongst the party, we have another race in the 76 where we need to take the seat back from the Dems and it is within reach for the Republicans. We are wasting money on the 75th Seat as it will go to a Republican. We need to fight for the 76th State Assembly seat, this is the one that matters. The 75th voters will decide on which Republican to choose.
Judy,
You left out something pretty significant, the wording of bylaws 3.01.01:
“The Chairman may, on behalf of the Committee, after the close of filing, and after receipt of an endorsement request form in good order, endorse a Republican candidate for office in San Diego County when the candidate is the only Republican who will appear on the ballot, only one who has submitted an endorsement request in good order, or when the number of endorsed Republican candidates does not exceed the number of positions on a given board in a single election.”
In other words, the Chairman’s power to endorse is moot in this case.
Steve, Why not take the endorsement away and as a party stay neutral? Let the voters decide who will represent them.
Richard,
Thank you for the objective summary of actions by RPSDC, ie Paula. Your latter comment regarding a process already in place for changing endorsements make me wonder why wouldn’t Paula simply follow that process. In my opinion, this is a mess created by Carl and now exasperated by Paula. I appreciate your enlightenment to the shenanigans.
If this is how the corrupt Republican party operates then what is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?
Judy,
The committee voted on this endorsement, and therefore it should remain. Matt Stockton and Carl DeMaio know better, and should respect the committees vote.
END. OF. STORY.
Andrew Hayes is LYING to You – What You Need to Know About the SDGOP Endorsement Process & Rules
As a newly-elected member of the SDGOP Central Committee, I have spent a lot of time discussing our current Bylaws and Rules with existing and new members. I have also spent considerable time this week engaging in the discussion on what is actually happening on the AD75 endorsement process.
I cannot be silent as complete FALSEHOODS are being told and unfair accusations are made by the Andrew Hayes team.
Here are several rules and facts about this week you should know:
A Serious Bylaws Violation Did Occur Last Week at ExCom – But It Was a Violation by Andrew Hayes’ Team – Not Paula Whitsell
On Monday, April 1 the Executive Committee met to discuss this matter, but an ExCom member (Brian Pepin) violated Section 2.01.03 (H) of our Bylaws by not disclosing he had a conflict of interest and had a direct financial stake in the matter before ExCom. Pepin is Andrew Hayes’ paid campaign consultant. His firm has been paid over $275,000 since June of last year to work for Andrew Hayes. Not only did he not disclose his conflict and participated in the discussions anyways, but Brian Pepin made and seconded the very two motions opponents now lean on to claim Paula is blocked from proceeding on this issue.
Under our Bylaws and pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order, any motion or action by a governing body that is found to be corrupted by a conflict of interest is to be set aside must be revisited and properly voted upon.
On the basis of this Parliamentary deficiency, the Chair called a Special Meeting of the Executive Committee on Thursday, April 4 2024 to correct these deficiencies and allow the Executive Committee to revisit the issue. However, three officers of the Executive Committee who support Andrew Hayes did not attend the meeting, and pursuant to bylaw 2.04.03 the meeting failed to achieve quorum. As such, Paula retains her authority to act in this matter as Chair – as under our rules, no countering decision has been made by ExCom.
To criticize Paula as “breaking the rules” or “being unethical” for following her Parliamentarian’s advice and acting to remedy a rules violation by the Hayes team is the height of hypocrisy.
Why a Two-Thirds Vote is Not Required to Revisit an Endorsement
Opponents of the process outlined above mistakenly claim that a two-thirds vote is required to discuss this item and give the Central Committee a chance to a vote on the endorsement in this race. Nowhere in our Bylaws or in our 2023-2024 Endorsement Rules is this required. If the claim is made that a rule exists, ask that they show you the rule.
In fact, under Roberts Rules of Order, a “Motion to Reconsider” requires two-thirds vote but can only be made once during the same meeting where a decision is made.
Absolutely no Bylaw or Rule limits our Central Committee from considering an Agenda Item to take different action on this matter at a future meeting.
In fact, our Bylaws empower the Executive Committee to decide whatever process it wants to use at any time for any endorsement question. Because Richard Bailey repeatedly says there are Bylaws and Rules violations without citing a single one, I wanted to cite the actual Bylaws on this matter for you to review to confirm that the Executive Committee gets to decide what process we use to consider endorsement decisions and policies:
Exact Wording of Pertinent SDGOP Bylaws on Endorsements:
Section 3.01.03 “All candidate endorsements and ballot measure positions within, or that touch San Diego county, must be voted on by the Full Committee, in accordance with the endorsement schedule and rules adopted by the Executive Committee.”
Section 2.02.03 “Voting on matters of endorsing a Republican candidate for office shall be done in accordance with the schedule and rules determined by the Executive Committee.”
We Need to Act With Decorum – and Act in Accordance with Our Rules
Calling a Chair unethical is a serious accusation. Taking our internal discussions to the media and making erroneous accusations in the media based on a faulty read of our bylaws is not only acting in bad faith, but undermines the integrity of this body.
I urge all Central Committee members to refrain from personal attacks against each other and to proceed forward in conducting our business under our rules and in the best interests of the Republican voters we are sworn to represent.
I find it ironic that Judy says, “I urge all Central Committee members to refrain from personal attacks against each other and to proceed forward in conducting our business under our rules and in the best interests of the Republican voters we are sworn to represent.” Shouldn’t that be everyone? Obviously not, as she attacked Hayes and can’t sound like a hypocrite. Sadly, she exposes herself as a hypocrite, but I won’t say what that worse is as I don’t want to see this not published. Regardless, it’s still hypocrisy with the “do as I say, not as I do” on full display. It’s typical of the Judys of the world.