On Friday December 9, 2016 the Virginia Republican State Central Committee struck a heavy blow against the grassroots by gutting its own authority in favor of a seven person committee.
As the election of officers (June meeting) and the choice between primary v. convention (August meeting) were behind us, and the December Republican Bacchanalia was ahead of us, not very many people were paying attention.
One of the few items on the docket was an appeal I filed to a general counsel ruling from August.
The Party Plan
The Republican Party of Virginia Party Plan governs how party officials are elected, how they are removed from the party, and our rights and obligations. It is the founding document of the Republican Party of Virginia. It is well intentioned, but flawed.
The Party Plan can only be changed by a statewide convention body (this is rarely if ever done) or by a 3/4 vote of the State Central Committee.
Ambiguities in the U.S. Constitution are interpreted by our court system. Ambiguities in our state Party Plan are interpreted via an odd system.
Certain party officials or groups of party officials are allowed to request rulings of the General Counsel on interpretations of the Party Plan. The General Counsel, a single human being, (appointed by the RPV Chairman, and approved by the SCC) then issues a binding opinion. In order to prevent a GC Opinion from running roughshod over the party plan there is an appeals process.
This appeals process has been manipulated.
The appeals process
The party plan says that any appeal of a GC Opinion can be made to either the SCC or to a seven member appeals committee. The Party Plan does not specify that the person appealing can choose where it goes, but that is how RPV currently interprets it.
If appealed to the SCC, the SCC takes a final vote and accepts, rejects, or modifies the GC Opinion. This result then becomes the final say on interpretation of the Party Plan.
If appealed to the Appeals Committee and the Appeals Committee upholds the GC Opinion, the Party Plan says that the GC Opinion may then be appealed to the full SCC.
*BUT*
If appealed to the Appeals Committee, and the Appeals Committee overturns the GC Opinion this is what the party plan says about the right to appeal:
“……………………………………………………..[crickets]……………………………………………………….”
If appealed to the Appeals Committee, and the Appeals Committee overturns even the tiniest portion of the GC Opinion this is what the party plan says about the right to appeal:
“……………………………………………………..[crickets]……………………………………………………….”
The Party Plan is silent about what is and is not allowed in those instances.
I was told by staff that there is no right to appeal from a negative Appeals Committee ruling, so I requested a GC Opinion about this issue.
The GC (who I am not criticizing) issued a GC Opinion that says that this:
“……………………………………………………..[crickets]……………………………………………………….”
= there is no right to appeal and the Appeals Committee ruling is final.
The SCC’s unquestionable power
Article X § C of the Party Plan grants the SCC final say on all timely appeals of GC Opinions:
Article X § C exists to preserve the sovereignty of the SCC as the final decision maker on all disputes, in part, because your representatives that you voted on at District Conventions make up the vast majority of members of SCC.
SCC votes against itself
The SCC voted 32-41 to reject my appeal. The main two arguments against the appeal were:
- If we support this appeal we are acting like Democrats who ask activist judges to rewrite the Constitution. This argument was made by a member of SCC who cynically used the Appeals Committee to accomplish overturning a GC Opinion just a few months ago and did not want it brought before the SCC.
- Upholding my appeal runs counter to the plain language of the Party Plan. This was communicated to me privately. As laid out above, the Party Plan is silent in Article X § A, and is unquestionable as to the supreme authority granted to SCC in Art. X § C. There is no plain language of the Party Plan I was asking to be overturned.
The Appeals Committee
The Appeals Committee is designated under the party plan, and not appointed by the Chairman. It is made up of:
The RPV Party Chairman (Elected by the grassroots at our quadrennial state convention)
The First Vice Chairman of RPV (Elected by the SCC every four years)
The Eastern Vice Chairwoman (Elected by the SCC every four years)
The Eastern Vice Chairman (Elected by the SCC every four years)
The Western Vice Chairwoman (Elected by the SCC every four years)
The Western Vice Chairman (Elected by the SCC every four years)
Representative of the Joint Republican Legislative Caucus (Appointed by Republican officeholders)
Recent determinations of the Appeals Committee have been openly published.
The end result is that if someone has friends making up a four member majority on the appeals committee and they want to manipulate the Party Plan they can request a GC Opinion, appeal it to their friends, and interpret the Party Plan in their favor with a four member vote made up almost entirely of people not selected by the grassroots.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It is almost as if those in power do not realize that some day they will not be in power and the instruments of power will be turned back upon them.
A few final notes
I believe that only a few members actually intended their vote against the appeal in a nefarious manner, most did not realize how dangerous this is.
The 11th Congressional District elected four new members in May. We are the only evenly split delegation between the two “factions” on RPV. As is similar in the past, I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with each of my District representatives on this vote.
There was no roll call vote, as I literally forgot to request it.
There is a Committee appointed to review and make recommendations to the appeals process. Although appointed in August, as of the Advance they had not yet met. There are a mix of representatives and nearly all Congressional Districts have an appointee. The 11th Congressional District does not have representation on this Committee.
