First, some very quick background: Del. Mark Berg (R-Winchester) lost to Chris Collins in a primary for the 29th House of Delegates district. Some of Berg’s former supporters decided to mount a write-in campaign for the General Election earlier this month, encouraging people to write in Del. Berg instead of voting for the Republican nominee. Berg, who also sat on the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee, declined exhortations to publicly disavow the write-in effort.
The Party’s rules state that if a member of an official committee “allows” his name to be used for a candidate in opposition to a Republican nominee, he will automatically be deemed to have resigned his position on that committee.
Prior to the election, RPV Chairman John Whitbeck wrote a letter to Berg reminding him of this provision, and alerting him to the fact that the RPV General Counsel had advised that the word “allow” meant not just affirmatively giving permission for someone to use one’s name, but also meant not taking some step toward opposing that effort; someone can allow something to happen by facilitating it, or by not taking steps to oppose it. Whitbeck’s letter said if Berg were to merely say in an email to Party officials that he did not support the write-in effort, that would be enough to satisfy the requirement and avoid the automatic trigger. Berg did not take this step and, pursuant to a subsequent official ruling of the General Counsel, was deemed to have resigned his seat on the State Central Committee and, as a consequence, the 10th District Committee.
As my colleague Jeanine Martin reported, at the subsequent meeting of the 10th District Committee, this resulted in Berg’s “removal” from his position, and the election of a successor by the 10th District Committee. Then a swirl of controversy emerged.
RIGHTS AND WRONGS.
Del. Mark Berg: He is right to feel badly if he lost in a primary contest where his opponent actively courted Democrats to participate, as has been alleged. But he was wrong not to distance himself from the write-in effort. Even entirely apart from whatever the rule says, this comes down to an issue of Party leadership: when one is a member of the State Central Committee, one had better be able to support all of the party’s nominees. If that can’t be done, then at the very least non-opposition to the nominee must be made clear. In his defense, though, he did not read the rules provision to require him to take any affirmative action. More on that in a the next section.
The RPV Plan of Organization If there is a real culprit here, it is a rule that leaves too much room for subjective interpretation. There are other self-executing provisions where this is not the case. For instance, members of official committees will be familiar with the provision that a member is deemed to have resigned if they miss too many meetings in a row. This is clear, and the trigger is an objective fact. But the term “allows his name to be used” leaves too many unanswered questions. For instance, how does one disallow something if they don’t know about it? (And, is notice of it a requirement?) What steps must be taken to disallow? Whitbeck’s letter to Berg set forth many reasonable options, but these options aren’t set forth in the rule. In the absence of clarity on these questions, who gets to decide the answers? So, while the Plan is right to address what is often a problem after hard-fought primary battles, we as a State Central Committee need to fix this provision to prevent a recurrence of this kind of unhelpful controversy.
Chairman Whitbeck The Chairman was right to encourage Berg to support the nominee, or to at least disavow the write-in effort. And he was right to seek advice of the General Counsel, and to advise Berg the reasonable steps that could satisfy the requirement. That’s what I would have done in his situation. However, in retrospect, I wish he had been less proactive in officially “deeming” Berg to have resigned. I would like to have seen that decision discussed at the 10th District meeting, where it could have been made clearer that Berg could have been reinstated with a simple majority. As it is, I believe the unintentional impression left among many members of the 10th District Committee was that Berg was simply out, and that it was final, and that a successor had to be elected. Some have asked why Chairman Whitbeck didn’t involve himself in other similar controversies elsewhere in the state. I suspect the answer here is that none of the other controversies reached his plate, as none involved sitting members of the House of Delegates and the State Central Committee. Last, while the Chairman was right to publish a piece helpfully clarifying what had been done, I believe he was overly critical of the TBE piece initially reporting on it, and of its author, Jeanine Martin. More on that below.
The Bull Elephant. We’ve provided thorough coverage of this story, and in furtherance of that coverage, Jeanine Martin was on hand at the 10th District Committee meeting where Berg’s successor was elected. In her reporting (which she invited me to edit given that she was on a mobile device at the time), Jeanine described Berg as having been “removed,” before explaining that it was as a function of him being deemed to resign. Jeanine was right that the action achieved the same result as a removal. However, technically it was a resignation. As someone who is very familiar the usage of the word “removal” in the same section of the rules, and someone who should have understood that the distinction could lead to unnecessary confusion, I should have addressed this when editing the post instead of as a later correction.
Finally, TBE was right to provide space for a counterpoint by the Chairman to Jeanine’s original post. We’re open to the free exchange of ideas, and to healthy criticism of what we write. It was in that spirit that I posted the Chairman’s piece, which I took as a critique among friends. However, some among our TBE community have interpreted that as me being critical of my business partner on this. Nothing could be more wrong. Not only did I edit her piece, I understood it to simply be reporting on events as they happened in the 10th, using words that came up at that meeting. I agreed a correction was necessary to make the distinction between “removed” and “deemed resigned,” but do not agree that the piece (which got most of its readership after the corrections were made) did a disservice to the Party or warranted the criticism it received. I apologize for leaving that impression
That’s the last I’ll say about this issue here. Time to move on to selecting a new President.
17 comments
One thing missing is the fact that Mark CHOSE a primary — the politician chooses the method that best favors them. Mark’s selection of the process NOT restricted to Republicans meant that he wanted to appeal to NOT-Republicans as well — unless he wanted to illustrate a false bravado that proved his undoing. ‘Don’t do the crime of you can’t pay the time.’
That logic is completely erroneous and I suspect you know that. Mark chose a primary because he thought the district could not afford to conduct a convention or firehouse primary.
Wait a minute — An incumbent can choose a method of nomination for non-selfish reasons? There’s a local benefit to a state-run primary?
Has anyone told Ken Adams & company?
It gives non-republicans the opportunity to water down and winnow out our candidates. Also gives separatists opportunity to damage our nominees, divide our party, and throw the election to weaker democrats — AKA Sarvissing.
The logic is sound, the spin and excuses are erroneous.
A) Mark thought wrong. Yet another political error — candidates and parties pay for mass meeting, convention, or canvass. Mark should have known better.
B) Mark chose wrong, he had opposed primaries in the past and would in the future. Mark chose political opportunity over principle. Mark is a hypocrite.
C) Mark thought it best to saddle the taxpayers with the bill, according to your theory, than allow the local parties to choose their own nominee. Mark wastes taxpayers money unnecessarily.
Here’s how it went down: Mark thought he could get more votes from a process that wasn’t primarily (get it?) Republican. And then when he lost he used that same excuse to cowardly ignore/not ignore a pitiful write-in effort.
Hence thus an active resignation. Works for me.
I have to disagree.
As a member of the 33rd HOD Legislative Committee Dave LaRock, as incumbent, requested a convention for the nomination process.
To pay for it we, as a committee, were allowed to charge each candidate a fee equal to 4% of the Delegate salary ($17,640.00). This would be $700.00 each, or $1,400.00 to run a convention. We were confident we could run a convention with these funds.
With Mark Berg choosing an Open Primary it cost the taxpayers of Frederick County over $29,000.00. That figure doesn’t include Winchester and Warren County.
I have spoken with members of the 29th Legislative Committee and they ALL confirm Mark Berg requested an Open Primary.
Attached are the minutes from the Legislative Committee meeting also stating Mark Bergs preference.
So much for Mark Bergs pledge to the Conservative Fellowship to only support Party-Run Processes.
Andrew, you wrote that you attached the meeting minutes. Would you post them if you have them? They’re not on here. What was the date of the meeting, who was in attendance and where was it held? I’m sure you are aware that not one member of the House of Delegates selected a method of nomination. Every method selected was selected by the legislative district committee.
I always tend to question the justifier when that person ends up in the displaced individual’s job. Happenstance maybe but it certainly emanates a distinct impression and all the execution of parliamentary procedure and roger’s rules of order doesn’t dissipate it in my opinion. From the few local individuals I spoken with on the issue I don’t appear to be alone.
Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you MUST do something, the whole sorry event in a nutshell to my thinking.
Right, just because Mark COULD oppose the Republican nominee with a futile write-in, didn’t mean he SHOULD allow, consent, or tolerate one. It’s about character and leadership. I don’t want someone of that shallowness pretending to lead my party.
The “Berg Affair” .my goodness…. When will you label it as Berg-Gate.!! Such great drama & now you want to say it is time to “…select a new President”. I say, unless you fix the problems in several local unit committees’ your selection for President will not be a Republican.
I repeat myself….. Again & Again. The root problem here is not the Party Plan, it’s not the process & procedure of ByLaws or one Legal Counsels
opinion/ruling.
It is what kind of Candidate are we willing to support?
Collins vs. Berg ; Comstock vs. Marshall ; Gillespie vs. Hill
I worked hard for Marshall & he won our County. Comstock prevailed, yet waged a fair campaign & I knocked doors for her afterwards.
Many of my TEA Party friends disowned me for supporting Gillespie,
but I felt he could beat Warner & Shak had little chance. We almost unseated the most popular Democrat in the Commonwealth.
Collins is a FRAUD. Yet there is no discussion about this.
I wrote in Mark J. Berg for House of Delegates, 29th District. I encouraged family, friends and anyone that would listen to do the
same. I wrote letters to the editor, recycled old Berg yard signs I had in the garage & knocked on a few doors.
WHY???….I found the ugly campaign smear tactics and lies
challenger Chris Collins perpetuated in the primary election to be detestable and over the line of decency. For this reason I will always have doubt about the trustworthiness and character of this man. I cannot imagine sending him to the General Assembly to represent me.
Collins calls for Democrats to participate in Republican Primary. Collins has former Senator Russ Potts (Supporter of Democrats (McAuliffe & Warner) host a fundraiser. This hypocrite sends a mailer to tens of thousands of Frederick County residents accusing Del. Berg of
“…championing the privacy rights of sex offenders who assault children” and “…won’t protect abused children”, all the while Defense Attorney Collins is in court defending a confessed child pornographer.
By the way, anyone gonna ask Collins why he refused to support (lend his name) Winchester Republican candidate for Commonwealth’s
Attorney Beau Correll. Making statements in the local newspaper that the
Correll campaign didn’t have permission to use his name. My goodness, is this tantamount to supporting the opposition?
REALLY.!!??? As a member of the local committee, I am supposed to support & cast a ballot for the candidate that would do these things. The Republican Party demands my loyalty while doing nothing to admonish
this type of behavior. All this “back & forth” on the Party plan but no
comments on how Collins got elected? ENDs Justifies MEANs.???
Del. Berg has now been removed from the Republican Party for
something he had nothing to do with, for something he had no control over, for something he didn’t authorize or organize. If he had told me to stop, I would not have nor would many others.
Now the purge begins. I assume I and others will be next. If the GOP prefers to spend their time & effort on throwing out members who
may be critical of their process and candidate selection, yet embrace those that are unethical, so be it.
Your resignation goes a long way to fixing problems in at least one unit. Thanks for that. Our selection for President has to be a Republican, it’s what we do. It’s probably best that you do observe for a few years and perhaps develop some political awareness. The root problem is faux Republicans, check — fixed.
Collins won because he got more votes than Berg — in both elections.
What does that say when the electorate thoroughly rejects your candidate, not once, but twice?
Your vote and viewpoint doesn’t count more than that of any other voter. The margin — in both elections, repudiated the campaign and the man. More people, despite your labels and ‘prescience’ of who and how voted demonstrated they chose not-Berg — your sour grapes demonstrate your skills and competence lie elsewhere.
Not a purge, you’ve resigned, your actions, words, and deeds have illustrated your preferences for not-Republicans.
For that reason, you are out!
It be.
All of your readers would have more respect for you if you just admitted that Jeanine had no idea what she was talking about and should have waited to let someone with some understanding of how the Party works write the story. That could have spared all involved a big black eye.
Given how close TBE is to Chairman Whitbeck and that you are on State Central, you’d expect at the very least that basic stuff wouldn’t be screwed up as bad as Jeanine screwed them up. Might be time to put the cow out to pasture.
Funny…given that you’ve strung together a couple of sentences in writing, one could hope you’d learned to read. Jeanine didn’t screw anything up. Bye.
That’s not fair. Jeanine has to walk a fine line between good reporting and getting involved in the drama — I don’t mind if she calls them how she sees them, she corrects where appropriate. Chairman Whitbeck came from the 10th and he is our favorites on, spits only fair we give him the most flux. The 10th is like an onion, each layer peeled off yielding another level of drama and a new kind of stink.
What is with the 10th district? Every county and city seems to have so much drama.
The 10th district has had years of abrogating and abdicated operations, tactics and leadership to Congressmen, RPV, and RNC. Appeasing and empowering RINOs and separatists on both sides. Fighting each other harder than the democrats. Building cults of petty personality rather than an efficient, effective political machine. We are old, weak, and hollow. The next Fairfax. Prove me wrong!