Frederick’s Letter To Grassroots And Unit Chairmen
Jeff Frederick sent out an e-mail this morning detailing his defense against the SCC’s charges and committing to fight to keep the Chairmanship.
UPDATE: Frederick has also sent out a letter to Unit Chairmen asking for their support.
Both letters are after the break:
Dear Republican Friend,Less than one year ago, thousands of our party’s activists and volunteers attended the 2008 State Republican Convention in Richmond. It was at this gathering that I was overwhelmingly elected chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV).
At that Convention, my message of a Republican Party that would be driven by the beliefs and convictions of the grassroots carried me to a clear and convincing victory. I won nearly 60% of the vote, carrying 8 of Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts. As my four immediate predecessors had each been initially elected by the members of the RPV State Central Committee, I became the first Chairman in 12 years to initially win election at a convention, and the first in 16 years to win a contested convention.
Regardless of whether you voted for me or even attended the 2008 Convention, I want you to know that I’m proud that I have honored the commitment to refocus our party’s priorities on the grassroots, as opposed to the top-down approach we had taken for so many years to disappointing – and sometimes disastrous – results at the ballot box.
I’m further proud of the achievements we’ve made at the RPV in less than 10 months. We have aggressively communicated a consistent conservative message in the mold of Ronald Reagan; surpassed the Democrats in the use of technology; and established field-representatives in every area of the state to serve our local Party units.
Despite an extremely challenging national environment for Republicans, RPV raised over $1 million during my first seven months as Chairman to support our candidates and grassroots efforts. And, those monies were in addition to resources provided by the Republican National Committee (RNC), where combined, led to RPV spending an unprecedented $5 million on behalf of our candidates last year.
More recently, we have actively assisted the resurgence of our party in special elections, where our candidates have made great strides in districts Barack Obama won by large margins.
All of this was accomplished in less than a year, in large part because we changed the way RPV did business and listened to the voice of the grassroots.
Unfortunately, many of the same Party insiders who overwhelmingly opposed me last year have decided to wage a campaign to overturn the results of last year’s State Convention and remove me as State Party Chairman. Because they never supported me, my removal has been a consistent focus of theirs almost from the moment I took office.
Because I would not step aside, this group served me with a list of “charges” as a pretext to vote me out at a Party meeting to be held April 4. Disappointingly, several of these individuals have already declared their intentions to remove me at that meeting regardless of my response to these charges. In effect, they have decided to prejudge what is supposed to be a fair and deliberative process.
As I have stated from the beginning, I will not abandon the chairmanship and break my pledge to the rank-and-file Republicans who elected me less than a year ago. The votes and decisions of the thousands of the Party faithful who attend our conventions, where we select our party’s nominees and elect our Party’s leaders, must be respected. Overturning them because the results do not fully comply with the choices of long-time Party insiders would be a violation of the trust the Republican Party must hold with its own conservative base. Elections should mean something, after all.
Below you will find a summary of my response to the “charges” against me. A comprehensive response containing much greater detail accompanied by supporting documentation is being sent to every member of the State Central Committee (SCC). These are the seventy-seven individuals who will vote on my Chairmanship on April 4.
As you know, one of the media’s favorite story lines in Virginia this decade has been Republicans fighting Republicans. Whether it was a battle between Republicans over car tax relief in 2001; over a massive tax increase in 2004; or, more recently, over transportation funding, many of our state’s editorial pages are delighted when we’re battling one another.
I regret having to write you on this matter. Even though those working to remove me as Chairman have fought this battle largely in the media, engineering almost a news release per day, it was my hope I could respond to the charges without distributing them to a large audience. My hopes for discretion in this matter and my plan to restrict my responses to these charges only to the seventy-seven members of the SCC were dashed last week when my critics turned them over to the Associated Press.
From the moment I read the “charges,” I have maintained they are false and without merit, and that one day soon I would respond to them thoroughly and convincingly. That day is today.
With these charges swirling in the media, I believe it is very important you be kept fully informed as to what is going on in your Republican Party. I make no apologies for standing against these efforts to remove me or the changes I’ve made within our party to give greater authority and input to the grassroots. Those seeking my removal are asking me to abandon the promises that earned me the chairmanship so that they can take us back to the way things used to be. In my opinion, that would be a disaster.
I do not take it personally that some want me to step down so we can return to the old way of doing things. After all, very few of them ever supported me, and many of the elected officials in Virginia endorsed my opponent’s campaign. But, I do take offense when a small minority seeks to nullify the voices of so many, once again turning our party into a rubber stamp for its long-time insiders.
For years, the Virginia Republican Party had been run from the “top down”, with consultants and lobbyists providing far more input into the direction of our party than the grassroots. The result? Republicans supporting tax increases in 2004; 11 seats lost just this decade in the House of Delegates; and control of the Virginia Senate now in the hands of Democrats.
This is the same mentality that cost us United States House and Senate, where Republicans strayed from their core beliefs and ignored the grassroots, “spending” their way to minority status in a body that is now a rubber stamp for Barack Obama. Our nation and our commonwealth are just too important to go back to the old way of doing business.
I’m disappointed some in our party want to fight old intra-party squabbles. But, they will not distract me from our efforts to build our grassroots, oppose the egregious liberal agenda of Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats, and do everything I can to ensure we prevail in the 2009 elections to make Bob McDonnell our next governor.
To the hundreds of you who have written, called or emailed your support on behalf of our quest to change the Republican Party of Virginia, I want to thank you for your strong encouragement and words of support these last several days. Rest assured, we’re fighting for the future of our Republican Party and our commonwealth, and we will not back down.
Sincerely,
Jeff Frederick
Notice of Intent to Remove Jeff Frederick as
State Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia
Initial Response to Charges – Summary
The Call to remove Chairman Frederick consists of ten charges. Charges 1, 2, and 3 concern the Chairman’s management of RPV finances. Of those three charges, Charge 1 is the most specific, while Charges 2 and 3 are widely ambiguous, lacking specific references detailing the allegations. The remaining seven charges in the Call concern alleged infractions of the Party Plan or specific interpretations of the Party Plan.
Charge 1:
Failure to transmit, in a timely manner, online contributions made to the Republican Party of Virginia and processed by his own company. Withholding 7% of online contributions made to the RPV for a period of weeks during the summer of 2008 after repeatedly assuring the Executive Committee that he was not using his company as a vendor for RPV.
Response to Charge 1:
While waiting for a newly contracted vendor to complete work on a new RPV website and for a new online donation vendor to complete its setup requirements, the Chairman established a “place holding” website through his own firm, GXS Strategies, Inc., also using its online donation company and subsidiary, ChargedContributions.com, for a period of 91 days. In return for a 7% discount fee, it was expected that ChargedContributions.com would cover all incidental expenses related to any transactions, including payments to merchant banks and credit cards.
Key facts:
· This “place holder” approach was immediately successful. Under the previous chairman, the Party raised only $2,000 online for the first five months of 2008 combined. After the Chairman and RPV staff set up an efficient, yet temporary system, the Party raised over $21,000 online in just three months at no cost to the Party. The funds collected by the RPV website were deposited into a non-interest bearing escrow account for distribution to the Party. Distributions were made on 8 July and 1 October.
· The “place holder” page automatically reported contributions to the RPV employees’ responsible for fundraising supervision, and, providing redundant transparency, the entire account was accessible to RPV employees.
· Of the $21,135.00 in contributions collected for RPV by ChargedContributions.com, the company retained 7% of the total, or $1,479.45, to cover incidental expenses and required remittances to merchant banks, credit card companies, and an online processing service. After fulfilling obligations to merchant banks and credit card companies, ChargedContributions.com retained a maximum total of $581.62 to cover other incidental expenses associated with the credit card collection process.
· In order to fully comply with Virginia campaign finance disclosure law regarding the work it did on behalf of RPV in constructing the “place holder” website and donation page, GXS Strategies, Inc., of which ChargedContributions.com is a subsidiary, reported an in-kind contribution to RPV in the amount of $17,717.61 on 8 September.
· Far from withholding money from RPV to benefit himself, Chairman Frederick’s company provided free services to the Party in an amount that was 30 times greater than the total of the alleged monetary compensation received by his company.
· All records, documentation, and filings verifying this information and detailing these transactions can be accessed via the Virginia Public Access Project, The State Board of Elections, the Federal Elections Committee, and internal RPV documents.
To summarize Charge 1, the Chairman’s company donated $17,717.61 in-kind to the RPV. During the period this company was used, RPV netted $19,655.58 from its online donations. The Chairman’s company provided interim services for 91 days, and the Executive Committee and RPV staff had a full accounting of the fundraising.
Charge 2:
Repeated failure to fully comply with a July 22, 2008 directive unanimously adopted by the RPV Executive Committee to disclose existing and pending contracts with vendors.
Response to Charge 2:
A search of existing contracts reveals that the Executive Director of the RPV provided every known contract to members of the Executive Committee, and that a good-faith effort was made to inform members of future contracts. The Executive Committee itself acknowledged in September 2008 that they were in possession of those records, and no member has indicated to RPV, in writing or otherwise, of the existence of any contract or agreement by which we have not fully complied with this directive, let alone repeatedly so.
Charge 3:
Unauthorized expenditures of RPV funds for unbudgeted activities without either State Central Committee or Executive Committee consent.
Response to Charge 3:
While there is no specific allegation in this charge, it has been suggested by more than one Executive Committee member that the Chairman’s procurement of office space in Northern Virginia was a breach of his authority.
The Chairman rented space at a rate of $600 per month for an office in Prince William County to serve as a Northern Virginia satellite office for RPV and for his legislative constituent service office. It was his intention to use the office space for himself for donor meetings and for other business to be conducted by RPV’s Northern Virginia Field Director and its Finance Director. For the period beginning 15 October 2008 and ending 15 June 2009, Friends of Jeff Frederick paid $2,400 for its portion of the office and RPV paid $2,400.00 for its portion. All payments were made directly to the landlord.
The Party Plan grants the Chairman authority to operate the State Headquarters within the approved budgets for personnel, but makes no other restrictions on the Chairman’s ability to authorize expenditures.
Charge 4:
Failure to provide members of the State Central Committee with a reasonable time to review and consider the proposed 2009 budget prior to proposed adoption by the State Central Committee. Failure to provide one or more members of the State Central Committee with any opportunity to see the proposed budget prior to the meeting.
Charge 5:
Disregard for the minimal rights of members of the State Central Committee to participate in discussion and debate at the December 2008 meeting by refusing to recognize numerous members attempting to speak and failing to ascertain the required 2/3 vote necessary to end debate. Lack of transparency in the budget process by giving members less than 36 hours to consider the budget rather than the usual three weeks.
Charge 6:
Corruption of process by failing to conduct a proper vote on 2009 budget by (1) beginning, but not completing, either a hand count or roll call vote, both properly called for; and (2) unilaterally declaring the vote result without even a partial count of those in favor and no count whatsoever of those opposed.
Response to Charges 4, 5, and 6:
These charges all refer to the approval of the 2009 RPV Budget at the 5 December meeting of the State Central Committee. They state that Chairman Frederick demonstrated a less than firm grasp on the proceedings at various SCC meetings by failing to provide adequate time for budget review, or by failing to recognize various members during debate. More accurately, though, they reflect the disappointment of some State Central members in the outcome of this meeting.
The Executive Committee recommended against approval of the budget by the State Central Committee. But after a prolonged and contentious debate, the State Central Committee voted to approve the budget, which is now in force.
Robert’s Rules of Order and the Party Plan provide every member the opportunity to object and to challenge the Chair on rulings and by raising points of order. Further, Robert’s is clear that it is the responsibility of each member to guard the process by interaction and objection. In this case, no objections were made to the rulings, votes, and procedures described in these charges at the time of the meeting.
Charge 7:
Failure to “promptly convene” the Appeals Committee upon timely receipt of an appeal of a ruling by the General Counsel.
Response to Charge 7:
The “Appeals Committee” is not recognized by the Party Plan, so it not subject to any specific timeline. Moreover, decisions of the Appeals Committee must be affirmed by State Central if they overturn the ruling of RPV General Counsel. The appeal in question was filed specifically to the Appeals Committee the day before the December 2008 meeting of the State Central Committee. Because of an amendment made to the RPV Budget at the December 2008 State Central Committee meeting, the Party’s then-General Counsel stepped down. A meeting of the Appeals Committee could not be scheduled until after a new General Counsel accepted the post.
After a new General Counsel accepted the post, several attempts were made to schedule this meeting to comply with the availability of all participants. Despite these difficulties, the Appeals Committee is scheduled to meet on 20 March 2008, two weeks prior to the first State Central Committee meeting since December.
Charge 8:
Circumventing the State Central Committee by appointing committee and otherwise assuming Duties clearly prescribed in Article III, Section D, as duties of the State Central Committee without consultation or authorization.
Response to Charge 8:
There is ample and long-standing precedent for the Chairman to establish ad hoc committees without SCC approval. In fact, members of the Executive Committee and the SCC both offered positive feedback on the establishment of these committees, and further, no member lodged any objections. Further one of the established committees was specifically requested by a District Chairman on the Executive Committee.
Charge 9:
Damage to the reputation and effectiveness of the Republican Party of Virginia through refusal to coordinate activities, including campaign messages, with Republican nominees for public office.
Response to Charge 9:
Evidence to the contrary on this charge is extensive and heavily documented. In fact, the Chairman and RPV staff undertook several sensitive assignments from both federal and state elected officials and nominees.
Since Chairman Frederick assumed his current position, RPV staff works cooperatively, frequently, and regularly with Republican nominees, candidates, and elected officials. There are numerous examples to support this fact.
[NOTE: Since much of the evidence contradicting this charge contains sensitive internal campaign documents, supporting documentation is being offered exclusively to members of the State Central Committee.]
Charge 10:
Failure to notify the Executive Committee of a possible breach of security and/or compromise of security of data residing on servers and failure to act promptly to investigate potential breach when requested to do so.
Response to Charge 10:
In November 2008, some members of the Executive Committee alleged that there had been a breach of RPV’s e-mail lists. Less than 24 hours after the breach was alleged, Chairman Frederick utilized experts in his firm to investigate the possibility of any breach. After an extensive system analysis, which included an examination of log files, no evidence of a breach was found and the Executive Committee was so informed.
The letter to Unit Chairmen:
Unit Chairman –
As several media accounts have reported, I recently received notice that a vote would be taken to remove me as RPV Chairman at the April 4 meeting of the State Central Committee. Since receiving the Call for that meeting, I have been preparing an extensive response to the charges listed in it.
Below, please find a letter from me regarding the current situation, and attached, a summary of my initial response to the charges.
As unit chairs, you serve as our Party’s leaders in your communities, and while those on the State Central Committee who are leading this effort against me have chosen to exclude you from this process, I will not.
You are the ones in the trenches, putting up yard signs; knocking on doors; making phone calls; and bringing our Republican message directly to the voters. You deserve to be kept informed with the facts during this important crossroad for our Party, rather than having to rely the spin coming from the media, leaked by my detractors.
A significantly more detailed initial response to the charges will be sent to your mailing address this week. The document I will be mailing to you is a version of the one being distributed to the State Central Committee, who will vote on this matter at their April 4 meeting.
Thank you for all you do for the Republican Party of Virginia.
-JMF.
Category: Campaigns and Elections
Loading ...
Shame and disgrace on the SCC, and their supporting elected officials.
Still don’t trust him – too much insider dealing in these refutations.
What an absolute crock of crap.
You can start with the million dollars JF supposedly raised. BS.
Can any right-thinking Republican, conservative or not, think this is the person to run the party?
Jeff Frederick (JF) is trying to bring the RPV back to its conservative roots. When he won the chairmanship last May, he had one helluva a mountain to push the boulder up. True conservatives who appreciate and reward candidates who walk the walk, are fed-up with moderate Republicans who continue to sell out at all costs to win elections.
It is always darkest before the dawn. The crappy candidates that the sellout brand of republicans put up to run only resulted in more apathy on the part of the true conservative party faithful. There was no realistic way that JF could undo the terrible damage that had been allowed to accrue under the old regime that was selling out principle for power.
Those who believe in real conservative grass roots action will support JF and his approach to transparency and inclusion in the RPV. God Bless Jeff Frederick and those who support him. The GOP will reap what it sows. Hopefully truth, justice, and liberty will save the RPV and RNC.
If true conservativism cannot be permitted to flourish in the Republican Party, then maybe it is just time to let go down the path of destruction and then real conservatives can build a real conservative party that wants to uphold the law of the land and preserve liberty in America through real conservative action.
Keep the faith Jeff Frederick! Real conservatives of VA are behind you and support you.
The question isn’t if we like Jeff or if we want him running the party. The question is, has he done something so bad that he should be thrown out. After weeks of this infighting I have yet to hear of anything that would make be believe he should be canned. I will try to keep my mind open, but I will be writing to the members of the SCC and urging caution.
Robert, I am a conservative, but I think that the chairmans job is to get republicans elected and he shouldn’t favor either liberals or conservatives. Voters through primaries and conventions will determine how conservative our candidates are.
Good point, Lauren. The leadership and Chairman set the tone for how the members and voters nominate candidates. Leaders who are emboldened to big money and special interests instead of the party rank and file at the grassroots level pave the way for legislators and executives who then have to support non-conservative agendas while trying to repay the big business/special interest campaign financiers.
Principled party leadership will help the party produce candidates who can win elections and who awill actually serve in a fashion that updholds the Republican Creed and not just allow the creed to be a ceremonial recitation of what we believe in if not for the fact that we want to win elections at all costs.
Robert and Lauren are absolutely right. I believe the fear people on the inside are facing is the true transparency of it all Robert. They do not want it nor do they want change within the establishment. This has been a power play from the start and it began right after the Convention. People do not want to talk about it openly, but there is a battle for the heart and mind of the State GOP right now and its gripping the grassroots level. I have never heard Republicans speak of other Republicans in the manner in which this endeavor has produced. Its all about the fear of the unknown and control of the power apparatus in the State and Jeff is merely the target. Many middle ground Republicans believe they only way in which they can take back control of counties like Loudoun and Fairfax and possibly soon even Prince William that appears slipping is to be more like the opposition and not less. They plave the blame for their shortcomings on people like Jeff over working through their own netwroks to bring about a grassroots movement of change. If in 2010 and nothing has changed in this economy or God forbide its worse than today and these folks still cannot manage to win over their communities than its hardly Jeff Frederick as the issue is it?
David G. – Please pick a handle and stick with it.
The more I see of this the more I think
1) there’s more to the story than SCC or even Frederick can make public for the sake of everyone
2) this is not about ideology and has everything to do with management
Frederick is in charge of the company that is the RPV. The SCC is the board of directors for said company, each duly elected by the share holders that are the members of the Republican Party of Virginia.
Yes, keep in mind that the people asking for Frederick to resign have ALSO been elected to their positions
So, from a managerial standpoint, they are arguing that Frederick has failed to properly manage RPV. Three Representatives, a Senator, and Presidential losses later, what does Frederick have to show for his management skills?
I don’t see anyone questioning his principles. But part of having and keeping a job is showing successes. Where are they?
Hey, Kool-Aid drinkers:
Get a grip. These sideshows about power grabs and 2010 are beyond ridiculous. Who besides Frederick has grabbed anything–like money when no one was looking?
He’s done. Either a super-majority of SCC, Bob McDonnell, the five sitting congressmen, the Speaker of the House, and the state Senate is off their rockers crazy or this chairman is completely ineffectual, counterproductive and unethical. Blustering naively about truth and justice has no place in a discussion of this crooked, rationalizing, deceitful “chairman”.
Mr. Roboto:
I agree. I wrote something to that effect on another blog and I will post it here as well:
Here’s the problem I have with this.
If the answers are as simple as Frederick says they are, then how did we get to where we are now? How come this information—if it truly addresses the concerns—was not given to the SCC earlier and all along? Did Frederick ignore the SCC up until now so that they went on the attack because they could not get satisfactory answers until now (and, yes, the Chairman IS accountable to the SCC)? or does Frederick want to claim that he put these items out to them in the past and they have ignored them and attacked any way?
If Frederick’s statements are true, AND if Frederick has not been ignoring the committee if and when they were seeking his responses earlier, then why would SCC pursue them and embarrass themselves? If they were given this information and it was true, why would they have gone forward? Mike Thomas, the members of Congress, etc., would not sign their names to something that they knew was not true. Yes, they opposed Frederick from the beginning, but that does not make them insane. Only mass group insanity would make the SCC members who signed the letter and the elected officials who back removal do so in the face of clear facts to the contrary.
So here are the choices:
1. Frederick had legitimate answers to the charges but never sent them to the SCC, forcing the SCC to go on the attack. That would indicate that Frederick’s statement is true but that he has refused to be accountable to his board of directors under the Party Plan. That would be both stupid on Frederick’s part and probably grounds for removal unto itself. The Chairman is accountable to the SCC under the Party Plan in between conventions.
2. Frederick had legitimate answers to the issues at hand and communicated them to SCC in a timely manner. In spite of that, out of sheer hatred, or out of mass insanity, 80% of state central, 18 of 19 state senators, 3 of 4 house leaders and all 5 members of Congress call for his removal knowing that their stated causes could be easily refuted.
3. There is a lot more to the story and Frederick’s response is lacking in many regards or does not directly answer the charges.
I’m personally betting on #3. If Frederick were being honest and had made all the strides he claims, logic (and I know logic and politics rarely mix) says that he would have won someone over. If he was doing such a good and honest job, someone—even just one person—who had opposed him in this group would have said, “Gee, I thought Frederick was a douche, but look at the great job he’s doing. I’m a believer.” In doing that, Frederick would not only have solidified his position, but he would have shown evidence that he has the skills and mettle to bring new supporters into the party.
So while I am thinking that #3 is the case, but if someone can convince me #1 or #2 are closer to the truth, I’ll be interested in hearing it.
The answer is simple folks–we call this Virginia politics. Please do not act surprised that elected officials seek to blame others for their own failures. Its like the employees clamoring for beter management, only in this case these are officials claiming that they have not been properly managed. The fact that we would elected people to the GA that “need” to be managed by someone is very telling isn’t it.
Down here I guess Jeff rating is 100% given the Republicans having been elected to each office in the district, House and Senate. Why should people living here join in this cause if the arguement is Frederick is unable to get Republicans elected to office in Richmond???Heck the GOP even carried the area in the Presidential election though I certainly would not credit Jeff for that fact.
Seems to me this is a very very Northern Virginia thing it appears where ranks of the GOP appear dwindling and people there are seeking a scapegoat. I would feel more compelled to defend Jeff in all of this if I did not personally think he behaves like a baffoon, but we don’t toss people out the Chair position for acting like a baffoon. if he committed a crime of course thats very very different; remember we are not liberal Democrats who are allowed and often is acceptable to undertake in such activity.
James Atticus Bowden, a 1 CD elected representative to the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia shares his thoughts on the issue.
http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/03/17/the-state-central-committee-votes-for-itself/
Alter – You don’t have to commit a crime to be fired.
I want someone to tell me how suddenly only those that support Jeff Frederick are “the grassroots”? Wouldn’t logic say that they are merely a segment of “the grassroots”?
it’s very simple Aaron – because Frederick says so!
So how much of the time of the convention would you prose we dedicate to “firing” Jeff? I mean since the convention format elected him, should there not be a vote of confidence by the evry people who elected him to the position last May. As in the delegates. Just asking. And upon removal would we have to dedicate time and resources to finding, nominating and then voting for his replacement. Yeah, I am sure that all the candidates like Bob McDonnell really want this crap on their agenda at the convention to launch their campaigns.
Alter, members of the SCC were also elected and the Party Plan provides the means for them to act to remove the Chairman. Are you going to dismiss all those people who voted for their SCC member to act on their behalf in such matters?
Keep moving those goalposts F-RICK fans!
Now it’s “put the party plan aside and have a general vote of confidence at the convention”.
Because, “how much time do Bob M. and others want to spend on this?”
The number of new defenses and chaff being put out is making my head spin!
His response to charge 1 is deceptive. Bank/gateway charges, etc. run around 2%. His math doesn’t add up.
He’s a weasel. He needs to go.
This is going to get uglier before it gets better. No doubt, Jeff’s GONE.
How much damage he does on his way out the door is the only question.
He professes to care about getting Republicans elected….and when things turn badly for him, he tosses dynamite into the club house.
Mr. Roboto, what does Kilroy think of this?
Good analogy with the dynamite, BPM.
To quote the crazy Irishman Stephen (appropriate on St. Patrick’s Day)from Braveheart:
“God tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he’s pretty sure you’re f-ed.”
I think Frederick lays out a pretty good defense for himself. I don’t want too much controversy before the election this fall – we have more important things to worry about! Let’s not let this distract us from electing McDonnell!
Acting on whose behalf exactly. Oh yeah I forgot about all the marches and picket lines out protesting Chairman Frederick. Thousand of people taking to the streets across Virginia , right? Oh wait that might have been the AIG protests, but no matter this has nothing to do with constituents and everyhting to to do with insider, establishment power grabbing. This really is surreal and the there aint much “grand” about this GOP frankly.
Jason, you are correct. You don’t have to commit a crime to be fired.
However, many have PUBLICLY stated he stole from the RPV. That goes beyond name calling and disagreeing with his management.
IF Jeff Frederick is thrown out/fired and people have slandered his name by calling him a thief, he can likely be said to be “damaged”. I would think this would be actionable as well as cause for dismissal from party position if charges of theft and “larceny” were proved false.
That said, if he did commit a crime and is convicted, obviously Frederick backers should admit they were fooled and thank those starting the rebellion. It would also lend SOME sense of logic to the insane manuever McDonnell pulled that will certainly undermine his campaign by alienating Frederick backers.
You question his management on the basis of elections recently lost? What about the ones before he was in office? Who do you blame for Mark Warner and Tim Kaine? Who do you blame for Marty losing his seat in a primary? Was that Frederick too? Do you blame Fredrick for Dr. Welch losing his seat before Frederick was chair? Do you blame Fredrick for the Virginian Pilot continually attacking Leo Wardrup?
So because he was technically in office for less than a year, you blame Frederick for Goode, Drake, Gilmore, and McCain etc.?
Crime is certainly an arguement for being fired. Mere disagreement in “direction” might be enough under the Party Plan. Fine. So, be it but, there will be consequnces for that.
I don’t know, he might be rightly blamed for mismanagement is other areas as RPV chair but, in the current enviornment, election losses and fund raising declines are not one of them. Let us remember fund raising success follows percieved winners. The trends causing RPV losses preceded Frederick and were not caused by him.
The fact that unsubstantiated claims of theft and obvious distortions of effects on elections are made, those that want to argue they have reason for dismissal, lose on the credibility front.
Either prove he’s a criminal or toss him out quietly and out of the press radar. You basically need a vote to fire him. That’s all right? Why all this public mess?
Britt – Frederick rode into office hanging the 2007 losses on Hagar who was also in the position for less than six months. And Frederick has blamed his bad fundraising on previous managements. At what point does he take responsibility for the continued ailments?
Honestly, one of my largest issues with the defense of Frederick has been that it has painted the argument in hypocritical terms.
No one is attacking his ideology. This isn’t a right wing vs. RINO debate. And it’s not an old guard vs. new guard or elite vs. grassroots as Frederick wants to paint it. There are things happening on the inside we don’t know about and Frederick can play that to his advantage.
Also, everything Frederick and his supporters threw at Hagar last year is now coming his way and it’s interesting to see how the shoe is now on the other foot.
All of that said, Frederick does not win if this remains private. As much as everyone wants to point at SCC for this going public, they were required to give him 30 days notice before a vote can be made to remove him. If the SCC has the votes then they have no need to go public, they make it happen and that’s that. Instead, it’s out in the open and that actually benefits Frederick more – he can now make his case to the public and try and create a movement to lean on the SCC individuals who may be lukewarm in their support one way or another.
Jason, You should be concerned about the process for this political lynching. How many months did the cabal shop around their complaints? They obivously weren’t a real crisis or they immediately would have called a meeting – for the good of the party – instead of waiting until they counted their votes to the right column.
Why was I not allowed to see the charges unless I agreed to sign them first? What smells about that?
The Party Plan doesn’t require a criminal act for removal, but anything less than that will be a bad precedent indeed.
Fair play is in question here.
You are right about it not being an ideologically L or C fight. But, it is a fight about power. About electing or selecting the Chairman, RPV. About the RPV supporting nominated candidates or all incumbents. About who gets the contracts. And whose boy or girl is in the RPV chair.
Jim – As an SCC member you should have seen the charges, at least with enough time to consider them before April 4th. If you have not, you’re right, that’s odd. But you now have them and can now consider them accordingly. If they were able to get 3/4 signatures sight unseen, well, maybe Frederick has less of a chance than anyone may think.
This certainly needs to be fair, but people also need to understand that we don’t necessarily have all the details from either side nor may we ever (though you might as an SCC member). And what looks to me to have been an effort to allow Frederick a way to save face has given Frederick an opportunity to spin this in his defense.
Ideology, power, it’s a fight alright, but some would say it’s about what’s best for the party.
What has Frederick done since last May?
Jason, I will accept the idea that this isn’t about ideology. However, it does look like it at first blush because the parties vying for power to a great extent appear to be divided by lines drawn by ideology. If your premise is that the RINOs are fighting the Right Wing of the party for the sake of power grabbing and not a disagreement in political direction, I can go along with that. When I see who is fighting whom, in many cases it does look like the liberal Republicans and old guard vs. the conservatives and new guard. I agree , ideology isn’t really in play, power is. However, then again, SOME of your side lampooned Frederick over his Charles Darwin remarks. He was called a “fool” over it. He was made to look stupid over what many in this party actually believe. I disagree with Frederick a little on evolution myself. I see examples to a small degree of evolution, my answer is that God created evolution. Still, even though I disagree a little, I would NEVER belittle his religious beliefs! That WAS ideological if you consider yourself “Religious Right” or a “culture warrior”. I saw that video. He rendered his opinion, that’s all! He didn’t try to legislate his belief and force it on the poor RINOs that were laughing at him.
When Fredrick captured the chair, I wasn’t paying attention to how long Hagar was in the chairmanship. I did consider him a continuation of the past. For me, back then it was more about ideology. I saw what appeared to be a group that would bring the RPV back to fiscal conservative values. I saw potential natural alliances and maybe even a place for me in the party. I do understand your point about hypocrisy. If Frederick’s thrust against Hagar was blaming him personally, I agree with you. If he saw Hagar as continuation of what caused that decline, I don’t agree with the hypocrisy arguement.
You are not the first argueing for Frederick’s head that used terms like “shoe on the other foot”. The Bullet Proof Monk did as well. To me…..that sounds like payback and not about substantial reasons for this action. Although, if you get the votes, I guess you don’t need a reason.
In my opinion, you argue against yourself when you rightly point out that it was to Frederick’s advantage for the SCC to go public. It begs the question, WHY GO PUBLIC? Why embarrass the whole party and jeopardize elections because that IS what just happend! The only way out of that is for Frederick to go to jail. Then Frederick backers will accept the rebels and thank them. Otherwise, this whole thing just split the party and statewide elections will suffer incredible damage due to non-participation.
The only reasons to go public are:
1) Jeff Frederick broke stole/broke the law and the ends do justify the means.
2) This is a policital campaign waging war within the party. In this case it is just a power grab. A power grab that just cost a lot of key elections and split the party.
All these “super secret stuff that we can’t know about” agruements are crap. They’re pedestrian tactics at best. If he’s criminal it should be all exposed. Otherwise, the rebellion should have been done quietly and perhaps based on ideology saying that winning elections is more possible if we run to the “Left”. I disagree with that last one but, I can respect it as legitimate though incorrect arguement.
So far, I see nothing respectable in this rebellion. Maybe as things play out I’ll see reason to change my assessment on that. Thus far what I see is a power play that severely damages the party. Frederick’s answering of the charges and his steadfast resolve to fight, backs up that view for me.
To those in the rebellion I ask:
What happens if Jeff Frederick is exonerated and you lose?
What happens if Jeff Frederick is fired and then exonerated of criminal charges and then Frederick claims damages due to slander/libel? Then also, what happens when the other side of the party seeing this as the power play it is and their later refusal to back your guys in election?
You guys have made this an “all or nothing” battle. What happens if it ends up as nothing? How many years have you set the RPV back? How many will just leave the party?
You can’t seriously look at everyone that has come out against Frederick and call them “RINOs”, Britt. That is not my premise, that is Frederick’s, and it is false. Our entire Congressional delegation are RINOs? Really? Practically every Republican State Senator are RINOs? Really?
And I did not say the SCC made this public. I said the SCC had to give him advance notice which gave any number of parties an opportunity to make it public. Many Frederick supporters want to say SCC made it public when that makes no sense as it gives Frederick a golden opportunity to take advantage of what can not be made public.
Frederick has chosen to make this a public battle because he can not win it in private. It’s about ego and pride, not about doing the best job possible. Because if it was about doing the best job possible he’d be pointing out all his successes and not turning this into an ideological fight.
Criminal charges are not required to fire. Inability to do the job is very reasonable grounds for dismissal.
Again, what has Frederick done right since last May?
Britt, were this “all or nothing” you’d have seen a lot of folks leave when Frederick won last May. But that did not happen. You seem to be the one playing the “all or nothing” card and putting everything on Frederick.
I think it is very clear what he has done since May:
1. Taken 6 months to build a new website.
2. Tweet a little too actively
3. Let fundraising wither
4. Lost the support of nearly every major GOP elected official and ’09 candidate.
5. Lost (or never earn) the support of almost all of his Board of Directors (elected also by those pesky grassroots) known as the State Central Committee.
6. Been an embarrassment in the media.
7. Refused to cooperate with the McCain campaign forcing them to build an independent structure in Virginia, wasting time and money.
8. Built a bloated staff and increased overhead–and what is it that all of those people DO all day, since I don’t see much coming from Grace Street of value.
9. Put the Party on Facebook.
10. Done nothing quantifiable to widen GOP support among Virginians.
11. Sent out egotistical self-congratulatory e-mails.
12. Engaged in the laughably transparent “drafting” of his wife for his House of Delegates seat so he can technically say he left the House as promised.
And most of that does not even begin to address the charges laid against him.
With another three years of Frederick, we will likely lose control of the House of Delegates, be forced to sell the Party HQ in Richmond to raise cash, continue to have candidates that cannot depend on the party to work with them to their campaign’s benefit, and worry that each day we read or watch the news, we will see another cringe-inducing gaffe. But by then, he will probably have added a profile on Digg or StumbleUpon or something so it will be OK.
The grassroots may have voted for Jeff last May, but I doubt they would have if they had known what a colossal bust he was going to be. I suspect we could find another solid conservative to do the job–one that is competent and one that attracts new people to our party rather than repelling a large swath of the people who are already here.
All or nothing when Frederick won? Was Hagar called a criminal? (maybe he was but, I never heard/remember that) Were religious conservatives called fools for believing in creation and daring to doubt Charles Darwin?
I will grant you that the length in the chair and that different portions of the party chose sides in both cases but, these are not identical instances.
Again, you are right. Criminal charges are not needed to fire. However, if there was a crime as SOME on your side insist, isn’t there a moral and legal obligation to report this alleged “theft” and have Frederick prosecuted? Or does your side merely wish to take advantage of the mud slinging and the associated damage to his name in a campaign that SOME of the SCC went public with? Evicting Jeff isn’t a lock, THAT is why this was taken public and the ring leaders are trying to quickly damage Frederick and rally support against him. Indeed, the snow job continues.
Who cares about firing? If he stole, have him arrested that would be swift and sure to accomplish your goal and NOT alienate Frederick backers. However, that hasn’t happend has it? And why not? I think it hasn’t because Frederick must be innocent.
You’re again assuming the SCC first went public with the letter. There is no proof of that and the SCC has nothing to gain by going public on an internal matter. Frederick has everything to gain.
Is is not the SCC making scathing robo-calls throughout the state calling SCC members and our gubernatorial nominee a RINO.
Frederick is dividing the party and THAT is grounds for dismissal.
If that is grounds for dismissal, why all the allegations of theft?
Go with a subjective statement rather than an objective claim that isn’t true and therefore impossible to prove. “Dividing the party” is subjective and if I disagree with you, you can retort “That’s your opinion and you’re wrong.” If you call Jeff a thief then that is objective. If you’re blowing smoke, you can be proven to be a liar and libeler/slanderer.
It makes you look like a liar and damages your credibility with any other allegation you make. So, why include theft at all? Because some power whore said Frederick was a theif and snowed you into believing it?
I continue to support Frederick. I voted for him last year. Most of what I’m seeing are more shenanigans- ad hominem attacks, double standards, trumped up charges, 10-point indictment because there’s no single solid charge, emotionalism dressed up as rational argument. It’s not the job of chairman to get Republicans elected. His job is to get people elected who stand up for Republican principles–limited government, rule of law, free enterprise, equality under law, due process to seize and sell real estate.
Swine flu….
Swine flu. 1976 swine flu scare….
[...] DAYS after the SCC delivered it’s letter of intent to Jeff Frederick but just before he replied to the charges and cited the in-kind contribution that did not exist until his job was on the [...]