One of the more frustrating elements of intra-party politics is dealing with the constant drumbeat of conspiracy theories which distract from the mundane tasks of running a party and winning elections. In a Presidential election year, this drip-drip-drip of distractions has an uncanny ability to interrupt almost any productive party activity.
The problem becomes more acute when consequential votes become imminent. This weekend, RPV’s State Central Committee will meet in Richmond where the proceedings are expected to include a host of controversial issues, including a decision on 2017’s method of nomination as well as a pair of contentious appeals lingering since April.
With the votes expected to be close, the accusations of malfeasance became inevitable. In this case, they took the form of hushed whispers that the shadowy powers-that-be might be trying to rig close and contentious votes by moving the SCC meeting to Loudoun County at the last minute to disenfranchise enough voting members to influence the outcome.
The accusations arrived on the heels of a recently-planned rally with Governor Pence scheduled for the same time as the August 27th SCC meeting called back on the 5th. When RPV Chairman John Whitbeck called the meeting, he had no idea Pence would be coming to Loudoun County. Likewise, the schedulers responsible for Pence’s busy nationwide campaign cannot be expected to take into account conflicts with the candidate’s time.
In trying to defuse the scheduling conflict, Chairman Whitbeck deferred to SCC, putting the decision before those attending the meeting. At 5:12 PM yesterday, RPV Executive Director John Findlay emailed to SCC members the following,
“We have some very exciting news. Governor Mike Pence is coming to Loudoun County, Virginia on Saturday! Since this is during our State Central Meeting we would normally miss this event, however I have been able to get the campaign to give us enough seats for our entire Committee to attend the event! We also may have the opportunity for a special private meeting with the Governor if our meeting allows.”
Findlay continued,
“Please reply to this email with your vote as to whether you will support moving the location of the meeting to Northern Virginia or whether you will oppose it. We will tally the votes by noon tomorrow and majority rules. In other words, if the majority of you vote to move the location so we can see Gov. Pence that is what we will do. I have already checked on the propriety of this with our General Counsel and there is no restriction on moving the meeting location at this late date.”
Almost immediately, the conspiracy theories began circulating, accusing Chairman Whitbeck and parties unknown of malfeasance in trying to rig the close votes.
One came from Seventh District Rep. Ron Hedlund, who posted the following toned-down accusation to his Facebook page:
Whitbeck responded:
Whitbeck and Hedlund both support nominating in 2017 by convention, so the insinuation that the Chairman seeks to disadvantage Hedlund’s faction is a little absurd. While moving the meeting could conceivably impact a close vote, the impact wouldn’t be in the favor of the pro-convention faction given the strong support for primaries by the Northern Virginia representatives least inconvenienced by the move.
Contrary to Hedlund’s assertion, the move was also legal and had been cleared by RPV General Counsel Chris Marston. According to the Party Plan, notice of meetings is required as follows,
“Except as provided in subsection B.3. of this Article, meetings of Official Committees or the Executive Committee shall be held upon written notice, in the case of the State Central Committee, of not less than three weeks and otherwise, of not less than one week on the call of the Chairman, or on the call of one-third of the voting members, which call shall include the agenda for the meeting.”
In seeking majority consent for the move, Chairman Whitbeck exceeded the one-third threshold required for short notice and would have been in the clear.
The only potential pitfall might have occurred if a suitable venue could not have been found. At the time the email had been sent, one had not yet been identified.
Pursuant to Article VII, Section G of the Party Plan,
“All Official Committee meetings shall be held in a building appropriate for public use and shall be open to the public.”
This requirement would eliminate holding the meeting during the rally which, while open to the public, is space-limited and subject to the security zone around Pence provided by the Secret Service.
Driven largely by concerns over the fairness of moving a meeting on short notice and potential issues with finding a venue to hold a meeting open to the public, SCC members from both factions chose to overwhelming oppose the move.
Had the move occured, close votes would have been overshadowed by suspicion and not in the interests of party unity. Furthermore, if held in an impermissible venue, the meeting would have been subject to challenge, rendering moot a meeting whose purpose is seeking finality in resolving issues.
There’s a right way and a wrong way to resolve valid concerns over intra-party governance.
Within ten minutes of the email going out, I quietly raised the issue of venue with members of State Central, explaining why, under the Party Plan, the move would be problematic and not in the best interests of the party. Members of the committee also shared their concerns with each other, as did other constituents who had heard of the proposal.
Hedlund took the opposite approach, making a mountain out of a molehill while spreading unhelpful conspiracy theories for the whole world to see. In a cycle where party unity is essential, airing false concerns in public falls short of the leadership expected of members of SCC.
Ironically, Hedlund took to Facebook the next day encouraging everyone to attend the rally.
Boosting attendance at the rally is exactly what Chairman Whitbeck tried to do when he asked the committee if it wished to relocate, rather than keeping the decision all to himself by not raising the question at all.
With a party to run and an election to win, Hedlund’s shtick is wearing thin. While Virginia lags in the polls, Hedlund’s willingness to spark party infighting over the most trivial of issues is not the leadership Virginia Republicans need.
Even his former allies have grown tired of his willingness to fight over everything rather than run a party and win elections.
When Dave Brat’s #1 fan loses the confidence of Dave Brat’s former campaign manager, who he worked with side-by-side in 2014, perhaps the time has come for Hedlund to re-evaluate whether his desire for intra-party conflict at every turn is consistent with the representation desired from his constituents and the best interests of the party.
