Two weeks ago, Fredy Burgos, an elected representative to the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee, drew nationwide condemnation for making anti-Semitic remarks [1] in which he suggested a religious test for office and espoused a “duty” to oppose a Jewish candidate on grounds of his faith.
Within hours of Bearing Drift shining light on his reprehensible remark, which was the latest in a series of similar controversies involving Mr. Burgos, top Republican leaders from across the Commonwealth, including State Party Chairman John Whitbeck, called for his immediate resignation [2] and said they would push for removal proceedings at the earliest opportunity.
Those promises have been kept.
Now, Bearing Drift has confirmed, from sources close to the matter, that fellow members of the Republican Party of Virginia’s governing board have presented Burgos with official charges for his removal in a letter delivered on Thursday, to be heard at the next meeting of the State Central Committee in Richmond, on March 24th.
This March 24th meeting is the first opportunity to remove Burgos from the Party since the controversy broke. Under the State Party Plan, charges for removal must be formally delivered at least 30 days before the meeting at which they will be heard, and endorsed by one-third of the State Central Committee, which cleared that signature threshold easily.
Fredy Burgos Responds
Burgos said he neither plans to apologize nor go quietly. He will not resign.
“I reject this demand, deny the false claims, and state the following about this intolerant, bigoted and hateful attack on me,” wrote Burgos, in a rebuttal published on his blog.
Far from accepting responsibility for his hateful rhetoric, the controversial leader instead opted to portray himself as the victim, bizarrely claiming that those who object to his long string of prejudiced remarks were somehow prejudiced themselves.
Nonsense.
This fight is between those who believe bigoted remarks have no place in the party, and those like Fredy Burgos who continue making them.
His latest remarks attracted universal condemnation in the Virginia press and among Virginia’s opinion leaders, as well as by more than 200 media outlets across the nation, including many of its largest newspapers.
This battle isn’t Fredy Burgos versus Republican opponents; it’s Fredy Burgos versus the year 2018.
Burgos has never denied making any of the comments – he simply contends that comments which the rest of the world finds prejudiced on their face, somehow, aren’t. However, in mounting this last-ditch effort against his removal, Burgos refuses to accept responsibility for their plain meaning, or for his own ill intent in making them, as confirmed by one of his supporters and friends.
After the controversy broke, Phil Bell, a self-described supporter and friend of Fredy, spoke about Burgos’ motivation in making religion an issue in the race for Chairmanship of the Fairfax County Republican Committee between Tim Hannigan, who Burgos supports, and Mike Ginsberg, a Jewish Republican.
“When he proposed this line of support for Tim, he was told what would happen,” wrote Bell in a Facebook post, speaking to Fredy’s premeditated intention. Bell later published another version of his post [3] publicly on the political blog The Bull Elephant.
Clarifying that statement, Bell wrote in a follow-up comment, “He talked about it, a coupe [sic] of us – who are his friends – said it was a bad idea and we thought he dropped it.”
It was a bad idea indeed.
Burgos can’t honestly deny the meaning of his remark; not on its face, and not in light of his own friends reporting his clear intent to make a Jewish candidate’s faith an issue in a race.
What Happens Next
With charges properly endorsed and presented prior to the 30-day window, Burgos will face them at the next meeting of the Party’s State Central Committee (SCC), which will be held on Saturday, March 24th, in Richmond.
For the removal action to succeed, two-thirds of all SCC members, not just those present, must affirmatively vote for his removal. For those counting votes, the magic number is 54. This procedure is governed by Article VII, Section C of the State Party Plan [4], which provides:
Any Chairman, except the State Chairman, or any other member of an Official Committee may be removed from office by the vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the other members of the Committee, after being furnished with notice that such removal will be sought, with the charges, in writing, signed by not less than one-third (1/3) of the members of the Committee; and allowing him thirty (30) days within which to appear and defend himself.
The removal action will be the highest-profile item on the meeting’s agenda.
Those supporting removal are expected to push for a publicly-recorded roll call vote, which would require every member to make their position known. Those defending Burgos may attempt to close the meeting by going into executive session, a parliamentary procedure requiring non-members of SCC to leave the room while business is conducted, in the hope that less transparency might give cover to those defending Burgos on factional grounds.
However, a roll call vote in executive session is likely to leak outside the room, which could lead some Burgos defenders to support proceeding via secret ballot.
To many observers, hearing these charges in executive session or voting by secret ballot would be a tremendous blow to transparency and the committee’s duty to act forcefully and clearly in response to bigoted comments which so blatantly violate the Virginia Republican Creed [5]. Acting in private would undermine the clear public repudiation by the Party which his comments rightfully deserve.
One way or another, Mr. Burgos’ 30-day clock has begun ticking.