Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia
State Central needs an Independent Fact-Finder
Most, if not all, of us have heard about charges made against our Chairman, Mr. Jeff Frederick, although very few mave actually seen the charges. Understandably, people are beginning to line up for or against a vote to remove Mr. Frederick on April 4th. State Central members will undoubtedly be lobbied to vote one way or the other between now and then. Unfortunately, most people will be making up thrir minds about the seriousness and the veracity of the charges with very little factual evidence to guide them. I therefore propose the following steps we can all take in order to come up with a solution that takes fairness to individuals into account and at the same time the long term health of the Party.
1. Pray and urge members of State Central to pray, that this decision will be undertaken with the highest of motivations and seriousness.
2. Urge the State Central to find a truly unbiased man or woman of stature who can look into the charges and independently resolve any differences of views on what the facts are and how they relate to Party rules, State law, or any other ethical or legal standard. This is not an issue that State Central members should take lightly or with any doubt in their mind. There is a reason that those who wrote the Party Plan required a 3/4 supermajority to remove. They obviosly had in mind that it would be used only in the most serious and clear-cut cases. Like impeachment or recall, removal is the political equivalent of the death penalty.
Some might think that there is not enough time to have an outside, independent look. It is true that time is short and any effort would have to be made very, very soon. On the other hand, whatever documentation there is to support the charges must be readily available. Presumably those who signed the letter urging Mr. Frederick to resign have looked over the documentation and have verified it to their satisfaction. Handing it over to a third party seems to be something that could happen in a matter of a few days at most. Both sides to this dispute would presumably be willing, even eager, to have all facts brought out into the light of day, because they both believe presumably that they are in the right.
I urge everyone is reading this to respond either supporting the two recommendations listed above or explaining why they are unworkable.
1. Pray and urge members of State Central to pray, that this decision will be undertaken with the highest of motivations and seriousness.
2. Urge the State Central to find a truly unbiased man or woman of stature who can look into the charges and independently resolve any differences of views on what the facts are and how they relate to Party rules, State law, or any other ethical or legal standard. This is not an issue that State Central members should take lightly or with any doubt in their mind. There is a reason that those who wrote the Party Plan required a 3/4 supermajority to remove. They obviosly had in mind that it would be used only in the most serious and clear-cut cases. Like impeachment or recall, removal is the political equivalent of the death penalty.
Some might think that there is not enough time to have an outside, independent look. It is true that time is short and any effort would have to be made very, very soon. On the other hand, whatever documentation there is to support the charges must be readily available. Presumably those who signed the letter urging Mr. Frederick to resign have looked over the documentation and have verified it to their satisfaction. Handing it over to a third party seems to be something that could happen in a matter of a few days at most. Both sides to this dispute would presumably be willing, even eager, to have all facts brought out into the light of day, because they both believe presumably that they are in the right.
I urge everyone is reading this to respond either supporting the two recommendations listed above or explaining why they are unworkable.
Tags: Central, Frederick, Jeff, State, remove, to, vote
Views: 1
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Suzanne on -
Most, if not all, of us have heard about charges made against our Chairman, Mr. Jeff Frederick? Actually no, we have not. What charges? What is going on?
-
Permalink Reply by Lester Gabriel on -
Suzanne,
I have not seen the list of charges, nor have they been included in any of the newspaper articles that I have seen. The Blogs talk about maybe 10 charges, maybe 8 of which involve the way he has handled his job (not a proper subject in my mind for a use of the removal power) and then another one or two that allude to some sort of misuse of funds or funnelling party money to his own business. I'm sure that they will be made public very soon, so keep watching. In a sense, it doesn't matter, because as long as there is a dispute over what the facts are, an unbiased, outside look is critical.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Collins on -
I did a search and found this article. It is older and doesn't appear to be related but I couldn't help but wonder if the person writing the article would feel the same today regarding our governer.
http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/ar...
-
Permalink Reply by The Bulletproof Monk on -
It has been offered that Frederick has been charging RPV $2400 a month for the use of his Dumfries office.
It has been offered that he has a preference to use a technology firm which he has a personal interest in.
Can anyone refute this?
He has weekly and monthly blunders and misspeaks (think Darwin and a mean-spirited comment about McCain's campaign here).
Never mind the well-publicized "Tweeter" message.
76 businesses have declared that they won't donate funds as long as he's the Chairman.
And we may disagree with the message here, but the comparison between Obama and Osama was crass, at best.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Albertson on -
You say "it has been offered..." Where exactly has it been offered? By whom? What are these 76 businesses? Weekly blunders and misstatements? Really? Jeff Frederick has been chairman for something more than 24 weeks...can you cite for me more than a handful of "blunders and misspeaks (sic)"? If you can, I bet I can cite those same examples as illustrations of the hyperventilations of certain bloggers and opponents already disposed to find fault with the chairman. The SCC is still populated primarily by the same people who appointed the man Jeff Frederick had the audacity to challenge for the chairmanship, so it comes as no surprise that there are lingering grudges.
The fact is that a large majority of the thousands of people who took the time to attend last year's Convention made a bold statement by selecting Jeff Frederick as their chairman; their votes were a rebuke of the establishment that has been captive to the same set of failed ideas and losing pollsters/consultants/vendors for years, and that led us into the electoral wilderness. It is this same group now, in their typical secretive and top-down way, that is seizing upon every opportunity to wrench power back for themselves and away from the burgeoning grassroots resurgence that threatens their positions.
Are we, the activists and donors that make the party possible, given a voice in this? Are we informed as to why our votes last May don't matter? No. We're treated instead with rumor laced with insinuation topped off with a healthy dollop of innuendo...a classic, cynical smear campaign. I can't speak to the validity of the "charges" that have been leveled, because I cannot even say for sure what they are. What I can speak to is the fact that if there were such an ironclad case as has been suggested by those like Bulletproof Monk, then Frederick's opponents wouldn't need to resort to the name-calling and petty rumormongering that has characterized this latest campaign against him.
If this coup succeeds, the SCC is going to have a mess on its hands when thousands of Frederick supporters arrive at the Convention. I can understand Bob McDonnell's desire to have internal RPV affairs off the front pages, but peeing in the cornflakes of your most dedicated activists is hardly a recipe for success in that regard.
The Bulletproof Monk said:It has been offered that Frederick has been charging RPV $2400 a month for the use of his Dumfries office.
It has been offered that he has a preference to use a technology firm which he has a personal interest in.
Can anyone refute this?
He has weekly and monthly blunders and misspeaks (think Darwin and a mean-spirited comment about McCain's campaign here).
Never mind the well-publicized "Tweeter" message.
76 businesses have declared that they won't donate funds as long as he's the Chairman.
And we may disagree with the message here, but the comparison between Obama and Osama was crass, at best.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Copas on -
One of the posters below ap[tly points out that:
The SCC is still populated primarily by the same people who appointed the man Jeff Frederick had the audacity to challenge for the chairmanship, so it comes as no surprise that there are lingering grudges.
As ofr the "charges," well, it sounds like schoolboy accusations. As far as 76 vusinesses saying they won't donate because he's chairman, big deal. They're going to donate to the Democrats? I am over 40 and under 50. Sorry, but we need fresh blood in this party. If Jeff has made other folks upset, he needs to hold out an olive branch and they need to get over it. Maybe I am quite naive. I thought we got involved for the benefit of the country, not the benefit of ourselves.
As for the rental fees he's charging, I suppose they wanted him to donate that? The charge he uses a tech firm he has an interest in -- gee, sounds like a competitor got squeezed out. When did the party ever open services for bids? Odds are he's getting services at a sharp discount -- a relationship that benefits the party, not himself. This all sounds terribly petty and mean-spirited to say the least.
That's the sad thing about being a Republican. We can always count on this silly squabbles when what we really need is more unity.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Collins on
-
As to his relationship with the tech firm, unless they are overcharging that is absolutely a non issue. My wife does marketing brochure layouts and I have recommended that my employer use her services. Not because it would benefit me, but because she could do it at a discount. It would benefit both of us.
It is important to have a chairman who can raise money so he needs to prove that he can bring businesses on board. That said I would rather lose that money than compromise our core values to get it. If the problem is that he won't suck up to those businesses because he's not part of the old guard than so be it.
All in all, I tend to agree this sounds like sour grapes.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Ann Kreitzer on
-
We must have someone with arbitration experience in the party. I once was involved in such a process and it allowed all the information to be fairly presented by both sides. The Democrats are having a field day with this and I haven't seen anything so far that would justify expelling someone who was so overwhelmingly elected by the delegates, including myself, at last year's state convention. I find this very troubling indeed. I've been a party activist for years -- interrupted years. I got sick of this kind of internecine warfare. I'd like to know the real story because I don't think we're getting it. Re the rent and tech question -- what's the market value? If he's competitive what's the big deal?
Mary Ann Kreitzer
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Copas on
-
EXACTLY!!!!!
Mary Ann Kreitzer said:We must have someone with arbitration experience in the party. I once was involved in such a process and it allowed all the information to be fairly presented by both sides. The Democrats are having a field day with this and I haven't seen anything so far that would justify expelling someone who was so overwhelmingly elected by the delegates, including myself, at last year's state convention. I find this very troubling indeed. I've been a party activist for years -- interrupted years. I got sick of this kind of internecine warfare. I'd like to know the real story because I don't think we're getting it. Re the rent and tech question -- what's the market value? If he's competitive what's the big deal?
Mary Ann Kreitzer
-
Permalink Reply by Brad Smith on -
The Bulletproof Monk said:It has been offered that Frederick has been charging RPV $2400 a month for the use of his Dumfries office.
It has been offered that he has a preference to use a technology firm which he has a personal interest in. Can anyone refute this? He has weekly and monthly blunders and misspeaks (think Darwin and a mean-spirited comment about McCain's campaign here). Never mind the well-publicized "Tweeter" message.
76 businesses have declared that they won't donate funds as long as he's the Chairman.
And we may disagree with the message here, but the comparison between Obama and Osama was crass, at best.
So wait, did he charge 2400.00 or 1200.00 for the office rental. You "offer" that it was 2400.00, yet this guy says it's 1200.00. You guys can't even be consistent in your accusations.
Maybe the squishy, Tom Davis-loving RINO blogger crowd should spend a little more time over on DKoS to learn how to properly coordinate online character assassination.
Moreover, where's the goods? I assume that if you had any, they would be plastered all over the front page of the RINO blogs by now. Better hurry up and manufacture some, April 4th is right around the corner.
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Holt (dljholt) on -
-
Permalink Reply by Jody L. Wilcox on -
AP has the charges in the below article I think they're pretty severe and it's time we hold our leaders feet to the fire both Republican and Democrat.......
Jody Wilcox
http://thecontemporaryconservative.blogspot.com/
By Staff Reports
Published: March 12, 2009
By BOB LEWIS
AP Political Writer
Allegations over state Republican chairman Jeff Frederick’s stewardship of party finances dominate 10 claims at the heart of an effort to oust him.
The first claim in the complaint obtained by The Associated Press alleges that Frederick’s own company processed online donations to the Republican Party of Virginia and, for several weeks, retained 7 percent of the money while he assured members of the party executive committee that his firm was not a party vendor.
The second charge is related, alleging he did not fully comply with an executive committee directive last fall to disclose all of the state party’s pending and existing contracts with vendors.
In a statement by the party today, Frederick called those and other charges “false and without merit.” He declined to comment on the individual allegations.
“It is disappointing that some have chosen to eschew discretion and make an internal Party matter an issue for public consumption,” wrote Frederick, 33, who was elected party chief in May and has been under fire from party leaders for the past three months.
Frederick faces a vote by the party’s central committee to remove him on April 4.
Among those who have called in writing for his dismissal in the past week are 58 of the 77 members of the central committee who vote on the matter, all six members of the state Senate’s GOP leadership, and Bob McDonnell, who is unchallenged as the Republican nominee for governor this fall.
Other charges claim that Frederick:
—Spent party money for unbudgeted purposes without consent from either the central committee or the executive committee;
—Gave central committee members little or no time to review the proposed 2009 budget in December, failed to complete either a show-of-hands or roll-call vote by the committee on the budget, then declared it passed without a complete vote count.
—Damaged the party in last fall’s elections by refusing to “coordinate activities, including campaign messages, with Republican nominees for public office.” Democrats won three GOP House seats, the second of Virginia’s two Senate seats, and carried the state in a presidential race for the first time in 44 years.
—Failed to tell the executive committee of a possible security breach of party data on computer servers and not promptly investigating the matter after he was asked to.
Frederick last week dismissed the actions against him as a power play by the party’s elite, claimed strong backing from members and pledged to finish his four-year term in 2012. Last month, he announced he would not seek a fourth term to his House of Delegates seat from Prince William to focus full-time on the party post.
In today’s statement, Frederick said he will respond in writing soon to the 10 charges.
“I will continue to work against the efforts of a few to overturn the verdict of the thousands of grass roots volunteers and activists who participated in the 2008 Virginia Republican Convention,” he wrote.
To remove Frederick, three-fourths of the central committee members attending the April 4 meeting will have to vote for it. If all 77 members are present, a minimum of 58 must vote for his removal.
© 2013 Created by Tom Whitmore.
Powered by
