This morning, Utah County’s Daily Herald is running a story entitled Candidate wants access to e-mail list. The story reports that Jacqueline De Gaston (jdegaston@yahoo.com), challenger of incumbent Senator Curt Bramble in Senate District 16, has no access to the e-mail addresses of the delegates “‘as they have been in years past.”
[NOTE: There are actually two other Republicans seeking the nomination. The second is James O'Neal (isconychia@yahoo.com).]
Anyway, the story goes on to quote County Republican Chairwoman Marian Monnahan (jrmonna@mstarmetro.net) as saying: “We just hesitate to do it since we promised everybody, ‘No, we won’t hand those out.’ We’re not giving them to anyone at this point.“
Okay, now I’m confused on three fronts:
1. When I was trained by the Party on running the Caucus Meetings in early March (I am the Precinct Chair for Orem, Utah’s Precinct 27), I was specifically asked to get the e-mail addresses for all of the elected precinct officers and delegates.
2. When I conducted the Republican Party’s Caucus Meeting for Orem Precinct 27, one of the main items on the meeting agenda was the circulation of the Caucus Roll. The last column of information on the caucus roll was for the e-mail addresses of everyone on the precinct rolls–not just the precinct officers and delegates.
3. Again, upon conclusion of the afore-mentioned Caucus Meeting, I completed the Elected Precinct Officers and Delegates form, the last column of which is also provided for the e-mail addresses of the precinct officers, county and state delegates.
Now, why would we as a Party ask for the e-mail addresses of everyone in the Party if we’re not going to make use of them?
This does not add up, and gives me cause for concerns about fairness and transparency in the Republican Party in Utah County.
It’s also of deep concern to me that Susan Bramble (susan@cbramble.com), Senator Bramble’s wife, is the Utah County Republican Party Secretary. In this instance, would it not be a reasonable expectation of ethical conduct to place upon Ms. Bramble to recuse herself–being the keeper of the Party’s lists for Utah County–from the maintaining of the lists? There is at a minimum the appearance of impropriety here.
If she is not willing to recuse, then she (or any County Party Officer) who has provided any candidate so much as one e-mail address, must provide every candidate that same e-mail address per the State Party Bylaws’ Party Officer Neutrality Clause (7.2). This clause clearly states:
State Party officers, National Committee members, and paid staff shall assist and provide, without discrimination or restriction, equal access to Party information and services within their responsibility to all Republican candidates . ( emphasis added)
What’s good enough for the state should be good enough for Utah County, I believe.
Ms. Monnahan has an obligation to operate the affairs of the Republican Party by the rules. This does NOT look good, and in politics (as we all know) appearance is at least as much as substance.
Let’s be reasonable, fair and above reproach and clean up our Party, people.
I find this story interesting because I am a county delegate and have been contacted by email by the challenger to the incumbent in my district. I also received an email from Chris Cannon welcoming me as a state delegate even though I was not elected to that position.
Personal feelings about Ms. DeGaston aside, I do think that there is something that doesn’t pass the smell test in this situation.
I understand that some of the candidates have received the lists, Brad Daw and Linda Housekeeper in Orem, and that is a little more fair since they are running against each other. But, regardless, it is just NOT FAIR. Also four years ago when I missed having a primary by just 3 votes they appointed approximately 10-12 delegates the last week or two before the convention, two of which I did not get until the day before. The problem is that the party insiders get to choose who those delegates are.
I attended the Candidate’s night at Alexander’s Print Stop and when they brought up the issue of fairness I brought up the problem with the email lists. Marian Monnahan and Mr. Mortimor who conducting the meeting said that they hadn’t given out email lists to anyone, and I replied that there were many candidates (4 to 6 that we knew about) who did have the lists plus Mr. Bramble’s wife, and that was not fair. Mr. Mortimor replied that two lawyers stated that they might or might not be okay in handing them out. I stated then that I was a lawyer too, and that Susan’s position of being the county chairman was a Conflict of Interest, since the unfair opportunity for mischief exists and there is no way for her to be neutral in that position with her husband in a contested race.
Other people joined in the conversation and the leadership became frustrated and tried to stop it, and then insisted that it was not on the agenda. I also learned that all of the legislative chairs (unelected delegates who get automatic State & County delegate positions without being elected at their caucus), so there are three or four more people who got the lists of emails (Senate 16 includes bits of 4 legislative districts)and they could use those lists in support of one candidate or another.
After the meeting Mr. Mortimer told me that he thought that they had a real problem this year because the lists were already out, but by the time they have resolved it I probably will have collected most of the email addresses or resigned my campaign to snail mail only.
Their position is that I can just call all 199 of the delegates on the telephone and get the email addresses, or as Susan Bramble told me I can send the messages up to Ivan at the Salt Lake City Republican Office and then he can send them out. I called Ivan and he said that the County Republican officers have to do that. Can you imagine that I have to send my email messages to Marian Monnahan or Susan Bramble first, so Curt Bramble gets to see the message first before any of the delegates get to see it. They could obviously edit, reject, delay or do whatever if they did not like the message. What about free speech? What about fairness?
Jackie de Gaston, running for Senate 16 against Curt Bramble
One little detail I left out, the three or four legislative chairs in my Senate district is for just one Senate district; there are many legislative chairs throughout the county, as many as the number of legislators. All these people have lists, but I cannot get one, and many other candidates cannot get them, especially challengers it seems. It appears that the goal of most of the rules of the party is to keep incumbents in office. Small wonder the public and the newspapers are upset, and we Republicans who dare to run against them are upset also.
Jackie de Gaston
Jacque, I have a few questions and comments based on your comments:
1. (10:45pm comment) Who are the “4 to 6″ candidates you know about having the list? Does this include Brad Daw and Linda Houskeeper?
2. (10:45pm comment) Susan Bramble is the County Party Secretary, not the Chairman. Marian Monnahan is the Chairman.
3. (10:45pm comment) You learned what about the Legislative Chairs? Is it that they get the e-mail lists? All the forms from the precincts are collected by the Leg Chairs. Is this the way you understand they get the lists, or was it some other way?
4. (10:45pm comment) In the third paragraph of this comment, you say “they had a real problem this year because the lists were already out…” “Who is the “they” here? Can you explain? Is it the County Party Leadership or an individual?
5. (10:45pm comment) Again, in the third paragraph, did Mr. Mortimer tell you the lists went out? Did he say how or who sent them out?
6. (10:45pm comment) In the fourth paragraph, you name an “to Ivan at the Salt Lake City Republican Office.” Ivan who? Do you have a last name? Can you include it? Are you talking about the Salt Lake County Republican Leadership, or are you talking about the State Republican Party Leadership?
Please comment back and fill us in.
I need to update my last post to clarify on point. After meeting with the challenger to the incumbent in my district, which is not the district that Ms. De Gaston is running in, I found out that he did not receive my email address from the party. Instead he obtained my address from the precinct chair, and not from the party leadership.
Let me be absolutely clear on one point. I have NO problem being contacted by email by any candidate. In fact in giving my email address I expect to be contacted by the candidates. I have a real problem if my address is being provided to some candidates and not to others. This is not a problem with the candidates at all. It appears that the party leadership has decided that they know what is best for the delegates, but hasn’t actually sought any input from them.
In response to the alleged promises that were made that the email addresses would not be distributed all I can say is that no such promises were given in our caucus meeting. I’m happy to be able to talk to the candidates about the issues. I believe that ALL candidates should be given access to the delegates. If a delegate doesn’t want to be contacted, then why take the responsibility of being a delegate? Don’t we owe it to the citizens in our precinct to make an informed decision about the candidates? How can we make such a decision if candidates access to the delegates is restricted?