I am going to share some thoughts with you about this meeting at the took place, and I am adding this sentence at the beginning of my commentary, having just written it. I understand from all that the meeting with the Governor was a productive one, and went well. That overall, board members were very pleased with the opportunity to give meaningful input to the state’s top Republican… Now, onto my other thoughts…
CRP BOARD MEETS WITH GOVERNOR IN ATTENDANCE…
Yesterday afternoon, for about an hour, the Board of Directors of the California Republican Party, along with some guests, had a meeting at the Hyatt Hotel across the street from the Capitol. The board members gathered first at the GOP’s Sacramento headquarters (the meeting location was not disclosed to board members ahead of time). Then they were escorted as a group to the Hyatt where the meeting took place. It did not take long for the ‘cone of silence’ to descend, as board members were asked to pledge not to talk about the details of their meeting with the Governor outside of the room. This was made clear to me by the seven board members with whom I have been in contact. One board member, Republican National Committeewoman Barbara Alby, I’m told, was unwilling to accede to this restriction, and left. (Note: I was contacted by the party – apparently Alby did not go over to the Hyatt at all – I think she may have been told about the ‘zipped lips’ requirement over at party hq, and not walked over to the meeting. I will ask her to clarify.)
MEETING WAS CONFIDENTIAL, BUT PRE-PLANNING FAIR GAME
Out of respect to my Party, I shall not divulge what happened in that meeting. But I can share with you what I was told by some of the Board members I helped to elect what was going to be said in the meeting before they went in… I should, at this point, say that all of the board members with whom I spoke were quite concerned and unhappy with the Kennedy appointment… There was to be a basic strategy of taking everyone’s concerns, and parsing them out to different board members. Some would talk about the detrimental effect of Kennedy’s appointment on volunteers — another about the concerns of her ability to effect so many decisions that fly ‘under the radar’ of a Chief Executive. Yet another board member would make the big demand – Governor, please terminate Susan Kennedy. Other board members would express concerns about the large numbers of Democrats and non-Republicans being appointed to the bench, and express concern at dearth of appointments for party activists (I can’t complain of such, personally, as I am an appointee). Another member would talk about policy issues (such as a firm GOP resolve against massive infrastructure debt without meaningful financial reforms of state government). Finally, a member would breach the issue of how to work on sensitive party matters with the Governor without having Democrat Kennedy ‘in the loop.’
As I said, these were strategies to which I was privy in advance of the meeting. What actually happened is unknown. I do know that the last part of the strategy – for each of the board members to widely talk to members and talk to them, in detail about the meeting, so that members know that their board is responsive, will NOT be occuring. I do know two things. The first is that several newspapers are reporting that the Governor and Chairman Sundheim came out of the closed-session, and announced that the "entire Kennedy matter is behind us" (referring to GOP ire at the Governor’s pick of a partisan Democrat activist as his Chief of Staff). After seeing these quotes, I was taken aback. You see, I am a State Central Committee member, and I am not any less concerned this morning than I was yesterday morning. I reached out the ‘most connected’ member of the State Party Board of Directors, Tom Del Bacarro. His post is an important one, because while he is Chairman of the Contra Costa County Party, he has been selected by his 57 peers to represent all County Chairmen on the Board of Directors.
INFLUENTIAL BOARD MEMBER SURPRISED BY DUF’S QUOTES
In Tom’s online e-newsletter, Political Vanguard, he writes, "Please note that, contrary to the [news] report, the Board of Directors of the Party did not vote to support the Gov’s decision to appoint Ms. Kennedy and most Board Members, including Publisher Tom Del Bacarro, continue to believe the appointment was not right or in the best interest of the CA GOP for several reasons."
So I followed up with Tom, confused about how Chairman Sundheim could walk out of the room and tell the media that the issue is over if it was not. Tom indicated to me that the Board’s advice to the Governor in the meeting was private, but that he was ‘surprised that Mr. Sundheim made the statement, and was surprised by its content.’
EXECUTIVE SESSION HAS A BUSINESS PURPOSE
I want to make two points on this particular commentary – I think I may touch on them more later. When you are the Board of Directors of a membership based organization, which the California Republican Party certainly is, you must exercise extreme caution when entering into "executive session" – as was done yesterday. You see, the Board is a representative group with constituents. Imagine if the state legislature gathered in Sacramento, but when controversial issues came up that were ‘not convenient to air in public’, the legislature merely involved ‘executive session’ and closed their meeting to the public.
The purpose of executive session is to discuss legal issues, personnel issues (party personnel, not the personnel issues of government officials), and perhaps some financial matters of sensitivity.
What happened yesterday was unfortunate. I presume that the meeting was held confidential in order to keep the discussion away from the media. (If Del Bacarro’s version of reality is correct, the Chairman may have actually left the meeting and mischaracterized what happened to the press – which I would attribute to eagerness for the Kennedy issue go away). But what is lost here is tragic. You see, it is the ability for these board members to not only take input from the members to their meeting, and in this instance to the Governor, that is critical. It is the ability for board members to be able to come back to their constituents (me, among others) and talk about what happened. "We spoke to the Governor, and these are the concerns we articulated… And this is what he told us…" Then I could ask, "Did he appear receptive?" "Did he understand why people are concerned?" "Does he know how this is effecting volunteers?" "Will he be mad if I am less motivated about his candidacy?"
PERSONNEL IS POLICY
My final point that I will make goes to the issue of these statements that it doesn’t matter who a politician hires as long as they will implement the goals of the politician. This is so just simply not the case. As a conservative activist, you try to absorb and live by Morton Blackwell’s Laws of the Public Policy Process, #26 is simply put: "Personnel IS policy."
"THESE ARE NOT THE DROIDS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR"
I’m not sure if this ‘Jedi mind trick’ style of closing the meeting, and declaring an issue over will be effective. I can only say that in Irvine, where I live, a lot of local grassroots activists are smarting over one of Gray Davis’ closest confidants being the top advisor to our Republican Governor.
I’m still unhappy, and demoralized by this pick. And, not just because of what Kennedy did to Bruce Herschensohn.
I continue to maintain that I am a big fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s a great person, and I’ve found myself in agreement with him on many policy issues. But I am firmly staking out a pro-Arnold/anti-Kennedy position until someone/anyone convinces me that her hiring was a good idea.
Have a great day, and I hope to return my commentaries to much less ‘inside baseball’ stuff soon.
Jon
PS: Still no word from ersatz Attorney General Pierre Prosper on the Kennedy pick: