Earlier today, former FlashReport blogger Phil Paule submitted the attached proposed bylaw change to the CRP offices in Sacramento.
The proposed change seeks to require that CRP employees be registered Republican voters, essentially requiring that they be citizens.
Clearly, it is in response to the recent situation involving the CRP’s now ex-COO.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.
July 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Phil is a very good political operative. He has helped me to find work a number of times and I consider myself very loyal to him. In fact, I was proud to make my first political donation to Phil when he ran for Water Board. I, however, want to be public about my opposition to Phil’s proposal. Our military allows legal residents to serve this country. Our government doesn’t stipulate citizenship for non-elected public servants. The California Republican Party should continue to follow their example and afford legal citizen the same opportunity.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
With due respect, Bryan, you missed the point. This is about one or two appointments by the California Republican Party. Of the 5.5 million registered Republicans, we are stating none are qualified for the job! It is an affront to all Republicans not a principle of accepting aliens. Phil is right on and it is a shame that we need this. Those two should have never been selected.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“legally registered to vote in California as members of the Republican Party.”
If you are doing a national search
July 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Phil,
“legally registered to vote in California as members of the Republican Party.”
If you are doing a “national search” for a COO, or any other high level position (Victory ’08), it is impossible to have someone who is “registered Republican in California” before the time of hire.
This means that the CRP or its entities can’t do a national search for anything (California’s only).
I don’t know if that was the intent but that is definitely a consequence. I take no position on that consequence either way but it is something that is there (the way that I am reading it at least). There are plenty of arguments for and against searching nationwide.
The only way around that would be for a perspective employee to move into the state and register before interviewing, but that is entirely unrealistic.
I think this amendment tackles two different issues and if all you really care about is the citizen one, you might consider changing it so that you are not defending it on two fronts.