The more things change, the more they stay the same. In this case, I am referring to the fantastical corruption monster that seems to infect conservative county parties. They convince themselves there are ghosts of Tammany Hall in their own county that they alone have to ferret out.
As shot 10-27-2023 after Safely Crossing the Border back in to the State of my Birth and Residence
Your intrepid blogger went and visited the Shasta GOP meeting on 10-26-2023. On the menu was a Shasta GOP endorsement in CA-01, SD-01 and AD-01. But, there was also a By-Law amendment that would have forced any duly-elected member (or ex-officio) to have to recuse themselves from voting on their own endorsement. This was clearly directed at Tanessa Audette in AD-01.
While I am not a fan of Audette as a candidate because she has told multiple lies on the campaign trail whilst attempting to represent herself as the Bethel Church candidate, this attempt to muzzle candidates is foolish for a variety of reasons. (One example: Audette claimed at the meeting that she had County Supervisor Endorsements in every County of AD-01, this is simply and easily proven false. Another would be her repeatedly claiming to still be working with the Dahle’s in an attempt to imply their support)
One issue I will lay out in public is that the Chair of the Shasta GOP had a clear agenda and biases. He is entitled to his choice of candidates and his opinion, what is the issue for your intrepid blogger is the lack of transparency. It was clear that Dan Sloan supported the insane and dishonest David Fennell for SD-01 and Mark Mezzano for AD-01. Now you have further color for the run at Tanessa’s ability to vote for herself.
One member of the Shasta GOP took the argument over the By-Law amendment public. (It was tabled to March because it seemed absurd to change the rules mid-process.)
Start the Windmills folks, it is time to get jiggy
The AD-01 endorsement failed after 4 ballots. The Shasta GOP used a secret ballot AND a collapsing ballot for their endorsement process. Both are pretty unusual for an endorsement process and using both in the same process is typically only done when there is a desired outcome in mind. (This has been my observation for over 20 years) The SD-01 endorsement also failed because blank ballots were counted as votes against the total needed.
In the days since the endorsement meeting, there have been a ton of emails flying around. (Typical for county parties, lol) Your intrepid blogger has gotten several of them.
It seems that the Shasta GOP Chair by taking a run at Tanessa Audette under the veneer of corruption has activated a fringe of the County Party over an issue that is not even illegal nor is it challenged in Robert’s Rules of Order.
In fact, in my years in Placer County, several sitting electeds were on the committee and voting on their own endorsements and sometimes on those of their colleagues! It is and never was an issue because it is allowed in Robert’s Rules.
Central Committees are exempt from the Brown Act. So there goes that argument.
Further, getting a Shasta GOP endorsement does not guarantee a financial outcome for a candidate. Some offices are not compensated and others that have compensation are not guaranteed to be compensated by the time said person gets sworn in. For these reasons and more there have never been laws or regulations similar to what is being proposed in Shasta County.
Every Partisan elected gets members to the county parties within their district. But, a side effect of passing such a by-law amendment would be to deny them the ability to represent their own interests because it is some sort of “Perk” of office. I’d submit that being part of a County Party is the furthest thing from a “Perk” of office there can be – especially when groups like the Shasta GOP accuse them of corruption simply for existing.
The saddest thing is that if this by-law amendment were to pass, it would not stand up in court because it would strip duly-elected members of their rights. What Mr. Gorman, who should know better as he is a campaign operative in part of his life, is that Audette got elected separately to the Central Committee several years before running for AD-01.
Also, in public, Dan Sloan and another candidate have publicly pledged to recuse themselves from their own endorsements. This means little as neither Dan’s pending endorsement for County Supervisor in D3 or the other guy in D2 are controversial to the Shasta GOP. I doubt if the endorsement was hotly contested either would make such a move.
Central Committees are supposed to be incubators for Candidates. Good Committees (like Placer) recruit candidates and get them elected. If you do it the proposed Shasta way, you are telling people that get elected to Central Committee that decide later to run for office they are crooks if they attempt to advance their campaign as a member of the Central Committee. What a message!
Tanessa’s AD-01 Campaign is going to fail on its’ own for a variety of reasons. This is not one of them.
There are emails out there that may well have been forwarded multiple times by now. This issue should have never been created and now it is going to further marginalize the Shasta GOP. Worse, they are railing against something that neither an issue of morality or illegal.
The more things change with County Parties, the more they stay the same.
