Letter from Secretary of the Alaska Republican Party Confirming Debbie Brown Remains ARP Chairman

See the related story about this HERE.

Read more from this story HERE.

  • AK DELEGATE

    here are the FACTS:
    Charge:

    In addition, historically reliable donors have indicated that they have no confidence in Debbie as Chair and will contribute no money to the ARP while she remains in office. Thus, in addition to being ineffective in raising funds, she has regrettably, become a significant impediment to the efforts of others trying to raise funds for the ARP.

    (my personal viewpoint is they were TOLD not to donate, just like Ruedrich told delegates NOT to show up for the reconvene!)

    Possible Grounds:

    There are no grounds in Article X Section 1 that this charge can be based on. The body of the convention expressed confidence in her by their act of electing her as Vice Chairman, and the will of that body is the ultimate authority for the Alaska Republican Party.

    Conclusion:

    These charges do not meet any of the grounds for removal that are given in Article X Section 1.

    Questions brought up in Complaint filed by David Eastman on April 3rd, 2013

    1) Does this document constitute a charge against Debbie Brown? Under our rules, a charge may only be filed against an elected Republican Party Officer if “proper grounds and reasons are submitted in writing”. I would like the Rules Committee to clarify whether or not “proper grounds and reasons” have been submitted in writing through the submission of the attached document.

    Answer:

    No, as per Ruling on Charges against Debbie Brown, March 14 2013 from Bruce Schulte.

    2) If the answer is no, would it not then be a violation of our Rules for an individual or individuals to accord to this document the status of a properly executed charge and to commence to hold a hearing as though it were a properly executed charge?

    Answer:

    Yes, since all charges have to accord with Alaska Republican Party rules, then an individual taking it upon himself, without consultation with the Rules committee, to implement the hearing process would be liable for making sure that the charges accorded with the rules. Note that this does not mean that the charges have to be valid, that is what a hearing will decide.

    3) Asked another way, is it a violation of the Rules of our party to attempt to hold a vote on the removal of a Republican Party elected officer in the absence of a properly executed charge?

    Answer:

    Yes, you must have a charge that meets at least one of the grounds for removal as listed in Article X, Section 1.

    4) Or, conversely, is it a violation of the Rules of our party to attempt to hold a vote on the removal of a Republican Party elected officer subsequent to the filing of a complaint which fails to include proper grounds and reasons?

    Answer:

    Yes, see reasoning above.

    5) The letter submitted by Bruce Schulte specifically references the section of our rules entitled “Grounds for removal (from Republican Party Office)”. Article X, Section 1 of our Rules sets out the grounds for removal of an elected officer. The letter specifically references clause “(b) Failure to carry out or perform the duties of the office to which he was elected.” To which office was our chairman elected? Was our chairman elected to the office of Chairman? Vice‐ Chairman? State Finance Committee Vice‐Chair? Some other office perhaps?

    Answer:

    This was answered in the Ruling on Charges against Debbie Brown, March 14 2013 from Bruce Schulte.

    6) Which positions constitute the elected officers of the Central Committee?

    Answer:

    The phrase under Grounds for Removal states “Any person holding elected ARP office”, which does not refer to the differing concept of “officers”. It applies to both the District and State levels, and elected simply refers to those positions that someone has to be elected to, as opposed to an appointed position. The legacy rule that was created a few years ago puts the new Chairs and Vice Chairs in both an appointed and an elected position, though not simultaneously. It’s probable that the reason the rule was written this way is because all appointed positions serve at the pleasure of the chair, so the chair would be responsible for dismissing any of the appointed positions, and if the body wanted one of those appointees to be dismissed they would just vote to require the chair to dismiss them.

    7) According to our Rules, what were the duties of the office to which our chairman was elected?

    Answer:

    Reference ARP Rules Art 1 Sec 3; Art III, Sec 18; Art V Sec 5,6,7(b),13,14(b),18(b),19, 20(d); Art VI, Sec 4(d), 5, 6(c), 7(c)(d), 8(d), 9, 18; Art VI Sec 1(e); Art VII Sec 3; Art IX Sec 5(b),6,7; Art X Sec 5(a)

    8) According to our Rules, may an individual be charged and removed from office by the SEC for failing to perform the duties of an office to which they were not elected?

    Answer:

    No, Article X, Section 1 states that the grounds for removal apply to “Any person holding elected ARP office”.

    9) In the Schulte letter, it is asserted that it is the duty of the State Chair to raise finances. According to our Rules, is it the responsibility of the State Chair to raise finances? If it is the duty of the State Chair to raise finances, may the Immediate Past State Chairman be removed from his position on the SCC for his failure to raise funds while State Chair?

    Answer:

    There is nothing in the rules that explicitly states that the Chairman has the responsibility for fundraising, Article VI Section 8(b) states “The State Finance Committee shall be responsible for raising the necessary funds to implement ARP programs as required by approved budgets.” And Article VI Section 13 states “The State Finance Chairman and the State Finance Committee shall be responsible for raising funds as shall be required by an approved budget.”

    10) If it is the duty of the State Chair to raise funds, what constitutes an acceptable financial amount so that an officer is no longer at risk of not having “raised enough funds” and therefore of failure to perform the duties of the office to which he was elected?

    Answer:

    It is not an official duty of the State Chair to raise funds.

    11) Does participating in the raising of funds for delegate participation in a state convention, funds which are donated directly to the state party, qualify as raising funds towards this amount? Would such a convention need to exceed previous attendance records in order to qualify, or would a specific financial amount of accrued delegate fees suffice to satisfy this requirement?

    Answer:

    This question is irrelevant to the charges at hand; see 9) and 10).

    12) Does participating in the raising of funds spent towards participating a second state convention qualify towards off‐ setting the requirement to raise funds? What of raising funds towards the travel and lodging of state delegates and other elected Republican officials engaged in exercising the responsibilities of their elected office, thereby increasing their investment in the party and facilitating the greater success of party events and activities.

    Answer:
    This question is irrelevant to the charges at hand; see 9) and 10).

    13) What if our state chair, instead of participating in the raising of funds to promote participation in Republican Party events, such as a second state convention perhaps, instead became determined to deliberately discourage the raising of funds towards that purpose? Under such a situation, would the amount of funds they successfully discouraged from being raised towards participation in official Republican Party events be subtracted from the funds they were able to raise from other means, as concerns their achieving the minimum amount of funds they are obligated to raise?

    Answer:

    This question is irrelevant to the charges at hand; see 9) and 10).

    14) I personally believe it is suspected that Chairman Debbie Brown will violate the Rules of our party by not calling an SEC meeting for the month of April. Were the state chair to fail to call such a meeting at any time in April, would such action constitute a violation of our party Rules? (It is my understanding that she will be out of state attending the RNC spring meeting and other business until the SCC meeting next month and has thus far declined to call an SEC meeting for that reason.)

    Answer:

    Article VI Section 6(c) states “The State Chairman shall endeavor to hold at least one meeting in each calendar month.” So it not required to be held, but good reasons need to be given as for why that wasn’t done to uphold the “shall endeavor” portion of that rule. For example, in the past, “having an SCC meeting in a calendar month” was seen as sufficient reason to not hold an SEC meeting.

  • Not to mention…. they held the meeting when they knew Brown was in the lower 48 to attend the RNC meeting. BTW, the Alaska Libertarian Party welcomes donors who have no confidence in the ARP.