Last night I attended the quarterly meeting of the Salt Lake County Republican Central Committee. This meeting was for all Republican precinct chairmen in the county, so I was representing WJD030. There was 34% attendance, so many precincts were not represented. We reviewed the election results and heard reports from all the officers of the County Republicans. We also heard from all the candidates, both winning and losing, who were in attendance. Our newly elected representative Earl Tanner was there and spoke about his desire to work for us and to address the issues before the Utah legislature in an intelligent and responsible manner.
The meeting was disappointing because we never got to vote on the proposed amendment to the Bylaws. As far as I can see the new bylaw was designed to prevent radical elements of the party from taking time at meetings and detracting from important functions of the Central Committee. Before the meeting even started (before the prayer and the pledge), Dana Dickson was proposing to amend the agenda and to have the Bylaws Committee report on the proposed amendment. He also wanted to have a discussion about what was done in the election and more specifically to evaluate why he lost his race for Utah House of Representatives. Then other delegates had to contribute to the confusion. Eventually the proposal was referred to the Bylaws Committee. This amendment did not come from the Bylaws Committee. It came from the Central Committee officers. The Bylaws Committee has not been able to get a quorum together in their last two meetings and all they have been able to do is to protest the proposed amendment. I think that people voted for referring to the Bylaws Committee and closing the discussion just because they could see that the discussion was going to be long and involved and they did not want to stay too long. Actually the meeting was scheduled for 7:00 – 9:00 PM and we finished at 8:30 PM and still had time to hear from all the candidates (winning and losing) who were at the meeting. So my final analysis is that the amendment was defeated by the very thing it was designed to prevent.
I am not sure whether I received my call to meeting in the mail or not and many people said that they did not. I received a postcard, but don't remember seeing a letter with the text of the amendment. However, I received all the information I needed to learn about the amendment via email. But some people claimed that they never received the email. If members of the group were not adequately informed, then perhaps it is good to postpone the decision making. I had decided to vote for the amendment.Maybe at a future meeting I will have the opportunity to vote for it. Last night's meeting was interesting to me and I feel like I was doing my duty by attending.
It was interesting to note that Mitt Romney won in Salt Lake County, whereas in 2008 Barack Obama won in Salt Lake County. Also, in this year's election Salt Lake County was the only county where Democrats were elected. We live in Utah's "Swing County."
The meeting was disappointing because we never got to vote on the proposed amendment to the Bylaws. As far as I can see the new bylaw was designed to prevent radical elements of the party from taking time at meetings and detracting from important functions of the Central Committee. Before the meeting even started (before the prayer and the pledge), Dana Dickson was proposing to amend the agenda and to have the Bylaws Committee report on the proposed amendment. He also wanted to have a discussion about what was done in the election and more specifically to evaluate why he lost his race for Utah House of Representatives. Then other delegates had to contribute to the confusion. Eventually the proposal was referred to the Bylaws Committee. This amendment did not come from the Bylaws Committee. It came from the Central Committee officers. The Bylaws Committee has not been able to get a quorum together in their last two meetings and all they have been able to do is to protest the proposed amendment. I think that people voted for referring to the Bylaws Committee and closing the discussion just because they could see that the discussion was going to be long and involved and they did not want to stay too long. Actually the meeting was scheduled for 7:00 – 9:00 PM and we finished at 8:30 PM and still had time to hear from all the candidates (winning and losing) who were at the meeting. So my final analysis is that the amendment was defeated by the very thing it was designed to prevent.
I am not sure whether I received my call to meeting in the mail or not and many people said that they did not. I received a postcard, but don't remember seeing a letter with the text of the amendment. However, I received all the information I needed to learn about the amendment via email. But some people claimed that they never received the email. If members of the group were not adequately informed, then perhaps it is good to postpone the decision making. I had decided to vote for the amendment.Maybe at a future meeting I will have the opportunity to vote for it. Last night's meeting was interesting to me and I feel like I was doing my duty by attending.
It was interesting to note that Mitt Romney won in Salt Lake County, whereas in 2008 Barack Obama won in Salt Lake County. Also, in this year's election Salt Lake County was the only county where Democrats were elected. We live in Utah's "Swing County."
