e-Mail to Utah GOP Party Leadership Regarding Precinct Officer and Delegate e-Mail Address Disclosure

Late Thursday I sent the following e-mail to the Utah County Republican Party Leadership regarding the decision to not disclose the e-mail addresses of the precinct officers, county and state delegates to all the candidates.

===========> Letter begins <===========

I think we must recognize we have two issues here:

1. The policy decision about e-mail address disclosure; and
2. The disclosures that have already taken place

1. The policy decision about e-mail address disclosure
As for the first item, it seems to me that “public access” comes with being an elected official–whether that be a precinct officer, county delegate or state delegate. The Utah Republican Party Constitution, ARTICLE XII, CAUCUS AND CONVENTION PROCEDURES, Sections 2, 3 and 4 states:

“2. All such listings shall include, at a minimum , the name, address, and phone number, where available, of each person listed.
“3. The state party shall make available to the public , within 14 days of the caucuses, a complete statewide listing of all Republican state delegates . Each county party shall make available to the public, within 14 days of the caucuses, a complete countywide listing of the Republican state and county delegates residing in that county . Changes in delegate status shall be reflected in the listings within 14 days of their occurrence.
“4. All delegate listings shall include, at a minimum , the name, precinct, Utah House district, Utah Senate district, Congressional district, address, phone number, and basis of eligibility of each delegate (e.g., election in the precinct caucus, election after the caucuses to fill an unfilled seat, or appointment to fill a vacancy occurring after the caucuses).”

So, the questions I have after this reading are as follows:

A. How will these listings be made public by the State and by the County?
B. If the Constitution clauses say the Party will provide “at a minimum, the name, precinct, Utah House district, Utah Senate district, Congressional district, address, phone number, and basis of eligibility of each delegate,” what is being gathered that is being held back from the public? (It appears ONLY the e-mail addresses.)

The Daily Herald ran a story entitled Candidate wants access to e-mail list (http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/260810/17/). The story reports that Jacqueline De Gaston, challenger of incumbent Senator Curt Bramble in Senate District 16, was told by Marian Monnahan that she (and all other candidates) would not be given access to the e-mail addresses of the delegates “as they have been in years past.” The article goes on quote Marian as saying: “We just hesitate to do it since we promised everybody, ‘No, we won’t hand those out.’ We’re not giving them to anyone at this point.”

Assuming this article correctly quoted Marian, the statement she made leaves me wondering about three things:

A. When I was trained on running the Caucus Meetings in early March, I was instructed us specifically to get the e-mail addresses for all of the elected precinct officers and delegates.

Why? I have been a delegate for over two years and have NEVER received any e-mail communication from any State or County Party Officer other than my LEG Chair. If the LEG Chair simply passes the Rolls in to the County Party Secretary, why do they need those e-mail addresses? Couldn’t they simply get the e-mail addresses of from the officers and delegates (per the Elected Precinct Officers and Delegates Form)? I believe the act of gathering e-mail addresses at LEAST implies usage by the Party and its candidates.

B. The “Handbook of Instructions” I was trained from for conducting the Party’s Caucus Meeting (that I used to conduct Orem Precinct 27’s Caucus Meeting) included a sample meeting agenda. One of the main items on the meeting agenda was the circulation and completion of the Caucus Roll by the attendees. On that Caucus Roll, the last column of information was for the e-mail addresses of everyone on the precinct rolls–not just the precinct officers and delegates.

So if the concern is privacy, the Party should not even gather the precinct members’ e-mail addresses. In the training meeting I was NEVER trained to assure anyone their e-mail address was to be kept private. So, in the Caucus Meeting, I told people the addresses would be used by the party and the candidates. Again, I believe the act of gathering e-mail addresses at LEAST implies usage by the Party and its candidates.

C. Again, upon conclusion of the afore-mentioned Caucus Meeting, I completed the Elected Precinct Officers and Delegates form, the last column of which is also provided for the e-mail addresses of the precinct officers, county and state delegates.

Again I ask why we’re gathering these e-mail addresses if not for the use of the Party and its Candidates? I have been a delegate for over two years and have NEVER received any e-mail communication from any State or County Party Officer other than the LEG Chair. As I stated above, I believe the act of gathering e-mail addresses at LEAST implies usage by the Party and its candidates.

2. The disclosures that have already taken place
As for this second item, “the cat is out of the bag” as they say. Party Leaders disclosed the LEG 60 lists to Brad Daw and Linda Houskeeper. The Chris Cannon Campaign appears to have received the e-mail addresses of the delegates. (Note I have contacted Congressman Cannon’s office and asked him if he was provided a list by either the State or County Party Leadership, and am waiting for a reply from him.) If you go to the post on my personal blog at the following URL (http://kipmeacham.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/are-you-kidding-me-utah-county-gop-chair-monnahan-says-no-delegate-e-mail-lists-for-candidates/) and look at the comments for this post, you will see a County Delegate named “Ryan” made this comment:

“I find this story interesting because I am a county delegate and have been contacted by email by the challenger to the incumbent in my district. I also received an email from Chris Cannon welcoming me as a state delegate even though I was not elected to that position. ” ( emphasis added)

I, too, received a congratulatory e-mail from the Cannon Campaign on being elected a State Delegate on Saturday, March 29th.

So, from these two e-mails, it appears his campaign has been given access to have the State and County Delegate e-mail addresses.

Now, the Utah Republican Party Bylaws, 7.2 PARTY OFFICER NEUTRALITY state:

“A. State Party officers, National Committee members, and paid staff shall assist and provide, without discrimination or restriction, equal access to Party information and services within their responsibility to all Republican candidates.

“B. State Party Officers, National Committee members, and paid staff shall not publicly endorse or oppose any Republican candidate for partisan public office in Utah while the candidate is opposed by another Republican candidate for the same office.”

I do not fault the Cannon Campaign for contacting either myself or “Ryan.” At issue is this: if those e-mail addresses have been shared with ANY candidates, they must be shared with ALL candidates. The Party MUST in the spirit of fair play operate according to the Bylaws (See the Neutrality Clause above).

If not, it makes the Party look badly at best and corrupt at worst.

Where I stand
If we’re going to catch the fire and imagination of the upcoming generation, we need to operate with transparency. I work in the technology sector, the Party needs to understand the importance of transparency to this next generation. The old days of traditional public relations (which I have worked in professionally, by the way) and control of the message and messengers is long past. The Internet took that from the public and private sectors years ago. If this kind of behavior (the leaders of the Party thinking for the Party) continues in the Utah County and State Republican Party leadership, the Party will be perceived by the upcoming generation the party of corru pt, back-room deals, and we will die from a lack of new blood from today’s youth and tomorrow’s leaders.

I believe this behavior is driving the next generation away from-not towards-the Republican Party.

Our Party must be above board and principle-centered. I have no axe to grind with anyone. Party Leadership needs to know I want good, solid conservative candidates elected as well as the next Republican does–but not at the expense of principle. We must be fair, transparent and principled–all things I understand we as a Party stand for.

I will be happy to discuss this face-to-face with ANYONE in the Party leadership to clarify what I’m writing, asking and thinking. I offer my help to work actively with you and the County and State Constitution and Bylaws Committees that the Party might make these changes that are essential the life and vitality of the Republican Party.

I will also relentlessly do my own part to see that we as a Party –since I am the Party, too– operate to our principles, and do so in the spirit of transparency, and call the Party Leadership on it when I believe we as a Party do not.

Also, in the spirit of transparency, please feel free to forward this message on to anyone. I intend to post this e-mail’s contents on my blogs.

If you have any questions for me, please let me know.

Thanks for your efforts.

Kip Meacham

===========> Letter ends <===========

Since sending this e-mail, there has also been some additional e-mail dialogue between myself and the County Leadership over the issue, and the message I am hearing is that they hope in the future they can disclose to delegates and officers that they will limit the use of their emails to official party business, including full candidate access, without unnecessary public compromise.

I was asked to help figure out how to go about doing this, which I find very encouraging and I am already working on helps.

That said, I believe the County Leadership’s current position (no e-mail addresses) is unchanged, but you’d want to contact them on that topic yourself, of course.