Contra Costa County Gop Election Code Violations

July 20, 2009 Dear Fellow CCRP Members, I seek your help. CCRP leadership has egregiously violated multiple sections of the California Election Code: • • • •

7354 – Failure to abide by prohibition against pre-primary support, opposition or endorsement of any Republican candidate. 7443 - Failure of officers to perform duties of the Committee for the benefit of the entire Party as required. 7410 – Failure to fill Committee vacancies in a lawful manner. 7411, 354 - Failure to fulfill mandatory removal of lapsed and ineligible Member, Tom Del Beccaro.

I ask for your careful consideration of these matters and request formal response from our leadership.

PROHIBITION AGAINST PRE-PRIMARY SUPPORT, OPPOSITION, OR ENDORSEMENT I agree that the belated forum is only a CYA move by CCRP leadership to put on a token show to pretend it has not in fact thrown its support, party resources and paid staff exclusively behind David Harmer and obstructed the other candidates.   The truth will emerge about the CCRP dial for dollars operation in which volunteers were instructed to read a script stating we have 'one candidate' naming David Harmer and with no mention of the other Republicans running.   This isn't conjecture.   Answering machine recordings, credit card transactions, etc. will back the word of volunteers who made the calls and folks who received them. It gets worse.  When one of our unacknowledged candidates, David Peterson, requested inclusion of his candidacy in the phone operation, access to the call list and referral to CCRP donors, he was stiff-armed (refused) by Chairman Greg Poulos.   Mysteriously, the phone operation is now shut down, the volunteers sent home and the phone lists rolled up and put away.  Is this because sufficient funds and awareness were achieved for the favorite candidate?  Chris Bunch in his remarks to Contra Costa Times reporter Josh Richman, described other obstruction to his candidacy by Exec. Director/Harmer Campaign Manager, Michael Caporusso and Poulos.   (Bunch's remarks here.  See UPDATE @ 9:50 A.M. TUESDAY:  http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/ 2009/07/13/cd10-vets-for-woods-gop-infighting/ ) To clarify, it was KSFO host Brian Sussman who introduced Tom Del Beccaro (CCRP's Public Relations Chairman) on air as the Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party.   But Del Beccaro did not deny or object to that title of introduction.  Nor did Del Beccaro make disclaimer that he was addressing the KSFO listenership as a private individual.  Therefore, we know Del Beccaro spoke in an official capacity when he made his statements of enthusiastic and unreserved support  exclusively for David Harmer on air July 10.   Del Beccaro completely omitted any mention of the others, creating the false impression there are no other Republicans for the voters to consider. 

The "I was speaking as a private individual" excuse (that CCRP Legal Counsel Steve Sonaty claimed after the fact of his own instructions to the membership to exclusively support Harmer and that we not conduct an open candidate forum) also will not fly in Del Beccaro's case.  Now that wrongdoing has been pointed out, the excuses or self-justifications put up by CCRP officials fall within the following varieties: 1) Sleight of hand, diversionary tactics to focus on endorsement and pretend that support and opposition are not part of the CEC 7354 statute or CRP bylaws, ergo the other CCRP actions are not of consequence. 2) Claim that no official endorsement was made, again pretending as if Del Beccaro’s public statements as CRP Vice Chair don’t matter. 3) Unable to evade their own words, CCRP officers without contrition falsely proclaim they spoke as ‘private individuals’ merely exercising their First Amendment right or worse yet, whine and cry that the wee CCRP regular members who had the nerve to point out the above aren’t according proper ‘respect.’ The fallacy of either #1 and #2 as a ‘defense’ is self-evident from the aforementioned facts.    That Poulos, Del Beccaro, Caporusso and Sonaty (who all swore oaths, multiple times, in some cases, in the assumption of their offices) attempt to stand on #3 illustrates either a failure to understand, appreciate, abide by and uphold the law; or an arrogant belief that they are above it. Consider further, that that there is no mutual exclusivity between the reasons why Poulos, Del Beccaro, Caporusso and Sonaty have elected excuse #3.   They can be both ignorant and arrogant of the law.    They are certainly guilty of at least one, if not both.   By this, I stipulate that the actions of said CCRP and CRP officials are in fact, at least negligent, and almost certainly reckless.  The degree of willfulness and intention may not be 100% irrefutable at this point but the picture isn’t pretty for the integrity of the Republican Party.  We are supposed to be the party of higher standards. California has a long tradition against pre-primary selection/endorsement/support/ opposition of candidates by a party apparatus dating back to the 19th century.    The purpose of a primary election is that the People (or those with party affiliation/ preference) choose the candidate, and not a cloistered elite.    This practice was reinforced by an official opinion issued by Edmund G. Brown (Sr.) when he served as Attorney General.   This prohibition was again formalized to apply to all political parties in California by statute in 1963.   The courts---including the California Supreme Court in Unger v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco & Republican Party of California and the United States Supreme Court in Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Party---have reviewed and commented on the matter.   In the latter case, the USSC effectively reviewed the entire body of the California Election Code.  Portions of the CEC were vacated as unconstitutional by the USSC in 1989  but not the specific restrictions against pre-primary support, opposition, or endorsement of Republican candidates by the county and state central committees per CEC 7354. The key point that must be understood regarding the USSC’s Eu decision and CEC 7354 is that the statute’s restrictions imposed upon the county and state committees

originate from the Party, and not the State (i.e., the Government).    Because the nature of these restrictions is between private parties per their private Bylaws, and not imposed by the State upon private parties,  CEC 7354 is constitutional and therefore let to stand by the USSC.    This is a shining example of how, once upon a time and unlike the current insolvency, California was to be a leading example for the rest of the nation for better participation, level access for all-comers, open & fostered debate, and selfreflective governance.

FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES FOR BENEFIT OF ENTIRE PARTY Messrs. Poulos, Del Beccaro, Caporusso and Sonaty also have been acting contra the following CEC section: 7443. The committees shall perform any other duties and services for this political party as seem to be for the benefit of the party. Members of a county central committee may serve after the expiration date of their terms until the election and qualification of the new members replacing them on the county central committees.

Not for the benefit of certain individuals, nor for the benefit of subgroups within the party, but for The Party itself.  Meaning the Whole Party.   All of its Members.  All of its Candidates.    Not just for the benefit of David Harmer, or in the benefit for whomever may happen to be funding CCRP the most at a given time.  Other quid pro quo arrangements---such as Yvette Abreu’s resignation immediately after swearing in, Del Beccaro’s subsequently illegally filling Abreu’s vacancy with Poulos, and Abreu’s later reward (as a non-member) of appointments to three choice standing subcommittees---show that individual interests are placed above the Party’s. The Courts have also examined, upheld and praised the notions of section 7443 as well.   CCRP and CRP leadership are invited to reacquaint themselves with these principles and renderings. Before concluding, I must specifically address the corollary of Excuse #3  that CCRP Legal Counsel Steve Sonaty raised counter to my immediate objection to his command that I must fall in and, contrary to my own judgement, ‘get behind’ David Harmer’s candidacy.   Mr. Sonaty, without evidence or logical argument, claimed that I was somehow abridging his rights by standing up for myself.  The previous exposition has shown that the restriction on support, opposition or endorsement of candidates in the pre-primary stage comes not from me, any other individual, or the government but from the private organization, California Republican Party.  The California statute (CEC 7354) simply upholds the right of the CRP to impose such Bylaws.   The CRP membership is comprised from the respective county Republican central committees, who in turn created and approved the CRP bylaws to which the statute refers and by which the county central committees have agreed to abide.   The CCRP Bylaws acknowledge that our Hierarchy of Authorities places California Election Code first and above our own Bylaws.    Messrs. Poulos and Del Beccaro were among CCRP’s most recent (contested) delegation to the CRP state convention, so they should be wellacquainted with these facts.

FAILURE TO FILL COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN A LAWFUL MANNER

Mr. Sonaty has attempted to misdirect intra-CCRP discussion of his transgressions by mischaracterizing the dialog into an issue of personal ‘respect.’  Respect, indeed.   This is the same Steve Sonaty, who as CCRP Supervisorial District 2 Chair failed even to notify Virginia Fuller of vacancies within their shared district, nor bothered to solicit Ms. Fuller’s input.  Instead, Sonaty either filled vacancies by himself or in collusion with Tom Del Beccaro, the erstwhile other member from District 2, in June.   Either way, Sonaty neither gave proper notice of the vacancies nor properly solicited all interested Republicans residing in the district ---again, contrary to CCRP Bylaws.   I also assert the fact that Virginia Fuller is one of CCRP’s few female members. Ms. Fuller was denied both her 14th Amendment-guaranteed equal protection under law   and her 1st Amendment-guaranteed protection for speech by  Mr. Sonaty’s exclusion of her----denying not only her vote and her input, but Ms. Fuller’s very existence as a human being.   I personally will not accept or truck any further protestations, whining, nor prayers or ‘invocations’ from the self-righteous Mr. Sonaty.  The filling of CCRP vacancies is governed not only by our violated bylaws, but by California Election Code: 7409. In the event that the candidates elected to a committee from a district do not equal the number of party committeemembers to which that district is entitled to be represented, a vacancy or vacancies exist to the extent of the difference between the number of elected committeemembers and the number of committeemembers by which the district is entitled to be represented. When a vacancy or vacancies exist they shall be filled by the committee to which insufficient members were elected, in the manner provided for in Section 7410. 7410. In the event of the appointment or election to a committee of an ineligible person, or whenever any member of the committee dies, resigns or becomes incapacitated to act, or removes from the jurisdiction of the committee, or ceases to be a member of this party, a vacancy exists which shall be filled by appointment by the committee in which the ineligibility or vacancy occurs. A vacancy shall also exist on a committee when a member is removed from the committee pursuant to Section 7411 or 7413.

The statute requires that the vacancy be filled by the committee, not by the Supervisorial District Chairman alone, but by the committee.   Virginia Fuller is a District 2 Member and was purposefully excluded.   Steve Sonaty neglected his duties and broke the law.  The vacancies were not filled in a valid or lawful manner.

FAILURE TO FULFILL MANDATORY REMOVAL OF LAPSED AND INELIGIBLE MEMBER, TOM DEL BECCARO Furthermore: 7411. (a) Any member of a committee, other than an ex officio member, who misses four regularly called meetings within one 12-month period shall be removed from the committee concerned, unless his or her absence is caused by illness or temporary absence from the county

on the date of the meeting. (b) A committee may, in its sole discretion and in accordance with its bylaws, remove a member who misses four or more regularly called meetings within one 12-month period, regardless of the reasons for the absences. 354.

"Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.

Tom Del Beccaro has not attended any CCRP meetings since January 2009.   However, Mr. Del Beccaro has been present at the same venues immediately prior to CCRP meetings to run  ‘speaker series’ events conducted by his sole proprietorship, PoliticalVanguard.com.    (I assert ‘sole proprietorship’ because this business entity is not registered with the California Secretary of State as either a corporation or LLC).     Mr. Del Beccaro’s established practice is to run his business’s speaker event, then depart the premises prior to the start of CCRP business.     (The commingling of Mr. Del Beccaro’s self-promotion business and the subordination of CCRP interests will not be addressed here other than to note its utter incompatibility with CEC 7443, quoted above). As previously noted, CCRP’s Hierarchy of Authorities subordinates the CCRP Bylaws below the California Election Code.   Where both authorities address the same topic, such as member attendance and removal, the Election Code prevails.  Per CEC 7411, there are only two acceptable conditions for a Member to miss a meeting:  absence from the county or illness.   By Mr. Del Beccaro’s presence at the same venue minutes before the start of CCRP business, it is known that the first exception is not satisfied.   Likewise, Mr. Del Beccaro’s physical appearance on said occasions indicated perfect health.   Chairman Greg Poulos is not known to be a medical doctor and therefore is not qualified to assess Mr. Del Beccaro’s (or anyone’s) state of health,  nor to provide ‘EXCUSED’ absences from the Republican central committee meeting contrary to CEC 7411.   Therefore it is concluded that none of the absences characterized by Poulos as ‘EXCUSED’ have any meaning other than that said member was in fact absent.   Tom Del Beccaro has been absent five  consecutive meetings (Feb—June 2009).  Per CEC 7411, any member with four absences shall be removed from the committee.   Per CEC 354, shall is defined as mandatory.  Therefore, Tom Del Beccaro is not a member of the CCRP.       The aforementioned filling of District 2 vacancies, already illegal per the exposition above, are doubly illegal per the participation of a lapsed, former member, namely Tom Del Beccaro.  Therefore, the prior District 2 vacancies still exist and a new vacancy created by Mr. Del Beccaro’s mandatory removal now exists per CEC 7410. Respectfully submitted, Ted Hudacko Member, Contra Costa Republican Party 1st Supervisorial District