Internal CR Politics Gets Heated Ahead of CA State Convention
A Townhall blog post, was passed to us today concerning the University of California San Diego College Republicans. Infighting at the UCSD club has been raging since last semester, we hadn’t reported on it until now because we thought it better to let them deal with their problems rather than drag them into the public. So, what’s up at UCSD?
Adam Brickley at The Brickyard, covers the UCSD infighting in a one sided and lengthy post this morning (read it for background). The story was also picked up here. The full story is not necessarily what’s relevant here, more important are the allegations of corruption and dirty tricks that Brickley levels at the CCR Executive Committee.
From what I can see, if the former Chair of UCSD CRs Dejah Stanley was actually impeached, the melt-down of UCSD CRs was caused by Inez Feltscher and her friends when they supported Dejah in illegitimately removing several officers from the UCSD operations website and pushing Megan Rodriguez out of the club apparently for vindictive personal reasons. It’s hard to discern, not having been there, whether Stanley was impeached or not. Allegedly the impeachment was a circus, attended by non-UCSD students and non-CRs, many of whom cast “provisional” ballots against impeachment. (Updated from reader comments) Even if the impeachement was indeed invalid, the club’s actions under Stanley and Feltscher were turned towards removing Rodriguez from the club completely and reconstructing the chapter.
Everything went downhill from there for the UCSD chapter, External Vice-Chair Megan Rodriguez, and Secretary Ronsen Yako were “kicked out” of the club at an impeachment meeting at which they were not present, the new leadership drafted a new constitution, and aimed their attentions at tarnishing Rodriguez’s name in public. Rodriguez and the ousted officers, no longer able to conduct business after being removed from the UCSD student organizations site by the impeached Dejah, decided to open a charter called “Triton College Republicans” with UCSD to continue the legitimate club–something that was no longer possible at the re-made club headed by Feltscher.
When both “College Republicans at UCSD” and “Triton College Republicans” submitted chartering documents with the State Federation, the Executive Committee was forced to make a decision on which group would be recognized for the next year. In a heated conference call held last Thursday, described by one CR present as a “shit show,” the Executive Committee invited both Rodriguez and Feltscher to present their cases. According to sources, Rodriguez was calm and composed, basing her case for chartering on the claim that theirs was the original club, only renamed by necessity after the club headed by Feltscher crumbled. Feltscher, on the other hand, repeatedly insulted the Executive Committee, claiming that they were corrupt and that the vote was unjust and unconstitutional–It was actually required constitutionally.
It happens that some of the members of the CCR Executive Committee are running on the Revolutionize CCR slate, including Rodriguez, while Feltscher and her group have endorsed their opponents, Red State Rising. What this has to do with the outcome of the vote is beyond me, unless you’re prone to conspiracy theories.
The Chairwoman of CCR abstained from voting, as did RevCCR candidate Michael Antonopoulos, Ms. Rodriguez and the CCR Secretary. Triton CRs was chosen to be recognized in a 6-1 vote. The one vote for Feltscher was from Executive Committee member Ryan McNicholas, who read a prepared statement calling the vote unjust before voting.
It is unfortunate that the decision had to be made, and that UCSD had such a terrible internal struggle, but it happens, and everyone should try to move on for the good of their clubs and in the interest of working together across the state.
Just received a statement from Cheyenne Steel, Chairwoman of CCR:
It has come to my attention that several political blogs have taken interest in recent events that have transpired within the UCSD College Republicans and the California College Republicans. The statements made in these blogs, fed by a group of disenfranchised opportunists, are inaccurate and substantially misrepresent the situation. The decision of the California College Republicans Executive Committee with regard to the UCSD College Republicans was made out of
constitutional necessity and done so without bias or personal interest. Two clubs, each accredited and claiming the distinction that they were the legitimately chartered College Republican chapter at the university, submitted information for credentialing at our annual Convention.After hearing accounts from representatives of both clubs, a vote took place to determine which club would assume the chartering expiring at the upcoming annual Convention. No chapters were un-chartered, and no one removed from the organization. The vote was simply to determine which club was the rightful owner of the original UCSD charter based on the facts presented and the actions of those involved. We clarified to everyone on the call that all parties involved were still invited to Convention and all discounts and privileges would be honored.
The impact, if any, the situation has on the designation of delegates from UCSD for Convention is a matter of internal discretion within the club. I am extremely disappointed in the actions taken by those unsatisfied with the decision and strongly encourage those involved to work together to resolve the situation internally.
UCSD College Republicans posted a statement on their website regarding the CCR decision.
Dana Report Store
22 comments
I’ve known Adam for a long time and his last name is Brickley not Brinkley
I think you guys should change your little phrase, “getting it right.” As far as CR politics are concerned its very hard to not be one sided when you have endorsed one of the slates running.
As opposed to Mr. Brickley, who was clearly the most unbiased source in media history. Seems to me Alan offers some basic logic, cause and effect, and whether you accept the premises dictates what conclusions you accept. I’d read both articles and evaluate which seems more based in fact and which more in emotion.
I think this decision was as unbiased possible. Every single member of the Executive Board is either running or had endorsed one of the slates at some point, but then again so has nearly everyone in the state. In a room of people who have all taken sides I would think that the leaders would be best suited to stand back and honestly evaluate a situation.
And so begins the “We need to somehow justify getting our ass kicked in the election” campaign.
The CCR executive board has a habit of removing members who don’t share their points of view such Joseph Ostunio former Communications Director. Joseph Ostunio was removed for trying to help stop UCSD from being lynched so that their delegates could go to the Executive Committee’s candidates.
Good article. I appreciate the unwillingness to commit to either side given that Alan was not there. However, I feel like this entire article was written from perspective of this clause:
“if the former Chair of UCSD CRs Dejah Stanley was actually impeached, the melt-down of UCSD CRs was caused by Inez Feltscher and her friends”
Alan never explores the possibility that this “if” clause may be false. Obviously, adjusting this fact would lead to an entirely different conclusion. If the impeachment failed, as many not very involved in the club at the time (like myself) witnessed, then the legitimacy of the impeachment of Rodriguez must stand. I don’t have any prior ties to the club, nor any vendetta, but it seems to me that the two sides have to completely different recollections of the facts of the case.
In the American judicial system, establishing facts is done by a random jury of peers, not a panel of judges. It’s not a conspiracy theory to suggest that bias may play a part in the recent decision.
For arguments and evidence of UCSD’s legitimacy, please go here:
http://gop.ucsd.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44:constitutionality-and-legitimacy&catid=18:constitutional-legitimacy-by-inez-feltscher&Itemid=20
Josh House makes amazing points. Join the Support UCSD crs facebook group.
I think that anyone who attended Dejah’s attempted impeachment can and witnessed all of the votes being counted can certainly attest to the fact that Dejah was NOT impeached. There should be no question about that.
Josh House, great observation. Alan approached his article from the assumption that the “if” in Dejah’s impeachment was true, Brickley approached his article under the assumption that the “if” in Dejah’s impeachment was untrue. The entire problem stems from a dispute in the true facts, and the problem as I see it really comes down to behavior. One side says they have more witnesses that the vote failed, the other side says provisional ballots were cast and non-UCSD college republicans present. Either way both sides have huge credibility problems! The issue as I see it is that both sides admit to that second part, which never should have been allowed, and that no one can ever know what truly happened at that vote, so the best anyone can due is judge the actions of the parties involved to establish credibility. With that said, the behavior of the Inez led club has been disgusting. You seem to blame Rodriguez for everything, from voting totals and emails to bank accounts, yet admit she never had control over any of these. You paint her as a giant puppet master. After several of your officers called for Dejah’s impeachment the remaining officers eventually agreed, shortly before calling for Rodriguez’s resignation, buy ultimately why if this wasn’t based in personal vendetta? As far as Joseph Ostunio, didn’t the events in question transpire long before any candidates had even announced? I thought the Chairwoman dismissed Ostunio, who UCSD administrators have admitted was never even enrolled in UCSD and has since been banned from the campus for attending classes Rodriguez was enrolled in without registering, for repeatedly interfering in a club as a state board member.
Inez, word is you opened the conference call where this vote was made by calling the executive committee corrupt and ended by saying that your entire year was invalid because no meetings were ever called with 2 days notice. That’s like opening a trial by flipping off the jury.
New post #tcot: Internal CR Politics Gets Heated Ahead of CA State Convention: A Townhall blog po.. http://tinyurl.com/cyllqo
While all of the background who-did-what-to-who and who’s right y’all is interesting and debatable, what does this have to do with CCR? It looks like the executive board was forced to make an uncomfortable decision in choosing one club to charter, and from all of the discussion I’ve read, it looks like they chose triton in good faith. The bickering just makes everyone angry. Move on!
With that said, the behavior of the Inez led club has been disgusting. You seem to blame Rodriguez for everything, from voting totals and emails to bank accounts, yet admit she never had control over any of these. You paint her as a giant puppet master.
Where do the UCSD CRs “admit she never had control over any of these”? (Unless you’re using a uselessly narrow definition of “control”.) There is an ongoing police investigation regarding the bank accounts, with an associated paper trail. And the claim that everything hinges on the impeachment vote is false — see UCSD Argument #4.
I have yet to see any valid counter to Argument #4. Combine this with the failure of Matthew Dobler to reply to my request for information about the decision (sent on Friday), and I at least have to conclude that our current Executive Committee is not behaving responsibly.
While all of the background who-did-what-to-who and who’s right y’all is interesting and debatable, what does this have to do with CCR? It looks like the executive board was forced to make an uncomfortable decision in choosing one club to charter, and from all of the discussion I’ve read, it looks like they chose triton in good faith. The bickering just makes everyone angry. Move on!
All my firsthand observation indicates that “College Republicans at UCSD” has a far larger active membership than “Triton College Republicans”. Also, the “Triton College Republicans” constitution does not allow members to freely transfer to it from “College Republicans at UCSD” to get their vote counted at CCR. Combine these two, and you don’t have an “uncomfortable decision”, you have straight out disenfranchisement of roughly 10% of the total CCR vote. ~20% of the opposition, in a close vote. So this has everything to do with CCR.
Chris,
Statement from Matthew Dobler: http://www.collegegop.org/
Your statement about the bank account seems to prove that point. Was Megan ever listed on the account? Did she ever have access to it? On some blogs your fellow members admit that someone else was responsible for the discrepancy with the account (with removals, etc). I was told that Inez was questioned on the ExComm call about the claims of voter fraud after stating that Megan committed this fraud in an email, but stumbled after being questioned about whether or not someone else actually sent the email she was being blamed for. The definition of control I was using was the one from the dictionary.
As far as argument 4, I thought the following meeting had nominations for replacement Chair, because there is not automatic replacement. Was that before or after the officers who supported impeachment were removed from your club site? If you look at argument 4 and accept the impeachment as true than Inez should have been more worried about why an impeached officer was removing legitimate officers as principle members and holding an election meeting the next week, rather than waiting the weeks in limbo to hold mock impeachments.
Chris, How do you have any idea how much these clubs represent of the state? 10% total and 20% for RSR also implies mathematically that RSR is looming around 50% of the vote, so if we are guessing numbers here I’d guess that RSR would have achieved less than 18.63% of the total vote, even with Inez’s UCSD votes, depending on turnout.
GRJ:
Statement from Matthew Dobler: http://www.collegegop.org/
That’s what prompted my email to him in the first place, since he listed himself as the contact for questions about the meeting or decision. I asked him for concrete evidence that the decision was, in fact, made “without prejudice or personal interest”, and gave him flexibility in choosing the form of this evidence. Again, he did not reply to this email.
As far as argument 4, I thought the following meeting had nominations for replacement Chair, because there is not automatic replacement. Was that before or after the officers who supported impeachment were removed from your club site? If you look at argument 4 and accept the impeachment as true than Inez should have been more worried about why an impeached officer was removing legitimate officers as principle members and holding an election meeting the next week, rather than waiting the weeks in limbo to hold mock impeachments.
An entire month passed between the vote on Dejah’s impeachment and the vote on Megan and Ronsen’s impeachments. Explain to me what could possibly justify Megan not talking to Inez during that period, assuming Dejah’s impeachment was valid. I personally saw Inez try to contact Megan.
Chris, How do you have any idea how much these clubs represent of the state? 10% total and 20% for RSR also implies mathematically that RSR is looming around 50% of the vote, so if we are guessing numbers here I’d guess that RSR would have achieved less than 18.63% of the total vote, even with Inez’s UCSD votes, depending on turnout.
First of all, my ~20% figure was conditional on “a close vote”. If, instead, RSR is instead hopelessly behind, 10% of the whole would actually represent a lot MORE than 20% of the opposition, though this point would be academic.
The “10% of the whole” estimate is based on what I know about recent CCR elections and the expected size of this year’s “College Republicans at UCSD” delegation.
I have no idea what hat you’re pulling the “18.63%” number out of. The inclusion of digits after the decimal point, when there is no precedent for polls achieving that degree of reliability, suggests total ignorance of statistics and the concept of “significant figures”.
Any attempt to paint me as some kind of vigilante with a personal vendetta against Megan is completely false. When this conflict started, I was the one who took the initiative to sit everybody down in one room and try to work it out (Donnellan, you were there). At that time, and for the next few weeks, I remained neutral and my decisions were only made for the good of the club. For the good of peace in the club, I encouraged Dejah to resign, and for the same reason, when the club members were angry about her actions, I encouraged Megan to resign. I called Megan at LEAST 8 times between Dejah’s “impeachment meeting” and her own impeachment. In that meeting, I called her again, on camera. None of my calls were ever picked up or returned.
Ultimately, I “chose a side” because of lack of good faith attempts to communicate from Megan, and, as Donnellan can again attest to, since I talked to him about it, because I did not like Megan’s ideas about how our student organization’s purpose was to be a “satellite to the Republican Party.” I believe we are, and should be, an independent student organization of like-minded people.
I did everything possible that I could think of to resolve this in a private and reasonable way. I called everyone involved. I appealed to Cheyenne early on to mediate. I went to the University mediation. Even as late as February, I begged Megan, through Donnellan (because he would still talk to me), to sit down and actually talk to me and work this out. I do not hate Megan. I do not hate Leigh. Their, and others’, principal beef with me seems to be that I will not allow my club members to be threatened and pushed around according what is most politically expedient.
I’m intrigued that Inez is able to defend and explain her actions, yet Megan is nowhere to be found to explain her side and her actions. I, for one, would really love to hear this explanation.
Inez has, without a doubt, been the most cautious, conscientious, and fair-minded person involved in this conflict. She stepped into the leadership position not because she is ambitious and not even because she particularly wanted to–but because she saw the need of a club on its knees. The actions of Inez and her leadership board (of which I am part) have only been and continue to be for the purpose of maintaining the health and well-being of UCSD CR’s, whose operations have been unjustly undermined by a selfish few (you know who you are).
The stress that they have put on this club and the hurt they have done to our ability to further conservative values on campus by undercutting our membership and funds is beyond deplorable, it is quite literally criminal. Their actions leave little room for them to protest to altruistic motives. It is they, and those members of the standing CCR board who have sided with them, whose behavior has been “disgusting.” Not the people who are trying to pick up the pieces.
Posted the following originally on Adam Brickley’s page.
“My name is Michael Knudsen. I’m a recent UCSD College Republican alumni.
Here’s what I see, as an alumni.
The CCR Executive Board has given me, and every single solitary UCSD CR alumni, the finger.
You have told us that a 23 year old organization…does not matter.
Nor does anyone now or previously involved in that organization.
http://tinyurl.com/cdscog
For the record, that again is the (now former) UCSD College Republican official response to the board vote.
Of course, in politics, one can’t always be certain what the meaning of the word “is” is.
So, apparently, one side’s de-chartering is another side’s misunderstanding from “disenfranchised opportunists.”
(Just as an aside, I thought, as Republicans, disenfranchising people wasn’t our thing?)
http://tinyurl.com/d2nudo
“No chapters were un-chartered, and no one removed from the organization. The vote was simply to determine which club was the rightful owner of the original UCSD charter based on the facts presented and the actions of those involved.”
Ok…So, if one club is deemed to be the rightful owner of the original UCSD Charter, which the Exec Board said now belongs to the Triton College Republicans (with their proud 50 day old history)…just where, pray tell, does that leave the original UCSD CRs?
The original UCSD Charter, which once belonged to them, now, does not.
“Oh, you weren’t un-chartered, guys. You just don’t have your charter anymore. Get it?”
And how, pray tell, are alumni supposed to feel about this?
Taking a step back from the entire sorry affair that got us here, what has happened?
Based on the events with ONE class, the Executive Board has summarily dismissed ALL twenty plus years that came before.
By all means, explain to me why this should not be a big deal to alumni. You know, the people who built and made UCSD CRs into an active and successful chapter for two decades.
Explain to me why one of my best friends, Mark Mendoza, who had a fantastic year as UCSD CR Chair, should not care about the Executive Board’s vote. Explain to me how this in no way negates his work, and the work of all the other UCSD CR Chairs. Explain to me why Inez shouldn’t care about this.
For that matter, tell me what you have to say to those 500+ individuals who are on the UCSD CR mailing list.
Explain to me how your statement to them does NOT go something like this: “Hey, thanks for your involvement and interest in the College Republicans.
Now piss off. You don’t matter.”
Two plus two is easy math.
In that same vein, it sure looks like there just might have been just a teeny tiny conflict of interest with this board vote.
I mean, what do I know, right? I’m just a dumb UCSD alumni who doesn’t matter, and I just don’t know what I’m talking about, right?
This decision couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with eliminating opposition votes, and anyone who disagrees is obviously listening to that “sniveling weasel” Alec Weisman.
As an alumni, and more importantly, as a friend of Alec’s, how the hell am I supposed to take that?
How do you, Mr. Wolf, think that comes across not just to alumni, but to outside observers of this matter?
How are they supposed to take this: “Yes Matt Schenk it is a threat.”
You know, when you say that something IS a THREAT, you might not want to act surprised when it is taken as such. Even if you follow with saying that you will “only” embarrass someone, it’s pretty hard not to fixate on the acknowledgment that what you just said was INTENDED to be threatening.
And I’m just wondering, is all this honestly your idea of a mature, reasonable way to resolve this matter?
So you’re pissed that Alec and the UCSD CRs aired out dirty laundry in front of visitors.
Issuing publicly viewable slurs, harassment, and threats is OBVIOUSLY the best way to show that you know how to resolve a crisis. Way to be a better man. Way to show the world how CCR solves its problems. Threats, insults, and intimidation. Truly, that’s an inspiration to the Republican Party.
But I digress.
Back to what I see.
I see a good friend of mine threatened and degraded. Friends of mine, really, including all the current UCSD CRs.
I see an Executive Board flipping off anyone who has ever been involved in UCSD CRs. I see them deciding that an upstart “club” that doesn’t even meet matters more than a 23 year old organization.
I see them siding with individuals who, it seems pretty damned clear, tried to manipulate matters within UCSD CRs to get their way. Worse, they lied to UCSD CR members to try and force the issue on Dejah’s impeachment.
Last I checked, there was a word for that. Starts with “C”, rhymes with “eruption.”
I see my friends and former CR mates trying to exist as a club and move past the strife of this past year, only to be greeted with more threats, intimidation (they’ll never work in politics again), and now, disbarment, because these “Triton Republicans” who didn’t get what they wanted before, through outright lies and deceit, have some friends in high places.
The “Triton Republicans” didn’t get Dejah Stanley kicked out as Chair before, so now, they’re taking the ball home, making their own club…and you just gave them our charter. MY charter.
So really, aside from reminding us that we’re all stupid friends of the sniveling weasel Alex “Wiseman,” do you have anything else to tell CR Alumni? Care to explain how proud CCR is of its actions? I sure as hell hope you are.
I know this much.
If this action is not reversed, and the original charter is not returned to the UCSD CRs, I will make sure to tell my children not to ever bother becoming California College Republicans.
I will tell them that the organization is a waste of their time. I will tell them that it not only tolerates infighting, it picks sides when it suits those in power.
I will tell my children that there is no point in them devoting their passion and their energy to such an outfit. It will only bring them disillusionment and despair. They won’t spend their time actually fighting for what they believe in.
They’ll spend time fighting amongst themselves, and the Executive Board will pick who wins. They won’t actually be mature adults and solve the problem. Oh, and if my kids are on the wrong side, they’ll all be a bunch of sniveling weasels.
My kids deserve better. “
Leave a Comment