Maricopa County Republican Committee Bylaws Proposals & Recommendations for January 16, 2016 Meeting

Maricopa County Republican Committee

MCRC Bylaws Proposals & Recommendations

January 16, 2016 Mandatory Meeting

This is a summary of the many proposed amendments to the bylaws and the recommendation of your elected officers for your consideration.  It is expected that there will be 17 separate ballot questions for the various proposed amendments.  If an effort is made to vote en bloc, that is, one vote for all of the amendments, a NO vote is advised.

  

1.           Stylistic changes – this includes correction of punctuation, capitalization, conversion from the passive to the active tense, and other grammatical changes which do not materially alter the meaning of the language.  YES

2.          Replace current definitions – this primarily adds a few definitions and puts them in alphabetical order.  YES

3.          Add style sheet – this describes the preferred language, tense, and style for the proposed changes.  This is OK but really doesn’t belong as part of the official bylaws.  NO

4.          Article I.2  - Remove AZGOP reference.  This clarifies the wording of MCRC, as it relates to its description in ARS.  YES

5.           Article I.3  - Meetings Republican only.  This states that our meetings are not subject to AZ “open meetings” law, as are the meetings of governmental agencies.  This is implied, but not yet clearly stated in AZ statutes.  Compliance by LD23 (& other district committees) with the open meetings law is actually fairly difficult.  YES

6.          Article II.2.B  - PC’s term of office.  This attempts to redefine when a PCs term begins and ends.  Now, the term of a newly elected PC starts when the August election results are certified by the County Board of Supervisors, which is the practice in AZ.  New PCs are thus official in the last 2 months before the November election.  This proposed change would delay the start of the newly elected PCs term until the District Organizational Meeting, which occurs in November or early December, that is, after the November election is over.  NO

7.           Article II.2.C  - PCs appointed any time.  Current bylaws delayed the appointment of PCs to fill vacancies until after the MCRC meeting in January.  This was likely a carryover from times past when communication occurred by regular mail.  Now that electronic communication is almost immediate, there doesn’t seem to be a reason to have lag time for notification of the MCRC before the January meeting.  YES

8.          Article II.2.D  - PCs appointment process.  This proposal essentially provides a mechanism for the MCRC Chairman to fill a PC vacancy in a precinct without the involvement of the Precinct Captain or the District Chairman.  This is a “top-down” process, rather then the current “bottom-up” process.  NO

9.          Article II.3.D  - Precinct Captain removal.  This specifies that, in order to remove a Precinct Captain and elect a new Captain, the majority of PCs in a precinct must concur.  The current language was vague and potentially allowed a minority of PCs in a precinct to accomplish this.  YES

10.        Article II.4.C - Time limit to replace LD Chair.  This provides a time limit, attempting to prevent an inordinate delay when filling a vacancy in a District Chairman position.  YES

11.         Article II.4.D  - Time to LD Chair removal meeting.  Similar time limit to prevent delays in the process.  YES

12.        Article II.4.D  - Petitioning PCs pay.  This requires that the PCs in a District wishing to remove a Chairman pay for the expense of the special meeting for that purpose (preventing MCRC from covering that expense).  YES

13.        Article II.5  -  Time limit to replace other LD officers.  Similar time limit to prevent delays in filling vacancies.  YES

14.        Article II.6  -  Delete LD "resign to run" override.  This eliminates the statement that LD officers running for a non-paid political office need not resign from the LD office.  The bylaws contain no such requirement for a non-paid office, so stating that there is no requirement is thought to be redundant and unnecessary.  YES

15.        Article III.1.D  - Time limit to replace EGC officers.  Another attempt to prevent delays in filling vacancies.  YES

16.        Article IV.2 C  - Disallow voting credential handoff.  This was a very controversial issue at several meetings of the MCRC Bylaws Committee.  It has been common practice at MCRC meetings to allow a PC to pass off his/her credentials if he/she needs to leave.  As we know, the meetings sometimes get very long and many PCs have other legitimate obligations to work, family, etc.  This amendment would prevent PCs with those obligations which cause them to leave the meeting before its conclusion from having a vote.  NO

17.         Article VI.5.B. -  Remove non-R endorsement penalty.  Another very controversial issue.  This removes the penalty for a Republican PC who endorses a non-Republican candidate.  The question is whether a Republican PC should support a non-Republican while being a PC, versus the legal ramifications of removing a PC's MCRC voting rights for such activity.  NO.