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.
