A "Wireside Chat" from Chairman Adam Puharic Update 01/15/2007
Dear fellow Republicans:
Over the weekend, I’ve received a large number of calls and emails offering support and encouragement for our decision to reform the candidate selection process and re-introduce a screening committee that has been in place, in one form or another, for the winning part of the last 20 years. I am grateful for the positive energy and messages of praise. Please keep it up, as it is the only salary I draw from this position.
I’ve also received three emails by critics. So in the hopes of clarifying any part of the process that may be murky, I’d like to take a few moments of your time to expand upon the screening process for the 2007 general election:
1. This only applies to the 2007 election. There will be revisions to the process, based on your input, before we re-apply the process for 2008. My intention is to take the amended candidate selection resolution, along with the outline of the party organization we have put in place, and create bylaws to submit for committee input at the conclusion of my first term. But please know that bylaws are secondary to winning elections. Winning in 2007 must come first. There are many democrat-controlled counties with strong Republican bylaws.
2. The County Committee has all of the authority it always had. There will be a convention, and committee members will chose the candidates who represent them. The role of the screen is to do the homework so the committee has only qualified choices before it. The role of the committee is to choose the candidate.
3. The screening committee is not a representational body, it is an executive body. Our great nation has worked very well with a strong executive branch, and a deliberative body (the Congress) to act upon the leadership mandate. Our Republican committee should work the same way. The screening committee is made up of chairs, elected officials, and my executive board members. It is divided roughly equally among the three groups. No one owns this vote.
4. There is no secret behind the membership of the committee. I was not able to reveal it until all of the members were contacted, and consented to participate. Truth be told, I had a five-year old birthday party on Saturday that prevented me from sending this email over the weekend, but such is the life of this Chairman.
The screening committee membership is:
Chairman Sal Alfieri
Chairman Tom Apostle
Freeholder Director Bill Barham
Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck
Chairman Michael Borg
Freeholder Lillian Burry
Political Whip John Cantalupo
Chairman Peter Carton
Second Vice Chair Caroline Casagrande
Chairman Rick DeNoia
SERC Chair, Tom DeSeno
County Clerk Claire French
Leadership Council Chair Tom Gagliano
Vice Chair Molly Giamanco
Assemblywoman Amy Handlin
Assemblyman Sean Kean
Chairman Norine Kelly
Senator Joe Kyrillos
Finance Chair Andrew Lucas
Moderator, Council of Chairs Steve McEnery
Chairman Bob McKenna
Rosemarie Peters
Legal Council Michael Supko
The Chairman (votes to break a tie)
5. All incumbents will screen. I am especially proud of County Clerk Claire French, Assemblyman Sean Kean, and Senator Kyrillos – who all voiced vocal support for submitting before this committee.
6. I am grateful for Assemblyman Thompson’s council on this policy. He has been extremely helpful, with his prior experience as the Middlesex County Chair, in pointing out ways to improve this process going forward. His recommendations will help to create an improved plan for this and future elections.
I hope this answers some questions. Now, I have two questions for all of you:
1. Will you please forward the names of four municipal chairs from each legislative district who will join the screening committee for their respective potential assembly and senate candidates? I will wait to hear from you before deciding.
2. When you learned about this plan, was your first instinct to trust that if was done in the best interest of the party, or was it to cast dispersions and be negative? Where you sit on this point goes a long way to describing who you are.
Thanks for giving me a few moments to better explain the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Puharic, Chairman
Monmouth County Republican Party
www.MonmouthRepublican.org
info@MonmouthRepublican.org
732.431.6664
Posts
9 comments:
Chairman Peter Carton
>
>
>
Chairman Norine Kelly
That was expected.
I am pleased to see that Adam released the list of screening committee members.
His explanation for the delay, that he "was not able to reveal it until all of the members were contacted, and consented to participate" does not really reconcile with his Januaray 11 announcement of an unanimous vote by the committee that all seats were open and that all incumbents must screen.
Noticeably absent from the list are incumbents:
Sheriff Joe Oxley
Freeholder Rob Clifton
Freeholder Anna Little
Why are these three incumbents the only ones who's seats are up this year not on the screening committee?
Adam says that "The role of the screen is to do the homework so the committee has only qualified choices before it."
If that is the case, why are incumbents subject screening? Is this to say that we have potentially unqualified Republicans, all of who have previously nominated and elected, currently serving? If this committee determines that an incumbent is unqualified, does that make it so?
Let me be clear. I have no problem with incumbents being challenged, for cause or not. That is an important part of the democratic process.
My problem is with a handpicked group having the power to deny an incumbent the party nomination without the County Committee's consent. The potential for retribution for past disagreements and/or failing to follow marching orders is too great.
And what defines "qualified"?
Joe Azzolina is clearing qualified to be either a State Senator or Assembly Member, having served in both offices with distinction. If Azzolina were to challenge either Joe Kryillos or Amy Handlin, is there any chance that this screening committee would send his candidacy on to the convention? I think not.
Adam asks, "When you learned about this plan, was your first instinct to trust that if was done in the best interest of the party, or was it to cast dispersions and be negative? Where you sit on this point goes a long way to describing who you are."
I ask, are those the only options?
To his credit, Adam has by his own admission refined and clarified the process based on input his has received from elected officials and three emails.
When I first heard about this plan I was disappointed because I favor a more open process. Rather than be negative and cast dispersions, I asked questions and shared concerns, with the intent of improving the process. Adam has been remarkably responsive, even though I wasn't in his meetings, nor did I email him.
I still have serious concerns. Denying an incumbent the opportunity to stand before a County Committee convention has torn our party apart before, and it could again. While there is no certainty that any incumbents would not pass a screen, the potential is there, and it is a dangerous possibility that the press and the Democrats could have a field day with.
For unity sake and the good of the party, I recommend that all incumbents get a bye to the convention. They could still meet with the screening committee for the purpose of clarifying positions and/or addressing concerns about their electability.
While I would favor a petition system to allow challengers on a convention ballot over a screening committee, I don't think having a screening committee deny a challenger a place on a convention ballot has the same potential to cause strife in the party as denying a convention spot to an incumbent would.
Does this go a long way to saying who I am?
Honest Abe said...
Chairman Peter Carton
>
>
>
Chairman Norine Kelly
That was expected.
and appropriate, as they are Chairs for the largest municipalities in the county.
Noticeably absent from the list are incumbents:
Sheriff Joe Oxley
Freeholder Rob Clifton
Freeholder Anna Little
Why are these three incumbents the only ones who's seats are up this year not on the screening committee?
Adam was an undersheriff in Joe Oxley's office. Perhaps, Oxley declined to serve on the committee?
I don't know Adam's reasons for excluding 50% of the Republican freeholders, as well as 2/3 of the 11th District delegation (Joe Palaia and Steve
Corodemus), unless it is because they are retiring. As far as I know, both Rob and Anna intend to run.
It could also be because "the screening committee is made up of chairs, elected officials, and my executive board members. It is divided roughly equally among the three groups." It may simply be to maintain "rough equality."
So far, Adam has been pretty good about providing information about this process, although there are obviously some bugs. I would hope he will be forthcoming with more information in the upcoming week.
I have to say already adam has done a wonderful job with this process. It is something new for the county orginzation and so far I think on a whole is getting a positive response. Much better than the days when we had Fred or Bill around.
2 points
1. Elected members of the county committee are not able to distinguish between qualified and unqualified candidates?
2. Bill, Elected officials should get a pass?
No way.
Anyone who thinks they are qualified wether an elected official or not should have the chance and obligation to appear before the committee and seek their endorsement.
If elected officials get a pass it makes it harder to clean our own house.
By the way I do not think that to appear in front of the committee you should have to promise to not run in a primary.
As with most things competion improves the candidates and the elected officials.
TR,
I think we are in agreement, but perhaps I was not clear. My position is that incumbents get a pass to not from the convention ballot.
I think it is very dangerous to empower a select screening committee to withhold the party's endorsement from an incumbent. It reeks of what the Asbury Park Press is already accusing us of. If we continue on this course, the Dems and the APP have a ready made issue against us in November.
If an incumbent is to be challenged, let it be a real challenge, complete with a campaign culminating with the convention ballot.
Recent events have made it very clear that there are powerful people in our party, some of whom are on the screening committee, who want to replace one, if not both of our incumbent Freeholders who's seats are up this year.
Both Anna and Rob "defied marching orders" when they voted against the reappointment of Malcolm Carton. Anna defied two different Chairmen when she returned PAC money. Rob return PAC money himself, though not during his own campaign.
Anna has been subject to a baseless character assassination. There has been a whisper campaign about Rob's electablity, with some in the party discretely seeking candidates to oppose him at the convention or in a primary.
Now, both of them are conspicuous by their absence from the screening committee. If either of them are denied the opportunity to be voted up or down by the county convention committee, it will look like retribution for their independent actions. Their respective supporters in the party will be angry and act accordingly.
If they are both given the opportunity to appear on the convention ballot, I fully expect that they will both be challenged. There are already at least four names being floated as possible candidates.
What's the harm in letting that happen? Let's have a fair and open race.
Do any of the steering committee members hold county appointments or contracts?
If so, would that influence their vote?
Honest Abe said...
Do any of the steering committee members hold county appointments or contracts?
I don't know, but it would be good to know.
If so, would that influence their vote?
Of course it would.
Even if there are no conflicts with vendors or contractors, Bill and Lillian's presence on the committee presents a conflict that the Dems and the APP could and should exploit.
If Rob and Anna pass the screen, it looks like they made deals to save their necks. If they don't, it makes the new nominees look like puppets.
The more I look at this screening committee, as constructed, the less I like it.
Post a Comment