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 self-
reflective 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 well-
acquainted 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