Send this page to a friend -- Email the Editor

BY DAVID SINCLAIR: Managing Editor

First of Three Parts

Sitting behind the desk in his legislative office in Raleigh, state House Co-Speaker Richard Morgan looks at a collection of framed photographs on a bookshelf.

There are pictures of him with such Republican stalwarts as former President Reagan, the first President Bush and Sen. Jesse Helms. There is one of his wife, Cindy, with first lady Laura Bush.

Morgan wonders aloud how anyone can question his loyalty to the Republican Party. He says he spent 30 years of his life building up the party and has raised millions of dollars to help get Republicans elected to the legislature.

“I don’t know of anyone who has the standing to challenge my Republican credentials,” says Morgan, the highest-ranking Republican in North Carolina.

But many of his fellow party members are doing just that.

A resolution seeking Morgan’s ouster from the state GOP’s Executive Committee for disloyalty to the party, pushed by a group of party activists, is making waves. It accuses Morgan of hurting the party through the deal he cut with Democrats to become co-speaker — and through his support of what organizers call an unconstitutional redistricting plan and higher taxes.

Republicans in Mecklenburg and Forsyth counties overwhelmingly passed the resolution at their county conventions earlier this year. Last week, Wake County Republicans followed suit at their convention.

‘He Sold Us Out’

Morgan got his first taste of power in 1995, while serving as chairman of the powerful Rules Committee under Republican Rep. Harold Brubaker, then speaker of the House. Morgan gained a reputation for ruling with an iron fist when it came to controlling the flow the legislation, angering many Democrats in the process.

But now some of his colleagues on his side of the aisle accuse Morgan of turning on them.

Morgan chalks up most of the antagonism toward him to little more than sour grapes on the part of “a few people who did not get their way,” referring to his election as co-speaker last February. He beat out the party’s presumptive candidate for speaker, longtime political enemy Rep. Leo Daughtry, by engineering a power-sharing deal with the Democrats. He and Rep. Jim Black, a Mecklenburg County Democrat, became the first-ever co-speakers of the House.

They worked out the arrangement because of a 60-60 deadlock between Republicans and Democrats. Some Republican House members were outraged by what they called an act of betrayal by Morgan.

“He sold us out for his own personal gain,” says Rep. John Blust of Guilford County, a vocal critic of Morgan. “It is like a quarterback on a football team not liking the coach, so he goes out and intentionally throws an interception. Richard didn’t like who was chosen (for speaker by the party caucus). We won a majority at the ballot box, and he gave it away.”

A majority of Republicans backed Rep. George Holmes, who became the caucus nominee when Daughtry stepped aside in an effort to win Morgan over.

Morgan and four of his allies forged a deal with Black. It gave Democrats sole chairmanship of the Rule Committee.

“That was the most important one,” Blust says. “They would have the power to kill any bill they didn’t like, and they did.

‘The Man in Charge’

By the time the final vote was taken during the stormy opening days of the 2003 session, a number of other Republicans had jumped on the bandwagon to support the power-sharing arrangement.

Rep. Julia Howard of Davie County, one of the four Republicans who aligned with Morgan, says it was the other side, the Republicans supporting Holmes as the caucus nominee for speaker, who wanted to give away the power. Their deal would have made Holmes speaker pro tem, she says.

“The man who holds the gavel is the man in charge,” she says. “Nothing else matters. Once that deal is cut, you have no power. This gave us a share of the power.”

Howard says it is unfair that some are now accusing Morgan of being disloyal.

“I’m sorry they’re doing this,” she says. “It’s just a handful of people. That is very unfortunate.”

Not everyone in the party agrees with Howard’s assessment.

At the state GOP convention last summer in Charlotte, delegates passed a resolution condemning Morgan and his band of supporters for “betrayal” in cutting the deal with the Democrats.

Morgan, a cattle farmer and seven-term legislator, says he is not worried by this latest resolution seeking his removal from the 500-member state party executive committee. He says he is more focused on preparing for upcoming short session in May and the important issues facing the state.

“This is not what is important to the Republican Party and the people of the state,” he says. “They aren’t interested in this political squabbling, and neither am I.

“I remain confident that the vast majority of Republicans in Wake County and North Carolina have no interest in this kind of activity. I will not let myself be distracted by a political sideshow that I think is orchestrated by handful of self-serving people who happen to be registered Republican.”

Morgan says it is a small group of people who criticize him publicly, and that most of their complaints center on how operates.

“It’s not a few disgruntled people,” says Marilyn Avila, chairwoman of the Wake County Republican Party. “He’s got a serious problem.”

John Aneralla, chairman of the Mecklenburg County Republican Party, agrees with Avila.

“We thought we won a majority in the House last year, and it was stolen from us twice,” he says. “We felt a lot of work was taken from us.”

But Robin Wilson of Asheville, chairwoman of the Buncombe County Republican Party, thinks the attacks on Morgan are off target and a waste of time and energy.

“I think he is an excellent representative and has contributed more and longer than any of these people seeking his removal,” she says. “I think they’ve lied and misled people. They just seem like sore losers to me. This is nothing but petty jealousy. I hate it. I wish we could get on with moving forward. We need to be working on beating Democrats, not turning on ourselves.”

‘Wants to Call Shots’

Morgan is also at odds with leaders of his own party over the redistricting plan enacted by the General Assembly in November. The state GOP opposes the plan, contending that it is unconstitutional because it splits too many counties.

Some party activists believe the plan is designed more to protect incumbents — and to preserve the even division of Republicans and Democrats in the House, which would in effect allow Morgan to maintain his grip on power. A neutral plan, they contend, could enable Republicans to gain an even larger majority and evict Morgan from his post.

“He doesn’t want that,” Blust says. “He wants to be the one calling all of the shots.”

Ferrell Blount, chairman of the state Republican Party and one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the state over the redistricting plan, publicly chided Morgan in late December for his support of the plan.

Blount issued a statement saying that the state party “has been clear and unequivocal in its position” on redistricting. He said the state party had been consistent in asking for a “level playing field” when it comes to drawing up neutral districts that protect the community’s interest and respects traditional government boundaries.

“I would simply suggest that Speaker Morgan look to his left and look to his right and see with whom he is standing,” Blount said in December. “The Repub-lican Party, its leadership and its members, support constitutional redistricting. We have yet to see such an animal emerge from the legislature.”

Blust said many lawmakers did not see the state maps until moments before the special session on redistricting convened the Tuesday before Thanksgiv-ing, although some in Morgan’s inner circle were allowed to see their districts. Blount said there was no debate and no amendments were allowed on the floor of the House.

Morgan defended the redistricting plan, pointing out that a majority of Republicans in the House voted in favor of it. The U.S. Justice Department also cleared the plan, he said.

He shrugged off what he called a “light scolding” by Blount in December and even went on the offensive, saying that for many of the 30 years he has worked to build up the Republican Party in North Carolina, Blount was a Democrat.

Long-Term Damage?

Blount declined to weigh in about the resolution seeking to remove Morgan from the state executive committee, which could be taken up in May during party’s convention in Greens-boro.

“This is pretty much a sign of the growing pains in the Republican Party,” Blount said last week. “This is part of the dynamics of the system. We’re a big-tent party. There is going to be debate and challenges for leadership.”

An apparently growing number of activist and party insiders are worried that Morgan is doing long-term damage to the party by distracting from the ultimate goal: beating the Democrats.

“We need to show our displeasure,” says Judy Keener of Wake County, who is vice chairwoman of the 13th Congressional District

She launched a petition drive asking that the state executive committee find Morgan “culpable of disloyalty” shortly after the General Assembly convened for the special session on redistricting in November. She says many grassroots party activists were unhappy with the way the leadership pushed through the plan.

“A couple of us decided we had to do something,” she says. “They pulled this horribly dirty trick. All we want is a constitutional plan. If we do, we’ll probably win a majority of the seats.”

Blust agrees.

“He (Morgan) doesn’t want to see us win 70 seats,” he says. “If we do, he is out of power. He controls Republican patronage. I am one of the ones who lost my secretary. He uses his power ruthlessly. You’d better play ball with him. He goes after people who oppose him.”

Several House members lost their full-time secretaries during the time in between sessions. Morgan says it was a cost-cutting measure. But his critics are quick to point out that Morgan spent lavishly on his 2,220-square-foot office suite and has a staff of aids.

‘Intent on Punishing’

Daughtry says that after the smoke had cleared about the election for speaker, Morgan could have reached out and worked with the representatives who opposed him. In time, he says, many of them, including Daughtry himself, could have come together.

“Richard was just intent on punishing people.” Daughtry says, referring to Morgan’s actions taking away the secretaries of eight representatives, giving some of them poor office assignments, and relegating his enemies to the back row in the House chamber.

Many of those on the back row jokingly referred to themselves as the “Safari Club” because they were so far from the action.

“Richard would be a good hockey player,” Daughtry says. “He wants to fight, but the only problem is that he wants to fight with his own team. That is not good for the party. That is why people across the state are upset.”

Blust adds: “I don’t want to punish him. But somehow this has got to end. I don’t see that happening if the same people are in control.”

Keener doesn’t know what will come of the resolution seeking to remove Morgan from the executive committee. She hopes that at the very least it will send a message.

“It will give a lot of us satisfaction of showing that there is a price to pay for disloyalty,” she says. “We must send him a message. Even if he doesn’t listen, maybe the voters in Moore County will. I think he has betrayed our principals, our party’s agenda. We believe that with all of our heart.”

Hogwash, Morgan says.

“I will never compromise my principles,” he says. “I will not vote for something that I believe is wrong. The people of Moore County know me.”

Wednesday: New day dawns.