[ncgop-exec]
Date of questions: Saturday, May 30, 2009
Answers were accepted May 30 thru June 9, 2009.

1. Trim out the "fluff" (like Five Star Reports) in our meetings to make time for more substantive questions of Party policy.
2. Plan for an "open discussion period" with the Chairman, after formal adjournment of each meeting, for those who want to stay around.
3. Accept that the Executive Committee can't really do its job, and give the smaller Central Committee "backup authority" to do the work of the Executive Committee. (This would require a Plan of Organization change; it was defeated last year, but has been proposed again by the PoO Committee this year.)
4. Shrink the Executive Committee, perhaps by making County Vice-Chairmen voting members only in the absence of their Chairmen, and/or eliminating all or some of the at-large positions. (This would require a Plan of Organization change; it has been defeated several times in the past.)
5. Change the quorum rules, so that the Committee is never unable to do business due to lack of a quorum; click here for one way to do that. (This would require a Plan of Organization change; ironically, it was defeated by a quorum call a couple of years ago at the State Convention.)

Do any of these ideas seem good to you? Are you satisfied with how the State Executive Committee currently works? What else could be done to improve it?

The six candidates' answers follow. The four candidates for chairman are listed first (alphabetically), followed by the two candidates for vice-chairman. (Each candidate's name is a clickable link to his web site.)
 

Chad Adams (for Chairman) wrote:
    Yes, I think most all of these ideas should be brought up. Again, we need to adapt and debating such ideas is a way to start. Moreover, I think our party should truly identify the systemic problems we might have. 90% of solving any problem is identifying it first. I'd also like to see the idea of closing our primaries be debated. Such an idea would rapidly make the importance of the local party increase. But again, let's BE the party of ideas and not be afraid to change how we operate without giving up our principles.

Tom Fetzer (for Chairman) said (paraphrased):
    When I was mayor of Raleigh we had a public comment period at each meeting. We should do something like that.
    Philosophically, Im a believer in streamlining to get the routine matters handled quickly, perhaps by use of a consent agenda. We should be respectful of peoples time.
    One idea to improve the effectiveness of the Party is to accelerate the convention schedule, so that we don't lose 3 months awaiting the outcome of the chairman's race in the next election cycle.
    [Note: because this was the longest question, I saved it for last in our phone conversation, and we ran out of time before Tom could address each bullet specifically. -DB]

Marcus Kindley (for Chairman) wrote:
    The State executive Committe represents or should represent the Grassroots of our party. As a member since 1999 I have watched it shrink in participation through fustration and lack of interest. We should work to make the function of the Executive Committee one of relevance. I do not want to give the Centeral Committee anymore power than necessary. We should be careful NOT to concentrate power in the hands of too few people. that is part of our problem now. there are the elite in and around Raleigh dictationg to the rest of the party. many County chairs feel the executive Committee is a waste of time in that they feel their voices are not heard. this must stop if we want to defeat the Democrats in this state. I think that we should shrink it to reflect the grassroots. I agree that by making County Vice-Chairmen voting members only in the absence of their Chairman, and/or eliminating all or some of the at-large positions we could have a more viable and productive commitee. In addition I think there should be an Open discussion period after adjournment. this will allow those in attendance to ask questions and allow the chairman to define or suggest ideas and plans.

Bill Randall (for Chairman) wrote:
    Agree with item I. Item II is a "given," and is just plain good leadership. Items III & IV describes an ostrich with its head in the sand; we don't need any "defeatist" attitude. Item V slaps Parliamentary procedures in the face. The purpose of a quorum is to maintain the integrity of the process. Anything short of a quorum casts a shadow of doubt about the validity of any decisions made (even if they are valid); it's a matter of perception that would undermine the Executive Committee's credibility and authority). As Chairman, I'd look to ascertain what the motivation and morale level is in each of our 13 districts. Any real or perceived problems/issues would be addressed head-on, and I would work with county party members to work towards satisfactory and equitable resolution of the same. Once this is done, the lethargy and apathy would be replaced by enthusiasm, energy and an engaged grassroots base of the NCGOP.

 
(Note: Tim & David are candidates for Vice-Chairman, not Chairman, but since Vice-Chairmen often eventually become Chairmen I asked that they answer the questions as if they expected to become chairman.)

Tim Johnson (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
    We have to do a better job of communicating with all of the stakeholders rather than just a select few. "We, the people" is not reserved only for the Constitution. I believe every county chairman deserves to be heard at the state level before we make decisions and obligate everyone to the decision. Looking at any successful board of directors, our meetings should be used to discuss relevant issues, debate those issues when required and come away with a consensus on how we should move forward. It is unfair to direct from the top down and wonder why our grassroots efforts are ineffective. Whatever we do moving forward, we must make every effort to include the elected chairmen in all 100 counties.

David Sawyer (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
    It strikes me that a majority of the suggestions outlined in your question involve fundamental changes which require modification of the State Plan of Organization, and the Chair would not be in a position to unilaterally implement the changes without action by the Convention. Having said that, I believe that there are some things that can be done to improve the functioning of the Executive Committee. I believe that a discussion period can be a good thing, if the participants address substantive issues in a professional manner and do not use it as a forum for pushing a particular agenda to the exclusion of other thoughts. I do not believe that "fluff" is appropriate agenda material for the Executive Committee, and I would take the action necessary to insure that the agenda involved only substantive issues for which Executive Committee action would be necessary or, additionally, for which the best interests of the Party would be served by presentation of an informational item to the Committee. (I would caution, however, that one person's fluff is another's important matter.) I agree that the size of the Committee can, at times, create issues. However, again, the Executive Committee is supposed to be representative of the Party throughout the State and I have been repeatedly told by people in the Eastern and Western portions of the State that they vehemently oppose a reduction of the size of the Committee because they feel that it would reduce their voice in the Party's operation. I do believe that the Executive Committee can delegate certain duties as it sees fit, and should do so when the best interests of the Party would be served.

The other five questions can be found here:
http://www.mooregop.org/chairman_questionnaire.html

Dave Burton
Cary, NC
H: 1-919-481-0098
M: 1-919-244-3316