Baugh Responds To Greenhut On Carona Resolution

OC GOP Chairman Scott Baugh wrote a response to Steve Greenhut's post on last night's OC GOP Central Committee vote. Greenhut posted it, and I re-print it here:

It is clear to me that Steve Greenhut has an agenda to see that Mike Carona resign from office. Apparently, any process at the Republican Party that does not immediately spit out resignation falls short in his mind. Perhaps Mr. Greenhut is not constrained by Robert’s Rules of Order and the deliberative process that takes place in an organization like the Central Committee. Nonetheless, he offers incomplete, if not misguided conclusions about last evening.

First, he claims that I issued some mild rebuke to the Sheriff. In case his readers want to know what I actually said, instead of his interpretation, the following is a list:

He has fallen from grace

Is he innocent? Far from it.

Assumptions about his character should be called into question.

Assumptions about his private life should be called into question.

Assumptions about his integrity should be called into question.

I don’t know the words Mr. Greenhut would choose, but questioning somebody’s innocence, character, integrity and private life goes well beyond mild rebuke.

Apparently Mr. Greenhut also missed the fact that I asked Mr. Carona to take a leave of absence as a result of the cloud over his name placed there by his own conduct. I then asked the resolutions committee to provide the full committee a report on whether he should or should not resign. To the extent possible, this report will include an evaluation of his innocence, his character, his integrity, his private life and his indictment.

Mr. Greenhut also claims the process last evening was gamesmanship designed to foreclose debate. He is wrong and he misunderstands how deliberative bodies work. Since he came into the meeting with an agenda, he apparently missed my agenda and the explanation of the rules, which I will repeat for him here.

Our By-laws require us to go through a resolution committee first before an issue can be debated in the full body. On occasion, when there is broad agreement like the situation in CAPO, we suspend the rules to bring an issue straight to the floor. The suspension of rules requires a 2/3 vote and is a non-debatable motion under Robert’s Rules of Order. Since the issue of resignation did not have broad enough agreement as of last evening to obtain a 2/3 vote required for suspension of the rules, I ordered the resignation resolution sent to the resolutions committee in accordance with the By-laws, and then brought up to the full committee in January when we meet again.

Many members did not want to wait until January to have a debate on the issue of his indictment, his character and his personal life. To that end, I requested the committee to suspend the rules last night for that very purpose. The committee rejected my request. Some opposed my request because they wanted to debate resignation. Some opposed my request because they thought debate was premature without more facts. Still others opposed my request because they wanted to have the full debate in January in accordance with the By-laws. Regardless of the individual reason, the collective outcome was that the committee rejected my attempts to debate the issue last night. Mr. Greenhut calls this gamesmanship. I call it due process and deference to the duly elected members of the Central Committee.

Mr. Greenhut also claims that I gave a rousing talk designed to shore up support for the Sheriff. I can see how he and others might draw that conclusion, particularly if the agenda is to have Mr. Carona resign. However, if that is his only conclusion, he missed by broader point. My intent last evening was not designed to promote and defend Mr. Carona. In fact, as expressed above, I have called into question his innocence, his character, his integrity and his private life, which is appropriate to do whether or not he is guilty of the crimes alleged against him.

Rather, my speech was designed to promote and defend liberty. It happened to take place in the context of a discussion about Mr. Carona. I cited several examples of prosecutorial abuses and clearly noted that those calling for Mr. Carona’s resignation may be right but I wasn’t asking for his resignation based on the indictment until I saw something stronger — like corroborating evidence. To that end, I did cite a specific example with the Carona prosecution; namely, if the prosecutors only had evidence from the discredited George Jaramillo and Don Haidl, without corroborating evidence, then I have my doubts about the viability of the prosecution. I also said that I was not passing judgment on the prosecution. If the prosecution does have corroborating evidence, then Mr. Carona surely will be called upon to resign by the Republican Party. In the name of liberty, however, we should see some corroborating evidence before we draw any irreversible conclusions.

Obviously, Mr. Greenhut and others have made up their mind. Perhaps so, but he should not let his pre-determined agenda color the facts of what actually transpired.

Comments

[Pete Fundy]

Pete Fundy agrees with this Baugh fellow. Sheriff Mike Carona is innocent.

As Orange County's leading conservative commentator, I stand by the OC GOP's endorsement of Carona before the last election. Surely, the deliberative process was just as important then as it is now. At least, I hope it was. I wasn't there.

Warmly yours,
Pete Fundy
Senior Editorial Writer
OCLegend.Com

[rich white guy]

OCGOP: Courage and Renewal

Let us renew our Pilgrim faith. May we take courage that within us is a light, if we seek it, which can wisely guide us through this Firestorm. When we gather for Thanksgiving, you will have an opportunity to set the course of events. Today, you can participate in that process by supporting our Sheriff, Michael Carona.

Headlights On!

RWG,

Looks like your headlight campaign is working after all. May I suggest you include the "Pete Fundy told me Sheriff Mike Carona is innocent" bumper stickers on your caravan of naivete.

[blah, blah, blah...]

Your complicity in the endorsement of the corrupt and morally bankrupt sheriff reflects on your own judgment and credibility. For years, insiders have known Carona was ethically challenged and to endorse him despite these flaws was outrageous at best. The OC GOP electorate look to you and the Party’s leadership for… well, leadership. They deserve more. It is not a stretch to argue that your own actions (and inactions) make you complicit in this mess.

You, Schroeder, Carona... all the same.

[Tom Tucker]

Speaking as someone who has not supported the Sheriff, I agree with Baugh's measured and tempered approach to this thorny issue.

I believe that an inditement is nothing more than an accusation, so lets let some of the facts pay out, before we make irreversable conclusions.

[Also Station 18]

Even if for some fluke Carona is found innocent of the allegations against him...He is still morally and ethically challeneged. The voting public gave him the right to call himself Sheriff but by his own actions he no longer deserves that distiction. Prison attire will fit him nicely but if not, at least take away his uniform. He is a disgrace to all who wear the uniform of a law enforcement officer.

Tom,

No matter what you believe to be true, a federal indictment is in fact different than a "accusation". You see I could accuse you of being ignorant of the justice system, but that would really be moot. A federal indictment is a bit different. More than 90% of defendants indicted by the feds end up convicted criminals. That is kind of a big deal.

[8AF]

What is all this about Carona? I read the FlashReport since it is "California's most significant political news." I haven't read a thing about Carona. All this talk about resigning must be nothing more than a conspiracy by the left wing MSM to discredit a great man and greater conservative.