To the Members of the Arlington Republican Club:
The process
matters. A fair process matters. The Arlington Republican Club Board has used a
process that lacks fundamental fairness
to remove Program Vice President Dale Attebery.
What was
detailed in a June 4 email (see Exhibit A) from one Arlington Republican Club
member has come to pass: the club member re-wrote
the club constitution and bylaws (along with some assistance from the “Bylaws Committee”) in order for the Board to remove Program
Vice President Dale Attebery.
The major
overhaul of the club constitution and bylaws (hereafter known as Forced
Revisions) was passed on June 25 without
allowing members to make needed amendments. Just six days prior, on June
19, on the Arlington Republican Club Facebook page, the club president stated that
the bylaws would be voted on article by article…allowing for clarification and
full membership ratification…keeping what is agreed upon and striking what is
not. (see Exhibit B) The vote on the
bylaws was not conducted as had been promised to the members!
Monday, August
31, the Forced Revisions were used by the Board to remove Dale Attebery. Roberts
Rules of Order offers a fair procedure for officer removal; however the
procedure in the Forced Revisions is by design not fair. Under the Forced
Revisions, the Board has been set up to
be the accuser, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner, all in
one without the club members even knowing that a complaint had been filed or a
trial held. This procedure violates the fundamental principles of English
and American jurisprudence. One of the two officers who brought the
complaint served as the “judge” in the trial. The
Board even went against their own Forced Revisions and changed the rules in
order to change the vote. (see Exhibit C) This is about right versus wrong. The end does not justify the means.
The Forced
Revisions added an undefined Duty of Confidentiality for Board members. Thus,
the entire officer removal trial was
conducted in complete secrecy. Is
this the Republican or American way of justice? We, as Republicans, expect
transparency from our elected officials, and we expect the same from our local
Republican Club Board.
Dale relates
that several times since receiving the notice of complaint, he was told that if
he would resign as Program Vice President, the complaint would go away and no
one would ever know; and later, during the trial added that everything would go
away along with the videotape of the trial. As stated
in the June 4 email, the goal was to remove Dale from the Board. Instead of
resigning, Dale was willing to endure this abuse and embarrassment to ensure that
this unfair process that was premeditated per the June 4 email is not used
against anyone else. Out of love for justice and
of the club, Bill Eastland stepped forward to represent Dale!
At the conclusion
of the trial, Dale relates that the accuser/“judge” said with a sweep of his
hands, that if Dale would not take it to the membership, they would make all of
this and the videotape of the trial go away. But we want the trial proceedings
protected, without editing. (see Exhibit D)
Arlington
Republican Club members must not allow the club and the Forced Revisions to be
used as a weapon to cause injury for a personal vendetta. The club and
especially the Board should be focused on taking back the White House in 2016,
winning seats at the local, state and national levels and fighting for our
conservative values, not on spending eight hours in a trial focused on removing
a long-time, hard-working volunteer, especially when there is only one meeting before a new Board is elected! Thus, what
good or positive reason could there be for removing a Board member with just
one meeting to go before a new Board is elected?
Leadership in a
club is about being benevolent, and having a kind heart toward those you serve
and those with whom you serve. Leadership is about seeking restoration, not
removal of volunteers. Leadership is taking the high road, seeking a peaceful
accord or reconciliation in order to work together for the good of the
club. The community is watching. What
about the Arlington Republican Club putting into practice “Blessed are the
peacemakers…….”
The process
matters. A fair process matters. If you are an Arlington Republican Club
member, please come to the September 24
meeting and stand up for fundamental
fairness. If you want to discuss our beloved ARC, please contact any of the
undersigned.
For fundamental fairness,
Leslie Recine leslie@leslierecine.com
Arlington
Republican Club President, 2004-2007
State
Republican Executive Committeewoman for Senate District 10, 2006-2014
Volunteerism
Committee Chairman, State Republican Executive Committee, 2010-2014
Tarrant
County Republican Party Precinct Chairman, Precinct 2112
and
Former Precinct Chairman, Precinct
2205
|
Melba McDow mmmcdow@sbcglobal.net
Former
Arlington Republican Club Treasurer
Tarrant
County Republican Party Vice Chairman, 1992-1998
State
Republican Executive Committeewoman for Senate District 10, 1998-2006
Tarrant
County Republican Party Precinct Chairman, Precinct 2219, 1990-present
Former
Tarrant County Republican Party Area Leader for House District 94
|
Bill Eastland eastland@reagan.com
Former
Arlington Republican Club Vice President Legislative Alert
State
Republican Executive Committeeman for Senate District 9, 2012-2014
Tarrant
County Republican Party Precinct Chairman, Precinct 2168, 1980-present
Former
Tarrant County Republican Party Area Leader for House District 94
Senate
District 9 Convention Chair, 2004 & 2006
|
Marjorie Moffitt marjoriemoffitt@outlook.com
Former
Arlington Republican Club Vice President Membership
Former
Tarrant County Republican Party Area Leader for District 94
Republican
Party of Texas Volunteer of the Year for Senate District 10, 2011
Former
Tarrant County Republican Party Precinct Chairman, Precinct 2468
|
Deborah Gagliardi drg@gagliardigroup.com
Tarrant
County Republican Party Precinct Chairman, Precinct 2319
Former
Public Member, Board of Directors, State Bar of Texas
|
EXHIBIT A
Email
sent by Dorrie O’Brien
Solid proof there was a
conspiracy to remove Dale Attebery as a Board Member
Explanation of my behavior on Thursday night after the TCRA mtg.
|
||||||||
Hello, all,
When Bill came up
to me and Delores and Richard in the parking lot, he opened the conversation
with: “Melba and Leslie and I want to know if you’d meet us at I-HOP or
wherever to talk about what we’re going to do about the ARC problem.” (Or
words very similar.) Ladies and gentlemen, does it ever occur to anyone in
this county to ask the people involved in a situation “What are your plans
and how can we help?” No. It’s always seems to be: “This is what we’ve
thought up and this is how we want you to go along with it.”
This present very
healthy, very robust, very pointed, very comprehensive, very well thought
out, very legal movement to remove Dale from the Board started when he made
the mistake of “firing” me from speaking at the ARC about Islam because I’d
just made a presentation at RWA in October, 8 months ago (not 2.5 years ago).
It was a petty, snarky, arrogant dismissal because of his childish tantrum
going back 10 years re: Delores. (The movement certainly wasn’t hurt by his
totally stupid move with the TCRA.) Now, I’ve got to tell you, I take my
calling to fight Islam pretty seriously and I don’t take kindly to being shut
down from informing people for such flimsy reasons. I’m willing to get sued
and shot at for it; Dale’s an ant.
At any rate, being
furious at him, I called Delores, who suggested I call Anne, who finally had
a chance to unload on somebody who’d been a Board member before, which
unplugged the whole affair. I said I would start the petition that was
required in the present Bylaws to remove him. Anne didn’t think she wanted to
air the club’s dirty laundry that way. Okay. Then I started seriously reading
the Bylaws, saw what a mess they were AND saw how by rewriting them they
would be the pathway to getting rid of him, and how they HAD to be done on or
before May, latest June, so we’d have time to get the right people on the
nominations committee (with certainly the plan that I would be on that
committee, and as time passed, so would Richard --- the treasurer thing was
an unexpected plus --- and we picked out a few others for the Nom Comm) so we
could doubly ensure that he would never be on the Board in any function, IF
Anne had not had time to use whatever rewritten Board removal clause was
available to remove him. Anne agreed, appointed the members of the committee
and to further ensure that the Bylaws committee was in our control, I asked
Richard to be the chair of the committee, he agreed, I nominated him, and the
committee members (two of which weren’t even members at that first gathering!)
voted him in. The committee then spent the next 4 months rewriting them. As
soon as the Bylaws are passed, those of us who’re already planning on being
on the Nom Comm (we were only one person short) fully intend to start
campaigning.
I asked you
immediately in the parking lot, Bill, “If you’re going to say you’re totally
behind the Bylaws and you’ll help make sure they are passed as written, then
fine, I’ll be willing to go somewhere and we can discuss the next step
after that.” You didn’t agree to that. There was at no time a suggestion made
by any of you that you should start calling around to club members to back
the Bylaws and discount Dale’s calls. All of you just wanted to push what you
wanted w/no thought to what we’d already done or why.
So. There you
have it. I’ve been working hard on this for 8 months, others for 5-6 months,
and now there we were, suddenly being told how things should go. I have an
intense amount of respect for you three, believe me; TC clearly wouldn’t be
the same without you, nor would I know as much as I do. But I would like to
see that respect returned. Support us with endorsements for the Nom Comm,
make phone calls/or emails on our behalf, and please, no more pressure or
thoughts about rewriting/editing the Bylaws.
Thanks for
listening.
Dorrie
|
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
Explanation of the ARC Bylaw provisions for removal
of an Officer in relation to Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR)
By Bill Eastland
Under the old Constitution, removal
of an officer required a petition signed by twenty members be presented to two board members three weeks prior to a
meeting at which the membership, by a two-thirds vote, could remove the
officer. Notice in the newsletter for
the meeting was required. (Throughout
nearly 40 years, this provision was never used.)
In the new Bylaws, two board
members may bring a complaint against
a board member that triggers notice being given to the officer followed by a
‘special meeting’ of the board to be held no later than 14 days after the
notification. The officer has the right
to a defense and, if removed by the Board at this meeting, the right to appeal
to the membership at the next general
meeting at which a simple majority vote will reinstate the officer.
The rule is silent on whether the
officer may present a defense at the meeting but it is known that the original
intent of the authors was to prevent any discussion of the case except for
stating the grounds for removal voted on by the Board, although the language
requiring that was removed in the final version. In a separate provision of the
Bylaws, there is a requirement that all meetings of the Board be open meetings
unless closed by the President or two-thirds of the Board and that all Board
meetings are to be posted on the ARC website.
RONR has a lengthy chapter (Ch. XX)
titled Disciplinary Procedures. In the discussion on removal from office, there
is a lot of detail about how such a procedure should be conducted with important
sections dealing with the rights of the society and the accused and the steps
in a fair disciplinary process which include a confidential investigation by a
committee, a report of the committee, the “preferral of charges,” notification
of the accused, a trial, and the assembly’s review of the trial committee’s
findings. The steps are not required,
and a society may write its own rules, but, as usual with RONR, it is strongly
suggested that a fair process be
used. A key element of fairness is that
the “committee,” whether for the purpose of investigation or for a trial, have
members selected for “known integrity and good judgment.” Unfortunately, our Bylaws do not contemplate
a fair process with such a committee because there is no confidential investigation
and no report of the committee. Instead,
two board members “prefer charges” and then a “trial” is conducted by the
Executive Board itself, after which
the board makes the decision to retain or remove the accused. Only upon removal may the member appeal to
the Club.
In other words, the Board has been
set up as the accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, which is a
gross violation of British and American principles of jurisprudence. This Board did state at the outset of the
proceeding that they would follow RONR, Sec. 63, which details the conduct of
an investigation and trial where such provisions do not conflict with Club
Bylaws. But, in several important
respects, they broke the Bylaws and RONR:
1)
The trial was scheduled and held on
August 24, 2015. In violation of Art.
IV(2)(H), this meeting was never posted on the ARC website.
2)
RONR requires that a trial cannot be
held until notice “providing confirmation
of delivery” of the resolution ordering the trial has been sent, and confirmation received “even if the
accused officer was present when the resolution was adopted,” and that the
Secretary have such proof of delivery on hand at the trial. Also, the Bylaws require this notification. Notification was sent with delivery
confirmation required but by the time of the trial, the Secretary had not
received proof of delivery and did not have it on hand. This discrepancy was brought to their
attention but they decided to break this rule and proceed.
3)
Our Bylaws make a radical departure
from RONR in the procedure and conduct of the trial of an officer, in that the
rule does not use an independent trial committee of members known for integrity
and good judgment but a committee (the Executive Board) composed of people who
had made up their minds in advance AND who wrote the rules they wanted to write
in order to get the result they predetermined: the removal of Dale Attebery
from the Board. But, the drafters failed
to include the important provision specifying that the accused is stripped of
the right to vote on his own guilt. The
Bylaws state, “An elected officer of the ARC may be removed for cause by 2/3
vote of the Executive Board at a
special Executive Board meeting to remove that member.” There is no explicit
provision preventing the accused from voting.
Since the accused is still a member of the Board, and the whole Board
makes the decision per the rule, Mr. Attebery should not have been prevented from voting. By doing so, the
accusers insured he would be convicted since they had four votes out of six, or
just two-thirds of those voting. In
addition, since the two “accusers” were allowed to vote, he should have been
allowed to vote. Had he done so, the
vote would have been four to three, not two-thirds, and he would have been
acquitted. So, they changed the rules to
get the result they wanted. (See Exhibit A, the email from Dorrie O’Brien
detailing a longstanding conspiracy to do exactly what they did.)
EXHIBIT D
Request for Litigation Hold and
Data Preservation
Regarding: Litigation associated
with the Arlington Republican Club
To the Arlington Republican Club
Board of Directors and associated individuals, including but not limited to:
Anne
Coker,
Richard Pell,
Delores Pell,
David Wylie,
Rhonda Taylor,
Dale Attebery,
Jodi Flow,
Dorrie O’Brien,
Dave McElwee,
Kevin Hadawi,
Sheila Stewart,
Lindsey Anderson,
(and
any others involved in this dispute)
I am concerned
about the Arlington Republican Club, and send this notice in an effort to help
everyone understand the severity of the actions taken, and where this can go. I
am personally appalled at the ongoing efforts to keep this dispute alive. I
will speak at the “inquiry” scheduled this evening. Because what I will say
might be considered defamatory, I provide this notice.
***************************************
You are hereby
given notice, with respect to the above-referenced matter, not to destroy,
conceal, or alter relevant paper or electronic documents, files and other
relevant data. As you may or may not know, a failure to comply with this notice
can result in severe sanctions being imposed by the Court (and liability in
tort) for spoliation of evidence or potential evidence.
Although I may
bring a motion for an order to preserve documents, electronically stored
information, and other things, the obligations of you to preserve items arise
in law and equity independently from any court order in this case.
The scope of the
potential discovery evidence in this matter is more than paper documents and
other physical personal property items. The scope of the potential discovery
evidence in the above-referenced matter includes electronic data held by any
member or officer of the Arlington Republican Club.
“Electronic
Data” includes, but is not limited to, all text files (including drafts and
revisions, active and deleted word processing documents); spread sheets,
emails, sent and received (whether internally or externally), and information
concerning email (including logs of email history and usage, header
information, and “deleted” emails); voicemail and recorded conversations;
Internet history files and preferences; graphical image files; databases;
calendar and scheduling information; data generated by calendaring, task
management, and personal information management (PIM) software (such as Microsoft
Outlook or Lotus Notes); data created with the use of personal data assistants
(PDAs), such as PalmPilot, iPad or other Windows CE, Pocket PC, or Windows
Mobile devices; presentation data or slide shows produced by presentation
software (such as Microsoft PowerPoint); computer system activity logs, and all
file fragments and backup files containing Electronic Data.
We demand that
you immediately preserve the potential discovery evidence outlined in this
letter. This request is essential, among other reasons, because a paper
printout of text contained in a computer file does not completely reflect all
information contained within the electronic file and the computer disk drive
holding the electronic file. The continued operation of computer and backup systems
without proper steps taken to preserve evidence likely may result in the change
or destruction of relevant evidence. Electronic evidence easily can be altered
or deleted, unless you take steps to preserve the evidence. Metadata in a
computer or a storage media, even a CD, showing dates of creation, dates of
access and other information can be altered or deleted, unless you take steps
to preserve the evidence.
You must
preserve relevant Electronic Data not only stored on computer disk drives, but
also that stored on all other media or in all places (for example, CDs, DVDs,
portable thumb and flash drives, hard disks, ZIP disks, backup tapes, external
active drives, external backup drives, optical disks, gmail (which might have
been used to send company email by using a personal Google account) stored on
Google servers, Yahoo Briefcase Internet storage or other Internet methods of
storing and exchanging documents, etc.), whether the media or storage is online
or offline, whether on-site or off-site.
Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, I direct your attention to the following
specific items, which are numbered 1 through 3.
1. Preserve all Electronic Data
generated or received by any member or officer, wherever it is now located.
2. Preserve all Electronic Data
containing any information about the Arlington Republican Club.
3. Without limiting the generality
of the description in numbered sections 1 and 2 above, your attention is
specifically directed to the preservation of:
a. All email sent or received by
any officers associated with the Arlington Republican Club, including those
named above, or any responsible committee heads or other members to whom
responsibilities, duties, or any power is delegated. Email includes information
about the email (for example, metadata in or concerning the email, logs of
message contents, and logs of email system usage).
b. All word processing files,
including prior drafts, “deleted” files, and file fragments, containing
information related to the Arlington Republican Club.
c. All databases containing
information related to the Arlington Republican Club
d. All logs of activity for
computer systems, networks, and backups, and all indexes or lists of content of
backups that have or may have been used to process or store electronic data
containing information related to the Arlington Republican Club.
Among other
things, the Arlington Republican Club, through its Board of Directors, must not
allow operation of the fixed or external drives and storage media on the
desktop computers and terminals, personal computers, network workstations, and
notebook computers operated by the persons listed in numbered section 1 above. Operation
may alter or destroy relevant evidence.
Formal discovery
requests in the lawsuit may ask for specified data on the hard disks, floppy
disks and backup media used in your computers. Some of this data is not readily
available to an ordinary computer user, such as “deleted” files and “file
fragments.” As you may know, although a user may “erase” or “delete” a file,
all that is really erased is a reference to that file in a table on the hard
disk. Unless overwritten with new data by continued operation of the computer,
a “deleted” file can be as intact on the disk as any “active” file you would
see in a directory listing. That is one of the reasons that earlier in this
letter we demanded that you and your client not allow continued operation of
some specified computers. Courts have made it clear that all information
available on electronic storage media is discoverable, whether readily readable
[“active”] or “deleted” but recoverable. See, e.g., Easley, McCaleb &
Assocs., Inc. v. Perry, No. E-2663 (Ga. Super. Ct. July 13, 1994)
(“deleted” files on a party’s computer hard drive held to be discoverable, and
plaintiff’s expert allowed to retrieve all recoverable files). Deleted data
therefore should be preserved.
After having
become aware of the possibility of litigation, Arlington Republican Club Board
Members and responsible parties must not overwrite or delete Electronic Data in
the normal course of business operations, or fail to retain previous backups
which may contain Electronic Data now not present as active data.
Electronic
documents and the storage media on which they reside contain relevant,
discoverable information beyond what may be found in printed documents.
Therefore, even where a paper copy exists, formal discovery requests in the
lawsuit may seek not only the paper copy but also all documents in their
electronic form along with information about those documents contained on the
electronic media, and paper printouts of only those documents that contain
unique information after they were printed out (such as paper documents
containing handwriting, signatures, annotations, highlighting, or redactions),
as well as paper documents for which no corresponding electronic files exist.
I am happy to
discuss this matter and end it before it goes any further than it has.
s/ Warren V. Norred
Warren V. Norred
