I understand that I can be controversial. But usually when I am, I know it and I am prepared for the backlash and criticism that follows. Turns out I am not as prescient as I thought. Because during the State Convention Rules Committee meeting, I proposed a rule that was passed by the committee that I didn’t think would be overly controversial … I was wrong!
What I proposed was adding a little phrase on the end of a rule that we have had for the last several conventions. The change would mean that when the platform was considered at convention, the Platform Committee would look at all the proposed amendments, make sure they met the signature and format requirements in the rules and then they would come up before the convention for debate. The change is that the platform committee would not make a recommendation to the convention on whether to pass the amendment or not. The Rules Committee passed the proposed rule but I don’t think we recorded the vote totals. Nonetheless, I am the author and I will own it. This is the rule:
All properly submitted amendments (see Section 5a) shall be brought before the Convention for approval during the appropriate section of the platform debate, without recommendation from the Platform Committee.
2022 GOP State Convention Proposed Rules 5(c) Platform–Amendments and Debate
Let me start with my bonafides. Some of you may know me as the rules guy … I have chaired several of the last state, district and county rules committees and chaired three district conventions. I also served for over a decade on the State Central Committee. So I am very familiar with RPI’s Constitution and Bylaws, Robert’s Rules of Order and our convention rules (and customs). What some of you may not know is that before I was the rules guy I was the platform guy. For over a decade I served on (and usually chaired) county, district and state Platform Committees. I even had the opportunity to represent Iowa on the National Platform Committee in 2008. So, I know how the platform works and I think that it is important!
It has recently been the custom of the Platform Committee to both review amendments and give recommendation to the convention about whether a particular amendment should be adopted. This custom does not come from Robert’s Rules or our bylaws. The practice has never (to my recollection) been ensconced in our convention rules (at least not in my district or at state convention.) When I chaired the Platform Committee, we never made recommendations on platform amendments.
As I said, I am not sure why this is controversial. I have been told that the Platform Committee is quite upset about this – I would be happy to sit down and have a conversation about this proposed rule before the convention.
So, here are a couple the reasons I do not want the Platform Committee giving their opinion on platform amendments:
- First, the Platform Committee is generally made up of very knowledgeable, passionate and committed individuals. I know this because I am one of those people, when I first got involved in the GOP it was the platform about which I was most excited. The problem is that proposed platform is the result of many hours (used to be 18-24 hours, Tim Busch’s leadership has reduced this dramatically) of hard work. The Platform Committee is rightfully proud and possessive of the product of their labor. Sometimes, that makes it hard for the Platform Committee to see how convention-day amendments could improve on their platform. Very few amendments get recommended.
- Second, while the Platform Committee is charged with crafting a proposed platform, the actual platform belongs to the convention – not the committee. The District Conventions selected the Platform Committee to put together a proposed platform on their behalf. But every delegate to District Convention is also a delegate to the State Convention so the state convention can do what it wants with the platform. I believe very strongly that if a delegate gets the requisite number of signatures (40 in this year’s proposed rules) that their amendment deserves to be heard and the convention will be the judge not the platform committee.
- Third, the Platform Committee will probably argue that their recommendation is necessary to insure that nonsensical, redundant or simply non-conservative planks do not get passed at state convention. My take on this is that the State Convention owns the State Platform and if they want to include such things (and I hope they/we don’t) they can.
In my opinion it’s not a big deal. When the rules debate comes up, someone will make a motion to amend the rules and remove the phrase:
… without recommendation from the Platform Committee.
Just like the Platform Committee, the Rules Committee was charged by the District Conventions with crafting proposed rules for the State Convention. I hope I am being consistent here because in the case of the rules, just like the platform, the convention will decide. It only takes a majority to amend the rules proposal.
Neither I nor the Rules Committee can dictate a rule to the convention. The convention will ultimately decide and I will support their decision even if they disagree with me, but let’s have the discussion!
I see both sides. At district 1 platform we were very careful to recommend those that were not previously covered or strengthened our platform
We were careful to not recommend those that contradicted or duplicated existing planks
And, we recognized in other situations that we had no recommendation.
This in no way takes away from the people to override and decide for themselves, but provides additional context to the body of voters instead of being emotionally driven and realizing the contradiction later.
I disagree with you his rule because I have found the platform committee to be very passionate, but also very mindful of the people we are there to represent
I served on the Rules Committee as well, and fully support this change. As David stated, the Platform committee is charged with crafting a proposed platform, but ultimately it belongs to the delegates. If someone does the work, they deserve to be heard, and the body will decide at that point whether or not their plank/ amendment is to be included.
I am trying to figure out exactly what the problem is – or has been – with the custom of having the Chair of the Platform Committee give a report on the platform amendments submitted at the convention. Following that simple question, I have a comment about Mr. Chung’s final plea -“but let’s have the discussion!” Will that discussion be limited to a minute per speaker, with 3 for and 3 against ? What kind of serious discussion would that produce ? Not a very satisfying one, I suspect.
In hindsight, some of this might have been avoided if there had been a discussion between the Rules and Platform Committees. That might have actually been constructive, and I respectfully suggest that changes affecting other standing committees should be given in consultation with those other committees.
Let me offer a bit about my history with platforms. I became active in Washington County around 2010, and helped with our platform beginning in 2012. I think (I haven’t kept a diary) I helped with our district platform that year, and continued to go on to the District and State Platform committees in 2014 and 2016. I didn’t participate in the State Platform in 2018 because of a family commitment, but again participated in the State platform work in 2020 (that one by zoom). I was the Chair of the 1st Congressional District Platform committee this year, and am a member of the 2022 State Platform Committee.
The unwritten ‘custom’ that Mr. Chumg appears to want clarified is the practice of the Chair of the Platform Committee giving a report on the proposed platform to the convention – the one published in the convention publication – as well as reporting on the newly proposed planks from the Body on the day of the Convention. Part of that process is to determine if the plank submitted conforms to the rules, and then if so, we look to see if it is new or essentially the same as a plank already proposed, or is in direct conflict with planks in the proposed platform and why, and then to report on the Committee’s recommendation to the Body. Remember that the Platform Committee is made up of 4 people from each congressional district, and so the members were duly elected to represent the district at State. That is what we are sent to do.
As far as every plank submitted at convention being presented and voted upon by the Body, has there ever been a plank that was properly presented that did not get presented to the Body for a vote ?
These ‘customary’ procedures that have developed and evolved over the years seem to have served the Iowa Republican Party pretty well, so I’ll ask again, what is the specific problem needing to be fixed that prompted the new rule?
There are 16 members that are elected by the Republicans in Iowa to the State Platform Committee tasked with taking the People’s thoughts and ideas and creating a blueprint for our elected Republican Legislators to follow as they do their job in Des Moines. Prior to 2014, this document was a rambling mess that even Governor Branstad stated nobody read, let alone paid attention to. Now it is a concise and forceful instrument that can be, and has been, used to guide legislation and hold our elected Representatives feet to the fire for failing to follow it.
The Platform Committee’s job at the Convention has always been to make sure the amendments meet the Rules Committee’s requirements and to only give our recommendations, for inclusion or rejection into the Platform, to the Convention. Our recommendations are an attempt to keep the Platform concise and powerful and not become the ineffective unread diatribe that it used to be.
As Co-Chair of the Platform Committee, I would also like to correct this statement by Mr. Chung: “I believe very strongly that if a delegate gets the requisite number of signatures (40 in this year’s proposed rules) that their amendment deserves to be heard and the convention will be the judge not the platform committee.” All propose amendments to the Platform, by delegates to the Convention, that meet the requires set forth by the Rules Committee, have ALWAYS been heard by the Convention. To insinuate otherwise is just an attempt to sew mistrust in the Platform Committee.
For the first time this year, the Platform Committee had a time limit set upon it to accomplish its task. Because of the Committee’s dedication to the People, we got around that. This, coupled with this new rule change, seems to indicate that, for those in power, the Platform’s new found influence is a problem. Republicans in Iowa gave us their Trust when they elected us, we have honored that Trust in our efforts, and they should not let those, whose power is corralled by the People’s voice, destroy that Trust.
Jack and Thomas, sorry for the delay in approving your comments.
Since you both brought it up. This part of the rule:
Has been adopted by the last several state conventions because there was a time many years ago when certain properly filed amendments were not brought up for a vote. So like many rules it is there for a reason.
When I wrote:
The crucial part of that sentence (at least to me) was that ‘the convention will be the judge and not the platform committee.’ The platform does not belong to the committee, it belongs to the convention. Once we get to convention is perfectly capable of decided what planks should and should not be in the platform.
In the end, the convention will decide both on this rule and on the platform … as it should be.
Jack, since the debate on the rules will occur before the rules are approved, the 3 speaker 1 minute rule will not be in effect.