The Man Who Would be King: Kimsey Pulls a Fast One

Posted: August 21, 2014 in Uncategorized

There appears to be more than the usual amount of interest in tonight’s meeting of the Clark County Republican Central Committee. Among several resolutions that will be before the PCOs is a vote on whether to reject as a body the proposed county charter that will be on the ballot in November. This resolution from Republican PCOs has drawn the attention of the pro-light rail, anti-David Madore facebook group C3G2 as well as County Auditor Greg Kimsey, a strong proponent of the charter who is also rumored to be very interested in the ‘county manager’ position that the charter would create. The county manager position would be unelected, and according to the interpretation of many who have studied the charter, would wield most of the executive power in the county, in much the same way that a school district superintendent rules the roost on most school boards.

This evening, Kimsey sent a last-minute email to select PCOs urging them to table the anti-charter resolution. I was not among the original recipients, so many thanks to LD 18 PCO Kevin VanGelder for bringing this to light. The email reads in part:

Good evening,

If you attend tomorrow night’s PCO meeting you will be asked to vote on a resolution in opposition to the Clark County Home Rule Charter that will appear on this year’s general election ballot…It is my hope that before we make a decision to oppose the Charter that we have an opportunity to also hear from those who support the Charter.

I ask you to support “tabling” the anti-charter resolution until after a “Pro Charter” committee and a “Con-Charter” committee have been formed and those committees have presented their findings at a subsequent PCO meeting. A vote in opposition or in support of the charter should be taken after both sides of this important issue are presented.

Regards,

Greg

The facts and context surrounding this resolution are as follows: A group of a few PCOs who are not on the executive board authored and distributed the resolution back in July. All PCOs in the county received an email notifying them about the resolution on July 29th, almost a month ago. Rumors have been swirling for a few weeks that Kimsey was attempting to author his own resolution to combat this grass roots effort. It is now the day of the meeting, and he has yet to produce this counter-resolution. From this email, one can safely deduce that he either never got around to writing it, or he knows it will never pass, so he didn’t bother. His next option then, is to try to make sure the anti-Charter effort doesn’t pass. He is clearly afraid of an up-or-down vote, so he is resorting to an old Establishment trick. In attempting to ‘table’ the resolution, he will accomplish two things: 1. A ‘motion to table’ is not debatable, so no discussion will be allowed before a vote, which means that the argument in his email about ‘referring it to committee’ will never have to be specified, and 2. if the meeting ends with no vote, it is likely that it will not be revisited before the election, since meetings of the Central Committee are quarterly, and there is none scheduled before November. So in effect, ‘tabling’ means never having to see it again unless a special meeting is called, which is very unlikely during an election season just to pass one resolution. The opinion of the PCOs will remain unexpressed and irrelevant. That is Kimsey’s clear objective.

If Kimsey actually wanted to have committees and discuss the merits of the charter, why did he not do so in the over three weeks before the scheduled meeting? Because he doesn’t actually want a vote by the PCOs. He will have every opportunity to speak against the resolution during the debating period before the vote, but it is the vote itself that he is trying to avoid.

This is a great example of why leadership in the CCRP had to change. The grass roots puts forth a great effort to be heard, and the Establishment uses parliamentary procedures to shut them down without discussion or an up-or-down vote. If Kimsey and his friends were still in charge of the party, this would have succeeded as a matter of course, and the authors of the resolution would have been left dazed and wondering what just happened, much like so many of us were after the Kimsey-chaired convention in 2012 was called to a close without having finished voting and without electing the delegates. This is what the Establishment does again and again when they don’t have the votes.

Whether or not he succeeds tonight will be dependent on how alert the leadership and those favoring the resolution are. Hopefully the will of the body will prevail over the political aspirations of one man. If you are a PCO, please attend tonight, and please vote to allow this resolution to be voted on.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Zack Banks says:

    The motion to table this would be out of order. By his own email, it is obvious his reason is to delay voting on the motion, not to address more pressing business. What he should really do is object to consideration, if he has the votes. If that were the case, the point would be moot.

  2. It’s a pretty sad attempt at trying to silence the strongest voice against the charter in the entire county. If he does try this, we should pass a motion to direct the board to censure him at the next meeting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s