OC Dems struggle with finances and transparency

The Democratic Party of Orange County has historically lived on a razor edge of financial security. Unlike Los Angeles County, which ended June 2011 with $172,726 in cash on hand after $167,625 in expenditures, Orange County’s Democratic Party (DPOC) closed the first half of the year with just $353 in the bank after $19,552 in expenditures. Putting the financial picture in an Orange County context, the OC GOP Central Committee closed with $15,057 on hand after $96,964 in expenditures.

The Orange County figures provided the back-drop to an impeachment vote targeting the DPOC Treasurer and party activist Reggie Mundekis. She survived the vote, but only by two votes 33-19.

The only member of the media to attend the meeting Monday night was the Voice of OC Editor in Chief Norberto Santana, Jr.

Mundekis was criticized, among other things, for telling Orange County Democratic clubs the true state of party finances in the wake of the federal indictment last Summer of prominent Democratic campaign treasurer Kindee Durkee, who also handled the local party finances.

“People are asking about the financial condition of the party,” Mundekis said in her defense speech. “We are perpetually out of money.”

She added: “When people ask us our financial condition, I should be able to give them an honest answer.”

Yet openly discussing those kinds of disclosures in public was clearly troubling to many party activists and officials Monday night as they struggled to balance the discretion required legally on personnel issues and the openness required of party finances and elections.

In the wake of the resignation of former Party Executive Director Gerrie Schipske and the Durkee scandal, the true picture of party finances became apparent to Democratic Central Committee members. At that point they started to look for someone to blame. Mundekis, who campaigned for the treasurer position on the theme of greater transparency found herself at odds with Party Chairman Frank Barbaro. He wanted to keep the news of the party finances within the family to prevent donors from being scared away. Party activists have told LiberalOC that Mundekis had been instructed by Barbaro to withhold financial reports from the Central Committee, and its Executive Board.

Frank Barbaro at 2010 Truman Awards Dinner - Photo (c) TheLiberalOC

When the Durkee scandal broke, Barbaro decided to cut Mundekis out of the picture opening new bank accounts and withholding all information about Party finances. As the Party was struggling to conduct it’s annual Truman Award Dinner fundraising event, Mundekis was out of the loop.

Mundekis has a history of pissing people off. I’m even one of those she has pissed off over the years. But whatever her actions were, they do not excuse the violation of the party bylaws that seem to have occurred. The Treasurer is clearly responsible for the finances of the party, and the Chair and executive board do not have the authority to remove that control, that authority falls to the central committee as a whole.

So while there are a variety of reasons that motivated the discussion of impeachment last night, Mundekis was right to raise alarm bells and be transparent to local activists about the party’s financial position.

Given the results of last night’s vote and the clear lack of willingness of the party to order Chairman Barbaro to turn over the finances to her control, Mundekis should declare victory and resign. She cannot do her job if she is out of the loop and lacks sufficient support from the majority of members to gain any control. The party does not need to have this conflict continue into the 2012 election year. We have open primaries, newly redistricted legislative seats, and a presidential election to contend with. Inra-party squabbles need to be put to bed so that the focus can be on the 2012 election challenges.

Santana’s complete story can be found here.

  39 comments for “OC Dems struggle with finances and transparency

  1. November 29, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    I’ve had plenty of rough brushes with Reggie, as we worked together against the Fairgrounds Swindle. She was an absolutely invaluable and tireless researcher, but she, like, has no people skills, and sometimes I think goes out of her way to piss people off. Especially guys, and especially guys who are also fellow bloggers (like her.)

    On the other hand, it sounds like I would have sided with her on this one. Transparency is always for the best in these things. Many in the OC GOP have been fighting against Baugh and Bucher for more financial transparency as well. And Frank seems as heavy-handed and arbitrary a leader as that duo.

    And also I think you’re right – she SHOULD resign on principle, if Frank won’t let her do her job properly, and after getting such a poor showing in the vote.

    And then on the FOURTH hand – I can hardly imagine Reggie Mundekis resigning – she is as stubborn as a badger! Interesting to see what will happen. Glad as usual I’m not involved in the Central Committee.

    • Dan Chmielewski
      November 29, 2011 at 5:14 pm

      She’s a blogger?

      • November 29, 2011 at 9:42 pm

        Yeah, dude. The Pacific Progressive. It has been around a while and it’s not bad…

        http://www.pacificprogressive.com/

        • November 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm

          the last post on that blog was from 10/27; I didn’t see any posts from her at all.

          • November 30, 2011 at 4:52 pm

            I don’t really want to argue about this. Last I checked it out – a year ago – she was putting up real good posts a few times a week, and I had the impression she ran and owned the blog. Maybe she doesn’t any more.

            • Greg Diamond
              November 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm

              My understanding from a friend of hers is that she still owns it. I agree; it was a good idea for a blog and she did well with it.

            • November 30, 2011 at 9:49 pm

              I never cease to be amazed at all the things that Dan is unaware of, regarding what actual progressive people do in Orange County. The blog he runs is … what again?

            • Dan Chmielewski
              December 2, 2011 at 8:57 am

              Vern –
              I’m sorry I’m not up on ever little blog that is out there. I run a business with six employees and about 10 clients – four of those who are international so I’m up early and up late. I’m active with three organizations I volunteer for and the rest of my time goes to my family. I squeeze out time for this blog when I can. It isn’t my only focus.

      • November 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm

        Having now read the linked Voice of OC article and seen the additional material about Gerrie Schipske’s pay, I would like to take back saying that I would have sided with Reggie – I don’t know enough.

  2. Oc Dem
    November 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    How much was earned at the Truman dinner? How much of cut went to the former Executive Director who is now a fundraiser?

    As long as the current coalition of insiders, hacks, and rip off artists surround the DPOC, the party will continue to be unable to take advantage of the favorable demographic trends.

    • Dan Chmielewski
      November 29, 2011 at 5:17 pm

      Whatever fee earned by the “former executive director who is now a fundraiser” was well deserved for managing a sold out event in light of the Kindee Durkee scandal and the tight economy.

      I thought you were banned Paul. How did your comment slip through?

      • November 29, 2011 at 9:46 pm

        Spelling, grammar, and length of comment do not suggest Paul, even if the obsessions do.

        • November 29, 2011 at 10:19 pm

          Paul used to comment under “Native OC Dem” and you didn’t see the incorrect spelling in the email address provided (fake of course).

  3. Greg Diamond
    November 30, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    For God’s sake, Chris. With all due respect, this:

    In the wake of the resignation of former Party Executive Director Gerrie Schipske and the Durkee scandal, the true picture of party finances became apparent to Democratic Central Committee members. At that point they started to look for someone to blame. Mundekis, who campaigned for the treasurer position on the theme of greater transparency found herself at odds with Party Chairman Frank Barbaro. He wanted to keep the news of the party finances within the family to prevent donors from being scared away.

    is completely off-base. Please do some actual reporting — perhaps even with people who will speak on the record, before you write about this and say that she was scapegoated. This just allows you to be used as someone else’s political tool.

    The hint that Reggie did not “[find] herself at odds with Party Chairman Frank Barbaro” prior to being scapegoated was in your very next sentence.

    Party activists have told LiberalOC that Mundekis had been instructed by Barbaro to withhold financial reports from the Central Committee, and its Executive Board.

    If she took and followed instructions from Frank in these matters — and I haven’t heard Frank’s side of things so I don’t actually know if this is true — then she did not “[find] herself at odds with Party Chairman Frank Barbaro,” but was complicit in the supposed plans to stonewall the Executive Board. Many people could have explained this to you had you asked.

    As it happens, I know who did want transparency back in February and March (and since), but I’m not going to write about this on Orange Juice Blog because I’m a DPOC E-Board member — and I don’t speak for it or the party in any capacity — and don’t like using the position of blogger to push my interests on the board. But it would not be hard for a reporter to, you know, report.

    Is there any reason that you can’t identify who gave you this gloss on events, by the way? I hope that you will do so; it hardly seems confidential.

    • November 30, 2011 at 8:13 pm

      Greg,

      Just so we’re clear here, I am not trying to defend Reggie here. I just find your attacks on her regarding transparency ring a bit hollow; particularly given your position on the E-Board.

      In that unique position you have the opportunity to demand and receive all the information you would like. But as far as i can find, no one has taken the failure to meet those demands very far until now.

      As an E-Board member, I presume you are as aware as I am that Reggie has had no access to bank account statements or reports since Durkee was replaced by the current accountant. As I understand it, new bank accounts were opened to facilitate the collection of funds and payment of bills for the party without her knowledge or consent. It is my understanding that the current accountant has been instructed to not interact with Reggie and that she has no authority to request anything or authorize any further payments. I believe that situation, if true, would violate the party bylaws.

      I find it surprising that someone with your passion for checks, balances, and controls would focus his attention on the removal of an officer who, while arguably has pissed alot of people off with her mass emails and rants, has a legitimate right for access to party financial records and has been denied access by the Chair of the party. It seems that your concern is a bit misplaced.

      But since you are trying to stand so tall on your high moral horse I’ve got a few questions for you.

      1. Do you know how much money (net) was raised by the Truman Dinner? If not, why?
      2. The Core of the Kindee Durkee scandal was the fact that nobody was reviewing bank statements and just took Durkee’s word for things. Since we know that Mundekis isn’t getting the statements, who independently of the accountant, is reviewing them?
      3. Given the fact that the effort to remove Mundekis failed, will you be leading the charge to get her access to the information she is entitled to under her official role as the elected party Treasurer?

      Greg, given the vicious nature of the bombs flying back in forth in this matter, I am not surprised that people are reluctant to go on record. But since your challenge indicates you have no fear, please feel free to set the record straight by answering the above questions on the record.

      In the meantime, since you are comfortable blogging for a blog that has no problem with anonymous folks blogging as feature authors, I suggest you look in a mirror before criticizing my reporting.

      If you have any actual information to refute what I have written, feel free to provide it.

      • November 30, 2011 at 9:34 pm

        In the meantime, since you are comfortable blogging for a blog that has no problem with anonymous folks blogging as feature authors…

        OK, let’s get that out of the way, since it seems to be a great source of angst for you folks. As far as I can remember offhand, there are only two left:

        An old guy called “Over But Not Out” who Art never met and I haven’t met but e-mails me his contributions, he is somewhat conservative but a retired public employee so defends public employees from an interesting point of view…

        And then of course I guess there’s the one guy you’d like to get your hands on, our “Guy Fawkes” who likes to insult Dan, Matt, and most of the Irvine power structure. It’s really not hard to figure out who he is, he’s a big public figure in the marijuana legalization fight. But if his anonymous existence is what discredits us, then whatever.

        • Greg Diamond
          November 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm

          The complaint seems to be about misleading anonymous commenters, which are apparently much more worrisome than misleading anonymous reliable sources.

      • Greg Diamond
        November 30, 2011 at 10:33 pm

        Let’s start here:

        In that unique position [of DPOC E-Board] you have the opportunity to demand and receive all the information you would like. But as far as i can find, no one has taken the failure to meet those demands very far until now.

        Are you confident of these assertions? (Well, you should be confident that I can demand anything I like; as Shakespeare says about calling forth spirits from the vasty deep, so can you and so can any man, but will they come when you call them?) And “as far as you can find” apparently hasn’t led you to any of the sources who could enlighten you. I’d ask who you have talked to — but it is apparently a secret.

  4. November 30, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    “Is there any reason that you can’t identify who gave you this gloss on events, by the way? I hope that you will do so; it hardly seems confidential.”

    Greg — sorry, but sources sometimes wish to remain anonymous. The Voice of OC story did a good job of reporting and Chris provided some perspective based on additional input from sources and his own personal opinion. From a blog which features anonymous bloggers, you are in no position to ask Chris to reveal his sources that added to the Voice of OC report.

    • Greg Diamond
      November 30, 2011 at 4:56 pm

      Dan, what’s the justification for privacy there? Just helping out a buddy? Sources often want to throw stones while hidden behind walls of a compliant reporter. Sometimes it’s for good reason (like whistleblowing.) In other cases, it’s just flat out sabotage — and unfortunately, those are cases where it’s especially likely that your source may burn you, as happened here. They’ve managed to avoid owning it; that means that if you don’t identify them, you own it.

      By the way, how do you know that Norberto did a good job or reporting — given that you weren’t there? I was there; I can evaluate it (and did so.) But are you acting on anything but wishes and faith?

      Orange Juice isn’t my blog; I don’t make policy. But I will tell you this: if I had an anonymous source that burned me, I would be a hell of a lot less complacent about it that you seem to be.

      By the way: Reggie did not “survive[] the vote, but only by one vote.” 33 to 19 is not “one vote away” from 2/3. If one person switched a vote from no to yes, it would be 34 to 20 — or 65.38%. That’s still not 2/3.

      I realize that this error was in Norberto’s original article — I informed him about it hours ago — which you apparently used as your sole source in this respect, so you can’t really be held responsible for a bit of fact-checking that might have required something like a calculator to verify.

      I hope that if Chris does not name the source he will at least pledge not to take further information from him or her anonymously. Fair?

      • November 30, 2011 at 7:15 pm

        Greg, judging by some of the complete fiction in comments on OJ left about Chris and I, you’re in no position to demand who we talk with and whom we grant anonymity.

        Reggie, whom I don’t know, is very unliked by many people in the Party.

        Chris’s premise that intra-party squabbling needs to stop is correct. I find Frank and Reggie both at fault for how they have conducted party business. Stick to the bylaws or change them.

        Here’s a thought; when is someone going to step up and lead?

        • Greg Diamond
          November 30, 2011 at 10:24 pm

          Dan, I don’t write the comments in question. And, not being your boss, I’m in no position to “demand” anything. But beyond that, what sort of position would I need to be in to argue that printing bad information from anonymous sources is a mistake?

          Chris’s premise is not “that intra-party squabbling needs to stop”; it is that once the party’s governing board found out that we were in financial trouble, supposedly after the Kinde Durkee scandal, people decided that they needed a scapegoat and so went after Reggie. This is completely wrong. You’re being played.

          Here’s a thought for you: asking “when is someone going to step up and lead?” from a position of relative ignorance about what has been going on within an organization is posing.

          • December 1, 2011 at 12:16 am

            “Given the results of last night’s vote and the clear lack of willingness of the party to order Chairman Barbaro to turn over the finances to her control, Mundekis should declare victory and resign. She cannot do her job if she is out of the loop and lacks sufficient support from the majority of members to gain any control. The party does not need to have this conflict continue into the 2012 election year. We have open primaries, newly redistricted legislative seats, and a presidential election to contend with. Inra-party squabbles need to be put to bed so that the focus can be on the 2012 election challenges.

            Greg, what part of that isn’t clear?

            • Greg Diamond
              December 1, 2011 at 12:36 am

              That’s quite clear. I actually think that your analysis there is correct; I just don’t think she’s going to do it. But that’s your conclusion; Dan’s comment was about your premise, i.e. about the basis for the conflict, which is incorrect.

      • November 30, 2011 at 8:30 pm

        Greg,

        To the question of “How do I know Norberto got it right?” While reporters as good as Norberto do periodically make a mistake, in my more than 6 years of working with him, I have found him to be on the mark about 99.9% of the time. In addition, he is an impartial third party to this matter, so unlike with you, personal bias cannot be a factor in his reporting.

        On the matter of “1-vote” shy of removal, you are right, I did not run the calculation myself. In fact, 35 votes would have been required for removal based on the number present and voting. Instead of beating it by one vote, Reggie beat it back by two. Thanks for the math check.

        On the matter of being burned by sources, it has happened to me before, and probably will again. But given my knowledge of my sources, and the fact of never having been burnt by them before, I feel comfortable with what I have reported.

        • Greg Diamond
          November 30, 2011 at 10:16 pm

          I’m glad that you’re comfortable, Chris. This page has what I wrote as a comment on the story at Voice of OC. http://www.voiceofoc.org/politics/article_ce8c49c6-1a97-11e1-8bdf-001cc4c002e0.html?success=1 It should make you feel less comfortable about your treatment by your secret sources. That, of course, just scratches the surface.

          As I say there, Norberto did a decent job — but he missed much of the important back story that would have been obtainable by doing more than listening to a highly truncated floor debate.

  5. Oc Dem
    November 30, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Dan,

    While impugning my motives and my spelling you asserted that the former ED got what was coming to her. Many of the donors/table buyers purchase tables each and every year. So the vast majority of those tables come no matter what. Did the party give a cut for donors who always come or just to new donors?

    If the Truman Dinner was so successful why are is the party in such financial straits?

    Does that mean gotv/ candidate support/ registration efforts will again be stymied for lack of funds?

    The second part of my statement asserts that the current group surrounding the county party is incapable of grasping the opportunity that changing demographics gives it. If you think otherwise please show me how party insiders are increasing the number of elected Democratic officials in Orange County. My counter examples would be the Anaheim City Council, The Garden Grove City Council, and the OC Board of Supervisors where despite large blocks of Independent and Democratic voters there is paltry or no Democratic representation. I ask you to address these issues head on rather then attacking the questioner. If we are to improve our poor position, we first have to acknowledge our shortcomings.

    • November 30, 2011 at 9:38 pm

      Yeah Dan, this person REALLY REALLY sounds like Paul Lucas. Big old literary critic you are. And how does somebody “misspell” an e-mail address?

      • Unmask them all
        December 1, 2011 at 11:14 am

        Vern should do the blogosphere a favor and insist all his bloggers use their own names

        • December 1, 2011 at 2:40 pm

          It’ll never happen. Sockpuppetry rules. I can understand anonymous commenters but not anonymous bloggers

    • Greg Diamond
      November 30, 2011 at 10:11 pm

      Anonymous one (and I do not here speak for the party):

      Why should the answer to your questions matter? Let’s say that half of the tables were “would come anyway” and half were due to the efforts of the independent contractor. She is willing to work for a given amount of money. That might be equal to 5% of the overall take or to 10% of just the half she personally sells — but those would add up to the same number!

      We’re not awash in money, we need more money, but I don’t think that one would fairly say we’re in dire financial straits. As Reggie’s figures showed, even taking out all of our 2012 fixed costs, after the Truman Dinner we have some decent money to use on elections next year. By showing the prospects of good programming, we should be able to raise more.

      It’s unfortunate, in my opinion, that we spent a substantial amount of money on personnel in 2011 when it should have been obvious as early as January that we would not be likely to recoup it. But we did so, and what’s done is done.

      Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe that the way that we “increas[e] the number of elected Democratic officials in Orange County” is by “winning elections.” How are we doing so? Well, we’ve gotten our fiscal house in more rational order, which is a start, and we have a lot of energized people with good ideas, some now being pilot tested.

      What sort of satisfying answer did you have in mind? Did it involve spells and incantations? Those don’t work. Work works.

    • December 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm

      The Durkee case — you may have heard of it — has placed the Party is a tough spot financially as well as many of good Democratic candidates. I have no idea on how the finances and commissions for the dinner were paid, but the event was sold out and a success. In terms of getting more Democrats elected, we need good candidates who can raise money.

  6. Greg Diamond
    November 30, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Next:

    As an E-Board member, I presume you are as aware as I am that Reggie has had no access to bank account statements or reports since Durkee was replaced by the current accountant. As I understand it, new bank accounts were opened to facilitate the collection of funds and payment of bills for the party without her knowledge or consent. It is my understanding that the current accountant has been instructed to not interact with Reggie and that she has no authority to request anything or authorize any further payments. I believe that situation, if true, would violate the party bylaws.

    If so, then the By-Laws spell out proper recourse. Reggie and any two other Central Committee members have the right to pursue it.

    I find it surprising that someone with your passion for checks, balances, and controls would focus his attention on the removal of an officer who, while arguably has pissed alot of people off with her mass emails and rants, has a legitimate right for access to party financial records and has been denied access by the Chair of the party. It seems that your concern is a bit misplaced.

    Chris, are you presuming that I was one of those who signed a letter calling for Reggie’s removal? You can check.

    My “attention was focused” on a significant item placed on the agenda at a meeting of a body on which I am a voting member. That’s good, right?

    It’s true that I spoke and voted for her removal. Do you presume that I spoke in agreement with all or most of that letter?

    You also apparently presume that the issue before the body dealt with Reggie’s ability to perform her oversight function. In fact, it was not. What was before the body was her performance of her role as Treasurer. The By-Laws spell out what she is tasked with doing and the grounds for her removal. You can look this up.

    Do you get the sense that the question of whether the Chair is violating the By-Laws was not actually the topic for discussion as related to Reggie — and that, by being sold an apparent bill of goods that that was the actual topic for discussion, you have been had by your anonymous source?

    (If so, do you get a sense of why I’m pissed off?)

    • December 1, 2011 at 12:31 am

      Greg, I did not have the impresssion that the discussion last night was about the failure of the Chair to provide access to actual records the treasurer is entitled to.

      I am aware that the issue was, at least for Frank, that Reggie expended funds she was not authorized to spend, and that her questions and concerns expressed to Club leaders and others have suggested financial impropriety on the part of the Chair and a former Executive Director.

      You are correct that the Party spent money it didn’t have on staff it couldn’t afford.that plug should have been pulled when it became clear that the Executive Director was unable to pull together enough resources to fund the operations.

  7. Greg Diamond
    November 30, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    Now, as to your questions, again answering only for myself, not the party:

    1. Do you know how much money (net) was raised by the Truman Dinner? If not, why?

    Roughly, yes. This information was presented at the meeting, although it was not part of Norberto’s story. Your source did tell you that, I hope.

    2. The Core of the Kindee Durkee scandal was the fact that nobody was reviewing bank statements and just took Durkee’s word for things. Since we know that Mundekis isn’t getting the statements, who independently of the accountant, is reviewing them?

    The switch is still very new. I don’t know what procedure will be used and have not been asked for my input. I’m not particularly worried about it at this point, given the low stakes and high scrutiny, but it does need to be worked out. I should point out, though, that the Kinde Durkee scandal involved a very small proportion of what concerns me about our 2011 finances.

    3. Given the fact that the effort to remove Mundekis failed, will you be leading the charge to get her access to the information she is entitled to under her official role as the elected party Treasurer?

    Others, primarily Reggie and those who supported her, will I’m sure be leading that charge. I don’t know what Frank will say when he returns, so I don’t even know where I would stand on it if it came before the Central Committee. You’re asking me if I would be a major player in a squabble between the Chair and the Treasurer, and it is that that would be the actual waste of my time. I’d rather work to win elections.

    Your questions suggest to me that you misconstrue the problems — many of which are behind us — that actually did undercut DPOC finances this year. Those problems had almost nothing to do with Durkee & Associates. Furthermore, they had almost all of their impact prior to that scandal.

    I’m sorry that you have been convinced to give people a contrary impression to this. If you read the DPOC By-Laws, you may see what actual problems have been at hand — and what starkest failure to perform official duties continues in force.

  8. Greg Diamond
    December 1, 2011 at 12:44 am

    Great — but then I don’t see why your focus in comments to me has been on this tangential question of the Treasurer’s prerogatives.

    It’s not fair to call it “Frank’s” concern; I think that something like 15-20 members, which didn’t include me, signed the letter.

    As for this:

    You are correct that the Party spent money it didn’t have on staff it couldn’t afford.that plug should have been pulled when it became clear that the Executive Director was unable to pull together enough resources to fund the operations.

    That should raise various questions. What procedures were in place to prevent such a misdirection of resources? Were those procedures followed? If they weren’t followed, why not? Whose responsibility was it to follow them? What attempts did anyone make to impel them to be followed — and what happened as a result of those attempts?

    Therein lies the actual story — in my personal opinion. One would find differences of opinion as to the answers to these questions, but underlying such opinions are supposed to be facts.

  9. December 1, 2011 at 1:02 am

    After reading all the comments so far, and specifically my dialogue with Greg Diamond I have a few conclusions.

    1. All parties involved do truly care about the future of the Damocratic Party in Orange County. They just disagree passionately on the direction that future should take.

    2. Reggie Mundekis clearly failed to adequately perform all of her functions as Treasurer. There are also some mitigating factors that explain some of those failures.

    3. Given the totality of the circumstances presented, the required 2/3 of Central Committee members voting did not find those failures suffient to warrant her removal from office.

    4. Given the inability of the Treasurer to work well or effectively with others, she should resign in order to faciliate the appointment of a new Treasurer, who with the support of the Central Committee hopefully will be able to gain access to control over the financial activities of the party.

    5. Some group of Central Committee members need to get together and work out a plan, for at least the next year, to bring stability to party finances into the future. Just getting through the next election cycle is not enough.

    As Greg Diamond suggests, further involvement in the squabble between the Chair and Treasurer would be a waste of time. We need to be working on winning elections.

Comments are closed.