Meeting Public Comments

Edward Hee

Honorable Members of the State Government Subcommittee:I thank you for this opportunity to go on record with comments on SF356 before your subcommittee. I have read the text of the proposed Bill and must state I believe this to be a mistake. I am currently a County Central Committee chair and have been for over five years. I interact with other county chairs on a regular basis and have come to know many quite well and am familiar with many of their Central Committee members as well. I mention this because one of the most common themes I hear in these groups is the importance of local autonomy and grassroots direction of local party committees. SF356 is step in the wrong direction, away from those concepts. The Bill's provisions could force vacancies in a leadership structure of a Central Committee that don't need to happen. The Bill has the appearance of trying to force 'term limits' on the local Committee executive boards, and in fact appears to conflict with provisions of 43.100 that guarantee local autonomy and selfdetermination to County Central Committees. Sadly, in some counties in this state participation in the local process is so minimal it can be difficult to find people willing to fill these offices, and the potential for nearendless elections or appointments due to the provisions of this bill cannot be ignored. Plus, learning the duties of these offices can take time and often there is minimal or inadequate training for the position. This makes the need for experienced persons willing to continue serving even more imperative, and it is counterproductive to establish law that forces leaders out or limits the time they can serve. It is a disservice to the local party structures for the Legislature to impose a directive on the local Central Committees that could alienate many potential participants from entering and serving in a way that would improve continuity and cohesion in those Committees. I would ask the Subcommittee not to pass out the Bill in its current form, and in fact I wish to propose the Subcommittee consider the process to amend the Bill to eliminate the twoyear service limit, and leave the length of term up to the local Central Committee to determine by vote and include in their Constitution and Bylaws. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Lori Stiles

I encourage you to vote NO on SF356, and leave the current code asis. While I don't know the backstory of what prompted this proposed change, I do not understand the need for it. It would seem more effective for each partisan County Central Committee (perhaps with prompting by the leaders in their respective State Central Committee) to be sure their county's bylaws address the manner in which elections and reelections take place, and what recourse they have for removing an officer, 'for just cause'. The terms "qualified" and "incompetency" could use some defining, but that also should be elaborated on in each county's bylaws. It is my understanding that Pete Rogers of the RPI State Central Cmte is working with county GOP Central Committees to update their respective bylaws AND to assure that concepts in the counties' bylaws (and Constitutions) align with the State Party's, and are not contradictory. It seems to me this is a more appropriate way to handle any suggestion of term limits. I see no reason for Iowa LAW to mandate that any VOLUNTEER holding a leadership position in their county's political party be forced to end their service after two years. As already stated in comments here, talent accquisition for such VOLUNTEER County Party Leadership Positions is a real challenge in most places, and REQUIRING such turnover would present an undue burden in many cases. Let the ability of the Committee to bring forth opponents and campaign and be voted on dictate who gets removed from service, every two years. Don't mandate this. This seems to be the business of each Party's internal workings, and would be an overreach for the state legislature to REQUIRE by putting into Code. Please reject the changes to Iowa Code 43.101 set forth in SF 356.Thank you.

Jim Buschkamp

LegislatorsI urge to vote no on this. I have been a central committee member for many years. I have only in recent years become an officer. I have held various positions. In recent years we have seen turnover in membership. Of course we encourage involvement of everyone and try to mentor newcomers. New ideas are encouraged. On the other hand we have paramators in which we must operate, specific goals to pursue and rabbit holes best not entered. And Roberts rules to follow lest we become chaotic. There is a natural transition that occurs with time while allowing newcomers to observe process and history and be more focused and effective as they assume leadership. Isolated instances of paternalism dont support doing away with an effective process of meritocracy.