The CRA Vote, Here's What Really Happened

Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College brought in at least two former Mayors and several other Yes on P supporters to the California Republican Assembly (CRA) meeting held recently. They brought plans to have the California Republican Assembly endorse passage of Measure P even though the California Republican Party and the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee already voted to oppose Measure P.

From indications now coming forward what was done at the meeting was probably pre-determined by members of the Yes on P campaign and at least one sitting member of the local California Republican Assembly group for area.

Here is an account of what happened from a former Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes.

According to existing CRA rules, only members having 30 days or more in the organization could vote on a matter.

A current member made a motion to suspend that rule for today's meeting.

The Secretary of the CRA, G. Rick Marshall ruled that a simple majority of voting members could approve another motion. (According to sources, Mr. Marshall is a supporter of Measure P.)

A recess was called.

All of the "entourage" not as yet members of the CRA, paid dues and became members and because of the rules suspension and the ruling by the Secretary, a 2/3 vote to approve a motion for the CRA to support Measure P, The Marymount Plan was adopted.

There were a total of 15 voting members who voted, according to my source and 10 of them voted for the motion.

The breakdown of voters is was recently learned was there were 8 qualified members of the CRA before Dr. Brophy's "entourage" came in with seven individuals.

That means the members of the 'entourage' brought by Dr. Brophy voted with the Secretary, Mr.Marshall, along with some members of Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch another (small) group supportive of Measure P, to secure a 2/3 vote.

Now wasn't it Dr. Brophy's group that earlier suggested they might disrupt the most recent CHOA meeting demanding a re-vote because of the 'unanimous' vote of opposition of Measure P.

And wasn't it the same Dr. Brophy who had at least one suggestion that he attend that meeting to calm Measure P supporters down and attempt to lower the tension, and he did attend.?

But Today the "fit hit the shan" with the President of the California Republican Assembly, Ms. Celeste Greig.

Here is the body of Ms. Greig's Email responding to accounts provided to her concerning the meeting and the actions attempted:

"Hello everybody,

I have NOT stopped talking on the phone for the last two hours, getting phone calls from CRA members and non members about what went on yesterday at a meeting held by the Palos Verdes Peninsula RA, where the main issue on the agenda was the endorsement of L.A. County Measure P.

I was told that only eight members of PVPRA were present and some others became instant members by paying dues on the spot, are you ready for the shock, " Marilyn Lyon, Barbara Ferraro and others" and of course a letter of support from Steve Kuykendall?

I find the vote that took place yesterday absolutely appalling and unconstitutional, signing in, becoming members the same day and voting?, whether you agree or disagree on the issue brought for a vote, the process was WRONG.

This vote is null, the people who signed up as members yesterday need to be reimburse ASAP, their names as members were not submitted to the CRA Membership Secretary Peggy Mew, prior to the endorsement.

And yes we are CRA had taken positions on Propositions or Measures different that CRP or local Republican Central Committees, in this case because it is a County or local Measure other RA Units in the area should have participated.

I was ask by two of the three who called me to remove their email address from this message, as they don't want to be in everybody's email list. " Celeste Greig.

But if you think that is the last comment, you are incorrect.

There is another very outspoken and prominent Republican who weighed in, via Email.

Here is the body of that person's Email:

"As a member of the PVPCRA, I was not informed a vote would be taking place. Also, the Republican Party of Los Angeles County has officially taken a NO position on Measure P.

Should the CRA be taking a position opposite that of the official party?

Kuykendall and Ferraro both knew this position and should have spoken up, even if it was to their disadvantage.
Thanks, "

Now the "taken a NO position on Measure P" DOES NOT MEAN that a position was not taken. The position taken by the Republican Party of Los Angeles County is opposed to Measure P.

And now for a real question. What will Dr. Brophy and the Yes on P campaign attempt next?