December 1st Meeting of the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee

New Committee Appointments, Trump Endorsement, Ohio Republican Party Platform, and Bylaw Changes

Dec 22, 2023

I want to thank my colleague, Stephanie Kremer (District 12), for assisting me in compiling the following meeting summary.

On December 1st, the Ohio Republican State Central Committee held a meeting, and the committee members nominated candidates to fill the vacancies for the women's position in Senate Districts 8 and 20. After a thorough deliberation, the majority of the committee voted to appoint Diane Redden for District 8 and Carrie Masterson for District 20.

ORP Endorses Donald J. Trump

The next item on the agenda was the endorsement for the President of the United States in the March 19^th Primary Election. First, a motion was made to endorse a candidate for the President of the United States in the primary. In line with our commitment, I, along with several conservative colleagues, refrained from endorsing in the primary and voted ‘No’. However, the majority of the State Central Committee members voted in favor, and the endorsement in the primary for U.S. President was approved.

Next, another motion was made to endorse Donald J. Trump. After thorough discussion, a vote was taken, and the majority of members voted ‘Yes’ with one ‘No’ vote and a few members abstaining.

During the discussion, Committee members expressed a spectrum of opinions, ranging from insightful and well-reasoned statements to those that elicited a sense of bewilderment, prompting a raising of the eyebrows. I defer to my readers to discern where they’d classify the following comments.

Melanie Leneghan (District 19 ) stated she was proud to second the motion for consideration of endorsement for Donald J. Trump, describing him as “the greatest president of the U.S. in the modern era” and the “only man who can restore the rule of law in our republic and the only man who will bring peace to the world.” Lisa Crescimano (District 2) commented that she did not like the idea of endorsements during the primary and reminded those conservatives who ran on not endorsing in the primary that they should stand by the promise they made to voters.

Mike Witte (District 13 ) stated that he is a “staunch supporter of Donald Trump” and he believes that “[Trump’s] the right candidate and that he will win Ohio.” However, he stated that “endorsing by the party in the primary is inappropriate and makes a mockery of the primary process and [he believes] Donald Trump will win without our endorsement.” He concluded by emphasizing that the constituents should have a right to decide in the primary and we should not put our thumb on the scales. Gloria Martin (District 14) argued that she believed it was completely appropriate that the party endorse Trump because he is getting attacked and we need to be unified. She also asserted that “for all of you [state central committee members] who made promises to your committee people [constituents], a promise should be made to our president.”

Debbie Lang (District 4) expressed that she is for exceptions to every rule. She stated that she was “typically against endorsements in the primary […], but in this case, [she] feels that we have no choice, and we have to support our president.” She encouraged members to “think about exceptions to every rule.” Arthur McGuire (District 6) echoed that he believed that endorsing Trump was the right thing to do right now.

Michelle Schneider (District 7) made the motion to endorse Donald Trump, citing his record of accomplishments over the past four years of his presidency. Josh Brown (District 16 ) concluded the discussion by stating that “in modern history no man has ever done more for manufacturing and agricultural and the middle class than Donald Trump.”

Although I voted for Trump in the last two presidential cycles and would support him again if he were to win the presidential primary, I campaigned on the principle of not endorsing candidates during the primaries. I believe it is inappropriate for me to influence the selection of a presidential candidate. The voters of District 5 will make that decision in the primary on March 19th. According to the polls, Trump is significantly ahead of the other challengers, so I do not necessarily agree with the arguments presented during the discussion that the State Central Committee (SCC) needed to help Trump win. I am confident that he will secure victory in the primary without intervention from the SCC.

The Hill reports that “Trump leads his 2024 GOP presidential rivals by a wide margin, polling at an average of 60 percent, followed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (Fla.) at 12.6 percent, former Gov. Nikki Haley (S.C.) at 9.5 percent and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who is from Ohio, at 5.1 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight.”

Additionally, I had several other concerns regarding the endorsement process. When I was assigned to the Endorsement Policy Review Subcommittee, initially under the leadership of former Chairman Paduchik and more recently under Chairman Triantafilou, both leaders emphasized the significance of the position. They highlighted that the subcommittee would play a crucial role in establishing guidelines for endorsements. The purpose was to provide a framework for the entire committee, enabling the endorsement process in primaries if the State Central Committee members chose to move forward with endorsements.

However, since the formation of the newly assigned subcommittee under Chairman Triantafilou's leadership in June, we have not convened a single meeting to discuss endorsements. Despite this, we have proceeded to endorse candidates twice—first with the Ohio Supreme Court judicial candidates and now with the U.S. President—without establishing any guidelines as originally intended.

Furthermore, I had concerns about the phone calls that both I and my fellow state central committee members received, particularly from lobbyists who also held positions on the committee, and from the former ORP Chairman, now associated with the Trump campaign in Ohio. These calls appeared to be used as a tactic to exert high-pressure influence on state central committee members to endorse Trump in the primary.

One lobbyist, who is also a state central committee member, went so far as to discuss personal perks that he and committee members might receive if they successfully secured Trump’s endorsement. This situation is a key reason why I’m hesitant about having lobbyists on the committee; their primary responsibility should be to prioritize the interests of the voters in their district rather than prioritizing their own personal interests.

Background on the Platform Subcommittee

Following the tabling of the proposed Ohio Republican Party Platform in May, Chairman Triantafilou reorganized the subcommittee assignments. Unfortunately, these assignments did not align with the Chairman’s stated goal of “tak[ing] into consideration each member’s individual preferences and talents” and in “hav[ing] subcommittees that reflect the entirety of our committee by embracing our committee’s regional, ideological, and gender diversity.”

Not only were several conservatives on the committee denied assignments to their preferred committees, despite possessing the experience and talent to contribute effectively, but there were also conservatives removed from the platform and/or bylaws subcommittees. Instead, they were placed on committees that never convened, often referred to as the “coat closet committees.”

I was among the conservatives who had requested to be assigned to the bylaws, platform, and endorsement policy review subcommittee. However, I was ultimately assigned to the endorsement policy review committee, as mentioned earlier, a committee that has yet to meet. Following the Chairman’s subcommittee assignments, I appealed the decision and requested to be added to either the platform or bylaws subcommittee. In support of my appeal, I provided evidence demonstrating that the assignment did not align with his stated goal of ensuring subcommittees reflected the committee’s diversity in terms of region, ideology, and gender. Regrettably, Chairman Triantafilou communicated to me that he would not be reconsidering the assignments, and his decision remained unchanged.

Below is some of the supporting evidence that was submitted to the Chairman. For my readers who are unaware, there are 66 members on the state central committee (one male and one female from each senate district).

There are 30 SCC members holding one position on a subcommittee. There are 4 non-members holding positions. The SCC members represent 45% of the total membership of the committee.
There are 10 members holding two subcommittee positions. These members represent 15% of the total committee membership.
There are 9 committee members holding three subcommittee positions and one non-member holding three subcommittee positions. The SCC members represent 14% of the total committee membership.
There are 3 SCC members holding five subcommittee positions. The three SCC members appear to be concentrated on the western part of the state. These members represent 5% of the total committee membership.
There are 6 SCC members holding six subcommittee positions. Four of the six committee members appear to be concentrated in the northwestern & northeastern part of Ohio. These members represent 9% of the total committee membership.

Based on the breakdown, it is my view that the subcommittee assignments are not evenly distributed among the members, with some holding significantly more subcommittee positions than others. Additionally, there is a disparity in opportunities, with certain members holding multiple committee positions, potentially leading to an unequal distribution of influence and responsibility within the committee. The analysis does not include non-members who also hold committee positions, which may contribute to further disparities in representation.

Chairman Triantafilou has stated that his goal in making these assignments is “to have subcommittees that reflect the entirety of our committee by embracing our committee’s regional, ideological, and gender diversity.” Unfortunately, I do not believe this goal has been achieved because we see regional concentrations, especially with members holding five and six committee positions. These members are entrusted with greater responsibilities due to their higher number of committee assignments. However, they are predominantly concentrated in the northernmost part of the state.

Furthermore, I've noticed a significant gender imbalance among members who hold four or more positions. Amongst the 8 members holding positions on four committees, only two are females. Amongst the three members holding five committee positions, only one is female. Amongst the six members holding six positions, only two are female. This significant gender gap in opportunities for higher-committee assignments indicates a lack of equality for female members of the committee. The Ohio Republican State Central Committee must be inclusive, accountable, and prevent power concentration.

Report from Platform Subcommittee

On October 31, Doris Peters (District 23), the Chairwoman of the Platform Subcommittee, sent an email to the state central committee members containing the final draft of the platform. She urged members to review the two-page document and direct any questions or concerns to her or other subcommittee members. Unfortunately, I was not able to give much attention to the platform until after the November 7 election, as my efforts were concentrated on defeating Issue 1.

On November 20, Doris sent a second email with revisions that had been made to the proposed platform, and again urged member to direct their questions and concerns to her or other members of the subcommittee.

After reviewing the final platform draft, my colleagues and I identified several significant concerns that could not be overlooked. We compiled our concerns and sent an email to both the Platform Subcommittee and the entire membership of the state central committee on November 21. The letter we sent is as follows:

Dear Members of the Platform Subcommittee,
We have received your draft of the state platform; and want to thank you for actively seeking feedback from all members of the committee, prior to our December 1st meeting.
After comparing the recently submitted platform to the one tabled in May, it is our opinion that the tabled platform more closely aligns with the values and beliefs of Ohio Republicans. We believe it clearly articulates specific beliefs within Ohio’s context. Additionally, the tabled platform emphasizes Ohio-centered values, including empowering local governance and communities in the decision-making processes, fostering a business-friendly environment for job growth and entrepreneurship, and supporting educational reforms aligned with Ohio’s unique educational landscape.
While we have adopted the RNC national platform for overarching values and beliefs at the national level, we believe that the State platform should focus on the specific values and beliefs of Ohio’s Republicans, and the platform tabled last May comes closer to achieving this goal.
We have learned that members of the Platform Subcommittee recently voted to remove references to the preborn and their right to life from the Life Plank, claiming it was "inflammatory" and needed removal to "win Republican elections." We strongly disagree with this morally and ethically and find it politically unwise. The Ohio Republicans have a supermajority at a level never seen before in Ohio, all the while strongly advocating for the unborn. Changing course now for the sake of winning more elections would be contradictory.
In the recent election, only 27% of Ohioans voted 'Yes' for Issue 1, representing 56% of the 48% who voted. A significant 4,125,442 voters chose not to vote at all. It should also be noted that only 25 out of 88 counties voted to approve Issue 1. With a minority of voters in an off-year election, it's doubtful such an amendment would pass in a Presidential or Gubernatorial election year. Instead of significantly weakening a fundamental plank of the Ohio Republican Party, we should be urging legislators to address the issue of off-year election minorities changing Ohio's Constitution.
Furthermore, voters are likely to perceive this action as hypocritical, especially considering the Committee's unanimous support for a resolution to vote 'No' on Issue 1 in September, yet now there is an unwillingness to include protections for the unborn in the Ohio Republican Party's Platform.
In light of the strong pro-life sentiment among Ohioans, where approximately 70% identify as pro-life, and the majority within that group supports exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it's crucial for the Republican Party to maintain its pro-life stance. While a no-exceptions law may face challenges in the current climate, there is an opportunity to advocate for policies that can significantly reduce the number of abortions in Ohio. By championing a platform that both respects pro-life values and addresses the practicalities surrounding exceptions, the party can demonstrate responsiveness to the desires of its constituents and work towards a shared goal of protecting the sanctity of life in the state.
In addition, our understanding is that the party’s political platform should include Legislative Priorities. While the new platform contains a succinct and condensed statement of beliefs and values, we are unable to find any identified legislative priorities. Adding a section to the Platform titled “Short and Long-Term State Legislative Priorities", will provide clearly defined goals for the Ohio Republican Party, serving to unite us, and driving efforts to secure donations. Legislative priorities also serve to direct Republican legislators toward issues deemed crucial by Ohio Republicans.
We are deeply concerned that this current draft of our State Platform will be perceived as lacking clear goals; therefore, we propose that the Ohio Republican State Central Committee take a goal-oriented approach to this very important document. To that end, we propose the following:
1. That the party’s platform includes the legislative objectives that are important to Ohio’s Republicans. This will boost party engagement and support.
2. That the State Central Committee will use the Platform to regain leadership status and transform the party into a potent force for conservative legislation, fostering freedom, opportunity, and prosperity.
We have attached an example of legislative priorities for your review. Let’s strive to be a model organization driven by its membership, focused on goals, and advocating with a unified voice, to influence Republican legislators, guiding Ohio towards a brighter future.
Sincerely,
Jessica Franz, ORPSCC5
Stephanie Kremer, ORPSCC12
Mike Witte, ORPSCC13
Chris Maurer, ORPSCC29
Antonia Blake, ORPSCC31
Lauren Bowen, ORPSCC9
Joe Miller, ORPSCC21
Jake Warner, ORPSCC20

During the December 1st State Central Committee meeting, my colleagues and I advocated either postponing or substituting the proposed platform with the one tabled in May (before the subcommittees were re-assigned). We raised concerns about the proposed platform’s lack of alignment with the values and beliefs of Ohio Republicans and emphasized the importance of a comprehensive platform that includes beliefs, values and legislative priorities.

We pointed out the proposed platform didn’t include any short or long-term legislative priorities, hindering the party’s ability to set goals, unite members, fundraise effectively, and direct our legislators on issues considered most pressing by Ohio Republicans. Additionally, we pointed out the draft’s failure to address vital matters such as parental rights and fiscal responsibility.

The primary author of the draft, Tony Schroeder (District 1), contended that the platform should be concise - akin to the 10 Commandments. However, we argued that if that was the goal, the draft was not a platform, but merely a basic statement of beliefs. We encouraged the platform committee to postpone the adoption of the platform and spend time researching platforms from other states such as Texas, Florida, and North Carolina – states that have very specific platforms with over 50 pages. We argued that the proposed platform would not be acceptable to our voters and would be a poor reflection on the party due to its lack of meaning, substance, direction, priorities, or goals for the future. Additionally, we pointed out that the proposed platform had been written primarily by one individual, whereas the May platform had teams of two people working on each plank.

The paramount issue with the proposed platform was that members of the Platform Subcommittee voted to eliminate references to the unborn and their right to life, claiming it was “inflammatory” and required removal for the purpose of “winning Republican elections.” As I’ve already emphasized in the letter above, we disagree with this morally, ethically, and politically.

Stephanie Kremer (District 12) stated that standing for the unborn and traditional family were fundamental values of the Republican Party, as specifically stated in the National Republican Committee (NRC) platform that had been adopted by the Ohio Republican State Central Committee. Following more discussion, Lisa Cooper (District 26 ) proposed an amendment to the draft to include the words “including the unborn.” A vote was taken, and the motion passed, with the only dissenting vote coming from Dave Johnson (District 33).

Who Voted to Remove the Unborn from the Proposed Platform?

Ohio Republican Party Platform Committee member states that Including the Pre-born is now Considered “Inflammatory.”

Shortly after the final Platform Subcommittee meeting in November, I was informed that the establishment elite strategically placed on the Platform Subcommittee to create the Ohio Republican Party's platform removed any meaningful language from the original draft that was presented and tabled at the May meeting. It appears they have eliminated mentions of the traditional family and the unborn, opting not to recognize their existence or address the sanctity of life.

At the final Platform Subcommittee meeting, it was reported that Dave Johnson (District 33) made a motion to discuss removing the phrase "including the pre-born" from the life plank. Tony Schroeder (District 1) seconded this motion. Johnson described the phrase as "inflammatory" and stated it needed to be removed "to win Republican elections." Penny Martin (District 15), Melanie Mason (District 24), Patty Stein (District 13), and Tony Schroeder (District 1) agreed, deeming the language "divisive" and attributing it to election losses, such as the defeat of Issue 1 in November.

After extensive discussion, a motion to remove the language was made by Dave Johnson and seconded by Penny Martin. Those voting to remove the phrase included Melanie Mason (District 24), Zoi Romanchuk (District 22), Ron O’Brien (District 25), Dave Johnson (District 33), Tony Schroeder (District 1), Frank Reed (District 15), Lucy Stickan (District 21), LeeAnn Johnson (District 30), Patty Stein (District 13), and Penny Martin (District 15).

The only members opposing the removal were Doris Peters (District 23), Denise Verdi (District 18), and Lauren Bowen (District 9).

Absent members were Michelle Schneider (District 7), Michelle Anderson (District 16), Gary Cates (District 4), Mary O’ Toole (District 28), Randy Law (District 32), and Keith Cheney (District 12).

I am struck by the hypocrisy of many members of the Platform Subcommittee who unanimously supported a resolution to vote 'No' on Issue 1 in September to protect the unborn, yet are now unwilling to include protections for the unborn in the Ohio Republican Party's Platform.

The bottom line is that moderates within the party have sacrificed conservative and traditional values to appeal to unaffiliated moderate Democrats and Republicans for the sake of reelection.

Pro-life conservatives have witnessed this trend firsthand, evident in the tragic loss of over 20,000 unborn lives annually. The Ohio Republican Party's reluctance to maintain the moral high ground has led to the deterioration of the state.

The Failure of the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee to Protect the Unborn

Despite having the power to significantly reduce elective abortions in Ohio, the Republican-controlled state has not taken decisive action. The Ohio Republican Party, claiming to be a defender of life, missed an opportunity to become a genuine pro-life organization by refusing to endorse or financially support pro-abortion Republican candidates. Many senior party members, professing conservative Christian values, declined to adopt such a stance.

See the article I wrote in March of this year entitled PLINO (Pro-life In Name Only)

The Ohio Republican Party, lacking conservative leadership, operate as a uniparty that primarily caters to special interests with substantial financial backing. This uniparty is characterized by stuffed shirts, backroom deals, and a pervasive attitude of "we can't do that," despite being the dominant political force in Ohio.

Report from Permanent Rules and Bylaws Committee

The Permanent Rules and Bylaws Committee presented their revised bylaws for consideration to be adopted by the Committee. Faced with a time constraint to conclude the meeting, one of my colleagues and I requested a postponement of the vote to adopt the amended bylaws. We advised the time constraint did not allow the committee to thoroughly discuss the amendments. Furthermore, we were only informed of the amendments when they were presented on the agenda, and the committee was not invited to provide feedback or suggestions prior to the meeting.

The majority of the committee opted not to delay the approval of the amended bylaws, leading to the continuation of the discussion. While there were various concerns within the bylaws that members wished to address, the Chairman restricted us to only two amendments, a decision that, upon reflection, deviated from Roberts Rules. We were never provided with any stated policy as part of the bylaws that would authorize the Chairman to institute a rule limiting committee members’ speech. Confining committee members’ speech goes beyond the permissible limitations, as Roberts Rules allows restrictions on amendments to resolutions, but not to the bylaws.

Two of the positive aspects of the amended bylaws is the creation of a Committee on the Committees (allows subcommittee assignments to be determined by a panel of individuals, rather than solely at the discretion of the Chair) and a Party Outreach Committee. Other changes include moving the term from two-year terms to four-year terms starting in 2026 and only requiring in-person attendance from three times a year to once a year. All other meetings can be attended via virtual meeting. In my opinion, this is a mistake and will foster a lack of transparency and accountability on the committee.

From my perspective, one concerning change is the establishment of a Resolutions Subcommittee. Previously, committee members could request adding their resolutions to the agenda within a few weeks of the meeting. However, with the new Resolutions Subcommittee, all resolutions must pass through it and gain approval from subcommittee members before being placed on the agenda. Given the party’s track record of populating committees with individuals sharing similar ideological perspectives or committees never convening at all, I am skeptical that many, if any, submitted resolutions will make it onto the agenda. This amendment raises concerns about the potential suppression of minority conservative voices within the committee.

I wonder, had this subcommittee been in place earlier, how many of the following resolutions we would not have been permitted to add to the agenda?

Despite what some SCC members mistakenly believe, the role of a state central committee extends beyond merely securing ‘R’s’ in elections. Neither are members to be using the position to rubber stamp for the party elite. We function as the governing board of directors for the party, carrying the responsibility to recruit, vet, hold accountable, and provide legislative direction to elected and appointed Republican candidates.

A second significant concern revolves around language added to Article I of the by-laws, which states: “Members of the Committee shall be obligated to take the following oath upon qualifying for the Committee, and shall be disqualified from office if unable or unwilling to take this oath:

I, (First Name, Last Name), do solemnly swear that I will defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio;
That I will obey the rules and by-laws of the Republican National Committee and the Permanent Rules and By-Laws of the Republican State Central and Executive Committee of Ohio;
And I will faithfully perform the duties as a member of the State Central Committee of my district, and support the Ohio Republican Party and its candidates, to the best of my ability, so help me God.”

For decades, this oath has never been a part of our bylaws and it has never been obligatory.

While taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution poses no issue, the requirement to pledge allegiance to the entire Ohio Constitution has now become a concern for many pro-life conservatives who are people of faith. A recent resignation from a committee member cited the inability to serve due to the oath to the Ohio Constitution, particularly after the passage of Issue 1, which now embeds the right to unrestricted abortion access. Given the recent resignation and the sensitivity of the matter among committee members, it appears peculiar that the oath is now integrated into the bylaws with a mandate compelling members to take it or face disqualification “if unable or unwilling to take this oath.”

In an effort to remedy this new deep moral conflict faced by pro-life Ohio officeholders obligated to uphold a State Constitution allowing abortion-on-demand, I offered an amendment advocating for an alternative oath that aligns with religious convictions and respects right of conscience.

Alternative Oath of Office for pro-life adherents:

"I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [Office Title] to the best of my ability, under God.
I declare that as a person of religious beliefs, I cannot in good conscience support or participate in supporting any policies or laws that do not provide the pre-born with personhood rights and the natural and self-evident right-to-life.
I commit to fulfilling my obligations to the fullest extent possible within the bounds of my religious convictions and will faithfully discharge the duties of [office title] to the best of my ability.
So help me God."

Regrettably, the state central committee opted not to adopt the alternative oath. In the course of discussion, one member voiced opposition to the alternative oath, stating that we couldn’t selectively choose which aspects of the Constitution to uphold. Another member argued that individuals with religious or conscientious objections could technically take the oath without a sincere commitment, knowing that the Constitution was a fluid document that could change.

After the meeting, I shared my concerns with the primary author of the proposed bylaws changes, Mark Wagoner (District 11). I explained that in my view, the ORP should stand committed to honoring religious freedoms and ensure that individuals committed to a pro-life stance can fulfill their duties in accordance with their deeply held beliefs. I explained that the adoption of an alternative oath would serve as a testament to our commitment to safeguarding religious liberty and conscience rights. I also sought clarification on whether members with religious or conscientious objections would be obligated to take the oath, and he responded that they would not. I am hopeful that this assurance will indeed be upheld. I do wonder about the purpose of including it if it won’t be enforced.

Another area of concern pertained to the addition of language requiring members to pledge support to the Ohio Republican Party and its candidates. This is also a departure from our traditional oath, where such language has never been a part of the pledge until now.

Why are members now obligated to take an oath to support the party and its candidates? Are they still obligated to support the party and its candidates when they are not representing their Republican voters and when they are behaving badly?

This reiterates my argument that the SCC should never function as a mere rubber-stamping mechanism for special interests and the party elite. Our role extends beyond merely electing Republicans; we must also enforce accountability and articulate our expectations for legislative priorities. Is this amended language an attempt to hinder future attempts to hold candidates accountable when they deviate from Republican values and principles, as seen with the Blue-22 Republicans earlier this year when they aligned with Democrats in choosing the next Speaker of the House? Should they not have faced accountability through censure for these actions? Furthermore, should we not scrutinize our former treasurer when he openly admitted to spending $200K to prevent state central members from accessing the party’s financial records? Should we refrain from criticizing the Governor when it has been reported that he is secretly meeting with legislatures to deter them from supporting the SAFE ACT and when he is not acting with haste to sign it into law after its passage by the General Assembly? This oath seems to imply that we should turn a blind eye and remain silent, offering unquestioning allegiance to candidates and a party exhibiting poor behavior.

DeWine is ‘taking a hard, hard look’ at bill that would ban gender-affirming care to trans youth

PASSED! Ohio General Assembly Sends Save Women's Sports Act, SAFE Act to Gov. DeWine

In conclusion, the language that raises the most concern is as follows: "Members of the Committee who are deemed to have violated their oath through their conduct or engagement in behavior detrimental to the goals of the Ohio Republican Party may be expelled from the Committee by a 2/3 vote of the then-seated Committee." While there’s quite a bit that could be written on this subject, I'll highlight a few troubling aspects. Who determines, and in what manner, a member has violated their oath? What behaviors would be considered detrimental to the goals of the Ohio Republican Party? The ambiguous wording poses a potential danger, providing numerous possibilities for the removal of a minority member who doesn't align with the majority's thinking. Moreover, due to the deliberate lack of specificity, it opens the door to the abuse of power over committee members exercising their right to speak freely. This ambiguity creates an unnecessary intimidation factor, hindering the development of unity and trust among party members and leadership.

The final item on the agenda was the deliberation and consideration of three resolutions. Due to time constraints, the Committee unanimously passed the three resolutions without discussion. These include the Resolution Condemning Hamas and Rise of Global Antisemitism, co-sponsored by myself and Brian Andrews, the Resolution Encouraging Republicans to Support Republicans for Legislative Leadership Positions, and the Resolution Protecting the Sanctity of Life for the Preborn in Ohio, a resolution I had the pleasure of sponsoring.