Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Interview: CP Vice-Chairman Randy Stufflebeam Talks About CP Baltimore Meeting, CCTUC and More

Published on IPR on April 27, 2013. More third party politics. Stay tuned, original political commentary from me will be coming soon!

Randy Stufflebeam is currently the National Vice-Chairman of the Constitution Party, a position he’s held since April 2012. He resides in southern Illinois. He was the CP candidate for Illinois Governor in 2006, in which he received 19,020 votes (0.55%). This is the largest write-in vote total in Illinois history. He is also the vice chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois and is a former Marine.

Krzysztof Lesiak
Going into the April 20th national committee meeting in Baltimore, how did you feel? Where you optimistic that it would be a successful meeting?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
That’s an interesting question. Interesting in that I am almost always a glass half full kind of person. Did I feel that the meeting was going to be successful, that depends on what you mean by successful. Frank Fluckiger, the National Chairman is a details oriented kind of person and I had every confidence that the objectives/agenda that he set for the meeting would be achieved, and pretty much by the clock that is set. In that regard I had no doubt about the meeting being successful.

The number one thing we have to do within the Constitution Party across the nation is raise money. This is an area where my optimism hasn’t been so high. HOWEVER, I am much encouraged in our prospects as we have what I perceive to be tremendous leadership in raising money through Peter Gemma. Peter was involved in the Ron Paul endeavors and has helped the Republican Party raise a lot of money in the past and he is now fully on board with the Constitution Party. He has presented some short term and long term goals that once implemented, I believe, will put the Party on the path of financial recovery.

Overall, I would have to say that the meeting was very successful, not so much in terms as to what was specifically accomplished at the meeting, but in terms of getting the party to begin heading in the right direction and get us on a solid financial foundation to put us in the condition of winning elections throughout this nation.

Krzysztof Lesiak
Ok. Now according to an article I wrote for IPR, 3 major events transpired. The first of which, was the disbanding of Young Constitutionalists. Why do you think YC was not successful? Also, when Joshua Fauver arrived for Saturday’s meeting, he claimed he wasn’t informed about the votes on the matters that took place before he first walked in, until some time later- why wasn’t he informed at all, do you suppose?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Before going into the separate issues of the Young Constitutionalists and the Clarion Call to Unite Committee let me specifically address Mr. Fauver’s position of not being informed of the votes concerning these matters of which he has an interest.

Both of the resolutions that dealt with these matters were first dealt with by the Executive Committee on Friday night and were passed without dissent. HOWEVER, all resolutions that are passed by the executive committee MUST BE presented to the National Committee and voted on before they can be considered passed by the party. Both resolutions were presented to the National Committee and they were both passed without dissent.

While the titles of the specific resolutions that were to be considered by the National Committee were not listed on the agenda, the agenda had specific time for dealing with resolutions and I believe that time was listed on the agenda as being Saturday, @ 8:45am. It is my understanding that Mr. Fauver decided to sleep in during the time of discussion for any resolutions that might be presented to National Committee. Mr. Fauver was registered for the National Committee meeting and had paid his registration, however, he did not pay the State Committeeman dues and was not listed by the state of Louisiana as an official committeeman/representative of his state and therefore did not have any voting rights at the committee meeting. Still, I have been assured that had Mr. Fauver been present, he would have been afforded the opportunity to speak on behalf of either resolution.

Had I even had the time to recognize Mr. Fauver’s absence that morning, I might have thought he lost interest in the meeting and was possibly already on a flight home. Be that as it may, I was running the sound system for the meeting and had no time to take specific notice as to whether or not Mr. Fauver was present and informed of information that he has a specific interest in. As far as I knew, he was there.

Let me state unequivocally that there was NO DEVIOUS attempt to withhold information from Mr. Fauver. The fact that Mr. Fauver was absent from probably the most important part of the meeting (which was on the agenda, the resolutions report @ 8:45) of which he was registered (and paid good money), means that the majority of the responsibility rests on his shoulders, not mine, nor the chairman’s responsibility to ensure he is where he should be when he has an interest in what is taking place at the meeting.


In the issue of the “Young Constitutionalists” the language of disbandment is inaccurate.

According the motion that was made during the fall, 2012 National Committee Meeting that was held in St. Louis, there was a condition that organizational bylaws for the Young Constitutionalists would be presented to the next national committee meeting which meet on April 20. The Young Constitutionalist leadership failed to meet this obligation and therefore made the resolution that was made in the fall “null & void.”

The National Committee passed a resolution (without dissent) on Saturday morning which stated:

“In as much as the bylaws and documents were not submitted as a condition of the original resolution to reestablish the Young Constitutionalist, as an official arm of the Constitution Party, the resolution is null and void.”

I will accept the blame for the Young Constitutionalists not having been successful. I admit that because my attention has been directed towards other endeavors within the party, both nationally and within my own state that I did not give the Young Constitutionalists the attention that it deserved. I will correct that deficiency.

The bottom line was that the Young Constitutionalists were responsible for not fulfilling its obligations and the national party was simply holding the Young Constitutionalists accountable which was supposed to be the official arm of the party.

That’s not to say that this can’t be done at the fall meeting of the National Committee, but it will be an entirely new effort to reestablish the Young Constitutionalists and with the water that has been under the bridge on this past effort, we’ll definitely be prepared with documentation prior to the meeting.

NOW, I can personally say that Mr. Fauver was completely aware of what was happening with the Young Constitutionalists as I personally talked with him Friday night about it.


In the issue of the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCUC) I don’t think that I need to rehash the issue dealing with Mr. Fauver’s lack of being informed about the resolution that was passed.

I will say that I was present for both the Executive Committee discussion and the National Committee discussion and never once was Mr. Fauver’s name brought up as him being there as an official representative of the CCUC. As I stated above, I personally discussed the situation with the Young Constitutionalists on Friday night following the executive committee to let him know that the issue of the Young Constitutionalists will be brought before the National Committee meeting in the morning (Saturday). Never once did it enter my mind that Mr. Fauver was there as an official representative of the CCUC, otherwise I would have let him know about the resolution about the CCUC at the same time I talked with him about the Young Constitutionalists.

Before I provide the specific resolution that was passed by the National Committee, I have heard nothing but positive statements about and respect for the Chairman of CCUC, Cody Quirk and Vice-Chairman Joshua Fauver.

In both of the discussions (the Executive and National Committee) regarding the CCUC issue, never once was there a deriding comment made about either of these gentle, neither do I believe that during the discussions their names were even brought up; the discussions revolved, almost exclusively, around the advantages and disadvantages of affiliating with the other organizations.

The resolution that was passed concerning the Clarion Call to United Committee states:

“The National Committee is taking a position that it is not in our best interest to become involved with the Clarion Call to Unite Committee or affiliate with this organization.”

There are two extremely notable “cons” in dealing with this particular issue:

1) The Clarion Call to Unite Committee is proposing that the Constitution Party dissolve its organization (as well as all the others) so as to create a completely new organization, where a new platform and bylaws would be drawn up and new leadership elections would take place.

2) Two of the organizations were involved in a major rift where they had issues with the official Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee of the party that was elected and decided to support one of their own. To my knowledge, neither party’s leadership has ever made an attempt at reconciliation.

There is an example of another state party affiliate deciding to support a presidential candidate of its own. They disaffiliated to do so. They have since made reconciliation and have been brought back into the party as an official affiliate. There’s no reason why either of the two that disaffiliated shouldn’t have sought reconciliation with the Constitution Party. Instead, they are more than happy to see the Constitution Party dissolved and then merge together to elect new leadership. This seems more like a hostile takeover than a longing to reconcile the differences and merge with the Constitution Party so that together we can be stronger and start winning elections.

AGAIN, the Constitution Party has extended NO ILL WILL towards anyone associated with the Young Constitutionalists nor the Clarion Call to United Committee. I expect to see great things come from these young men. I know that Joshua Fauver has announced his run for office and I will do all that I can to help and support him in his endeavor.

It is my opinion that the Constitution Party leadership has acted correctly in both issues. The Constitution Party stands ready to unite with ALL fellow Constitutionalists. HOWEVER, we do not see dissolving the organization for political expediency to be the best idea. As I have said on numerous occasions, “I believe the Constitution Party is the last great political hope for these United States of America!” Yes, I know we have issues! Yes, I know we need money! Yes, I know with more people in the party we would be stronger! Yes, I know that it is an uphill battle in cliff proportions! BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY HAS THE FOUNDATION AND THE PLATFORM AND THE LEAERSHIP TO START WINNING BATTLES AND GETTING CANDIDATES ELECTED.

Krzysztof Lesiak
Do you think that, if more members of the Constitution Party were present at the National Committee meeting in Baltimore, Md, the votes on the matters relating to Joshua, the YC organization, and the CCTUC would have still been unanimous?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Regarding the Young Constitutionalists… NO. That was mine and Joshua’s fault.

Regarding the CCUC… Who knows? Especially if there had been members not only registered, but paid committeeman dues. If he would have been there as a committeemen, I would expect that it would not have been unanimous.

By the way, I would not use the word “unanimous”. Both resolutions were passed “Without Dissent” no roll call vote was taken and therefore unanimity can not be established. There might have been someone who abstained from voting and if there was an abstention, it would not have been unanimous. Does that make sense?

Krzysztof Lesiak
Ok. this is my last question on CCTUC. The 4 points of it are that the party that’s joining must be pro-life, favor constitutional government, support non-interventionist foreign policy and withdrawal from the UN, and support for tariffs and American jobs from outsourcing and foreign competition. Did CP members at the meeting know of these 4 planks of the CCTUC, and in your opinion does it really matter?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
This is a simple question to answer.

1) Those points are a matter of fact in the Constitution Party’s platform.

2) While those (and others) criteria would absolutely have to be met to affiliate with the Constitution Party, they were not at issue. What was at issue is two things, primarily:

A) The past actions of a couple of the other organizations and the destructive affect that they had on the Constitution Party.

Dissolving the Constitution Party’s leadership and platform is NOT in the best interest of the Constitution Party (neither do I believe it to be in the best interest of our country, because of affect),

Krzysztof Lesiak
I forgot about this one: least one person alleged on IPR that Quirk’s and Fauver’s association with the Robby Wells 2016 campaign was the primary reason for the rejection of what they were advocating for. Do these statements bear any credence?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
I do believe that Robby Wells was mentioned as supporting the CCUC during the Executive Committee meeting discussion, I do NOT think it was mentioned during the National Committee meeting.

And while I’m certain that was a factor, I don’t believe it was the main factor.

Krzysztof Lesiak
Ok. Darrell Castle announced at the meeting that he’s exploring running for the CP presidential nomination in 2016. If you feel comfortable, what’s your opinion on this? Also, what are your plans for the CP’s future – and what is your outlook on how the CP will be carrying on, including growth, candidate recruitment, youth, etc?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
I THINK IT’S GREAT ! ! ! If I had my way, I’d have at least 4 candidates officially announcing their candidacy for the Constitution Party’s Presidential Nomination.

That’s why I held the only Constitution Party Presidential Debates by conference call.

Plans for the future?

Current plans are to focus on state and local races. I am working to recruit a full sleight of state-wide candidates here in Illinois, I already have a Gubernatorial and an Attorney General Candidate.

Nationally? I’m looking to recruit more presidential candidates. It will generate more interest in the party.

I believe within the next year GROWTH WILL BE PHENOMINAL!! Given the complete dissatisfaction of the two major parties and the defection that we are already beginning to see.

Youth? ABSOLUTELY. I will be working on those “Young Constitutionalist” bylaws.

As the song says, “The future’s so bright, I’ve got to wear shades!”

Krzysztof Lesiak
Oh, BTW.. do you think Robby Wells will seek the CP nod in 2016? He’s currently an independent

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Let me be clear about something.

I am the National Vice-Chairman. It is my job to gain ballot access for our party and our candidates. IT IS NOT TO SUPPORT ANY PARTICULAR CANDIDATE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. It would be a conflict of interest to do so. My job is to make it as fair as possible for every candidate seeking our nomination. That’s why I held the debates last year that I did.

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Robby Wells seeking the CP nomination?

I think he should and the longer he waits the harder it will be for him to get the nomination, especially considering there are other people already talking about it.

Krzysztof Lesiak
Do you know or feel comfortable disclosing the other people?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
In terms of “real” candidates, currently, Darrell Castle is the only one exploring the possibility. There always someone nobody knows who wants to put their name in the hat as well.

But that doesn’t mean some “big name” candidate won’t come seeking our nomination within the next couple of years.

Krzysztof Lesiak
Randy, thanks so much for your time!! I REALLY appreciate it. Is there anything you think we missed that you would like to add?

Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
I think that’s good for now. I look forward to seeing your “report.”

It’ll be fun to see what the response will be.

No comments:

Post a Comment