Faulkner County GOP's Dirty Laundry
Ban and remove Jimmie Cavin (?)
It's time to air dirty laundry. As they say, if there weren't any dirty laundry, there would be no need to air it out. However, clearly biased leadership, a lack of transparency, and questionable interpretations of the Republican Rules are creating a stinking mess of dirty laundry that is not in the best interest of the Faulkner County Republican Committee (FCRC).
We trust you are open and honest enough to take a look at all sides of what's going on with complaint(s) made against FCRC member Jimmie Cavin under Article II, Section 9. We're talking here about the manner in which the complaint(s) are being handled and how valid concerns of some FCRC members are ignored and discounted by other members and Chairman Jason Bollinger.
We urge you to read the Rules (at end, below) and come to your own conclusions as to how the complaint process should be conducted. We ask you to decide if you would like to be treated this way if you should say or do things that offend other GOP members.
We ask only that the Rules are agreed upon and are followed and that the facts are transparent. Whatever the outcome, so be it -- under those circumstances. But, that's not the case here. Many FCRC members seem to be OK with that; however, many are not. A lack of transparency from the FCRC Chairman and Executive Committee has only inflamed more gossip and talking behind other members’ backs.
Targeted Removal?
This is a targeted removal of an FCRC member under questionable circumstances. To be honest, it's a extension of state-wide problems within the Republican party about how to define a "real Republican" and also depicts of a directed pushback against Republican Committee members -- 2024 State Convention delegates -- who voted for historic changes to bring more accountability and ensure the grassroots conservative voter base gains a long-missing voice in party affairs.
The Convention addressed the platform question when delegates voted to both close the primaries and require candidates to be Republican members before filing for office. Jimmie, former co-host of The Dave Elswick Show numerous times and a Convention delegate, has often said on social media and on the air that he would not vote for a Republican who does not follow the platform. We hear those statements he made on the Show "could be" part of the complaints made against him within FCRC, but cannot verify because details are not being provided.
In late September Jimmie closely questioned state Representative candidate Kim Slaughter about the platform at a meeting of the Informed Citizens of Faulkner County social group (she readily admitted she would not seek to follow "all of the platform").
Soon after, GOP District 2 Representative Mark Brannan -- who is also chair of the Informed Citizens of Faulkner County, a strictly informal social group -- then sought to ban Jimmie and put signs on the doors of that group’s public meetings to ban recordings; however, the Informed Citizens' executive officers turned Brannan down. We are told Jimmie's questions to Slaughter that day "could be" part of the FCRC complaints made against him.
Of course, the physical incident at the September 5 Saline County GOP meeting (that police deemed self-defense) has been cited, as well. No one in the Faulkner County Republican Committee knows first-hand what happened that night because no one from FCRC except Jimmie was present. If you saw only the viral social media, you owe it to yourself to see the video(s) from the other side of the room and read what happened from other people's perspectives; the police reports and body cam videos are especially helpful, and no one was charged.
It's true that was a regretful act -- Jimmie says so himself after explaining that he will always defend when a woman is being threatened. We are proud he did so and again will draw your attention to statements from SCRC members Kandi Cox and Clint Lancaster (Mrs. Lancaster’s husband), as well as the numerous other Republican party members -- not part of Saline County Republicans -- who were present and part of that night's events. (We'll discuss more about Saline County's problems at a later time.)
Secrets from Other Members
Chairman Bollinger first announced at the September Executive Committee meeting that numerous complaints had been made and he would appoint an investigative committee (IC). FCRC members were in the room along with the Executive Committee but, instead of going into executive (private) session, he told everyone there. Then he told attendees not to discuss the issue outside of that meeting -- in effect, demanding that certain FCRC members (not EC officers) keep the issue secret from other FCRC members. This created a divisive atmosphere from the beginning.
No Details Provided
Jimmie has repeatedly asked for the specific complaints -- the "where, who, when" so he can prepare an adequate defense -- but has not (to time of publication) been provided that information. He asked to see the original complaints; he asked if the original complaints complied with the Rules saying 5 or more individuals must file the complaint. His requests are still being ignored.
This is reminiscent of the way the state Republican Women group expelled three conservative grassroots women earlier in 2024, as those three were never provided specifics of the complaints made against them for removal, nor were they even allowed to make their defense.
Within FCRC, one EC member told Jimmie he interprets the "5 or more" phrase in our Rules to mean that 5 individuals can file individual complaints, and together that meets the Rules. (We hear there could be as many as 20 individual complaints against Jimmie at the FCRC.)
However, in other past and present complaints filed across Arkansas (yes, there are numerous "removal complaints" flying around) that requirement is interpreted as meaning that 5 or more members must sign a single complaint. Just what is the proper interpretation of the Rules? Who gets to decide? Does it change depending on the person and the pre-determined, desired outcome? This discrepancy smacks of targeted, individual persecution.
Several FCRC members attended the October 8 "hearing" where IC members James Quinn (1st Vice Chair and appointed IC Chair), David Hall, and Denisce Warren sat stone-faced and refused to answer any of Jimmie's questions about details of the complaints. The atmosphere was tense and confrontational.
Pre-Determined Outcome
This IC is clearly not impartial; they admitted they did not look for innocence and did not look at all the evidence made available to them. When Jimmie asked if the IC had seen his emails with information giving his defense to the unspecified charges, Warren said she did not and did not need to see it.
Quinn had opposed Jimmie's original membership bid, using Jimmie's voting record (supposedly confidential except to candidates?) to attack Jimmie as not being a "real Republican." At that "hearing," Jimmie -- who did not know anyone other than Quinn -- asked for the names of those investigating him. Hall offered only his first name and Warren refused to give her name at all!
Both Jimmie and FCRC members who were present asked to be notified of the meeting when the IC report/recommendation was to be distributed to the Executive Committee. Despite agreeing to do so, Bollinger did not. In fact, two Executive Committee members perceived to be favorable to Jimmie were elsewhere on October 17 when some members of the Executive Committee met; we're told that Quinn submitted a written report on Jimmie that night. Bob Gregory asked for the meeting to be reset so he could attend, but was denied.
Questions & Concerns Ignored
While Jimmie has sent numerous emails asking for details, Bollinger and Quinn have ignored most of them, prompting Jimmie to send his information to the entire FCRC -- because most members are fully aware that complaints have been made and facts are sorely lacking. FCRC member Jack Sotallaro has also seriously questioned the validity of this deficient, opaque process on several points. Again, Bollinger (and the entire Executive Committee) are ignoring most of those emails. Now Jack has released his concerns and communications to the entire FCRC in the name of transparency.
Chairman Bollinger instructed the FCRC in late September that no business would be formally discussed at FCRC meetings until after November 5, explaining that any other topics would distract from getting Republicans elected. So even the timing of this complaint process seems aimed at a pre-determined outcome -- if the election is paramount, why is Bollinger/FCRC pursuing this gossip-laden, disruptive issue at this time? The answer is clear: the Chairman and IC are hell-bent on kicking Jimmie out as soon as they can, never mind process, or Rules, or transparency.
What Happens on October 28?
The Executive Committee has informed Jimmie of their "unanimous decision by those present" to remove him for 16 years; Jimmie says he will file an appeal. As of publication, Jimmie has not yet formally filed that appeal which (per the RPA Rules) puts the matter in front of the entire FCRC for a vote. So you see why it is important that FCRC members who care about due process, fairness, and transparency be fully informed and aware of all the details that are available.
Chairman Bollinger is now further confusing matters by saying he "plans to publicly address the various aspects of what you [Jack] mentioned" at the October 28 FCRC meeting, which just creates even more unanswered questions and concerns. Jimmie is still an FCRC member until the process is complete and he has yet to file an appeal; however, we do not know what will happen at the October 28 meeting. Will Jimmie attend? If he goes, will FCRC try to block him from attending? Will Chairman Bollinger try to discuss Jimmie without Jimmie even being present?
It's a directed, targeted attack at an FCRC member who, while admittedly aggressive, is not afraid to ask bottom-line questions that old guard Republicans say are "embarassing" and "uncomfortable" and "against the interest of the Republican party." (We're guessing that some will say asking these questions like we are doing is also "against the interest of the Republican party." Stay tuned!)
We know most people will find it near impossible to look at this situation impartially by separating things Jimmie may (or may not!) have done from the way FCRC is railroading him. However, we repeat: "We're talking here about the manner in which the complaint(s) are being handled and how valid concerns of some FCRC members are ignored and discounted by other members and Chairman Jason Bollinger."
We ask GOP members to decide. Are YOU comfortable with this kind of a process? Would YOU want to be treated the way Jimmie is being treated? Do you want a Republican party that obliterates the Bill of Rights (right to confront your accuser, know the details of the charges, have information to mount an effective defense) in its zeal to rid itself of your influence “for the best interest of the Party”?
"Best Interests" ?
What about those "actions not in the best interest of the Republican Party"? Is the way this issue is being handled "in the best interest" of the Party -- or is it just being done the way it's always been done, by top-down edicts from the powers-that-be using vague, undisclosed, and ever-changing interpretations of the Rules, and gossip behind people's backs?
Think about it. First they come for Jimmie Cavin, and you think Jimmie's a bully. OK. Then they came for ... you, because you asked the wrong question, or you were "too aggressive," or you "created a divisive atmosphere"? If it can be done to Jimmie this way, it can (and will) happen to anyone else in the Republican Party that makes those in a power position "uncomfortable."
So we're asking, "What's the right way to do this?" This dirty laundry needs to be cleaned up!
If it's fair, according to the Rules (as agreed upon and communicated so all understand) and transparent, then so be it. This is not that.
