Are County Central Committees Continuing Organizations?
Ohio County Central Committees are not continuing organizations and cannot have "permanent" bylaws.
Dear Mr. Morrow,
Are County and State Central Committees temporary or permanent organizations? Can an outgoing Central Committee bind an incoming Central Committee to bylaws, rules, and traditions the outgoing committee adopted?
Best Regards
~Clemont County
~Putnam County
Reply
You're delving into some nuanced territory. County Central Committees operate within defined terms, typically two or four years and their authority generally extends only through their term unless an incoming County or State Central Committee voluntarily extends it.
When it comes to continuity, it should be understood that each new committee has the right to set its own rules and bylaws and cannot be bound by traditions or previous bylaws and previous central committees (outgoing central committees). This principle aligns with the common legal notion that one committee cannot bind future committees to its decisions, especially regarding membership or other fundamental aspects. This earns its root from the Christian principle that children are not responsible for the sins of their parents. Allegorically, this is akin to the concept that one Congress or State Legislature cannot bind a future Congress or State Legislature. If a new committee fails to adopt new bylaws at its organizational meeting, it might create a scenario where the committee operates without formal guidelines until it establishes them. However, in practice, committees often default to the previous bylaws until new ones are adopted to ensure some form of governance - however, these are not binding bylaws if they have not been formerly adopted by the Central Committee. When bylaws are adopted they are in essence a contract with the members of the Central Committee of how the organization will operate. The bylaws are for all intents and purposes a binding contract between all the members of the Central Committee.
Each committee has the autonomy to adopt or reject bylaws as they see fit. This means that the outgoing committee’s dictates are never binding upon an incoming Central Committee.
The principle that each new incoming political committee is not bound by the decisions or bylaws of its predecessor has deep historical roots in both the broader context of democratic governance and the specific history of political parties in the United States. This idea is fundamental to preventing entrenched power structures, corruption, and the consolidation of authority by party bosses.
The historical intent behind primary elections for central committee members was to reduce the concentration of power among party bosses. This system was designed to ensure that party leadership is accountable to the party's grassroots members, rather than creating entrenched leadership through permanent positions.
Key Points :
Temporary Nature of Committees: Just as a new General Assembly is formed every two years with newly elected representatives, a County Central Committee is essentially reconstituted after each primary election cycle. While the committee's structure continues (in the sense that it must exist according to law), the members and leadership are subject to change every two or four years, depending on the election cycle. This supports the argument that central committees are temporary in governance, though continuous in function.
Bylaws and Leadership: If a central committee were able to adopt "permanent" bylaws that bind future committees, especially creating provisions such as permanent chairmanships, this would undermine the democratic intent behind having central committee members elected by the party. The notion of "permanent bylaws" runs counter to the idea that the central committee should be accountable to the rank-and-file party members at regular intervals. Just as the Ohio General Assembly cannot pass laws binding future assemblies without the possibility of repeal, a central committee is not able to pass bylaws that bind future committees involuntarily beyond their terms, especially if it restricts leadership positions, endorsements, and financial management of the party.
Organizational vs. Reorganizational Meetings: Within the Ohio Revised Code for Central Committees - there is no provision anywhere for “reorganizational” meetings and as such, they should be prohibited. The Ohio Revised Code concerning "organizational meetings" is properly interpreted to definitively mean that each central committee essentially starts fresh after each election cycle. This means that, like the General Assembly, while the office of the central committee continues, the actual governing body is a new entity that has the authority to adopt new rules, elect leadership, and decide its own bylaws. Thus, past committees cannot impose their will indefinitely on future ones, as this would defeat the democratic purpose of regular elections for central committee members.
Precedent and Party Boss Concerns: Historically, primary elections for central committees were introduced precisely to combat party boss dominance. Allowing bylaws or permanent leadership positions to persist across multiple election cycles would effectively allow a single group to maintain control, undermining the democratic renewal that the elections are meant to foster. A concern is that this has led to the rise of new "party bosses" and a circumvention of the original reform intent of Ohio’s election law.
County Parties can form entities such as PACs, 501(c)3s, 501(c)4s, and other 527 organizations that are continuing organizations. They can place in the articles of incorporation of these entities their mission and vision and ensure they align with the party’s goals and objectives. This is the proper place for political parties to establish a continuing organization - it is very improper to treat the county or state party as a continuing organization.
The perspective that the County Central Committee should be viewed as a temporary body, much like the Ohio General Assembly, is both historically and legally accurate. The central committee continues in structure, but its leadership and bylaws are always subject to change with each new election cycle and organizational meeting. The idea of "permanent bylaws" or entrenched leadership violated the spirit and the letter of the law, by reducing the accountability and turnover that elections are meant to ensure.
Here’s a historical context leading up to Ohio’s Central Committee’s Laws:
1. Democratic Ideals and Governance:
American Revolution Influence: The American system of governance, from its founding, was built on the rejection of entrenched, unchecked power, as evidenced by the break from British monarchy and aristocratic rule. Key principles like popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and regular elections reflect the desire for a dynamic system in which no person or group can hold indefinite control. This idea was institutionalized in both government and political parties, ensuring that each generation of leadership would be accountable to its members and the electorate.
Checks and Balances: Just as the U.S. Constitution introduced a system of checks and balances to prevent any branch of government from becoming too powerful, the notion that each political committee can operate autonomously within its term and not be bound by previous leadership is a reflection of this philosophy.
2. Historical Corruption and Party Bosses:
Rise of Party Bosses in the 19th Century: Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, political machines and party bosses came to dominate U.S. politics. In cities like New York (with Tammany Hall) and Chicago, bosses like William “Boss” Tweed wielded immense power by controlling party nominations, endorsements, and financial contributions. These party bosses often implemented rules or procedures that allowed them to perpetuate their control, even beyond their formal terms.
Consolidation of Power: Party bosses used closed systems of patronage, bribery, and manipulation of party bylaws to keep themselves in power. By binding new committees to the policies or leadership structures of outgoing committees, these leaders could ensure continuity of their power base and prevent challenges to their authority.
Corruption and Entrenchment: The goal of many party bosses was to create a self-perpetuating political system where they had control over appointments, elections, and party finances. This led to widespread corruption, with public offices being bought and sold, public contracts awarded to political cronies, and the needs of the party elite taking precedence over the public good.
3. Reforms and Pushback Against Entrenchment:
Progressive Era Reforms (1890s–1920s): The rise of the Progressive movement aimed to combat the corruption of political machines and reduce the power of party bosses. Reformers advocated for greater transparency, accountability, and democratization of political processes, including direct primaries, civil service reform (to reduce patronage), and the decentralization of power within political parties.
Changes in Party Bylaws and Procedures: One of the mechanisms to dismantle the grip of party bosses was to ensure that each new committee or leadership group had the autonomy to make its own decisions, adopt its own bylaws, and reorganize as it saw fit. This was key to preventing the long-term consolidation of power by a few individuals.
Codifying Autonomy in State Laws: In many states, laws were passed to ensure that political committees were accountable to their members, often requiring that they meet regularly to elect new leadership and that outgoing committees could not impose binding rules on incoming ones without their consent. For example, Ohio Revised Code sections 3517.02 and 3517.03 set clear parameters around the formation and powers of county central committees, promoting turnover and preventing long-term entrenchment by any one faction.
4. Modern Political Party Structure:
Preventing Centralized Power: Today, the rule that incoming committees are not bound by their predecessors helps ensure that the political process remains open and dynamic. It prevents long-term control by any one faction and encourages the regular influx of new ideas and leadership, reflecting the evolving will of the party’s members.
Grassroots Movements: In more recent times, grassroots movements within both major political parties have emphasized the importance of decentralization and local control. Movements like the Tea Party on the right or the progressive wing on the left have sought to prevent centralized party elites from making decisions that bind the grassroots. The autonomy of each incoming committee plays a vital role in ensuring that local members have a voice and are not forced to adhere to decisions made by previous leaders that may no longer reflect the will of the party's rank and file.
5. Practical Implications of Non-Binding Authority:
Flexibility and Responsiveness: The ability of each new committee to set its own rules, adopt its own bylaws, and make independent decisions is critical to keeping political organizations flexible and responsive. Without this autonomy, political parties become stagnant, overly bureaucratic, and dominated by entrenched interests.
Accountability to Members: Ultimately, this system ensures that political committees remain accountable to the members who elect them. If outgoing committees could bind incoming ones, it would undermine the principle of democratic representation within the party and perpetuate the same problems that Progressive Era reformers sought to eliminate.
In Ohio Law, each incoming committee is not obligated nor bound by the outgoing committee. This safeguard was put in place as a reasonable measure to prevent the re-establishment of party bosses wielding illegitimate power for the special interest and making a mockery of political parties. The intent was to ensure that political parties remain dynamic and accountable to their members rather than entrenched in the interests of a few. Historically, this principle emerged as a response to the corruption of political machines and continues to play a vital role in maintaining transparency, fairness, and representation within political organizations. Unfortunately, in America, we cannot force the public to vote for the ethical and moral choices of political representatives. For many County Central Committees and even the Ohio Republican State Central Committee, the organizations are set up and operated with the intent to serve the special interests primarily and serve “we the people” secondarily - if at all. This failure comes from a lack of virtuous Central Committee members and lack of education on the history of the State Central and County Central Committees.