Thank you for sharing your opinion on this issue. Let me be clear on why I felt this was significant enough for me to take a stand not for my own “self-serving” interests, but for the good of the Party and an organization that remains near and dear to me.

1. In his press release, Vince stated that, “I have always believed we were brave in doing so at a time when there was no visible Republican support for civil unions. Now it is also clear that we were on the right side of the issue politically.” Setting aside the fact that Vince was not present at the original vote and his first CFCR meeting was last year’s convention, is it the purpose of the State Chair to not only unilaterally declare this position, but to, in effect, use his bully pulpit to criticize our elected legislators for essentially being on the “wrong side” of this issue? Whether our Republicans are wrong or not, I see this as a violation of the Chairman’s duty to the tenets of his organization and what his role is at its core. Had he spoken out solely as an individual, it would be a different story and we wouldn’t be here talking about this right now. But he didn’t.

2. Vince stated that, “The Colorado Federation of College Republicans support Civil Unions more strongly than ever.” How does he come to this conclusion when he didn’t talk to anyone about it? My statement that “many (I’d say most) College Republicans may support civil unions in Colorado” (emphasis added) was clearly a mere supposition based on my own conversations with CR’s, my own beliefs in favor of the bill, and of our generation. Yet without conversing with members, how could the Chairman draw this conclusion with enough certainty to make the announcement – and even publish a press release claiming to represent the organization in the first place? It doesn’t make sense.

3. He goes on: “Our goal is not only passage of The Colorado Civil Unions Act but to continue to encourage bipartsian support for this common sense legislation.” Once again, this is astounding language on the part of the chair. Like President Obama, Vince not only says “Let me be clear” and previously asserts that Republicans are flat wrong on an issue, but he talks a good game about “encourag[ing] bipartisan support” for what he calls “common sense legislation” – once again criticizing our elected Republicans on behalf of whom it is his responsibility to advocate and help elect.

4. Vince is, indeed, the “highest elected representative for the CFCR,” I don’t deny that. But, regardless of the non-binding resolution of 2011, his statement was not released in accordance with the Republican Party platform. In what party affiliate is the Chair given the authority to take a controversial issue which is contrary to the platform, and a week before it is come to the floor no less, and speak out on behalf of the entire Federation, declaring that they support a bill that does not fit in with the platform “more strongly than ever” and that “Our goal is.” Where in the world does the chair find this authority to do a complete runaround of those who unanimously elected him without contention?

5. Finally – and this is what most frustrates me – I have conversed with people from Wednesday’s Heritage Foundation President’s Tour to a meeting with members of the Denver GOP to colleagues at work who heard about the College Republicans’ supposed “stance” on civil unions, either from the media, from Facebook, or from some other venue. They were under the distinct impression that the organization and its members consented to this statement and were, in fact, party to it. They believed that, in taking a such an unequivocal stand on such a tenuous issue, the Chairman must obviously be speaking on behalf of the organization’s members. Yet this was not at all the case. If this means I am throwing a “self-serving tantrum,” then so be it.

The Republican Party stands in large part for constitutionally-based republican government, fundamentally entailing representation of its constituents in accordance with the powers granted therein to its representatives. While I respect and have publicly concurred with their personal views, I fail to see how this action, taken by Vince and undoubtedly with the full support and assistance of his predecessor, Troy Ard, is in any way a legitimate exercise of the Chairman’s authority. On the contrary, it was a brazen breach of the authority granted to him.