Fisking The Weak GOP Response to the Joy Communications Affair

I previously wrote about the GOP's super duper (and certain to be effective) new Internet strategy here, and did a follow-up here.

Now thanks to Barbara over at American Freedom by Barbara we have the official response from the GOP, which I will dutifully tear apart point by point.


The email was apparently sent to as a reply to Rob Haney ally Dan Schultz, and was sent by [noted social media expert] Thayer Verschoor, with the approval of Tom Morrissey. Because I guess Thayer has to run his emails by Tom for approval.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Lyle Tuttle" [l.tuttle@cox.net]
Date: Mar 19, 2011 8:35 PM
Subject: RE: AZGOP hires Democrat Firm for Media Relations


I think this might be interesting reading for everyone:


lyle


=========================
This was sent by Thayer with Tom's approval to Dan Schultz who had the integrity to ask Thayer for an explanation prior to judging him and the Party GUILTY. Maybe the further info will be helpful


Dan,


First of all, thanks for contacting me directly regarding your concerns. I always appreciate it when people with concerns come to me for an explanation instead of taking it out in the rumor mill or publishing half-truths that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, paint a misleading picture. As you already know, not everything published in the media, let alone on blogs, contains all of the information necessary to make a good judgment, so let me fill-in the picture on this issue.

Yeah, yeah, blame the media. That's a good start for a Communications Director. Maybe you should have anticipated that there could be some backlash and got out in front of it.

JoyCom is owned by John Kaites, a Repubican, former Republican State Senator, and one of the most respected and successful lobbyists at the State Capitol who is regularly called on by conservative Republican elected officials for insights on issues before the legislature. In addition, John has been in the forefront in providing financial support to our political allies.

We give contracts to our political donors. Quid Pro Quo, don't you know.

Over the last eight years, I came to rely on John for background information on issues coming before the legislature due to one overriding factor - personal and professional integrity. His counsel was always accurate, it was never misleading and he NEVER asked me to compromise my principles in order to support an issue he was representing. I also found him to be unwavering in maintaining confidentiality. Tony is the President, but John is the final decision maker. In my experience nearly every PR firm makes it a matter of policy to include both Republicans and Democrats in their ownership/staffing.

Yes, the firm is owned by a Democrat, but that's like totally OK and he doesn't have any power anyway. He's just the President of the company. It's like a ceremonial title or something. I mean, don't get me wrong, he could make money off this deal, but only if the GOP actually collects enough money to pay them, which is unlikely.


Also, John's a good lobbyist, and as we all know, lobbyists make the best website designers.

However, while this is the case with JoyCom, I want to make very clear that Tom has contracted to have Thayer Verschoor represent the Party's interests as the Communications Director.

Does TOTC have to mention how creepy it is when people refer to themselves in the third person? I don't think TOTC does.

By my working through JoyCom, the Party is relieved of the responsibility to pay benefits and taxes that would have been if they had hired me as an employee. This arrangement is already saving more than half of the monthly costs incurred under the previous arrangement.

OH! They are just doing this to subvert the law! Well, then, by all means, carry on. Nothing to see here.

I have the title and I will be doing the work exclusively. I will be able to access the expertise and resources available through JoyCom, but they will only have access to information that would be available to the pubic through other avenues. Let me be clear, I do not, and will not, share Party confidential information with JoyCom staff.

Now we're back to first person. Hey Mr. Communications, can you pick a style and stick with it please?


And don't be concerned about inproper data sharing. Because I said so.

Not to belabor the point, but Thayer Verschoor is the Communications Director for the Party, not JoyCom. It was made very clear by Tom, and agreed to by all parties concerned, that he was hiring my services, and that as a matter of financial and other considerations, the payments for my services would be paid to JoyCom.

We're back to Third Person. This is not a good sign.


So we're all clear: Noted Communications Expert Thayer Verschoor is now the Communications Director for the AZ Republican Party. But he works for JoyCom, because that way we don't have to pay him as much. I'll get back to that later.

My goal is to continue my quarter century commitment to the Republican Party to advance the Constitutional, Party Platform conservative values within the Party and throughout the political arena, as well as with the public at large.

I think you mean one score and five years commitment to blah blah whatever. The fake historical figures thing is all the rage in conservative circles these days.

As to the website, we could not be in closer agreement regarding the need to make MAJOR upgrades to the site. That will be happening as a matter of the highest priority, while making sure that we make the best decisions as to platform and style. I will definitely be taking into consideration all of the areas you have listed in this endeavor and solicit any other input you may have regarding the site.

At least we all agree that the AZ GOP website sucks. It's a good thing that Tom "Web 2.0" Morrissey hired a communications company without a website who then hired a guy with his own crappy website to turn that situation around.

I hope this answers your questions in a way to allay your concerns. Thanks for all you do for the Party, but more importantly, for Arizona and America.

What a sop.


Now, a few more observations.


I work in the business world, where I have hired quite a few contractors. It works like this:


I pay ABC Contract Agency $20/hr. for a contractor, let's say for some data entry. They send me over a guy named Jimmy, who is a data entry expert. Nobody 10-Keys like Jimmy. They pay Jimmy $10/hr. and keep the rest. The benefit to me is that I don't have to hire on Jimmy and pay his benefits, etc., and I can fire him whenever I want because he's not my employee, he's a contractor. If Jimmy smells funny or is a Jerk, they'll send me another 10-key wizard tomorrow.


This arrangement only works because they pay Jimmy less than they charge me. Jimmy gets a paycheck, I get the benefit of avoiding paperwork and getting to fire Jimmy at any time, and ABC Contract Agency makes a few bucks per hour off the top to pay for their overhead.


But as was made clear with the preface "let me be clear" this arrangement is ONLY for Thayer Verschoor. Because he's who Tom hired, sort of. So we don't get the benefit of getting a new Jimmy when Thayer bombs out, negating one of the benefits of going with a contractor in the first place.


And financially, how is the AZ GOP deal structured in a way that works out for all parties?


Did Thayer agree to work for peanuts? Is "JoyCom" giving them a sweetheart deal in exchange for something down the road? I'm not really sure how the numbers work where they are "saving more than half of the monthly costs incurred under the previous arrangement." Unless of course this is a less than full time job for Thayer. And if there's one thing that the AZ GOP needs, it's obviously less attention to communication.


I'd also be curious how they are avoiding the issue of dual-employment. When I was in the corporate world we had to be careful to avoid allowing our contractors too much authority, lest they run afoul of "dual-employment" issues. In short, the IRS is onto the "work as a contractor so I don't have to count you as an employee" game. I'm no employment attorney, but I'd love to hear an opinion from one stating that they are in the clear.


I think it's fair to say that there are quite a few questions about this deal. Barbara has her own list at her site.


One of the hot button issues of the day is transparency in government. If we're demanding transparency from our public officials, shouldn't we also be demanding it from our own party?