Source, Phone Message Revealed in St. Charles County Republican Central Committee Scandal

After publishing a piece Thursday morning under the headline, St. Charles County (Mo.) GOP Chair Says Caucus Letter ‘Actually Drafted by Santorum’s Campaign Team’, two new developments have surfaced:  First, the post attracted some extremely negative comments from Central Committee Chair Eugene Dokes; and Second, the St. Charles County Republican Party Central Committee member who shared the information I published yesterday has told me she has been besieged by a storm of hateful email messages from select individuals on the committee.  Today, I feel compelled to respond.


First, from the comments section of the aforementioned post, I look at what Dokes wrote early Thursday afternoon:

I wanted to leave a couple of comments about this letter. First of all it’s dated today which is completely misleading and false. I sent this email out before I was even on the Jamie Allman show. Secondly, at that time- there were fears from me and others that another caucus would be just as bad as before. I have since then (the very next day actually) sent another email to the committee and said that my agreement to the letter was based on fears of re-caucusing- BUT, a caucus was the only way to go since it is the only official way to let the county’s voice be heard.

Likewise, I received a similar statement from a Ron Paul Support- I forwarded that to the committee as well. Only he wanted us to only consider a caucus (which I understand). Point being Bob, as a reporter you really should have gotten some statements from me so you don’t have such an obviously slanted release. I have gone on record with the Post Dispatch and other organizations as saying I support another caucus. Now, consider this as my statement to your blog that I support a re-caucus.

It should be widely understood that I passed this along to the committee merely for discussion but never signed it.

Now, I respond.

Dokes claimed my post was “completely misleading and false.”  Read the  post and judge for yourself, paying particular attention to the content of the unsigned letter (PDF) at issue.  Regardless of the date on the letter, it’s the letter’s content and who wrote it that’s most important.

Dokes mentioned the interview he gave Tuesday morning to Jamie Allman, talk radio host of “Allman in the Morning” on 97.1 FM in St. Louis.  I listened to the podcast of the interview for the first time Thursday and heard Dokes use words like “no conspiracy,” “bad advice” and “confusion” before saying, near the end of the interview, “We do care about what everybody in the county thinks, and we do want to make sure that everybody is fully represented.”  What’s troubling is the fact that the letter at issue, drafted by an unidentified “someone” in the Rick Santorum camp, continued to be discussed in committee emails the day after the radio interview.

Dokes claimed that he has “gone on the record with the Post-Dispatch and other organizations as saying I support another caucus.”  I looked for his on-the-record comments on the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and found seven articles published since last Saturday’s caucus.  In only two articles, however, did I find any mention of Dokes stating that he favored another caucus:  The first article was published Thursday at 11:58 a.m. Central — several hours after my first piece was published; and the second article was published at 4 p.m. Thursday — almost 12 hours after the fact!  Most recently, he was quoted as advocating a new caucus in the an O’Fallon Patch article published late Thursday night.

The fourth and final matter, which I address in different order than that in which he offered his comments, has to do with why I did not contact Dokes in advance of publishing the post Thursday morning.  The long and the short of it is that I already felt jaded by some of his words that had been shared with me prior to Saturday’s 2012 St. Charles County (Mo.) Republican Presidential Caucus.


Now, I move on to the matter of the central committee member who provided the information I shared in the Thursday morning post.  Her name is Brandy Pedersen, and she agreed Thursday to let me reveal her name and more information in this article.

“I believe members of the public are being mislead,” Pedersen said.  “That’s why I decided to come forward out of a duty and obligation to the truth.”

A few days before the St. Patrick’s Day caucus, Pedersen contacted me and asked me to listen to a 2.5-minute voicemail message Dokes had left on her answering machine weeks earlier.  Notable about the message is the fact that it was left less than 48 hours before members of the St. Charles County Council were set to vote on new township boundary lines.

Not familiar with the issue?  Most people are not.  Pedersen, however, believes way the way the boundary lines issue was handled is indicative of a pattern.

The voicemail message, which Pedersen shared with me, deals with the subject of communications about the process of redrawing those township boundary lines.  The entire transcript of the message appears verbatim below:

“Hey Brandy, this is Eugene.  Quick, I just realized that I never sent a message correctly.  So, I had originally thought that I had attached it to the whole group, and I was kind of upset with myself because I forgot to remove Rob Hillman and Brent Stafford’s name and I just went back and looked at it when you sent me that text and I realized I never sent it correctly and I see I had only attached it to a couple of people’s names and clicked send and I was gonna resend it to the group but I thought, ‘You know what, it’s probably best if I don’t send this email out.’

“So, what I’m gonna do is, I’ll send you a couple other changes that we’ve made, but as far as saying, ‘Hey, this is changes that we’ve made, it only helps the Republican Party,’ — that sort of thing, I’m not going to do it, because I would rather it not go out, mostly because I don’t want it to be big news.

“I don’t want anybody to really find out that the chair of the Republican Party is getting involved or trying to recreate these lines.  Then it only makes the Democrats — if they ever hear about it — want to get involved.  It lets the Libertarians know that, ‘Hey, pay attention; they’re doing this, they’re doing that’ (inaudible) and I would rather avoid all of that.  So what I’m going to do, actually, is just keep it under low profile.  I’ll probably call all of the committee members on Monday, or Sunday, sometime, and say, ‘Hey, this is what I did.  Please take a look at that,’ and leave it at that.   (inaudible) I’m not gonna send out this email and try to get a mob of people there, because it only causes attention to the whole thing, and it only hurts us, I think, in the long run.  Thanks.”

After reading the above message transcript, one might conclude that something unusual might have been taking place during the process of redrawing those lines.  Listening to the actual message, however — as I did — either removes all doubt or, at a minimum, leaves one wanting to find out what actually transpired during the process.  So I began to ask questions.

In an email message sent late Wednesday morning, I asked County Council Chair Nancy Matheny what had prompted her to solicit input on the township boundary lines issue from officials of the St. Charles County Democrat and Republican Central Committees.

After explaining in her reply less than three hours later that she was “in meetings all day” and had “only a few minutes to reply,” she seemed quick to want to pin the blame for council members getting involved to the extent they did on St. Charles County Election Authority Rich Chrismer.

“Since Rich Chrismer did not submit the maps to the Council on time,” Matheny wrote, “the County Council was responsible for drawing the township lines.

“We decided to begin with his proposed lines that he had drawn, but not previously submitted,” she continued, adding, “We knew there was a problem with the population of at least one district.

“As Mr. Chrismer had done in 2003, we showed the maps to the Republicans and to the Democrats,” Matheny wrote.  “They are, after (all), political township lines.”

“I showed the maps (as Mr. Chrismer had drawn them) to the Republicans at the Pachyderm meeting,” she wrote.  “I stood up and said the maps were on the table and asked if anyone wanted to comment on them. I did not give them to Mr. Dokes. I left the maps after the meeting. I do not remember the date, but it was prior to the public meeting on the subject. (I think you were one of the guest speakers that day.)”  [EDITOR’S NOTE:  Though I was the keynote speaker at the St. Charles County Pachyderms meeting Jan. 27 and gave a presentation about my book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, I don't recall having seen any maps at that meeting.  In fairness, however, the subject of maps was not yet on my radar, and I could have easily overlooked them.]

Matheny went on to explain that Jerry Daugherty, the sole Democrat on the council, had sought input from Democratic Party officials who replied with only one minor change request and that the council had made a couple of changes requested by Republican Party officials as well as “a couple of changes based on population and the use of main roads.”

Matheny also shared her belief that only one change made by the council had created controversy.

When asked to respond to Matheny’s comments, Chrismer told me that, although Matheny was technically correct and the county council actually has the final say on boundaries no matter what he recommends, the issue isn’t that simple.

Speaking by phone Wednesday afternoon, the veteran of many election cycles told me that he had completed the once-every-ten-years task of redrawing township boundary lines based upon population figures and submitted his rough product (i.e., a new map) to St. Charles County Information Systems officials ahead of the council’s late-2011 deadline.  In doing that, he said he was under the belief that those county IS officials would finish the work they had to do on the project and forward it to the council in a timely manner.  But that did not happen.

According to Pedersen and one other central committee source, an unusual proposal was raised at the committee’s Jan. 12 meeting.  It called for a small, independent and impartial group to be appointed to review Chrismer’s proposed map and see if improvements could be made.  Before the meeting adjourned, a majority of committee members voted in favor of the idea.

The small group turned out to be comprised of Central Committee Member Jon Bennett, State GOP Committee Member Dave Evans, political campaign consultant Tom Smith and Dokes.  During the next 28 days, they came up with additional changes to the township boundary lines.

The subject of the boundary lines came up again during the “new business” portion of the next central committee meeting Feb. 9.  Despite the fact that several people voiced opposition to the new map, according to Pedersen, no mention of that opposition appears in the central committee’s official minutes from that meeting.  Those minutes, by the way, were sent out in the body of an email message — but not as a stand-alone document — to committee members by Secretary Barb Grimm March 6, almost four weeks after the meeting.

During another discussion of the township boundary lines at the county council’s Feb. 21 work session, according to the published meeting minutes, Council Member (Joe) Brazil stated that “the lines have changed from what the Election Authority Director submitted, which were drawn strictly by population and requested a Substitute Bill be drafted to approve the original lines from the County Election Authority.”

After a handful of citizens had the opportunity to voice their opposition to the plan to rework Chrismer’s map, another raised an interesting point.  According to the same meeting minutes, “(GOP Central Committee Vice Chair) Penny Henke questioned in 2003 when lines were drawn by the County Election Authority if both Democrats and Republicans were involved in the process.   Rich Chrismer, Election Authority Director stated they were not involved.”

Though that last statement attributed to Chrismer seems to contradict what Matheny told me about how things worked out in 2003, Chrismer was hesitant to lump Matheny in with any effort to inject partisanship into the process.  Council Member Brazil, however, held nothing back when sharing his opinion about Chrismer’s approach to the process.

“He was being fair about it,” Brazil said during a phone call Wednesday afternoon after explaining how he believed Chrismer had done his job the right way, based simply on census-based population figures.  “He even drew his wife out of her district.”

At the county council’s Feb. 28 meeting, Matheny and other council members — minus Brazil, of course — approved the new boundaries.

Brazil, a former county council chair, went on to decry the outcome of the process, explaining that some of the central committee members — who had gone to Dokes and Matheny with complaints about Chrismer’s map — seemed to forget that the seats belong to the people instead of the incumbents.

They wanted to “make it more comfortable for certain political township committee representatives,” Brazil continued.  “What that did was make it more inconvenient for other people.”

After noting that this process of “picking winners and losers” was wrong and made no sense, especially when it involved Republicans against Republicans, Brazil concluded, “They just don’t get it!”

UPDATE 3/23/12 at 10:05 a.m. Central:  After publishing the post above, a reader asked me this morning what it was that anyone in the local GOP might have wanted to keep “low profile.”  While I couldn’t provide an answer, I am able to share some interesting new numbers.  As of 10 a.m. Central today, according to St. Charles County Election Authority Rich Chrismer, 55 Republicans have filed to run for the 28 township seats on the Republican Central Committee.  Most filed after the March 17 caucus.  That, he said, is the most he’s seen file during his 10 years in the job.  The filing deadline is Tuesday.

UPDATE 3/23/12 Almost Noon Central:  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch just reported that a new caucus will be held April 10 at 7 p.m. at the St. Charles Convention Center and that recording devices will be allowed.

UPDATE 4/11/12 at 7:27 a.m. Central: Ron Paul wins do-over St. Charles County caucus.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

This entry was posted in Local Politics, Presidential Election, Republican Party, St. Charles County Caucus 2012 and tagged , , , , , , by BobMcCarty. Bookmark the permalink.

About BobMcCarty

A native of Enid, Oklahoma, Bob McCarty graduated from Oklahoma State University with a degree in journalism in 1984. During the next two decades, he served stints as an Air Force public affairs officer, a political campaign manager, a technology sales consultant and a public relations professional. Today, Bob spends most of his time researching topics, writing about them and publishing those writings. When he’s not writing online, he’s working as an author. Bob’s first published book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice (October 2011), chronicles the life story and wrongful conviction of Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, a highly-decorated Green Beret combat veteran. In his second book, THE CLAPPER MEMO (May 2013), Bob connects the dots between a memo signed by James R. Clapper Jr. — the man now serving as our nation’s top intelligence official — and the deaths of dozens of Americans in Afghanistan at the hands of our so-called Afghan “allies” wearing the uniforms of their nation’s military, police and security forces. Bob is married, has three sons and lives in the St. Louis area. Bob is available for media and blogger interviews. Simply drop a comment here, leaving your name, organization, phone number, e-mail address and area of interest. He’ll try to respond as soon as possible.

24 thoughts on “Source, Phone Message Revealed in St. Charles County Republican Central Committee Scandal

  1. We, in this country, have the Government We Deserve! I say this because we have a win at all costs, the heck with the truth attitude. I commend Wendy Brandy for Standing for The Truth! We can only repair the Republican Party by exposing the corruption that is so common. God Bless Her !!!

  2. I don’t understand the reference of this portion of the transcribed phone message :

    “I was kind of upset with myself because I forgot to remove Rob Hillman and Brent Stafford’s name”

    Any explanation?
    Seems to me, it was Brent Stafford, who was arrested and charged with trespassing(?) after temporary chair vacated the seat on caucus day.

  3. The text of that voicemail seems to make it clear that Dokes has made the decision that certain elements within his party don’t count as “real” Republicans (he calls them Libertarians) and therefore he is justified in doing whatever he wants.

    Dokes might want to look at President Reagan, who said that libertarianism is the heart and soul of the Republican party, rather than Santorum, for his views on libertarian philosophy.

  4. I am starting to think that the Republican Party is still too racist to handle black leadership. I have been following this story of Dokes since Saturday. It seems to me that many of the events that happened were really orchestrated by other in the party. As the Chair he took the slack and even admitted to mistakes. Yet you continue to make it seem as if he personally has been trying to forge alliances and create disruption.

    I have heard an interview where he admitted to only being chair for about a year and only living in the county for about a year before that. That’s not nearly long enough to be knee deep in corruption as you guys try to claim he is.

    Pederson and others should be looked at closely.

  5. I agree with you “Another Black Guy”. I wonder if the story would be this drawn out if the chair was just another white rpublican. Seems to me that the same way you guys want Dokes to consider all types of conservatives is the same consideration you should be giving him. Don’t be surprised in November if you don’t collect one black vote for a Republican president over this.

  6. Isn’t it convenient for Dokes’ supporters to play the “race card” instead of looking at his own words!!

  7. Love the brazen plug of your book!
    Dokes has ruined his political career. Thank God for the interwebs. Now people who may consider to vote for him will be able to educate themselves on what slippery slime he is.

  8. Is he Black? I didn’t know that. I knew he was running for some kind of office. Goes to show you how slippery slime comes in all colors.

  9. Lol…here we go playing the Race Card. Even if he was white it wouldn’t be any different. He didn’t follow the rules, and adjourned the meeting illegally. No matter what color your skin is, that deserves a lot of negative attention…

  10. I’m pretty sure RACE IS NOT THE ISSUE here! I’ve been following this story over the past few days and I actually had no idea (nor did I care!) whether ANYONE was a certain race. We NEED to keep the FOCUS on the misguided actions/corruption going on and question why THE PEOPLE are being ignored!!

  11. Caucus rescheduled for April 10, 7PM, according to stltoday. St. Charles convention center. Someone from the GOP state committee will kick off the meeting, and recording devices will be allowed.

  12. Having attended the March 17 caucus and seeing the events take place, I can firmly state, race is not and was not the issue. Mr Dokes had an agenda. Period. IMHO, based on the way Mr Dokes conducted himself that day and thereafter, he would feel right at home in the Progressive Caucus of the DNC. He showed himself to be just another Republican In Name Only.

  13. I can’t believe some would play the race card here. If he was so inexperienced and didn’t know the rules why was he chair? more then half the people at the caucus knew the rules but he didn’t? Isn’t it his job given his position to know the rules? I find it easier to believe he knew what he was doing rather then that he was clueless in all this. Regardless the case though he needs to step down because he is either purposely trying to alter the outcome or he is not qualified for the position.

    The facts here is that he is the one who is not treating everyone equally. Because he doesn’t agree with the views of some in his party he is treating them differently. He don’t want them to be delegates because they don’t agree with what “he” believes is the views of the party. He purposely withholding information from them because again “he” feels they wouldn’t have reacted in the manor “he” thinks they should. In doing this he is saying his views are more important then that of those he is discriminating against.

    The simple fact is the party is made up of the views of the body of members, all the members. If what he calls the libertarian members make up the majority of the members at the meetings and the caucus’s then that is and should be the prevailing views of the party.

    Isn’t that what this is all about? What Paul’s campaign is really all about? Restoring the platform of the party back to its roots? Of course those that hold the views he calls the libertarian wing want to be heard. Of course they want their opinions to be heard. Isn’t that the case with everyone that goes to these meetings? Why else would you even get involved if you didn’t. Who has the right to pick winners and losers? Who among us is so much more in the know that they have the right to listen to one opinion and not even give someone else the right to voice theirs?

    Mr. Dokes has taken the position that he is that guy at the same time professing he don’t even know they rules he is to rule by. Are we to just stand silently by and follow “his” rules? Knowing the rules that are in place were crafted by many many people over the years and they were set in place to insure fairness for all, regardless your race gender or religion. Then we are to believe he changed them in the name of fairness? When he is called on his obvious hypocrisy of reasoning, those pointing it out are the ones being labeled bigots?

  14. Pingback: Missouri caucuses marked by contention, with no clear victor yet

  15. Bob,
    As an elnlightened RMan, reformed GBMan , and current RPman, I want to personally thank you for helping me, help myself, make my own head spin. Too bad you can only claim “messenger” status. I am not sure if I should laugh or cry, we are either up against unbelievable odd, or we are dealing with the dumbest people on earth…

    Thanks for giving me hope Bob.

    In Liberty,

  16. Great question Fred! Why was Eugene Chair of the Central Committee? Oh, that’s right, I remember. It was because Brandy Pedersen had gotten Cynthia Davis kicked out as chair because Cynthia wasn’t allowing Brandy to manipulate her. It was also because Eugene was Brandy’s protege and Brandy was hoping he would be her puppet. Since he didn’t do that, now she’s twisting his words to try to get HIM kicked out too.

    Oh wait…surprise, surprise, the truth doesn’t fit the narrative she’s trying to present.

  17. Township lines are drawn by the director of elections. Both political parties as well as the general public are welcome and encouraged to comment on those lines and make suggestions before the County Council approves the lines. It was perfectly legitimate for any Central Committee members to make suggestions. That said, this entire controversy happened because at one point, Ms. Pederson was drawn in to a township with another incumbent. The objections to the map were hers. She was upset because she felt there was a “conspiracy” against her. In fact, the suggestions from the committee’s smaller group made no changes to her township. The final townships do not have her with another incumbent, FYI.

  18. Pingback: St. Charles County GOP Chair Says Caucus Letter ‘Actually Drafted by Santorum’s Campaign Team’ - NH Politician

  19. Keep attacking Brandy Pedersen it is helping her name ID. People see Dokes for what he is and further more you did not answer the question is what Dokes did ethical and appropriate . Above is Dokes own words. I don’t want anyone to know that the head of the GOP is messing with the township lines. I suppose you think that is ethical too!

  20. Note that the first township map proposal submitted by the election authority was submitted after the final legal date as per county charter. The charter then says the council shall form a committee to consider the revision of the township maps.
    In addition, the first township boundaries proposal had a population imbalance of 9000 in the two north west townships. That would result in a legal challenge if accepted and the council would have egg on their face.
    The people calling for adoption of the first (flawed) map have their own agenda

  21. If it wasn’t for Brandy Pedersen this info would never have gotten out and neither would the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>