Political parties are built on debate. We won’t always agree on candidates, endorsements or strategy. Healthy disagreement is not a weakness – it is part of representative government. But there is one principle that should unite us all: when a dispute arises, it should be resolved through an established process, and once that process is complete, its outcome deserves respect.
Over the past several weeks, a formal complaint against District 25 Chairman Steve Johnson generated considerable attention on social media and in local news coverage. The allegations were serious and deserved to be heard. They were.
The Alaska Republican Party conducted a hearing, reviewed the complaint, and ultimately dismissed it by a vote of 13–8. The party declined to remove Chairman Johnson, overturn district actions, or grant the sanctions requested by the complainants.
That outcome is significant – not because it ends every disagreement, but because it demonstrates that our party followed its own procedures. A complaint was filed. Evidence and arguments were presented. Party members reached a decision.
In our political climate, too often, allegations are treated as conclusions before any review has taken place. Social media amplifies accusations instantly, while the slower work of evaluating facts rarely receives the same attention. Whatever one’s view of this complaint, the official process has now concluded.
Reasonable people will continue to disagree. They should. But disagreement does not require division, and criticism does not require character assassination.
Equally important, the endorsement process remains intact. The endorsed candidates continue to hold their endorsements, and no action was taken to invalidate those decisions. Those who supported the complaint have every right to disagree with that outcome or advocate for future rule changes, but it is important to distinguish between policy disagreements and official findings.
Some criticism has focused on the fact that my husband serves as District 25 chairman while I serve as the elected representative for our district. That issue has been debated within the Alaska Republican Party for years. Delegates have repeatedly considered proposals to prohibit spouses of elected officials from serving as district chairs or exercising district voting authority, and those proposals have not been adopted. Whether members believe those rules should change is a legitimate topic for debate. Until they do, however, party officers should be judged by the rules that exist – not by rules some wish existed.
What concerns me most is not that a complaint was filed. Accountability is essential to any healthy organization. What concerns me is the growing tendency to assume guilt before a process has run its course and to continue portraying allegations as established facts even after a decision has been made.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Republicans face significant challenges in Alaska. Families are concerned about inflation, public safety, education, responsible resource development, and ensuring opportunity for future generations. Those are the issues voters expect us to address. We are looking at a good chance of having Democrats in control of both Houses and the governor’s seat. If Alaskans want government out of the way of jobs, opportunity and resource development, we need to fight the opposition. Endless internal conflict benefits no one except those who oppose the values we share.
Reasonable people will continue to disagree. They should. But disagreement does not require division, and criticism does not require character assassination. We strengthen our party not by questioning one another’s motives at every turn, but by respecting the processes we have created to resolve disputes fairly.
The Alaska Republican Party has spoken through its established procedures. The complaint has been dismissed. The endorsed candidates remain endorsed. While not everyone will agree with the outcome, respecting that outcome is essential if we expect our institutions – and one another – to be treated fairly.
Now it is time to move beyond internal disputes and focus on what matters most: earning the trust of voters and advancing solid solutions for Alaska’s future.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
15 Comments
I could not disagree more! DeLena you speak as though you still have a conscience! Will that same conscience allow you to admit that you mocked my efforts in your office a year or so ago when you made a statement to me making light of what I was presenting to you! I was asking you to stop being a useless politician and begin to speak truth during your sessions . And I quoted Isaiah 59:14 where it declares speak truth in the public square! If you don’t justice will fade away! Your comment was appalling and disturbing ! “CAN YOU FEEL THE HOLY SPIRIT” ? I said no and reiterated my previous statement to you! Speak the truth! We can’t afford anymore stupidity in Juneau!
DeLena,did this happen or not?
We were told by the gatekeepers who held the hearing that we were not allowed to say anything. If it is ok for one side to air this in the public the other side should be allowed to as well. Maybe like the comments from the other Johnsons there calling the grassroots people Present atthe hearing Rabble Rousers. That Faux hearing absolutely made me lose support for you, (and to be fair, it had nothing to do with you guys being married) and your op-ed here nails it shut. AK Republicans are facing serious challenges because of the gate keepers. And lets talk about the Character assassinations that were allowed to go on in that hearing. I mean if you are going to be allowed to do this, lets all let the dirty laundry out.
the difference between Wisdom and Knowledge….Just because you can doesn’t necessarily mean you should. YOU DeLena are the elected official, the constituency is YOUR BOSS. There absolutely is a plate of big issues facing Republicans its not the voters fault you’re talking about this and dealing with this, They are THE BOSS, your husband could easily step down…problem solved. What are you telling the voters? What do you expect from here, the voters in your district will forget about it, no big deal? on top of being the reason we are having a special session, nope haven’t forgotten. yeah we remember you, “Pushed the wrong button”… and then didnt change it given the opportunity. You have made yourself the image of the BIGEST problem facing the Republicans…Its not the Party, or the party leadership its WE THE PEOPLE, and you’ve become what we see when talk about elected R’s arriving in Juneau and the MAJORITY we just voted in DISAPPEARING as soon as the plane lands…..you didnt even say oops…just “I PUSHED THE WRONG BUTTON”….thats not….none of this is leadership, im embarrassed that YOU represent the valley, you would fit better on the Anchorage Assembly. Good luck with re-election
DeLena your op-ed does the opposite of help your side of the story. It’s throwing your “win” in the face of valid, long standing concerns. We will see how the District views your actions. A 13-8 vote is certainly a split decision. it looks like the state party threw you a lifeline. It looks like the state party threw you a lifeline. Your hurry-up, power grabing leadership vote last fall should have cooked your career. Time will tell.
Unity cannot be demanded where confidence has been lost. If members believe the process protected insiders rather than impartially evaluating the complaint, telling them to ‘move on’ addresses the symptom, not the cause. Healthy organizations don’t restore trust by closing the file, they restore trust by demonstrating that accountability applies equally to everyone.
A vote of 13-8 is not evidence one way or the other, that the decision was right. It does show that evidence was serious enough to divide the panel. She assumes that because the process reached a conclusion that the legitimacy of the process is no longer a question.
A 13–8 vote is not proof of fairness. It only proves that a vote was announced. The real question is whether the hearing was unbiased, and many of us do not believe it was. The original complaint raised specific procedural issues: refusal to seat eligible precinct leaders, refusal to hear a motion to reconsider endorsements after Rules guidance, and repeated gatekeeping that benefited the chair’s spouse in an active political dispute. Those are serious concerns, not personal grievances.
What makes the ruling especially difficult to accept is that the voting membership was stacked before the meeting by the accused, and party representatives in the room allowed it. On top of that, the votes were counted in a separate room, out of sight of the voting members. That is not a process that inspires confidence. A proceeding cannot be called fair when the accused helps shape the voting body and the ballot count happens away from public view.
It is also notable that the complainants were told not to discuss the hearing afterward. So one side gets to publicly frame the outcome while the other is expected to remain silent. That is not transparency. If party leaders wants to unify members, they should begin with a neutral process. Which should include: a transparent and open vote count, and an independent review of the complaint and the seating decisions, and an examination of the conflicts of interest involved.
If due process wasn’t followed, then it is just one more mark against the Alaska Republican Party. If you agree with a hearing that didn’t allow due process then you have no business being a representative.
As if the “Party” never violates its own rules, side-stepping the true will of the conservative Republican voters… Laughable!
Rep. Johnson, respectfully, “unity” is hard to ask for when the process being defended included refusing to hear a properly seconded motion to seat three uncontested precinct leaders who were physically present and ready to serve. That motion was made, seconded, and members on the floor cited that a seconded motion is entitled to be heard and voted on under Robert’s Rules. It was not allowed to proceed.
That happened before this complaint was ever filed. It is part of why it was filed.
During this same period, district committee membership was expanded by appointment after the charges against Chairman Johnson had already been filed, and before the hearing occurred. No District Committee vote approved those appointments. When the issue was raised at the hearing, the State Parliamentarian did not cite a rule permitting it. He simply allowed it to stand.
Some of us who showed up to raise these concerns were referred to as “rabble rousers” by district leadership in the lead-up to the hearing. Grassroots Republicans asking that seconded motions be heard and that committee appointments follow a vote are not being disruptive. We are asking that the rules already on the books be followed.
This isn’t limited to district process. Our own delegation voted for HB 381, which trades this borough’s guaranteed property tax revenue on the AKLNG corridor for a capped, discretionary state grant fund, without bringing Mat-Su into that conversation first. That is the same pattern in a different room.
The vote in the hearing was 13-8. That is not evidence the process was fair. It is evidence the concerns were serious enough to divide the room even with a stacked committee.
We are not opposed to unity. We are opposed to being told to accept outcomes we were never part of deciding.
Why did AK Leg Rep Delena Johnson write an op-ed about the District 25 “hearing” that she did not attend in-person or on the phone? Because the complaints filed were against her husband the District 25 Chairperson.
The Chairperson had one of the Alaska Republican Party legal counselors as his representative for the hearing. I, personally, felt that the Alaska Republican Party should have offered their legal services to parties because this was a Republican Party “In-house” issue. The Alaska Republican Party counselor’s opening statement included saying that this hearing was a waste of everyone’s time because the Chairperson Steve Johnson did nothing wrong. He repeated this several times.
The Complainant was allowed time to speak. My understanding is that the complainant was not allowed to go into detail regarding the list of complaints during the hearing. I am not sure what the reason(s) were that were given by the persons conducting the hearing. My impression, at the time and now, is that the Republican Party was not interested in giving the Complainants’ concerns any consideration. I felt that the Alaska Party group leading the meeting had already made up their minds before that hearing began and before the complainants had a chance to present their evidence.
I have read the other commenters’ statements below Ms. Johnson’s article (Maxwell, Raffaniello, Gilliland, Carpenter, Melin, and Desiree T.) and agree with the majority what has been shared regarding the “hearing” and conduct of individuals. I want to express my deep concern that the voting member numbers were stacked shortly before that hearing. The Complaintant had questioned the increase of voting members when it was first announced. These new voting members, from what I gathered after the discussion that was held when the question came up, were not part of the original voting member group that was present when the happenings occurred that caused the complaints to be filed. It sounded like Mr. Johnson had appointed these people shortly before the hearing, so that is where the 13 votes came from when votes were counted during the hearing. Adding more voting members after the incident and before the hearing appears to be an act to control the outcome and the Alaska Republican Party allowed it.
The complaint states that the Chairperson was not following Robert’s Rules of Order in conducting the meeting and examples made available for consideration. In addition, the complaint states that a request for reconsideration of endorsement for the House seat that Ms. Johnson currently holds was made and that Mr. Johnson refused to consider endorsing another candidate for Ms. Johnson’s seat coming up for election. According to the complaint filed, witnesses testified to Mr. Johnson’s actions and statements.
My opinion, as an observer of the opening and closing of the hearing, was that the hearing was already decided before the Complainants had an opportunity to present their arguments. I walk away from that experience being even more convinced that the current Alaska Republican Party has an agenda they are following. It is not a unity-building party. What is going on within the Alaska Republican Party that People are walking away from it?
What do you expect from the gecko faced politician!!!!?
Speaking as one of the rabble rousers, the hearing resembled a run down circus. The elephant was dead, and the three Johnssons present were driving the clown car.
Ron Johnson the clown that doesn’t need makeup!
My original comment here must have too many characters in it (too long for a comment), so did not post. I am including a link to this original comment on my facebook page. It is the pinned post and is public. Feel free to read it and comment there if you like.
https://www.facebook.com/norma.janice
This article surprised me. When the hearing of June 30th had been completed, voting members and attendees were specifically told NOT to discuss what happened there. Yet, here it is, published!
I agree with Republicans coming together to create unity. However, I lost confidence for it in my district, state leadership and now my Representative. What happened at the hearing was a process but was it really fair?
When witness’s statements, that were requested, were then denied, and people who were NOT present at the June 4th meeting, voted and only the plaintiff and the ARP lawyer were allowed to give testimony, I saw red flags. The evidence, given by the plaintiff, cited which ARP rules had been violated and which Roberts Rules of Order the Chair trampled on. These were valid complaints. Yet, due process was denied. Why?
The complaint regarding the June 4th meeting was valid, it was a mess. Members’ motions were deflected with a plethora of excuses from the Chair. Frustration grew into vocal anger and more motions! Very little was accomplished and total unity was the last thing on member’s minds.
This upset should not be happening. The Chair’s actions were uncalled for, especially disallowing debate on motions moved. The Chair should either be corrected, step down or removed.
A leader’s goal is to inform in order to unite. Unfortunately, this did not happen.