December 29, 2015

Dear Derrick,
Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts about the criticism being
leveled against Chairman House and the party. It is helpful to better understand
your perspective.
My over-riding question here---Did I write something inaccurate, or untrue?
Or are you objecting to my writing true statements that the party does not
like seeing published?
I see a party officers here acting with irrational emotion because they are
criticized for false financial reporting, financial mismanagement, flawed election
processes, disparate application/violation of bylaws, and poor personnel
decisions. If the criticism is unfounded, then answer it with facts. If the criticism is
valid, then remedy the problem---don’t attempt to just shoot the messenger.
If I am wrong, tell me where I’m wrong on the facts I allege. I make plenty of
mistakes. I’ll correct errors immediately if you point them out.
So far none of you have said, “she’s wrong on the facts.” Instead, it’s “she’s not
loyal because she criticizes our methods and standards.” Do the officers want
loyalty to party above principle?
I remind you that my criticisms are generally leveled publicly after my multiple
private attempts by email to obtain explanations go unanswered by party officials.
Your allegations below seem greatly exaggerated, claiming mass amounts of
private party communications being made public. Is there evidence of this or just
hyperbole?

I hate to see my party take such an anti-transparency, thin-skinned approach to
political criticism. Aren’t we a party of strong ideas that can be well-honed with
debate? Aren’t we a party that has principles that we take pride in? Is our party
so weak that we must conceal uncomfortable truths from the members? Aren’t
we a party of honoring laws? Don’t we encourage the press and public to attend
all of our membership meetings? Would we really want censors on what they can
report? Don’t we saw that we want to be held accountable for our promises? Are
the 1 million Republicans in this state so truly dependent on House’s leadership
that only he alone can lead the party, no matter his ethics or competency?
You don’t name the critics by name, but I’ll assume that your comments are
directed in large part towards me, as I have been one of the staunchest critics,

after being one of his very first and most enthusiastic supporters. I didn’t flip
positions without compelling justification and provocation.
If my assertions have been incorrect about the financials or the election or
whatever the topic, I implore you to point out my error, and I’ll make immediate
corrections, accompanied by public apologies. The party never disputes my
assertions, they just say that “Marilyn’s wrong, all is good.” House says publicly
that he “doesn’t care what Marilyn Marks says.” Please, dispute, rebut, reference
where I’ve erred. I’ll correct it!
I supported Steve House for Chair, gave money and worked hundreds of hours in
his campaign and just after he won because he convinced me of his sincerity in
several areas:
--building a system of election security oversight to protect our candidates.
--willingness to be held accountable for his decisions as the party leader.
--financial and operational transparency.
--compliance with bylaws, campaign finance laws, and sound financial principles.
--commitment to recruiting a mature, experienced staff.
--commitments for immediate and thorough independent CPA audits.
--honesty and integrity in all communications and operations.
The promises were soon all badly broken and no amount of private prodding,
reminding, arguing, rebutting had positive impact. The ExComm repeatedly
eschews all inquiries and concerns about the parties’ financial matters, although
they are responsible for approving the budget and all revisions. It’s hard to see
that many of them are taking the job seriously.
Derrick, I remind you of your put down of me and others who criticized and
questioned the accuracy of the July financial statements. You were adamant that
you and the ExComm were confident of the accuracy of those financial
statements and that you could not possibly have been hoodwinked, or duped.
Only four months later you voted to file amendments to correct those July
misstatements, going from an originally reported positive balance of $68,000 to a
negative balance of $60,000----an exaggeration of party assets of $128,000! You
posted your views here opining on the accuracy of the original statements,
deflecting our criticism--  https://goo.gl/bhAHrG.
How do you explain the many amendments and updated amendments and
amended amendments that the party has filed this year if the ExComm had been
as diligent as you claimed in reviewing the financials? We on the “outside” could
tell in moments after they were filed that the financials usually made no sense. If
we outsiders could figure it out, why were the ExComm members doing nothing
about it, and permitting it to get worse every month and deflecting our questions
as impertinent? After all, the ExComm is responsible for approving the budget

and necessary amendments to it.
I restate here my continuing request that:
1. the ExComm insist that 2014 and 2015 required audits be conducted
immediately by independent CPA’s.
2. the ExComm require that FEC and SOS reports are immediately
amended (again) to achieve fairly stated balances in all material respects,
and bring them into legal compliance.
3. the ExComm immediately and diligently undertake the review of the
2015/2016 budget including all amendments and updates as required in
the bylaws.
4. The ExComm seriously evaluate the liquidity, solvency, near term cash
flow and the anticipated expenses of conducting state meetings and
providing basic ballot access for candidates. Determine if anticipated cash
flow is adequate to keep the party operating at the required level to
support ballot access.
Why is the ExComm allowing the 2016 budget to be submitted 7 months late,
and pretending publicly it is “early?” It’s this kind of nonsense that causes loss of
credibility of the ExComm’s oversight functions.
Below is your letter posted on OGRE today. I have annotated some of your
comments in red font to address some points specifically. Thank you again for
your passion for the party and the consideration of my comments.
Marilyn Marks
(one of two administrators of Colorado GOP Watch)
Derrick Wilburn’s post of 12/28/15 (OGRE facebook page):
Fellow Republicans,
Imagine you’re head of an organization, be it a corporate, political or other. And
further, that every time you communicate to others in the organization your words
are immediately ceased, posted to social media and used in an effort to
somehow, some way bring you down. These are the conditions the Colorado
GOP leadership currently finds itself in. Its beyond unhealthy and dysfunctional.
“Every time you communicate to others….?” To my knowledge, at Colorado GOP
Watch, we have posted comments made in public meetings, blast emails sent to
hundreds of members and press, and some very limited posts of correspondence
forwarded to us by individual members. Your hyperbole “every time!” sounds like
quite an unfounded exaggerated allegation.
Steve House, Brandi Meek & I were elected in March by our fellow Republicans
to guide the state party. We (mostly Chairman House) now find ourselves facing

a very serious handicap that’s hurting the party, state, and cause of liberty and
could quite possibly cost the entire nation depending how things shake out in the
2016 general election. You were elected to guide the party with principle,
transparency and accountability---not in any manner that strikes your fancy. But
how could it be that our criticism, if unfounded, has so harmed the party? Only a
few of us routinely post criticisms on social media. If we are inaccurate, we will
have no impact, even in the smallest elections---much less the “entire nation.” If
we have no credibility, we will lose our readers. Your concern seems tortured and
overwrought. We are just a handful of people and a couple of cartoon elephants.
If what we say lacks truth and substance, we will have no impact on the party. If
what we say is truthful and substantive, doesn’t it merit impact on the party?
Chairman House can no longer give a speech, send an email or letter to the
ExComm and/or SCC without his words immediately being blared onto social
media in full view of the entire political universe, both friendly and ‘other’. (Is there
evidence of this making public of all his correspondence? I have seen very few
emails he wrote to ExComm, and those I have seen were rather innocuous, and
primarily contained public information. Of course his speeches are recorded and
analyzed. Every politician knows this is part of 21st century office-holding.) His
words are then dissected –again, in full view— word-by-word, line-by-line in an
effort to demonstrate his incompetence (at best) or corruptness (at worst), by
members of our own party. (I generally post the audio and then comment on the
specific quotes. Steve ran for office saying that he would be accountable for his
positions and words. Now the party is squawking when his words are played
back and reviewed? Isn’t it better to be accurate in quoting him from a recording
than to print sloppy misquotes? ) When he speaks someone (a Republican) is
recording with the intent of using his words against him. (I am aware that when
he speaks, many people are recording him, based the notes I get. Democrats,
press, other Republicans. How would you know their intent? When the press is
there recording, do they have an intent you assert? “Using his words against
him,”---is that different than asking him to be accountable for his statements?
He’s in politics, my friend, ---not Sunday School.) When he sends an internal
memo, when we file with a compliance agency, when he emails county
leadership, it’s all posted to Facebook within minutes and used likewise. (When
we “file with a compliance agency” ---that is a public record and meant to be
analyzed by the public. Are you objecting to that? You’re asserting that when he
sends internal memos and correspondence to counties, it is ALL posted on
facebook? Can you point to even a half dozen examples? Your claims seem
highly exaggerated.) Perhaps you can point me to the top five assertions I
have made that you believe are unwarranted and damaging. I will
reconsider them.
In whatever station of life you occupy imagine trying to operate under such
conditions. It’s time for us all to examine our motives.(Good idea, Derrick. What

are the motives of the ExComm in turning a blind eye to the ongoing financial
problems, and the budget? What is House’s motive in continually misstating the
financial position, always inflating assets by material amounts? What is House’s
motive in making wild irresponsible claims in public meetings about the
financials, such as “a balance sheet is not relevant to the party?” Where were
House’s motives in promising Mark Baisley one set of rules to run under while
promising George Leing a conflicting set of rules for his campaign? )
What is the motive of this constant hounding of Chairman House? (My motivation
in communicating the party’s failures is to see the party get itself back to solid
financial condition with sound principles in obeying its bylaws, and having
respectable business practices. That cannot happen until the ExComm is willing
to recognize the problems. Individual correspondence to the ExComm members
from critics generally gets ignored.) If the goal is to force him to resign, it ain’t
happen’n. I have personally asked him about this on multiple occasions and the
Chairman has made it crystal clear, “I was elected to do a job by a vote of 60% of
the electorate and I’m going to do it. I’m not going to be forced out by 5 or 6
people who want me gone and thereby turn my back on the hundreds who
placed their confidence in me.” (He absolutely needs to do the job that he was
elected to do!!---or resign.)
If the goal (of some individuals) is to force the Chairman out, let’s think about
that. What is the the on-the-ground reality?
If House were to resign that’d leave me as the interim Chair until a special
election could be held and a new Chair voted in. In an election year that would
mean that in the midst of caucuses, state assembly, choosing delegates, RNC,
et. al, we’d be attempting to hold a special election to elect our third Chair in
ten’ish months. In addition to the obvious issues of staff, getting up to speed on
everything, etc., the new Chair would also have to face donors. S/he will
somehow have to convince them to continue to support the party and state
candidates; that this changing of jockeys mid-race will have no adverse effects
and convince them to please continue writing checks. Good luck with that. (Good
luck with getting people to have confidence in the sinking ship that is the state
party, when its leader has little credibility.)
Having some nine months of up-close & personal observation I can attest this
much – Chairman House is not incompetent. Have there been zero missteps, is
our administration 100% error free? Of course not. No one is going to be liked by
everyone including you and me, but this isn’t a popularity contest. In the real
world of “does this guy know what he’s doing?” I am confident in casting my “yes”
vote. (Yes, Derrick, he likely knows what he is doing, and the fact that ExComm
is supporting those things is sickening to me. House is a flimflam man, and a
talented one. He has “hoodwinked” the ExComm and many others. As you

personally know, I worked hard to get you and House elected. This is not the
party I wanted to see come of that!)
In addition, Chairman House has rescinded the previous Chair’s (rather cushy)
salary and for the most part does not submit expense reports. The man is putting
in 60, 70, 80-hour weeks on a volunteer basis. Drives all over our quite large
state in his own car and mostly covers his own meals, hotel, incidentals. That’s
another $150,000+ he’s not sucking up and is therefore available to candidates
and infrastructure. Should he go byebye would his replacement do the same?
(How is the party going to have any money for candidates with its huge deficit?)
Don’t get me wrong, watch dog activity brings with it accountability. (I am happy
to be accountable for anything I have written about the party. If I have made
erroneous statements, I will rapidly and publicly correct it.)
Questioning is a good thing. But there’s a line.(Is the line drawn where we don’t
accept dishonest answers?) When we (Republicans) are the ones helping
HuffPo, Colorado Pols and the rest fill up their libraries with talking points and
things they can use against us in the future, it’s time to question whether we’re
holding people accountable or doing more damage than good. (It seems that you
are saying that if the answers are ugly, and likely to be made public, we don’t
have any business asking or holding our leaders accountable. If they give honest
answers and follow the principles of the party, leaders’ quotes are not damaging!)
The Colorado GOP is currently being handcuffed – by its own. We are not
perfect, far from it. But we’re three people more dedicated and committed to
victory you’ll never meet.( We don’t ask you to make it “victory at any cost.” We
ask you to make it victory with principle. Victory that we can respect. A party that
we are proud of. ) The job in front of us is colossal and will require a massive
team effort. We need all in the boat to have an oar and be rowing the same
direction. Going out of our way to sabotage the person in front of you slows and
misdirects the entire vessel. And to what point? To what end? (Derrick, I think
that you are asking people to “row in the same direction” even when they know
that it is a dangerous and unwise direction—a direction they don’t want
association with. To keep quiet, and not ask for reconsideration of the direction.
To sign onto known lies in the financials and in conducting our party elections.
Instead, ask people to row together in the direction of honesty, financial stability,
fair elections, bylaw compliance, and I doubt you’ll find any who object.)
If you have issues the way to handle them is set an appointment, come into the
office for a face-to-face and get your questions satisfactorily answered; [To whom
does this invitation apply? I’m almost certain I’d not be shown any documents. As
you know, I’ve written dozens of emails presenting my questions, and can get no
substantive responses) not blast them onto social media for two days of

point/counter-point that end up as screen captures on ColoradoPols. Let’s all
realize who the true opposition is and cease sabotaging ALL of our opportunities
for success though endless rounds of back-biting and passing of notes in study
hall. We have a nation in need.
Please clarify who will be allowed to make these appointments and have
questions satisfactorily answered. That would be a great first step toward
resolving the issues. Please recall that at the September meeting in Pueblo,
members were told that they could obtain any detailed (“drill down”) financial
information from their ExComm reps. Several of us have asked our reps
(including you) as we were instructed, and have received refusals to obtain
answers. Will in-person reviews in the office provide the information that is
refused in writing?
I hope all had a wonderful Christmas and are enjoying a fantastically blessed
holiday season.
Respectfully submitted,
Derrick Wilburn, Vice Chairman