Update on Coos County Republicans (CCRCC) Legal Proceedings and PCP Appointments

Oct 12

Dear Prospective Precinct Committee Persons (PCPs),

As the Vice Chair of the Coos County Republicans and a passionate advocate for grassroots Republicans, I wanted to give you an update on Rains v. Brainard and Coos County Republican Central Committee (Case No. 25CV49796). This fight isn't just about me—it's about empowering everyday conservatives like you to take ownership of our party, ensure fair processes, and drive real change in Coos County. You've stepped up by submitting your SEL 105 forms, ready to volunteer your time and energy to promote Republican values like freedom, integrity, and community strength. THANK YOU. These delays in appointments are unacceptable, but they're fueling a local conservative revolution. We're exposing the barriers to involvement and paving the way for more patriots like you to get engaged and activated. Let's use this energy to recruit even more Republicans—imagine a fully staffed CCRCC driving voter turnout and winning elections in 2026 and beyond.

Twisting the Rules: The Chair's Overreach

Michael Brainard, as CCRCC Chair, is twisting rules, facts, and responsibilities in ways that contradict Oregon law, our bylaws, and the very spirit of community organizing. This isn't just poor leadership; it's a pattern of hypocrisy that undermines our shared goal of growing the party, promoting election integrity, and empowering everyday conservatives like you to step up as Precinct Committee Persons (PCPs).

PCPs are the foundation of our party—the Oregon Republican Party (ORP) PCP Handbook calls you "critical" for recruiting, training, and activating volunteers to win elections. The ORP Platform (amended Oct. 21, 2023) demands ethical leadership and transparency. Yet Brainard's actions and court filings show a blatant disregard for these principles, all while he claims "full charge" to justify control. This is gaslighting at its core: making dedicated Republicans doubt their understanding of the rules to maintain a small clique's power.

Michael Brainard is implementing a strategy to maintain top-down control, contradicting the grassroots ethos in the ORP Handbook: "County Central Committees are the backbone... strong Central Committees mean greater opportunities to win races."

Quick Background on the Legal Case

Denesa Rains (the plaintiff in the lawsuit) is a duly elected PCP and the CCRCC's Delegate to the Oregon Republican Party (ORP) Central Committee, making her an Officer of the CCRCC. In early September 2025, CCRCC Chair Michael Brainard called a recall meeting against myself (Chris Castleman) and Denesa Rains for September 13, 2025, alleging misconduct. However, this action was rooted in illegal manipulations that violate Oregon law (ORS Chapter 248), CCRCC Bylaws (adopted Jan. 2019), and ORP guidelines. Specifically:

Illegal Manipulation of PCP Appointments: Oregon law (ORS 248.015–248.031) and our CCRCC Bylaws (Article II) require that PCP vacancies be filled promptly upon recommendation, with no additional hurdles beyond the standard SEL 105 form requirements. Yet, Brainard has delayed or blocked appointments, leaving only 49 elected PCPs out of 198 positions. This shrinks the voting pool, making it easier to control outcomes like recalls. As a grassroots advocate, I see this as an attack on our party's democratic foundation—PCPs like you should be empowered, not obstructed.
Violations of Notice and Process: The recall notice was inadequate under ORCP 79 and our bylaws, denying due process. It also ignored ORP's PCP Handbook (updated Feb. 12, 2025), which emphasizes supporting county committees to grow the party through fair volunteer activation. County bylaws were also violated by failing to properly notify all elected members of the recall (ARTICLE VII C - “the Secretary shall notify in writing the officer(s) to be recalled and all of the members of Central Committee”)
Broader Context: This ties into the ORP Platform (amended Oct. 21, 2023), which prioritizes election integrity and ethical leadership. By manipulating the PCP pool, Brainard undermines these principles, potentially allowing a small clique to dominate rather than letting grassroots voices like yours shape our direction.

Denesa Rains filed a Complaint on September 11, 2025, seeking declaratory judgment (under ORS 28.010–28.160) that these actions are unlawful, arguing irreparable harm (no adequate legal remedy like money can fix a wrongful ouster). The court granted expedited consideration that same day and issued the TRO, finding that we'd suffer immediate injury without it. This prevented the September 13th meeting, preserving the status quo while we resolve the issues. The order notes that a TRO doesn't stop future recalls if done correctly—it's about following rules, not blocking accountability. No monetary damages beside reimbursement for legal fees are sought—this is about equity and protecting our party's integrity.

New Development: Chris Castleman Joins as Plaintiff with Powerful Declaration

After reading Michael’s bizarre claims that the PCP appointment delays are actually due to me not providing him proper paperwork, I decided to join Denesa’s lawsuit as a plaintiff. My declaration, filed on September 12, 2025, provides firsthand evidence of the ongoing manipulations and barriers to PCP appointments—directly supporting Denesa’s claims and highlighting why we need more passionate, common sense people like you to get involved.

I was elected Vice-Chair in November 2024 after a heartfelt speech about steering the CCRCC in a new direction, but I’m not even a PCP myself—meaning I lack voting power on the central committee despite my leadership role. I have repeatedly requested appointment as a PCP starting in November 2024, but Chairman Brainard falsely claimed it "was not possible." I confirmed through ORP officials and the Coos County elections office that appointments are standard and required no extras beyond the SEL 105 form.

At meetings in May and July 2025, I motioned to appoint qualified applicants (including 8 present with forms in May), but Brainard ruled my motions "out of order” with members demanding "vetting," and insisted on a non-existent "approved application" process. Meetings were cancelled (June, August, and September 2025), blocking progress. Brainard even emailed in August claiming the party accepts applications but blamed me for not submitting them—despite having them ready at meetings. This adds unauthorized requirements, violating Bylaws Article II.A(1): No additional rules beyond SEL 105.

FOR FURTHER CONTEXT, HERE IS MY POST WITH A CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE OF THESE PCP APPOINTMENT OBSTRUCTIONS

As of October 2025, at least 42 applications (including mine) remain unvoted on—not one appointment under Brainard's tenure. I was targeted for recall on September 13 without proper notice of reasons or the petition. My declaration underscores a pattern: Brainard creates hurdles to control who votes, starving the PCP base from 198 potential spots to just 49, all to maintain power. This contradicts the ORP Handbook's call to "recruit, train, and activate volunteers" and ORS 248.005's mandate for "widest and fairest representation."

My involvement as plaintiff further amplifies Denesa’s case—it's a testament to grassroots resilience. I’m fighting alongside her to ensure fair processes, so dedicated Republicans like you can get appointed without gatekeeping.

New Development: The Ignored Petition for a Special Meeting and Related Email Exchange

In a powerful show of boots-on-the-ground determination, we turned to the CCRCC Bylaws (Article IV, Section C) to force action on PCP appointments. This section clearly states: "A petition meeting shall be called by the Secretary when requested by 51% of the voting membership." With only 49 voting PCPs currently, that means 25 signatures were needed to trigger a mandatory special meeting.

We collected signatures from 25 elected PCPs who signed the petition calling for a special meeting on September 30, 2025, at 6 PM at the North Bend Library, specifically to fill PCP vacancies and grow our party. This was our bylaws-given right to activate volunteers like you and strengthen our local organization.

On September 20, 2025, I emailed the petition to Secretary Lourdes Regueiro, requesting the meeting and even booking the venue in advance. The Secretary responded on September 22, 2025, refusing to call the meeting on the proposed date, citing a supposed 10-day notice requirement for regular meetings (which doesn't apply to special petition meetings) and claiming insufficient time to verify signatures. She proposed delaying until mid-November, conveniently combining it with a recall vote against Denesa and I—despite this petition being entirely separate from the recall.

I followed up on September 23, 2025, firmly rebutting her claims: The bylaws don't mandate a 10-day notice for special petition meetings, falling instead to ORS 248.012 and ORS 65.214 (requiring 6-7 days' notice). I highlighted the inconsistency— the recall meeting was called in just 4 days after signatures were received on August 30—but now they're claiming months for this. I emphasized our responsibility under ORS 248.005 to ensure "the widest and fairest representation of party members" and warned of potential legal action under ORS 65.207, which allows courts to order meetings if not called within 30 days of demand. As of today (October 12, 2025), no meeting has been called, further illustrating the leadership's resistance to inclusive growth and underscoring why this lawsuit is essential. It's not just a violation; it's a barrier to the very grassroots energy that wins races!

Defendant Michael Brainard's Response

On October 9, 2025, Chairman Brainard filed an Answer denying my claims, asserting they have "full charge" but admitting no PCP appointments this year due to "customary" choices.

In Brainard’s “Answer” (pp. 1-3), he denies illegal manipulation, claiming the CCRCC "does not have to appoint PCPs" but "has customarily chosen to do so." Despite longstanding tradition of appointing PCPs at any meeting, he admits no appointments have been made this year due to various reasons (e.g., procedure, disruptions), asserting "full charge" allows him to decide.

This directly contradicts CCRCC Bylaws (Art. II.C): Vacancies "shall be filled by appointment upon recommendation of the Central Committee or the Executive Committee" with intent shown by a signed SEL 105—no extras allowed. In legal definitions, "shall" signifies a mandatory obligation, indicating that an action must be performed and is not optional or discretionary. ORS 248.005 mandates "widest and fairest representation," and the ORP Handbook urges counties to "recruit, train, and activate volunteers." Brainard can't "customarily" ignore mandatory growth—it's gaslighting to pretend to be optional when it's required. Plus, he blocks votes on 40+ applicants while claiming ethical leadership.

More Hypocrisy

The recall against Denesa and I was called in just 4 days (signatures Aug. 30, notice Sept. 3), but the petition for PCP appointments was ignored, with Secretary Regueiro (under Brainard) delaying to the earliest of mid-November, falsely claiming a 10-day notice for special meetings (Bylaws Art. IV.C require none specific; falls to ORS 65.214's 7 days). Email exchange (Sept. 22-23) exposes this—Chris Castleman called out the inconsistency, but received no response or action from Secretary Regueiro.

From my vantage point, these defenses ring hollow—they ignore clear bylaws requiring prompt appointments and fair process, including the petition mechanism we invoked. The facts show a pattern of exclusion that contradicts our Republican values of transparency and opportunity.

What This Means for Your PCP Appointment

Your applications are pending because Brainard's delays—and now the ignored petition—are at the heart of this lawsuit. Under the CCRCC Bylaws (Article II.C), vacancies "shall be filled by appointment upon recommendation," and intent to serve is shown by a signed SEL 105 form—no extras allowed. The ORP Handbook reinforces this: PCPs are critical for growing the party, and counties must support volunteers like you. Once resolved, I expect a flood of approvals, as the court could mandate compliance, especially in light of the petition's clear mandate and the email exchange exposing the unreasonable delays.

Brainard's hypocrisies highlight why we need more voices like yours in the CCRCC. Don't be discouraged—be energized. Here's how to get other passionate conservatives involved:

Connect with other grassroots Republicans and encourage them to fill out an SEL 105 form to become a PCP (filing window: Sept. 11, 2025–March 10, 2026). This simple form can be submitted online. If appointed or elected, they’ll vote on leadership, elect delegates, and drive local efforts—key to winning races.

Stay Motivated & Get Involved

This case, including the snubbed petition and the revealing emails, proves why we need more patriots like you stepping up. Grassroots Republicans built this party—fighting top-down control ensures voices from every precinct count. Imagine the impact: More PCPs mean stronger voter turnout, better candidates, and reclaiming Oregon for conservative principles. Your role could tip the balance in the 2026 elections. Don't let delays or ignored petitions discourage you; they're a call to action. Let's organize, activate, and win together!

We will continue organizing monthly meetups for local conservatives, our next being Thursday October 23rd at 6pm (location to be announced soon). I will continue to share details for these meetups on social media and in follow up emails.

If you have questions about any of this or need help with an application, don’t hesitate to contact me directly. You're the future of our party. Let's expose these obstructionist tactics, enforce common sense rules, and build a CCRCC that truly represents Coos County Republicans.

Standing strong,

Chris Castleman

CCRCC Vice Chair & Grassroots Advocate