[candidate-development] important questions about the 2008 advisory ballot campaign

[Mike Heichman]

April 1, 2008 (April Fools Day—but this is no joke!)

Hi CDLC, Platform and State Comm:

I am very concerned with the process that has led to the proposals for 
advisory questions that members of our party and allies might consider 
placing on this November’s ballot. I hope that Jill and anyone else will 
shine light on the process that has led to these proposals.

I also understand and support Gary in the expression of his indignation. 
This is what Gary had to say in his e-mail earlier this morning:

“I am supposed to be co-chairing a sub-committee of the CDLC with Jill, 
concerning Ballot Questions. Supposedly, Jill has been way too busy to 
be addressing any of the stuff below. And now all of a sudden all of 
this stuff pops up in time [barely!!!] for the Statecom meeting. And as 
co-chair of the sub-committee this is the first I've heard of any of 
this, except for the proposal on sub-prime lending.

With all due respect, I am FUCKING PISSED! I want to know why I have 
been bypassed, and WHO besides Jill has been NAVIGATING THIS STUFF 
AROUND ME------------and WHY???

With all due respect,

Gary Hicks”

On February 21, the last time that CDLC met, Gary and Jill, the new 
co-chair of CDLC, (who I also have heard is the co-chair of the Platform 
Comm.-is that true?) volunteered to represent CDLC on this Platform-led 
committee. The fact that Gary was not even invited to participate is 
outrageous. As somebody who has been active on CDLC and who is on the 
Platform Committee’s e-mail list, I saw NO discussion of these issues 
until Saturday evening, March 29, when this was posted on the GRP 
website, just before the deadline for submitting proposals for the April 
12th State Committee meeting.

So, Gary was not “invited” to participate. I was the author of the 
proposal that was adopted at the last State Committee meeting, have been 
active on CDLC and I wasn’t “invited’ to participate. I am unaware of 
any meetings held by either the CDLC or Platform Committees to discuss 
these ideas (and other potential ballot questions). I have seen nothing 
on either the CDLC and Platform e-mail lists.

In response to an earlier question, Merelice said that she was asked to 
submit a proposal with the members of the Rainbow Caucus. I am very 
pleased that there was this very appropriate outreach to the Rainbow 
Caucus. However the larger questions are …
-WHO HAS BEEN MAKING ALL OF THESE DECISIONS AND UNDER WHAT INSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITY HAVE THEY BEEN OPERATING?

Additionally, it appears that whoever has been in charge has not 
implemented parts of the proposal that was passed at the January 28, 
2008 State Committee meeting.

Below are excerpts from the proposal that I had submitted on January 13. 
The night before the January 28 State Comm. meeting, Jill and I had a 
conversation. I was very impressed by her excitement for my proposal and 
encouraged her and the Platform Committee to take on leadership role if 
this proposal would be approved the next day (which it was). Below my 
proposal are excerpts from the revised proposal written by Jill, which I 
supported the following day.

A. “2008 PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION CAMPAIGN (EXCERPTS)
Sunday January 13, @06:34PM, by Mike Heichman, Suffolk County

Text :
Proposal/Timeline:

January 27, 2008:

3. If the State Committee believes that there is a good chance that 
there will be few GRP members running for the above offices in 2008, it 
will authorize the CDLC to set up an “Advisory Ballot Question Task 
Force”, open, of course to all GRP members. (NOTE BY MIKE: I WAS 
RECOMMENDING THAT WE NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL IF THERE WERE A 
SIGNFICANT NMBER OF GRP MEMBERS RUNNING FOR EITHER CONGRESS OR THE STATE 
LEGISLATURE IN 2008.)

If the above is passed by the January 27 State Comm. Meeting:

February-Early April:

1. CDLC will publicize and organize the Task Force.
2. We will ask the Regional Meetings to discuss this idea.
3. We will contact Local Chapters and ask them to discuss this idea, as 
well as encouraging them to run candidates.
4. We will solicit ideas for potential ballot question.
5. If support develops for a very small number of issues, we will do 
some initial outreach to local and statewide groups who might be 
interested in working with us.
6. The Task Force will become knowledgeable about the appropriate 
campaign laws.
7. If sufficient support develops for a very small number of issues, the 
Task Force will come up with a plan and make a proposal for the April 
State Comm. meeting

April State Comm. Meeting: We will decide whether we will proceed with 
this project.”

B. DRAFT REVISION OF PROPOSAL (NOTE-EXCERPTS FROM Jill)

“Text: Proposal/Timeline

January 27, 2008:

3. Platform Committee is asked to establish an Advisory Ballot Working 
Group (ABWG) which will include representatives from CDLC and Membership 
Committees, SPWG (the Strategic Plan Working Group), the Rainbow Task 
Force on Housing Foreclosure, interested GRP locals, and interested GRP 
volunteers.

4. The ABWG is asked to develop and coordinate implementation of a plan 
for supporting legislative and/or municipal advisory ballot questions in 
the 2008-2009 time period. The Plan should address the following elements:
- What are potential ballot questions that best serve the purposes of 
strengthening GRP locals, growing the Party, and furthering the Party’s 
strategic objectives?
- What ballot questions appear to have a base of support that would make 
them successful, considering the level of enthusiasm from GRP locals, 
GRP presence in existing issue-oriented networks, and other factors?
- What resources and support should be supplied by State Committee and 
its associated working committees.

5. The ABWG will identify and establish the appropriate local 
committees, assist them with legal issues and with volunteer recruitment.

6. The ABWG will present their plans to the April State Committee, 
including proposed language for the ballot initiative(s), any funding 
and support needs, and plans for outreach to locals and activists.

7. An initial progress report will be presented at the April State 
Committee meeting. The ABWG will attempt to have a commitment to one or 
more specific campaigns by the time of this report.”

According to the draft minutes of the January 28 State Committee 
meeting, this proposal was passed by consensus with no concerns.

Comments and Questions about the implementation of this proposal:

A. My memory is that Merelice had done an excellent job of encouraging 
the regional conventions to discuss potential ballot questions. This was 
done at the Norfolk/Suffolk Convention and I believe at others. To what 
extent were the reports of these meetings communicated to whoever was 
coordinating this project? How was this information used by those who 
did the planning?

B. What local chapters were contacted? What happened with this part of 
the process?

C. In what ways was the GRP general membership contacted and asked to 
participate in this process? (GRP website, e-mail lists, etc.)

D. Who contacted what other organizations? What happened with this part 
of the process?

E. Was the Advisory Ballot Working Group (ABWG) ever established? If no, 
who did the work and under what authority? If yes, to what extent was 
their participation from the Platform, CDLC, and Membership Committees, 
from SPWG, from the Rainbow Task Force on Housing Foreclosure, and GRP 
locals? How did these different GRP formations keep in contact with 
their groups? How were other GRP members recruited and what were their 
roles?

I know that I’m asking many questions. Given how our party works in 
practice, I am not expecting anything close to full compliance. My 
general question is this—To what extent was the decision made by the 
State Committee in adopting this proposal implemented?

My fear is that a small group of party leaders took this proposal, 
selected who they wanted to work with, and the issues that they wanted 
to explore. They met and operated in secrecy and with a total lack of 
transparency.

I hope that my fears are groundless and that the answers to my questions 
will put me at ease. It looks to me that the potential ballot questions 
might merit the support of State Committee. But first, I would like to 
believe that the process has been kosher.

Mike Heichman