[candidate-development] draft minutes of 14 Feb 2008 CDLC teleconference (plain text version)

[Merelice]

Dear Grace,

Your version does not jibe with what I have read from people who
stayed on the 2/7 call longer than you did. When you later learned
that more discussion and consensus decisions had taken place after you
left, it would have been appropriate for you to respect that fact.
Instead you chided it as not following process.

You recently pointed out that the consensus process does not provide a
requirement that people recuse themselves when they have a clear
conflict of interest. Such a rule of ethics would apply whether or not
the individual believed, in good conscience, that said conflict would
motivate that individual's decisions. You further said that in the
consensus process, people would instead take the individual aside to
point out a possible conflict-of-interest.

My question for you is, what happens if the individual responds
defensively and denies other people's perceptions of behavior? You
readily admitted last August that you did not want Nader on the
ballot. Having lost that battle, you have since tried numerous ways to
paint him as an invalid candidate -- even wrongly implying in the P.S.
of your naturally partisan McKinney letter that the party had asked
you to do so! -- and now you are trying to deny him his delegates. In
the meantime, you have actively promoted another candidate's competing
campaign. That is a blatant conflict of interest. Period.

Instead of responding with understanding to people's pointing it out
to you, you call it an "accusation" and "impugning motivations," deny
its reality, and accuse people of not behaving civilly because they
are unwilling to agree with your viewpoints. (You describe meetings as
"civil" when the results were what you wanted.) If you won't let
people disagree agreeably, then let the process work as it should and
respect the lack of consensus and the vote of the majority. Given the
amount of attention and discussion you (and Mike) have received on all
this, you have no grounds for claiming to be "written off." People
have listened and heard you -- over and over and over again.

Merelice

P.S. Given your active participation on CDLC, please let AdCom know
which of the two committees you had signed up for (comcom and
fundraising) you now plan to drop or whether you consider yourself a
non-voting observer of CDLC.


On 2/18/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
> Merelice - there was no consensus not to talk about the issue of the
>  apportionment of delegates - that was in fact what we had agreed to talk about when we
>  scheduled the call - that was when I left the call.   An email poll was sent
>  around asking if the committee had a right to decide the matter of the
>  delegates - that was not asking if we should discuss it - so that provided guidance
>  on deciding (which no cammittee has the power to do) not on the discussion
>  topic which was agreed upon by the time I left the call.
>
>  so its not as clearcut as you state it.
>
>  As for partisanship, there have only been a few people accusing others of
>  partisanship again and again.   I have told you before I won't stoop to impugning
>  motivations; I won't return those accusations in kind - it does not lift the
>  debate so I am not going to attack you or anyone else back.   Period.   No
>  matter how often you accuse me or someone else, it does not make it true.
>
>  Please work together to return conversation to civility and listening to each
>  other, not writing people off.
>  - Grace
>