[candidate-development] urgent Re: CDLC "decision"

[Daniel Melnechuk]

Few thoughts that come to my mind:

1. If the CDLC arrived at consensus then i have few concerns with the  
decision. So i guess i would like to hear from the CDLC whether it  
was by consensus or dropped to vote. I presume there were reasons  
discussed for no standins -- is there any way to find out what they  
were? Minutes, some email on a list?

2. I want to support committees getting things done  
(Decentralization). Adcom interprets and administers policy and  
platform set by statecom. Statecom has a committee to deal with  
candidate development. If a committee, who's task it is to do  
candidate development is doing the work, i am glad they are doing it.  
Yes it is a political decision to not allow standins. But that is  
what we do, make political decisions hopefully based on our 10KVs.  
All decisions are political, it is how much effect they have is the  
question. So supporting CDLC's decision is supporting  
decentralization. What issues does the decision to NOT have standins  
have at odds to the 10KVs? Diversity maybe? All voices being heard?

3. A decision under deadline pressure by Merelice and Nat to put  
Nader on the ballot when it now appears that we didn't have a signed  
statement from him that he is running to get the nomination of the  
Greens for Green presidential candidate is coming back to bite us. If  
we don't have a statement from Nader, then he shouldn't participate  
in the forum or with a surrogate. If it is just Nader that wants a  
stand-in, then i don't have a problem if we don't have a signed  
statement from Nader that he is running for the nomination to be  
green prez candidate. Especially since now it is not clear if he is  
running for Green pres candidate.

I hope this is not looking like i am being summarily dismissive. I  
think about the tech/com/member committees getting together and  
making decisions on what to do with a new web site and wonder if we  
will be able to get anything done if we can't make any decisions.

I think the biggest flaw in our consensus process is not having  
people state what 10KV is their concern based on, if any. That way  
weight can be assigned individually by people in the process as to  
each concern since as the bylaws say, the 10KVs are what we are about.

Peace,
Dan

On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Merelice wrote:

> On 1/11/08, Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> ....  As agreed, I will inform Howie
>> Hawkins' office by telephone, this afternoon, of the decision of the
>> CDLC to avoid participation of 'stand-ins' for persons whose names
>> appear on the GRP primary ballot, in pre-primary events currently
>> planned by the CDLC itself.
>
>
> Greetings AdCom and CDLC,
>
> It appears that CDLC has made a "decision" not to allow surrogates for
> candidates who are on the Mass. GRP primary ballot. The rationale
> appears to be that if a candidate has not yet officially announced,
> they are not candidates and, therefore, they do not have surrogates.
>
> First, I believe that this "decision" should be put in the form of a
> "recommendation" to AdCom which is the body that acts on behalf of
> StateCom. Such a decision borders on establishing a party policy.
>
> Second, there seems to be some evidence that members of CDLC are
> letting their personal preferences get in the way of providing as even
> a playing field as possible for the five candidates who have
> consciously and knowingly chosen NOT to withdraw their names from our
> ballot.
>
> Third, of the five candidates, only two (Mesplay and Swift) have at
> this point completely fulfilled GRP requirements. We are still working
> on getting certain kinds of info from the other three. If we are going
> to proceed in good faith toward having a forum, we should proceed with
> all five candidates in whatever way we can and not undermine any
> candidates because people on CDLC are "tired" of dealing with them.
>
> I am deeply appreciative of the thought, time, and effort that members
> of CDLC are giving our presidential primary -- even more so since Nat
> and I (along with able help and guidance from Elie, Jamie, and Dan)
> have had to carry the ball for the last couple of months. And when Nat
> and I (along with a couple of others) made a decision without the
> knowledge of everyone on AdCom, we clearly heard about it. Given that
> precedent, AdCom members on CDLC might be especially sensitive about
> bringing important decisions like this to Adcom.
>
> I would like to see my concerns addressed and not summarily dismissed.
>
> Thank you,
> Merelice
>