[candidate-development] CDLC Minutes of 1-11 meeting; next meeting 1-17

[Merelice]

Greetings,

Again, many thanks for the helpful minutes.

As urgent as the forums and/or other means of promoting the primary
candidates might be, something equally urgent has come up and needs
this committee's attention (as the Candidate Development and LEGAL
Committee), as well as Adcom's and Comcom's attention.

Both Jamie O'Keefe and I saw a TV ad this evening in which Secretary
Galvin encourages people to vote on February 5 and he also announces
the new provision that independents (I don't recall whether he called
them unenrolled voters) can take either Democratic or Republican
ballots and still remain independent. He did not mention the GRP
ballot.

This needs our immediate attention. I will consult with Nat tomorrow
about our writing a registered letter to Galvin and we will call
Galvin's office on Monday. Among other things, we need to find out how
this ad was funded. We should approach the League of Women Voters
about supporting us in getting the ad corrected. And we should notify
the TV stations of its inaccuracy and their responsibility to inform
their viewers.

We will need all hands on deck for this.

Thanks,
Merelice


On 1/11/08, Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote:
> Mike Heichman wrote:
>
> > CDLC MINUTES OF 1-11 MEETING
> >
> > NEXT MEETING ON THURSDAY, JAN. 17, 9 PM
> > Free Conference Call: Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 432-9998
> > Participant Access Code: 525338#
> >
> > Mike Heichman, Secretary of the CDLC mikeheichman at verizon.net
> > 617-265-8143
> >
> > PRESENT: Emily, Elie, Mike (Secretary), Rick (Facilitator), Grace and
> > Gerry
> >
> > I. Discussion of the minutes of the 1-09 meeting
> >
> > There were objections to the minutes which said that "Consensus: Howie
> > Hawkins will not be permitted to participate in our forum."
> >
> > After discussion, there was a consensus that "we would not invite
> > anyone to our forum(s) who was not a candidate and especially anyone
> > who was not officially representing a candidate.
> >
> > There was also agreement that Mike's minutes were much too detailed.
> >
> > There was agreement that Mike's use of parenthesis in front of a
> > candidate's name was not appropriate.
> >
> > The minutes were then accepted.
> >
> > II. Reports
> >
> > A. Responses from Candidates
> >
> > 1. Jarred Ball: His campaign thinks that he will come. He would need
> > two paid tickets. Question of dates (see below).
> > 2. Cynthia McKinney: Initial report-the scheduling is uncertain.
> > 3. Kent Mesplay: He won't be able to attend because of campaign events
> > in other states.
> > 4. Ralph Nader: No one had any new news.
> > 5. Kat Swift: She can attend the second weekend. Mt. Holyoke might be
> > able to fly her up for another event at the college
> >
> > B. Discussion
> >
> > 1. Initially, people expressed the opinion that we should go with the
> > other option of trying to organize more numerous and smaller
> > events-using the 1-13 CA video as part of the draw instead of the 2
> > major forums.
> > 2. There was some support for going forward with the 2 major forums.
> > Candidates coming and meeting with our members and the public would
> > give us more opportunities to support their campaigns and build
> > publicity for our state party. We would be in a position to have more
> > opportunities for radio, cable and local media coverage.
> > 3. There was discussion about whether or not we needed to decide this
> > tonight. One person briefly left the meeting, made a few contacts and
> > came back with additional information.
> > 4. The belief was expressed that there is a 90% chance that Ball,
> > McKinney and Swift can make a February 3 forum in Boston and a 70%
> > chance that at least 2 of those candidates could attend a forum in
> > Springfield/Holyoke on February 3.
> > 5. One person expressed strong anxiety that there would not be enough
> > human support to pull off an event in Roxbury. He was scheduled to
> > have a phone meeting with another CDLC member later that evening and
> > will report on that conversation tomorrow.
> > 6. An initial planning meting is scheduled for tomorrow (Saturday) at
> > 4 PM. There was a strong feeling that people needed to know the
> > decision before that meeting.
> >
> > DECISIONS:
> >
> > 1. We will hear word by tomorrow (Saturday), no later than 3 PM,
> > whether or not there is enough DEFINITE information from the
> > candidates to move forward with the forums. If we do not hear by this
> > date and time, we will move forward with organizing the smaller and
> > more numerous events.
> >
> > 2. Today's proposed agenda would be used as a guide for future planning.
> >
> > Our next phone meeting will be on Thursday, January 17 at 9 PM.