[candidate-development] [adcom] Report of CDLC to State Committee

[Owen Broadhurst]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/16/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
> > ....>
> >  as for apportionment, as we all know, there is no agreement and that is
> not
> >  about McKinney one way or another, it is about all of the candidates and
> the
> >  uncommitted delegates -
>
>
> Grace,
>
> "As we all know," according to the Delegate Selection Plan, the CDLC
> calculation apportioning delegates to the candidates was automatically
> approved when the Administrative Committee was unable to reach
> agreement. That is the provision of the Delegate Selection Plan
> approved and confirmed by the State Committee.


This is incorrect. Party procedures have in no way been altered so as to
render failure for motions to secure numbers needed for passage as anything
beyond the rejection that our party's policies and procedures as per bylaws
makes amply clear. The Administrative Committee did reach a decision: It
failed to pass, and therefore rejected, the motion.

The Delegate Selection Plan offered a contigency regard that, which should
be followed.