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

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Quoting the Delegate Selection Plan, p.9:

Final step in process:
"If the Adminstrative Committee still does not agree with the calculations 
that determine the results, then they have one week to revise them or they are 
accepted."

We agreed at the April statecom meeting that we have blown the time line and 
will ahve to re-adjust it as we go along.

At our much delayed face-to-face adcom meeting, the calculations were not 
accepted.   We are supposed then to have an opportunity to revise them.   One 
such proposal was made by Wanda, I twice asked the chair to have that addressed - 
I would have also proposed an alternative which I asked CDLC to include in 
their memo to us but which they refused to include.   These revised proposals 
were not taken up by the chair and remain as open proposals on the table.   

The chair's inaction cannot be the basis for considering something as 
non-action or closure...

Grace
In a message dated 6/16/08 12:25:51 PM, owen.broadhurst at gmail.com writes:


> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
> 
> 




**************
Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 
2008.
      (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)