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

[Merelice]

Owen,

Since this is the second time you have stated your interpretation, I
will clarify.

First of all, the Delegate Selection Plan distinguishes between
AdCom's responses that happen the first or second time a calculation
has been submitted. In this case, it was the third time because of an
amendment that StateCom made to the plan. It was also clear --
following a four-hour AdCom meeting that fully followed the consensus
process of extensive discussion, identifying concerns, etc. -- that
AdCom was not going to come to agreement.

Second, a rejection would have to be considered separately from the
approval. Failure to approve does not equate with rejection because
rejection also failed to get the required two-thirds vote.

Therefore, Adcom failed to approve or reject the calculation, and,
therefore, it was automatically approved, per the delegate selection
plan and -- as importantly -- per StateCom's decisions.

Merelice


On 6/16/08, Owen Broadhurst <owen.broadhurst at gmail.com> wrote:

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