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

[Mike Heichman]

Dear Merelice,

In terms of the apportionment of delegates, I have often said that I 
acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion.

Why is it that when people disagree with you and state their 
belief/conviction  that our plan and policy was and is to award 
delegates only to those candidates who are seeking the Green Party's 
nomination or award delegates to the Uncommitted that they become 
personally attacked by you and others who agree with you. Why is it that 
those who agree with me are repeatedly charged with being manipulated, 
misinformed. etc. as if all those who agree with you have not been 
manipulated or misinformed?

Specifically, in your letter to Owen, you write:

1. "Once again you are speaking without the knowledge of having been 
there." Does that mean that everyone who agree with you has the 
knowledge because they have been there? Well that can't be the case 
because "I've been there" and disagree with you.

2. In terms of informing our members and the general public, we did a 
very poor job of informing the public about the nature of Mr. Nader's 
"non-candidacy". I'm sure that you remember that one of the major ways 
that we were arguing back then before the primary was the question of 
who was and was not a "legitimate" candidate and deserved to be on our 
ballot. A number of us, including myself, repeatedly requested that the 
newsletter make it much more clear about Mr. Nader's status on our 
ballot. Imagine what would have happened if our newsletter had instead 
accurately described the fact that Mr. Nader had not complied with all 
of the requirements to be placed on our ballot despite our belief back 
in December and January that he would comply well before the February 5 
Primary. Imagine if you and Nat had before the primary held a press 
conference explaining to the press the difference between a "Draft Nader 
Campaign" which was publicly not authorized and supported by Mr. Nader, 
the fact that 2 others on our ballot were no longer candidates, and 
there was one more "real" candidate (Mr. Johnson) who mistakenly was not 
placed on the ballot. Now, those would have been 2 examples of good 
faith efforts to give accurate information to our members and the 
general public.

Instead you and others continue to pretend that we had a "clean 
election" and the election results were valid. I believe that if our 
members and the public had received accurate information that there 
would have been a different result on election day.

There have been numerous attempts to offer clarity to our members and 
the  public. There have been numerous  attempts  to  clarify our plan  
or come up with a  more accurate  interpretation of what our  plan  
really  means.  For me, the plan  means that  we  had  changed  the 
plan  at the  August convention  to  allow  Independents  like  Mr.  
Nader  to be on our  ballot if he would comply with the rest of the 
requirements just like Dr.Mesplay, Ms. Swift and Mr. McKinney (all 
members of the Green Party and all seeking our party's nomination had done.

What happened instead was a double standard--members of our party had to 
follow the rules and Mr. Nader followed none. Now, Ms. Swift, Dr. 
Mesplay and Congresswoman McKinney are in the process of notifying our 
party who they want to be their delegates. And of course, as we all 
knew, there is no similar request from Mr. Nader. Today there are still 
people who agree with you that we must "follow the rules" and send the 
largest bloc of GRP delegates to Chicago our members who are pledged to 
Mr. Nader, who is publicly running for President in a competitive path 
than our party.

I acknowledge that there are those in our party who disagree with me. I 
am convinced and so are you.

3. In your last paragraph, you sum up your attitude to Owen and to those 
who disagree with you when you wrote: 

"PLEASE, if you can't take the time to get accurate information,
refrain from weighing in with an incomplete understanding. You are not
living up to your usual diligence in doing your research."

This is what I hear from your statement to Owen. Owen can only get accurate information on this controversy if it comes from you and those who agree with you. Owen and he rest of us who disagree with you should keep our misconceptions to ourselves until we get "The Truth" from the   "right sources" and then, we will be able to see and speak the truth.

Before this controversy had erupted, I had on a number of occasions expressed the sentiment that I thought that the most challenging of the "10 key values" is "respect for diversity". The current controversy has reconfirmed my belief.

Owen and others have called for respectful and civil discourse. 

Thank you Owen for expressing your beliefs clearly, strongly and civilly.

Mike Heichman

P.S. Please post this to Adcom because I don't have posting privileges.




Merelice wrote:

>Owen,
>
>Once again you are speaking without the knowledge of having been
>there. The legal opinion to which you refer was NOT sought on behalf
>of the party but on behalf of two individuals who asked questions that
>did not, in fact, include the very questions that Michelle Tassinari,
>legal counsel and Director of the Elections Division, said her Office
>could not address. Further, one opinion rendered by that lawyer was a
>direct contradiction of what Michelle Tassinari did say on a question
>that she could address.
>
>Regarding Nader, that lawyer also was not given the GRP's election
>newsletter which announced that two candidates had withdrawn and one
>candidate (Nader) was a draft candidate. GRP-registered voters were,
>in fact, informed of candidates' statuses.
>
>Regarding what is legal and what is not: Until the GRP changes its own
>Delegate Selection Plan, what is legal for other parties to do is
>irrelevant. Looking to the future, the GRP certainly plans to correct
>the gaps in its plan. But for now, we need to live with what we have.
>
>PLEASE, if you can't take the time to get accurate information,
>refrain from weighing in with an incomplete understanding. You are not
>living up to your usual diligence in doing your research.
>
>Thank you,
>Merelice
>
>
>On 6/16/08, Owen Broadhurst <owen.broadhurst at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM, John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Well it calls a spade a spade without even naming the principal offender.
>>
>>
>>
>>Incorrect.
>>
>> It misrepresents the situation, as you should be well aware.
>>
>> The one legal opinion received by party members regarding this matter would  be correct.
>>
>> Only legitimate and declared candidates for party nomination qualify for
>> placement on any party primary ballot, and a withdrawn candidate is not
>> entitled to have delegates at the party nominating convention. We cannot
>> with any credibility contend that commanding ostensible Nader delegates to
>> cast their ballots for him is in fact representative of what the party's
>> registrants demand as they were not informed of his not being a candidate,
>> and were not informed that he shall in no way marshall the votes of
>> delegates at the convention.
>>
>> I am informed that the one major factor compelling an assignment of
>> delegates to the non-existing Nader campaign for party nomination were
>> concerns that a failure to do so would have been illegal. In point of fact,
>> elementary research in this area would have revealed how political parties
>> throughout the Commonwealth reassign delegates of non-candidates.
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>candidate-development mailing list
>candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>
>  
>