[candidate-development] [statecom] Special State Committee Meeting: brief history of apportionment

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Wow, I worked so hard not to put interpretation on this.

Merelice - I know this is not your perspective but I have never stopped 
advocating for the Delegate Selection Plan - including adhering to its diversity 
requirements.   

The words at question which we *interpret* differently are what is a 
"candidate" for the purposes of the Delegate Selection Plan and what constitutes 
"released".

Please stop stating that some are trying to follow our Plan and some are not 
- because that is not where the disagreement lies...

Thanks in advance, Grace

In a message dated 6/18/08 6:31:42 PM, merelice at gmail.com writes:


> Greetings,
> 
> Here, for your background, is a brief history of the calculation
> process for apportioning convention delegates to the candidates who
> appeared on the Mass. presidential primary ballot Feb. 5.
> 
> 1 - The first calculation submitted by CDLC (Candidate Development and
> Legal Committee) -- in an effort to present a compromise between those
> who wanted to allocate the delegates to ALL the candidates who earned
> them (despite the changed status of some) and those who wished not to
> assign any delegates to withdrawn candidates -- was to assign the
> delegates but then make the delegates of withdrawn and write-in
> candidates become uncommitted delegates (except that Ball's delegate
> was assigned to McKinney, since Ball had endorsed her).
> 
> This allocation was PROVISIONALLY approved by AdCom by consensus
> (including Grace), the provision being to wait until we heard from the
> Legal Counsel and Director of the Commonwealth's Elections Division,
> Michelle Tassinari, regarding what would be legal under the
> circumstances. In brief, Tassinari said we had to assign delegates to
> all the primary ballot candidates, and the delegates had to vote for
> the candidates unless they were released. She said her office could
> not provide a legal interpretation regarding whether a candidate's
> delegates could be considered released by virtue of the candidate's
> not seeking the nomination. She suggested the Party contact either a
> private attorney and/or the counsel for the national party. The
> national party was consulted. At the time (early April), AdCom did not
> respond or recommend contacting a private attorney.
> 
> 2. Accordingly, the second calculation submitted by CDLC reflected
> Tassinari's legal opinion by assigning the delegates as earned in the
> primary and not assuming their release.
> 
> This allocation caused concern about the possibility that delegates
> might never hear from withdrawn candidates to whom they were assigned.
> So a proposal was presented to and passed by the April 12 StateCom
> meeting to free such delegates after the first ballot. The proposal
> also changed the approach to write-in votes, proportionally allocating
> those delegates among the six candidates on the ballot instead of
> making them uncommitted. This, in essence, acknowledged the validity
> of having ALL six candidates receive delegates.
> 
> 3. CDLC was asked again to calculate the allocation, this time to
> reflect the result of the StateCom vote. That calculation was
> submitted to AdCom. According to the Delegate Selection Plan, AdCom
> then had one week to approve or reject; otherwise the calculation was
> automatically approved and the candidates were to be notified within
> another week. In fact, AdCom was given a longer period and after a
> very lengthy meeting, did not come to agreement. It became clear that
> AdCom would not come to agreement on Grace's plan either.
> 
> It should be noted that at each stage of each calculation, there are
> members who have advocated a different allocation that is not provided
> for in the Delegate Selection Plan -- for example what Grace has just
> referred to as the apportionment she (and possibly others) might
> support. And at each stage, either through consensus or (more
> frequently) through vote, using a different allocation approach was
> rejected. It has been consistently noted that CDLC is a technical
> committee whose job is to follow the plan, Tassinari's legal opinion,
> and the wishes of the State Committee -- not to seek to reinterpret
> the meaning of the plan or set policy regarding how to allocate
> delegates to withdrawn candidates (which our plan does not address).
> It is accurate to state that a majority of CDLC did, in fact, support
> its calculation/apportionment and did not accept alternative
> proposal(s).
> 
> AdCom has been split on the subject and, in the view of some of its
> members, does not have the authority to reject a calculation that
> follows StateCom's wishes not to change -- but to adhere as much as
> possible to -- the current delegate selection plan (including the
> automatic approval of the CDLC calculation), despite the plan's
> obvious gaps and flaws.
> 
> Therefore it is CDLC's third calculation that Elie Yarden -- as a
> volunteer -- was asked to follow for gathering, coordinating, and
> submitting the names of GRP members interested in becoming delegates
> to the convention and requiring StateCom approval.
> 
> Hope this helps clarify and provide background for the business about
> to be conducted. The formal proposal for approving a delegation will
> be forthcoming. Since the first wave of delegate names will not
> constitute the complete delegation, the virtual (online) meeting will
> not adjourn until the task has been completed.
> 
> Meanwhile, as an infant party, the GRP has done this only once before.
> Even those of us who participated four years ago do not always have a
> clear grasp of every step of the process. Let's not take ourselves too
> seriously as we move along to the best of our ability.
> 
> Merelice, Co-Chair
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> 
> 




**************
Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.
      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)