[candidate-development] [Expcom] draft memo re: delegate allocation

Sat Mar 29 21:32:19 EDT 2008

Mike Heichman wrote:

>March 29, 2008
>
>Dear Co-Chairs of the CDLC (Dave and Jill):
>
>Thank you for sending out the 3-29 memorandum and for asking those on 
>the CDLC e-mail list to provide you with feedback on your draft report.
>
>I have concerns and questions about the process and have recommendations 
>on how I believe that the delegates should be apportioned.
>
>I. The work of the CDLC
>
>A. I missed our last meeting on February 21 because of family business. 
>Before that meeting, a number of members were very upset that we were 
>bogged down on the issues surrounding the presidential campaign and were 
>clamoring that we spend time on other essential business. At that 
>meeting, both of you were elected co-chairs. Why is it that there hasn’t 
>been one meeting called since that time? What has happened to all of the 
>essential work that a supposed small number of malcontents were blocking 
>from happening?
>
>B. At this February 21 meeting, a subcommittee was established (Gary, 
>Elie, John and Dave.) to come up with the work which has led to the 
>proposal below. I haven’t heard before yesterday about the work of this 
>group. I assume that this draft proposal signed by the co-chairs comes 
>from the work of that subcommittee. Is this true?
>
>C. If I had been present at this meeting, I would have asked that the 
>Subcommittee of 4 bring back its recommendations to the full CDLC for 
>discussion and adoption. My understanding of our Plan is that it must be 
>the CDLC which make its proposal to Adcom; I do not believe that the 
>meeting on February 21 had the authority from the Plan to delegate this 
>responsibility to another group.
>
>D. If this Subcommittee of 4 did not meet and come up with this draft 
>report, who are the authors? Regardless, I request that the co-chairs 
>call a meeting ASAP of the CDLC to discuss and adopt a proposal. Sending 
>this draft proposal to the CDLC e-mail list on March 29 does not provide 
>adequate time for reflection and feedback. Furthermore, if you are 
>determined to submit this to Adcom (probably sometime tomorrow so they 
>can have a very short time to consider our recommendation before their 
>meeting on Monday, what does the “Subcommittee” or the Co-Chairs 
>planning on doing with my feedback (and the feedback of anyone else)?
>
>
>II. My Reactions to the Draft Proposal
>
>A. I recognize and appreciate that your recommended proposal has taken 
>into consideration the changing circumstances that has taken place since 
>our party’s co-chairs submitted the names of 6 individuals to the 
>Secretary of the Commonwealth in early December. You recognized that 
>only Ms. Swift, Dr. Mesplay and Congresswoman McKinney were candidates 
>pursuing the Green Party’s nomination for the presidency on February 5 
>(Note: And all of them had complied with our party’s requirements to be 
>on our ballot.) and are still pursuing the Green Party’s nomination. 
>Thank you for seeing that these are the only 3 candidates who should be 
>given delegates. This is exactly what the signers of the Minority Report 
>have been advocating.
>
>B. I favor the apportionment of delegates to the candidates using a 
>different formula. I believe that my proposal is consistent with the 
>policy decisions made by the annual convention and by previous State 
>Committee meetings.
>
>1. The votes cast for Mr. Ball and Ms. Brown should be counted in the 
>“blanks” category. While both of them had been announced candidates for 
>the Green Party’s nomination for the Presidency, they both had announced 
>their withdrawal from the campaign before February 5 and are still no 
>longer running for the Green Party’s nomination. Thus, they are no 
>longer candidates and are thus not eligible to receive delegates.
>2. The votes cast for Mr. Nader should also be counted in the “blanks’ 
>category. He did not comply with our requirements and was not a 
>candidate before the February 5 Primary. Since he has now decided to run 
>for the presidency as an “Independent” and NOT pursue the Green Party’s 
>nomination, he should not be eligible to receive delegates. Our rules 
>and intentions are clear; only those who are pursuing the Green Party’s 
>nomination for the presidency should receive delegates.
>3. The delegates should be apportioned to the votes the 3 candidates 
>received on February 5 (Swift, Mesplay and McKinney).
>4. “No Preference” votes should be given to delegates who will go to the 
>convention as “Uncommitted”.
>
>C. It is very unfortunate that the Secretary of the Commonwealth did not 
>count the write-in votes. If they had been, I would have recommended 
>that they be added to the numbers received by the above 3 candidates and 
>to Jesse Johnson (I have some concerns that there may not have been a 
>sufficient attempt to contact him before the December deadline. However, 
>it is clear that he is currently running for the Green Party’s 
>nomination for the presidency. I would like to be able to recommend a 
>way that he could receive GRP delegates that would be consistent with 
>the above policy and campaign plan. However, I have no proposal at this 
>time. I see no realistic option to make up for any past mistakes.)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mike Heichman mikeheichman at verizon.net
>-----------------------------------
>
>DvEngland at aol.com wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Attached is a draft memo in rich-text format from CDLC to AdCom allocating  
>>the delegates of our state delegation to the presidential nominating  
>>convention.  It's four pages, plus 2 attachments.  Our subcommittee  has put 
>>considerable time into this and we hope it is clear.  We have had  to write in decisions 
>>which we hope you will agree are logical and  reasonable.  
>>
>>Please read this and get back to Dave England at _DvEngland at aol.com_ 
>>(mailto:DvEngland at aol.com)  with any corrections or  changes you feel need to be 
>>addressed.
>>
>>Ad Com meets Monday evening and we would like to deliver this to them 36  
>>hours before they meet, so you don't have much time and I apologize for that,  
>>but we are behind schedule and need to keep this moving.
>>
>>Thanks to everyone for their input.  Let me know if you have any  questions.
>>
>>Dave England
>>
>>
>>
>>**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
>>Home.      
>>(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
>> 
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>candidate-development mailing list
>>candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Expcom mailing list
>Expcom at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/expcom
>
>  
>