[candidate-development] Fwd: delegate allocation

[Daniel Melnechuk]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the update. Here is the salient text from the "plan":

The Candidate Development and Legal Committee (CDLC) will do the  
required calculations as specified in this plan.

The CDLC will present the actual calculations and results to the  
Administrative Committee for review and approval one (1) week after  
the co-chairs of the CDLC are provided with the election results.  
This information will also be posted on the state party web site for  
membership review after they are provided to the Administrative  
Committee.

The Administrative Committee must review and approve or reject the  
results within one (1) week of receiving them. Failure to approve or  
reject the results will automatically approve them. If they reject  
the results, the CDLC co-chairs, in consultation with other CDLC  
members, will review the results, make any changes and submit the  
revised results within one (1) week of the rejection. If the  
Administrative Committee still does not agree with the calculations  
that determine the results, then they have one (1) week to revise  
them or they are accepted.

After reading this text, it appears that the process is being adhered  
to at this point in the schedule -- Adcom send it back and the CDLC  
cochairs in consultation with other CDLC memebers review and make any  
changes and submit to adcom.

Mike? Please let me know if you disagree the interpretation of the  
plan process and where we are now.

Peace,
Dan


On May 7, 2008, at 2:33 PM, DvEngland at aol.com wrote:

> Dan,
>
> The draft memo was circulated among all CDLC members and comment  
> was requested.  Two members said the memo was ok; one requested the  
> inclusion of a speculative allocation that assumed the subject of  
> how we are to allocate delegates was still a matter for discussion  
> when it is not; another submitted a list of reasons why Ralph Nader  
> should not have been listed on the ballot and should not receive  
> any delegates.  The remaining members did not respond.  No one  
> objected to or commented on the application of the plan formula to  
> the allocation itself, which was the subject of the memo.
>
> The allocation requested by the co-chairs was the simple mechanical  
> application of a formula based on decisions made by StateCom.and  
> was treated as an administrative matter.  CDLC was not asked to  
> decide anything; it was told what the decisions were and asked to  
> apply them.  The memo was circulated to keep all members informed  
> and to allow for relevant input, but it seemed unnecessary to call  
> a meeting to approve an allocation the committee is not being asked  
> to make any decisions on.
>
> I can re-circulate the memo and ask whether anyone feels the need  
> to meet on this, but there is nothing in the allocation that is  
> discussable.  The allocation is what the allocation is: StateCom  
> has decided.
>
> For the record, I don't like the result of this allocation any more  
> than a lot of people, but I am not letting my personal views enter  
> into this.