[candidate-development] [adcom] Fwd: delegate allocation

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for sending out the language of the Plan.

It would be my interpretation that the co-chairs of CDLC should have 
called a meeting of CDLC, especially since they knew that there was a 
difference of opinion. It is my belief that no meeting was called 
BECAUSE the co-chairs knew that there was a difference of opinion.

Mike

PS Please forwar this to Adcom.


Daniel Melnechuk wrote:

>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.
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AdCom mailing list
>AdCom at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/adcom
>To email Administration Committee members: adcom.members AT green-rainbow DOT org
>
>  
>