[statecom-discuss] Clarifying the StateCom meeting re presidential candidates

[Merelice]

Mike,

I'm puzzled about why you haven't focused on the fact that one of your
other proposals was ranked first and quickly passed with consensus.
Further, that proposal has much more potential for actually growing
the party than anything the presidential race can do. How about
looking forward to implementing a proposal that got agreement instead
of ruminating over the proposal that didn't get agreement?

Regarding the proposal that you continue to argue about: You were
given extraordinary opportunity to present that proposal in advance at
the StateCom meeting. The agenda was changed so you could do so. You
have no right to accuse me personally (or the co-chairs and
co-facilitators) of NOT deciding to come up with the solution you
sought. The whole body of some 25 StateCom members determined the
ranking of your proposal.

While it is true that we did not have time to come to an official
vote, the message of the straw vote was amply clear. To ignore that
would be irresponsible. I, for one, was very grateful we got at least
that far and would have loved to have time to make it official. Every
person around the table had an opportunity to express her/his view.
That, too, was a change from the usual procedure and an
acknowledgement that your proposal needed to get everyone's attention.

Given what you heard, you can't really believe that an official vote
would have produced a different result. And given what you heard,
there was considerable guidance regarding how we treat the results of
the primary: Many spoke on behalf of giving all the candidates --
including the two who have withdrawn -- the delegates that they earn
in the primary.

If people don't agree with that analysis, there is another StateCom
meeting before the July convention delegates get appointed. That was
another reason your proposal did not qualify as "urgent" -- though, as
mentioned above, you were still given extra consideration.

Merelice


On 2/4/08, mikeheichman at verizon.net <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Merelice:
>
>  Entering the January 27 State Comm meeting, there was a controversy about
>  what our policy was about the whole
>  issue of who on our ballot is a candidate, who is entitled to delegates,
>  etc.
>
>  While it is true that the State Comm did not agree that this was an "urgent
>  matter" and while it is true that the
>  discussion that took place was not favorable to my remedy, NO DECISIONS
>  WERE MADE AT THE MEETING ABOUT THE
>  ISSUES THAT WE DISAGREE ABOUT. We ran out of time. I also believe that this
>  was probably the intention of some of
>  the members of State Comm.
>
>  If I am wrong, please ask the Secretary to send out the minutes ASAP and
>  then please show me and the rest of the
>  State Comm. what issues of controversy were decided.
>
>  After our primary, CDLC and Adcom will be called upon to make decisions
>  without the appropriate guidance of the
>  last State Committee. Specifically, what should the CDLC and Adcom do about
>  apportioning delegates to the
>  campaigns of Mr. Ball, Ms. Brown and Mr. Nader--2 of them are no longer
>  candidates and one of them has just
>  established an Exploratory Committee.
>
>  That was the "urgent business" which I asked the State Comm. to address.
>  The fact that it didn't come up with a
>  remedy does not magically mean that the controversy has been decided.
>
>  This is not about our differences of opinion. This is about the State Comm,
>  under your active leadership in this area
>  deciding NOT to come up with a decision.
>
>  Mike Heichman