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

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Merelice,

My comments are in parenthesis with capital letters.

Mike

Merelice wrote:

>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?
>  
>

(I NEVER SAID THAT I THOUGHT THAT MEMBERS OF THE STATE COMMITTEE DON'T 
LOVE ME ANY MORE. RIGHT NOW I'M HURT AND ANGRY, BUT YOU ARE STILL MY 
SISTER AND I STILL LOVE YOU. I THINK THAT BOTH OF US HAVE A HISTORY OF 
LOVING TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSALS, SO I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE ISSUE. I 
ALSO THINK THAT MY CONVERSATION WITH JILL THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING 
AND ASKING HER TO TAKE THE LEAD AT THE MEETING PROBABLY DIDN'T HURT. 
LOTS OF PEOPLE ON STATE COMM LOVE JILL, INCLUDING ME.)

>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.
>  
>

(I AGREE THAT I WAS GIVEN EXTRA TIME AFTER THE DECISION WAS MADE NOT TO 
CONSIDER MY PROPOSAL AS URGENT. BY THE WAY, I REPEATEDLY STATED WHY THE 
ISSUES THAT I WAS RAISING WAS AN "URGENT MATTER". I DON'T RECALL ANYONE 
INCLUDING YOU GIVING AN ARGUMENT WHY IT WASN'T. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT 
THE DECISION WAS MADE BY THE STATE COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A 
NUMBER OF REASONS FOR THIS, INCLUDING MY PROPOSED REMEDY, WHICH I DIDN'T 
EVEN LIKE. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE STATE COMMITTEE MADE THIS 
DECISION WAS THE BEHAVIOR OF THE CO-CHAIRS. THIS WOULD INCLUDE THE 
CO-CHAIRS USING YOUR INFLUENCE (AS IF YOU WERE OBJECTIVE) TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THE PROPOSED AGENDA DID NOT INCLUDE MY PROPOSAL AS AN "URGENT 
MATTER"; THE FACT THAT YOUR CO-CHAIR REPORT TO STATE COMM. MISINFORMED 
THE STATE COMMITTEE BY ELIMINATING INFORMATION THAT WAS CONTRARY TO YOUR 
OPINIONS AND SUPPORTIVE OF MINE ("2.2") AND BOTH OF THE CO-CHAIRS 
THREATENING TO RESIGN IF THE DECISION DID NOT GO YOUR WAY. SO, I BEG TO 
DIFFER. YOU DID PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN MANIPULATING/PERSUADING THE STATE 
COMM. HOWEVER, I AGREE WITH YOU--I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE STATE 
COMMITTEE. AS I HAD SAID, THE STATE COMMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE 
SURE THAT ADCOM IS CORRECTLY ADMINISTERING POLICY. I WAS  NOT THE ONLY 
ONE WHO  "CHARGED" THAT THIS WAS NOT HAPPENING, AND THE STATE  COMMITTEE 
DID NOT DO ITS JOB.)

>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.
>  
>

(I'M GLAD THAT YOU AGREE THAT NO OFFICIAL DECISION WAS MADE. AND THAT 
WAS THE MAJOR REASON WHY I WAS SO PERSISTENT IN ARGUING THAT THIS WAS AN 
URGENT MATTER. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OVER WHO 
WILL GET DELEGATES, AND THE STATE COMMITTEE DID NOT MAKE ANY 
DECISION!!!!!  THAT IS THE MAJOR REASON WHY I'M UPSET. I AM NOT UPSET 
THAT THE STATE COMM. DID NOT LIKE MY REMEDY. NEAR THE END OF THE 
MEETING, I RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT NADER COULD DECIDE TO RUN AS AN 
INDEPENDENT. AT THAT MOMENT, YOU RAN UP TO ME BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT YOU 
WERE ALSO CONCERNED AND I BELIEVE THAT AT THAT POINT, YOU WERE HOPING 
THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH A QUICK DECISION. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THIS?)

>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.
>  
>
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THAT STRAW VOTE  DID NOT MEAN--IT DID NOT MEAN THAT 
THERE WAS A CONSENSUS ON ANYTHING! WHO KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF 
THIS ISSUE (NOT MY PROPOSAL) HAD BEEN TREATED LIKE THE URGENT MATTER 
THAT IT WAS. MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONSENSUS--MAYE WE WOULD HAVE 
COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT WE ALL AT LEAST COULD LIVE WITH. ISN'T 
THIS THE PROCESS THAT OUR PARTY IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR? ARE YOU 
PROPOSING THAT WE INTERPRET "CONSIDERABLE GUIDANCE" AS TANTAMOUNT TO A 
DECISION?????!!!!!!!!????????  SO, THE CO-CHAIRS WILL NOW USE THEIR 
'INFLUENCE" TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE 
"CONSIDERABLE GUIDANCE" WILL DECIDE WHO WILL GET THE DELEGATES.
I MUST BE CRAZY TO THINK THAT THE STATE COMMITTEE SHOULD DECIDE THIS 
MATTER. I SHOULD KNOW THAT "MOMMY AND DADDY KNOW BEST!)

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.
>  
>

(IF THERE WILL BE A PROPOSAL FOR THE NEXT COMMITTEE, THE ARGUMENT THAT 
WILL BE USED IS THAT IT IS TOO LATE. I HAVE SO MANY FOLDERS THAT 
SOMETIMES IT IS HARD FOR ME TO FIND THINGS. I BELIEVE THAT CDLC AND 
ADCOM BOTH HAVE TO PLAY A ROLE THIS MONTH IN THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE 
DELEGATES TO CANDIDATES (/WE HAVE MORE TIME FOR THE SELECTION OF 
UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DETAIL. DOES ANYBODY KNOW 
THE CALENDAR THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW IN NOTIFYING THE 
"CANDIDATES" (HOPEFULLY) HOW MANY DELEGATES THEY WILL HAVE.)

>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
>>    
>>
>
>  
>