[statecom] [statecom-discuss] Hello from Chicago!

[Jim Hammerman]

Hi Merelice,
I find it somewhat puzzling, too. My understanding as well was that the 
proposal that Mike and I had put forward would resolve this situation. At 
first I was relieved to hear that it had passed at that June 29 meeting, 
and thanked Nat for co-sponsoring it so that we wouldn't have to raise it 
in the virtual meeting. Still, because the unprecedented refusal to seat 6 
fully qualified candidates for StateCom had meant that I and several 
others felt compelled to leave that June 29 meeting, we weren't there to 
be part of the discussions; discussions which might have brought the full 
implications of my proposal to light in the process of reaching consensus 
on it. Thus, the "compromise" you describe was one being offered and 
accepted by one "side" without consultation with the other--a flawed 
process. 

When I was able to think through the contradictions inherent in people 
being named for candidates well after their public statements made clear 
they were no longer candidates, then being sort of released from their 
obligation to vote for said "ex-candidates" because of those same 
statements made months earlier ("sort of" because even yesterday Wanda was 
asking for people to fill Nader-No preference and Brown-No preference 
spots), I decided that my passed proposal actually didn't provide the 
solution to our joint problem. I now wonder whether the clear instructions 
I offered delegates in my proposal violate the oft-quoted state law about 
requiring _named delegates_ to vote for that person on the first roll call 
ballot. If they were no longer named for Brown, Ball, and Nader, then we 
would be fine, but they are so-named, as noted above. It is this concern, 
unknown to me at the time of putting forth the proposal, that we raise in 
the objection.

-Jim




Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> 
Sent by: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
07/11/08 01:53 PM
Please respond to
Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>


To
"State Committee Official Business" <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
cc
Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
Subject
Re: [statecom-discuss] [statecom] Hello from Chicago!






Greetings,

As I skim the 14-page challenge, I find it puzzling that by having
StateCom pass the proposal that was sponsored by Jim Hammerman and
Mike Heichman (to change the delegate selection plan, thereby making
it legal to release delegates so they would not have to vote for
candidates who have withdrawn from the race), that effort to reach a
compromise is now being used by the same individuals against the party
as being illegal. Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
All efforts to compromise have been one-sided while the other side has
not budged an inch. And they accuse those making the compromises as
being unwilling to seek consensus.

Merelice


On 7/11/08, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu> wrote:
> Hi John,
>  Thanks for the update and the good news about CSpan's coverage and 
about
>  Jill's speech.
>
>  Your report on the challenge to delegates has some different 
information
>  than we were told.
>
>  1) We were told that the credentials committee _wouldn't_ select one 
slate
>  or another, but would have to receive challenges and objections against
>  individual delegates.
>
>  2) At the same time, we have not created a list of individuals to be
>  removed, but categories of delegates who were not seated correctly for
>  different reasons. We don't intend to personalize the objections, just 
to
>  make the case for problems in the allocation and assignment of 
delegates
>  which need to be addressed. Depending on which, if any, of the 
arguments
>  we make are deemed valid, there are implications for different people. 
I'm
>  attaching a .pdf version of that 14 page document you refer to (just
>  completed yesterday) so others can read it.
>
>  3) The existence of alternative allocations and delegate apportionment
>  plans have been discussed throughout our long process but have not been
>  formally taken up. And despite your cheery description of the process 
used
>  to approve the list sent by the party officers, there remain 
substantial
>  problems with the process, some of which are documented in the 
objection.
>
>  Finallly, people should know that Mike Heichman also signed onto the
>  alternate delegation and challenge.
>
>
>  -Jim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  StateCom mailing list
>  StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>  http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss