[statecom] [candidate-development] [adcom] Special State Committee Meeting now in session

[Merelice]

Hi,

In case some of you are following emails specifically on this thread
and might miss the email below (for which I changed the subject), I am
sending this duplicate; I ask for your forebearance.

Thanks,
Merelice

Greetings,

Here, for your background, is a brief history of the calculation
process for apportioning convention delegates to the candidates who
appeared on the Mass. presidential primary ballot Feb. 5.

1 - The first calculation submitted by CDLC (Candidate Development and
Legal Committee) -- in an effort to present a compromise between those
who wanted to allocate the delegates to ALL the candidates who earned
them (despite the changed status of some) and those who wished not to
assign any delegates to withdrawn candidates -- was to assign the
delegates but then make the delegates of withdrawn and write-in
candidates become uncommitted delegates (except that Ball's delegate
was assigned to McKinney, since Ball had endorsed her).

This allocation was PROVISIONALLY approved by AdCom by consensus
(including Grace), the provision being to wait until we heard from the
Legal Counsel and Director of the Commonwealth's Elections Division,
Michelle Tassinari, regarding what would be legal under the
circumstances. In brief, Tassinari said we had to assign delegates to
all the primary ballot candidates, and the delegates had to vote for
the candidates unless they were released. She said her office could
not provide a legal interpretation regarding whether a candidate's
delegates could be considered released by virtue of the candidate's
not seeking the nomination. She suggested the Party contact either a
private attorney and/or the counsel for the national party. The
national party was consulted. At the time (early April), AdCom did not
respond or recommend contacting a private attorney.

2. Accordingly, the second calculation submitted by CDLC reflected
Tassinari's legal opinion by assigning the delegates as earned in the
primary and not assuming their release.

This allocation caused concern about the possibility that delegates
might never hear from withdrawn candidates to whom they were assigned.
So a proposal was presented to and passed by the April 12 StateCom
meeting to free such delegates after the first ballot. The proposal
also changed the approach to write-in votes, proportionally allocating
those delegates among the six candidates on the ballot instead of
making them uncommitted. This, in essence, acknowledged the validity
of having ALL six candidates receive delegates.

3. CDLC was asked again to calculate the allocation, this time to
reflect the result of the StateCom vote. That calculation was
submitted to AdCom. According to the Delegate Selection Plan, AdCom
then had one week to approve or reject; otherwise the calculation was
automatically approved and the candidates were to be notified within
another week. In fact, AdCom was given a longer period and after a
very lengthy meeting, did not come to agreement. It became clear that
AdCom would not come to agreement on Grace's plan either.

It should be noted that at each stage of each calculation, there are
members who have advocated a different allocation that is not provided
for in the Delegate Selection Plan -- for example what Grace has just
referred to as the apportionment she (and possibly others) might
support. And at each stage, either through consensus or (more
frequently) through vote, using a different allocation approach was
rejected. It has been consistently noted that CDLC is a technical
committee whose job is to follow the plan, Tassinari's legal opinion,
and the wishes of the State Committee -- not to seek to reinterpret
the meaning of the plan or set policy regarding how to allocate
delegates to withdrawn candidates (which our plan does not address).
It is accurate to state that a majority of CDLC did, in fact, support
its calculation/apportionment and did not accept alternative
proposal(s).

AdCom has been split on the subject and, in the view of some of its
members, does not have the authority to reject a calculation that
follows StateCom's wishes not to change -- but to adhere as much as
possible to -- the current delegate selection plan (including the
automatic approval of the CDLC calculation), despite the plan's
obvious gaps and flaws.

Therefore it is CDLC's third calculation that Elie Yarden -- as a
volunteer -- was asked to follow for gathering, coordinating, and
submitting the names of GRP members interested in becoming delegates
to the convention and requiring StateCom approval.

Hope this helps clarify and provide background for the business about
to be conducted. The formal proposal for approving a delegation will
be forthcoming. Since the first wave of delegate names will not
constitute the complete delegation, the virtual (online) meeting will
not adjourn until the task has been completed.

Meanwhile, as an infant party, the GRP has done this only once before.
Even those of us who participated four years ago do not always have a
clear grasp of every step of the process. Let's not take ourselves too
seriously as we move along to the best of our ability.

Merelice, Co-Chair