[statecom] Concerns expressed for PROPOSALS #1 and #2, call for listing of concerns

[John Andrews]

This is in response to the request from the facilitator of the online State
Committee meeting that we describe our concerns with proposals before the
meeting  Because of the limited time I have for writing  (I am managing
efforts to collect signatures in 12 communities as part of our ballot
initiative campaign), I will list only my two most pressing concerns with
Proposal #1 which seeks to add 22 members to State Committee.

Concern #1)  Proposal #1 is inappropriate for an online meeting.  It is not
within the purpose of the online meeting and would seat new members who have
never attended a State Comm meeting, never introduced themselves to the
Committee, and never answered questions about why they want to serve.  State
Committee cannot duck its responsibility to vet new members.  Proposal #1
should be withdrawn and the facilitator should provide us with the proposal
to confirm delegates for the national convention, which is now only about
two weeks away.  (I have been unable to find any record of who the sponsors
of Proposal #1 are.  This is required information and should be provided.
When their identities are revealed, we can request that they withdraw their
proposal.)

This is a "blocking concern".


Concern #2) At a meeting of the Candidate and Development Committee a week
ago, an organizer for the McKinney campaign (Grace Ross) stated that she was
in possession of the names of 18 persons whose names would be submitted as
delegates for Cynthia McKinney.  She further stated that none of these
persons were willing to serve as delegates for the Party's uncommitted seats
or for other candidates.  The reason for this, she stated, was that these
persons were dedicated to McKinney and it would be "unethical" for them to
pretend to be uncommitted.  Clearly, she was in possession of these names,
was in communication with these persons,  and was coordinating their
actions.  According to our Delegate Selection Plan these names should have
been submitted by the McKinney campaign weeks ago.  We have now spent
several days in a virtual meeting to appoint delegates, and the names are
still being withheld.

Now 22 new persons are asking to be appointed to State Committee, most
apparently recruited by Grace.  Grace has already stated in an email that
her objective is to win 62% of our delegates for McKinney (20 of the 32
available seats) rather than the 28% that would be consistent with
McKinney's primary vote and consistent with our Delegate Selection Plan.
This creates the appearance that the delegation for one particular candidate
is seeking to get themselves appointed to State Committee in order to vote
on their own appointments and to take delegates away from other options.  If
this were so, it would clearly be an inappropriate intrusion of partisan
maneuvering into State Committee.

What happens in this instance will set an important precedent for the
Party.  State Committee must maintain an impartial and even-handed approach
to all persons seeking a Party nomination.  It should not take sides and
help one candidate defeat another.  Nor should it invalidate election
results to award additional delegates to a favored candidate which that
candidate did not win in the election.  Nor should it admit into its
membership persons who are applying to further a partisan objective and are
unwilling to fulfill the broader responsibilities of a State Committee
member, including the important responsibility of earning the trust of all
our candidates and voters.

Clarity would be advanced if the McKinney campaign would release the 18
names on their list so that we could assure ourselves that the McKinney
delegation is not attempting to install itself as part of State Committee.
Just as it would be "unethical" for them to pretend to be uncommitted as
convention delegates, it would be unethical for the same persons to join an
impartial Committee whose business involves fairly protecting the rights of
all campaigns and of all of our voters.  It is troubling that this list is
still being kept secret at this late date while the facilitator is pressing
to have a major influx of new members seated in an online meeting.   This
concern could be partially addressed by simply releasing the names so that
we could cross-check the lists and determine that the McKinney delegation
and the new persons volunteering for State Committee are not one and the
same.

This is a "blocking concern".