[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Co-Chair of Resolutions Responds

by: Julia Rosen

Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:56:19 AM PDT


I wanted to give everyone an opportunity to see this comment left at the bottom of my first post titled "Setting the Record Straight".  Thank you John for coming by to clarify.  I will be the first to admit that I do not have a very nuanced understanding of the resolutions process and indeed there were some inaccuracies in my post.  Most of us are very new to this process and we are learning. 

Obviously, this is happening in a very public way, but one that will lead to greater understanding.  It seems to me that the amount of misinformation is a direct result of poor communication about the process.  Given the vast turnover within the delegate population, I think it makes sense to rethink how you communicate the process to the delegates in an ongoing manner at the convention.

Julia Rosen :: Co-Chair of Resolutions Responds
My name is John Hanna & I am along with Inola Henry one of the Coordinating Co-Chairs of the Resolutions Committee.
We have been in this position for 20 years, Inola a little longer then me. If you are going to be blogging from the Convention you should get your facts straight. I feel obligated to correct a number of innacuracies in your post. First, let me deal specifically with net neutrality:

1) The Party did not "kill net neutrality" as your headline suggests. They've been referred to the Labor Caucus with a request that they report them back to the Resolutions Committee at the July Executive Board Hearing.

2) There were 4 net neutrality resolutions, not one.

3) All of them referenced support for specific legislation; the resolutions committee has consistently over the years referred resolutions that refer to specific legislation to the Legislative Committee. Not doing so this time was an oversight which most likely happened because we were referring it to the Labor Caucus and because we were just plain tired from spending countless hours dealing with well over 100 resolutions. But to make sure that members of the Black Helicopter Caucus don't feel we're trying to "deep six" net neutrality by sending it to the labor Caucus, I will make sure staff will also send it to the Legislative Committee at the Executive Board with a request they report back to us with their findings.

Fair enough.  I think actually we will have to reword the resolution so that it does not refer to any specific legislation and also talk with CWA to make sure we address their concerns.  I hopefully should have some more on that soon.

4) You suggest these resolutions should have gone to the Computer and Internet Caucus----but one of them actually was FROM THAT CAUCUS!!! Since the four were similar it didn't seem the obvious choice to refer it back to that caucus but, to elminate any concern about favoritism, I will also make sure that staff sends these 4 similar resolutions back to the Computer and Internet Caucus and  request that they report their findings back to the Resolutions Commiittee.

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at here.  You seem to already be admitting that all four were going to be forwarded to another caucus and at no point would have an opportunity to reach the floor.

5) With regard to your absurd claim that somehow this decision was made to cater to AT&T and we knew about their opposition: a) see above reference to Black helicopter Caucus, b) I am the one who suggested we refer this to the Labor Caucus and I had NEVER heard the AT&T had issues with net neutrality and c) I suggested this because I was aware that CWA has some concerns although they were generally supportive and thought these could get vetted out at the labor caucus. I talked to Jim Gordon about it at the Convention---he said the net neutrality folks will be happy with what the Caucus will send back to Resolutions.

Obviously, I was not privy to any conversations that you had.  I was simply laying out what seemed to be a likely course of action.  While you personally did not know about AT&Ts opposition, it is widely known to the staff and CWA people. 

Thank you for speaking with Jim Gordon.  I hope I made it clear at the end of this that I feel it is possible, even likely even, that the bloggers will be able to find a compromise with those in the Labor committee to allow it to proceed.

6) HERE'S THE KICKER--- The Resolutions Committee allows proponents of timely submitted resolutions to speak to their resolution at the Committee even though they may refer it to another Committee. This is the time for proponents to argue about why it should NOT be referred. Amazingly, NONE OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE 4 RESOLUTIONS SHOWED UP TO SPEAK TO THEIR RESOLUTION. All went to the Computer Caucus. Had even one of them showed up and made a strong pitch, the recommendation that it be referred might have been changed. The Committee changed other recommendations based on proponents comments and it might have done it here.

This is the first I have ever heard of this.  Every other person has said that this year was unique in that resolutions that were referred to other caucuses had no opportunity to progress at this convention.

Now on general matters, as I mentioned I have been co-chair of this Committee for 20 years and have been a State Committee delegate since 1975, attending every state convention. Your unverified accusation that the "Party leadership" has someone poised to make a quorum call is the first time I have ever heard of such a charge. This is just another Black Helicopter Caucus fantasy. Quorum calls are made by bitter antagonists(see Mideast) or people who just plain disagree with what they think the convention is about to do. For the leadership, as you note in your post, it just causes people to get upset. I can assure you that neither Art nor myself nor Inola nor Steve nor Lisa were involved in any way with this quorum call.

The latest information that I have says that it was Mullholland who worked through Karen and Ted to make the call.  Indeed, one person in the comments overheard him doing just that and Art being upset at him.  At no point did I believe that the resolutions committee had any sort of plan.

As for the "phone calls" , Inola and I do go over all the resolutions with staff before the meetings. Art is never on these calls. Art has never asked either Inola and I to kill or table or refer a resolution. The phone calls are designed primarily to make sure the Committee works efficiently. With over 100 resolutions I can assure you that this effort is labor intensive--it takes alot of our time and we wouldnt do it if it wasn't necessary to allow the Committee to get through everything. Inola and I have never had a complaint from Committee members that we were somehow trying to force issues down their throats. in fact, committee members feel free to reject our suggestions--deciding often to pull various resolutions from our committee consent calendar. We also will ask some of our Committee members to take on the task of trying to draft a compromise resolution. Bob Farran and Emily thurber do this quite a bit. I did this myself on the San Onofre resolution and it was my rewrite which the Convention passed, helping to avoid a bitter battle between environmentalists and the building trades.

I have made it clear that I think these calls actually make sense.  You do need to be able to get a handle on these numerous resolutions.  Obviously my sources were inaccurate with regards to Torres being on the call.  Striking a deal is what we hope to have happen with regards to the net neutrality resolution.

Next time you have some issues with the Resolutions Committee, why not try talking to Inola or myself before you post this stuff? Even main stream media call me to get my side of the story before they go to press.

Well, we aren't exactly the press and we correct as we go along, which is what I did yesterday and what this is intended to do.  Thank you again for coming by and creating a dialogue.  We have now had both the Rules and the Resolutions Chairs leave comments and it has been very helpful.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This is silly (0.00 / 0)
"6) HERE'S THE KICKER--- The Resolutions Committee allows proponents of timely submitted resolutions to speak to their resolution at the Committee even though they may refer it to another Committee. This is the time for proponents to argue about why it should NOT be referred. Amazingly, NONE OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE 4 RESOLUTIONS SHOWED UP TO SPEAK TO THEIR RESOLUTION. All went to the Computer Caucus. Had even one of them showed up and made a strong pitch, the recommendation that it be referred might have been changed. The Committee changed other recommendations based on proponents comments and it might have done it here."

OK, they put out a long list that says in black-and-white this is what we're going to do.  And then they claim that it would have all been overturned, the work of several weeks mind you, if only someone spoke up about it.  There's a structural issue here about caucuses and committee meetings happening concurrently, which cannot likely be fixed.  But also I think it's dishonest to suggest that the Resolutions Committee would have just capitulated their work if one person said "No, please."  I just don't think that's a credible statement.


I too distrust that, and the AT&T comment (0.00 / 0)
And sending it to labor looks sketchy, very sketchy. And I hate when people whine about bloggers not calling, in almost four years of blogging I think I've called first maybe 3 times -- it is not how it works online. Print reporters are going to do one story, we have a conversation and I'm glad it's been joined because it was disgraceful what happened to net neutrality.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
Load, Fire, Aim (0.00 / 0)
Actually, you didn't have to call. Inola and I were there all weekend and the Resolutions Committee meetings and locations were in the agenda. I didn't have access to a computer until late Sunday night to respond to some out and out falsehoods, some misconceptions and some serious and well thought out concerns. This blog could have at least gotten the facts correct before it laid out the criticisms.

What do you mean, you distrust the AT&T statement? Are you suggesting I am lying about that? As above, have the guts to tell me that to my face. I was not that well versed on the internet neutrality issues and never heard about AT&T with regard to this issue until I read this blog Sunday night. Frankly, I care about AT&T's opinion on this issue about as much as I care about the opinion of someone who has called me a liar---not much. I do care about what Jim Gordon says but that doesn't mean I'll take what he says as the Gospel. If you doubt that go talk to my friends in the Building trades who fought my San Onofre compromise resolution at the Resolutions Committee.

Please spare me the disgraceful scud....no author bothered to show. In retrospect as I've posted above,. we should have also referred this to the legislative Committee because we don't act on resolutions concerning legislation.


[ Parent ]
actually "net" neutrality = "network" neutrality (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
"What do you mean, you distrust the AT&T statement" (1.00 / 1)
Yeah, I would love to say this to your face, my gut tells me CWA fucked up what should be a natural position for the CDP. Net Neutrality should have been passed and the CDP looks like shit for not realizing why this is an a priori issue.

The next Dem gubernatorial campaign is going to have a $100 million and face an electorate where 75% have a Tivo -- it sucks that the CDP doesn't understand the 21st century.

But thanks for making the CDP look incompetent, it will help when it comes to the reforms we all know are necessary.

I'm glad you realized you fucked up and sent it to the wrong committee, from here on out it will be clear that the establishment doesn't have a clue about a critical issue.

Twitter: @BobBrigham


[ Parent ]
Call it what you want... (8.00 / 1)
You really need to stop speculating and get your rear down to the Committee meetings. You'll see that Committee members pull our recommendations frequently.

I'll ignore the fact that you called me dishonest(please have the guts to say that to my face at the July E-Board meeting). What I will say is that I never suggested that the Committee "would have just capitulated their work if one person said "No, please." I said the Committee might have done it. I will say the Committee HAS done it over the years and not infrequently. You simply have to make the case and be persuasive. You may be invested in these resolutions(not enough to show up at our Committee) but, frankly, on this issue we could have been persuaded.

Scheduling conflicts are avoidable and people for the 20 years I have been co-chair have managed to go back and forth between caucuses/committee meetings and Resolutions.
Life is full of scheduling conflicts and they're inherent in the process. Other people managed them at this Convention and so could the proponents of these resolutions. Bottom line---if you don't show, don't whine.


[ Parent ]
on John's willingness to hear... (8.00 / 1)
I was in the resolutions committee meeting when the resolution to oppose Blackwater West was objected to and therefore killed. The resolution's writer, Raymond Lutz, then stood up to the mic, perhaps out of order, I'm not sure, but John allowed it, and made one final passionate plea to allow him to bring it to the floor. because of Raymond's speech, John allowed a little more discussion and asked the objector to explain his objection. He didn't have to do that.

[ Parent ]
I'll certainly let you be as good as your word (8.00 / 1)
in the future.  I didn't write these resolutions, though I did endorse one.  I was in and out of the resolutions committee several times, but not at the time of the NN discussion.  I would say that you may not want to assume my whereabouts, and I won't assume your motives.  Deal?

I said before that the progressive grassroots had a very narrow agenda with respect to resolutions, and that several got lost in the shuffle.  I would assume this occurred with respect to NN, but I can assure you it will not again.  The way you phrased that initial comment made it seem like "if for want of one dissenter, I assure you we would have changed our mind."  I remain unconvinced, but you have hedged it to a "might."  OK, we'll certainly be able to assess that in July.

I did another post talking about the blogosphere's need to shift from journalists to activists if they wanted to be agents for change.  This is an example.

I also will ask again why, if you were supposed to move any resolution referencing Legislation to the Leg. Committee, which you didn't do with NN but admitted it as a mistake, why didn't you refer the Out of Iraq legislation to that Legislative Committee, as the language mirrored Sen. Perata's bill?


[ Parent ]
Be There or Be Square (8.00 / 2)
I did respond to your question in my last post. I've got to get out of here and need to do one more post. It was a good question and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction. This is an art, not a science. We're very flexible. inola henry is the fairest person I have ever met. I tend to be less charitable but even I will hear people out and have been influenced by solid speeches.

If you weren't the author or proponent you didn't need to be at the meeting. The proponent or their representative did need to be there. It's a responsibility thing.


[ Parent ]
Good advice... (0.00 / 0)
I hope that next time someone writes a resolution to be presented to Resolutions Committee, that the individual takes John Hanna's advice and actually SHOWS UP for the meeting. He's right- It is a repsonsibility thing for anyone who authors a resolution. : )

Had enough of the "red county" right-wing crazy-talk bulls***? Well, then come and visit us at The Liberal OC! Yes, there ARE liberals in The OC! : )

[ Parent ]
say it to your face? (3.00 / 2)
What is up with this? Is this the intimidation that CWA has used? None of us are scared of you, I'll say I think this sucked ass to your face anytime you want to meet me in SF. And I'll step outside any time you want to make an ass of yourself. Stop acting like the Bush press office and begin dealing with the criticism.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
How old are you? (0.00 / 0)
I ask because your attitude resembles that of my 11 year old grandson.He also often doesn't do his homework or make sure of his facts before speaking. Dialogue is impossible without civility. In future  blogging regarding CDP please engage brain before putting mouth in gear.

Judy Cohen Hotchkiss
"It does not take a majority to prevail. Just an irate, tireless minority,setting brushfires in peoples minds." Samuel Adams


[ Parent ]
Resolution passage doesn't just happen (8.00 / 2)
I was deeply involved in the passage of the resolution regarding San Onofre State Park and the 241 toll road. I've been working on this project since October, and many others worked on it before I got involved.

As with the net neutrality resolution, our resolution met with some resistance from a faction within organized labor, so we knew passage at the convention wasn't a slam-dunk.

Prior to the convention I personally called 200 delegates and asked them to support the resolution. I obtained proxies for supporters of the resolution. I learned about the resolutions process. I lobbied members of the Resolutions Committee individually. I attended both the Res Committee meetings, and though others spoke to the committee instead of me, I was prepared to do so. What's more, I'm only one of several folks who took these actions.

Because of what we did, I think, our resolution passed even though there was controversy surrounding it.

Resolution passage doesn't just happen. It takes many hours of hard work. Andrew's blogging was helpful, and it was appreciated, and his writing probably influenced a few dozen delegates who would have voted in our favor if it had come to a floor vote. But don't over-estimate the influence of blogging.

I'm a writer and a political blogger (on LiberalOC), and no one likes to bitch/moan or chew the political fat in writing more than I. However, I also realize that writing and other fat chewing isn't what drives politics. If it were, Nancy Pelosi would spend all her time blogging.

John Hanna, a wise and decent fellow, has been good enough to come here and offer his advice. I'm no expert but I've got 40-something years of grassroots political experience and I'm happy to give my two cents to anyone who wants help navigating the CDP maze in the future. Andrew, dday, juls, Tim Steed, and Carl Manaster have my email address.

I do have one simple but probably cruel piece of advice for bloggers and other net.junkies like myself who want to influence the political process. STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD. Work the phones, walk a neighborhood, raise money. Blog if you must, but admit that you do it because you like it, not because you think it's a way to make a significant impact.


[ Parent ]
I would mention (8.00 / 3)
That this site and the CA blogosphere in general organized to get over 30 new delegates into the party.  At the convention we raised thousands of dollars for the two most crucial candidates to the CDP in one night.  We all have our own levels of real-world activism in which we engage.  Much as it appears that way, we don't only live on the Internet.

I would also mention that I called for this very move from journalists to activists yesterday, so it's piercingly clear that more can be done if bloggers wish to be agents of change.

I appreciate your efforts in all that you do, and your advice is rock-solid.


[ Parent ]
And no one worked harder than you! (8.00 / 1)
Really, Gila. I was amazed to see how much time and effort you put into the 241/Save Trestles Resolution. And yes, I feel so privileged that I had the opportunity to work with you and others in getting the message out online. If anything, I guess our success with Trestles should be an example to EVERYONE HERE on how to get something passed. Have an online strategy for mobilizing energy here, AND have an offline strategy for rounding up delegates and making a good statement to the Resolutions Committee.

Maybe next time if we follow an inside/outside online/offline strategy, we can celebrate more successes (and bitch less about all these failures). : )

Had enough of the "red county" right-wing crazy-talk bulls***? Well, then come and visit us at The Liberal OC! Yes, there ARE liberals in The OC! : )


[ Parent ]
More Blah Blah from the Co-Chair (8.00 / 4)
Thanks for your reply and posting my response so it didn;t get lost.

I want to apologize for my tone in the earlier post--I can only blame it on the hour(it was close to 1:30am)and the natural reaction to be defensive when attacked. I should distinguish between people new to the process clearly in the dark and those long involved in the process who should know better.

The idea for the referral was to send it for more vetting and not to have it go to the floor at the Convention but for the next Executive Board. My point is that this was my recommendation(along with inola's) that was presented to the Resolutions Committee. Had a proponent shown up to speak to the issue and persuaded us that it was critical to pass these resolutions now as opposed to in July we might well have not referred it to the Labor Caucus but passed it contingently on some concensus worked out with Jim Gordon. This is exactly what we ended up doing with the Impeachment Resolution which was being reworked after the Friday meeting had adjourned.

I promise you that we will request these committees to provide us their input for the next executive board meeting. I think you are much ahead of the game if you do rewrite them(actually better to see if you can combine them in one resolution)and strip them of reference to legislative action(unless of course the legislative Committee can report back to us before our meeting that they support these bills). Resolutions have to be in to the State Party 10 days before the Executive Board meeting.

I appreciate your suggestion that we rethink how we communicate resolutions procedures. We're doing exactly that and hopefully at future meetings the process will be clear. We're also revisiting the issue of referrals as they relate to matters being able to go to the floor. Referrals of jurisdiction--for example, the by laws change masquerading as a resolution--won't have access to the floor process. But we'll rethink referrals based on seeking input(as opposed to juirisdiction).


the nice thing about online discussion (8.00 / 1)
is that it is far easier to put things right in a real-time sense. the process is not all that transparent as it is, so the more information you and people in your position can share with us citizens and rank and file party members, the less chance for misunderstanding to arise.

take advantage of it.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the suggestion (8.00 / 1)
and let me say that I understand why you were upset.

Perhaps if you laid out in writing in the packets people received on the resolutions the different paths these resolutions take that would be useful.  For example, if it had been written somewhere in papers delegates receive upon arrival that resolutions that had been forwarded to a different committee have an opportunity to request it be passed now we would have shown up.

What actually transpired was that we showed up and anybody we talked to told us it was dead in the water this convention and would be taken up by Labor down the road.  Given that information, most of us went to the simultaneous Internet Caucus where Brian was scheduled to speak.


[ Parent ]
A lesson going both ways (8.00 / 1)
As has already been said, those of us who are new to the process are learning a lot as a result of all this.  I'm heartened to hear that the process of communicating procedure is being reviewed, as I think from all sides, the lesson thus far has been that there are a lot of people who don't know what's going on.  Part of that responsibility lies with delegates who often don't do their homework, and part of it lies with accessibility and communication from the party.  Before this discussion, I think there was a demonstrated desire from many in this community to put a lot of effort into better understanding the system, and I'm glad to see that you plan on putting in some effort to make the system more accessible.

[ Parent ]
Phew (8.00 / 2)
Several things jump out here-

I don't think anyone discussing net neutrality being "killed" was referring to forever, just to this convention in which the issue was not available because of its reference to the labor caucus. Whether it's the E-Board meeting or the convention next year or anywhere in between, this was obviously an issue that was going to return.

It was my impression that nobody knew of the decision to refer net neutrality to labor until the convention started.  It seems like pretty short notice for organizing opposition speakers, though I do think it's telling that nobody was there to speak about it anyways.

As to people being held in reserve for quorum call purposes, I don't think it needs to be as organized as has been suggested by folks on Calitics and by Mr. Hanna.  As long as there are people on the floor who are prepared to utilize a quorum call if they don't like the way things turn (as is suggested in the response), then it has the effect of being organized.  As to there being a direct connection to party leadership, that's pretty difficult to prove or disprove since unspoken arrangements of all sorts could, conceivably, exist.  What's the practical difference if (as an example) such an arrangement is simply a member of the party leadership not blocking a resolution because they know that there will be a quorum call if things go beyond a pre-arranged level of debate or amendments.  I am not saying that such a thing does or does not go on, but there's no real way to prove or disprove such a thing.

Finally, I find the process of legitimizing blogs interesting.  Specifically in this general case, I think the level of access that folks on this and perhaps other sites are receiving to party leadership has been pretty unexpected.  I think it's great, and I hope that it's healthy moving forward in both improving overall interaction and in improving the content on blogs.


Your impression is also mine (5.00 / 1)
that no one knew that Net Neutrality was being referred. 

Resolutions referred to another committee should be reviewed and returned to the Resolutions Committee before the convention starts. 

Also, why not post a public version of the resolutions package, to include the consent calendar, on the party web site (with personal information such as names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers deleted) several days in advance of the convention?  (Or post a full version in a password-protected portion of the party web site).  Timely resolutions have to be into party headquarters well in advance of the convention, so this should be doable. 

I was surprised when I walked into the Resolutions Committee to find the status of all resolutions had been "pre-determined", or so it seemed.  I was even more surprised to see that some resolutions written by a member of my club had been referred to the author.  He knew nothing about this in advance. 

It was also my impression that people attending the resolutions committee could only speak on resolutions that the committee decided to "pull".  I was there for the entire time and never had the impression that the committee would here from anyone in the audience on net neutrality (and many others).  It seemed everything was a "done deal".  I may be wrong, but that was my very strong impression. 

Furthermore, a handful of resolutions were coded "Debate/Failed".  I would like to have heard the debate.  When did this debate occur?  What was the vote?  Who voted how and why?  Was it videotaped so it could be streamed on the web?  If not, why not? 

There is a lot that needs to be opened up in this "process" starting with posting the names of the Resolution Committee members on the party web site.  And the sooner it is opened up, the healthier our party will be. 



[ Parent ]
agreed, and Mr Hanna, implement recommendations (0.00 / 0)
There is much to be improved in the resolutions process.
I hope Mr Hanna will take these suggestions and implement them.

It does seem that most of the decisions had been made prior to the convention. The disposition for each resolutions was already posted, and although the resolutions committee heard from the proponents, the decision had already been made.
It would be of great help to all of us if the process could be opened. It is our party, and we are delegates. If there are meetings of the resolutions committee prior to the convention, those minutes need to be posted, and maybe videotape and stream that meeting. You can do it MR Hanna!!

If decisions have been made prior to the convention, how come the authors are not notified?
Should there not be advanced notice so that supporters/proponents can at least prepare for this meeting, or maybe get the reasoning behind why this is happening.

Most of the authors were surprised that their resolutions were being referred or a decision had already been made. We thought this was supposed to happen at this meeting.

Why can't you meet before Friday or at least earlier. How about 10 AM and then post your docket online so we know what you will be discussing.

Why can't we as delegates have ready access to names of the committee members, and some general contact information where we can email you questions and get a timely response.
If you are so concerned Mr Hanna about the new delegates being so unfamiliar with the process, why don't you hold an online workshop? Teach us...

Why not come out to the state, and hold regional meetings where you can talk about the process, what is appropriate, what is not, and anything else we need to know.
Don't expect us to read your mind, because information is not posted anywhere I can find. At least not in easy to understand form.


[ Parent ]
my sense (2.00 / 1)
my sense from all over the liberal blogosphere is that pretty much every time progressive outsiders try and get involved in local/state democratic organizations they find themselves being locked out of the process.  when they are successful at "getting inside" they find that people higher in the org chart work overtime to block and or silence them.

and that's just fundamentally wrong.  so wrong that ANYONE should recoil in horror at those type of stories.

it sounds like mr. hanna is a relative newcomer to the blogosphere and its style of politicking.  which is ok, most people still are.  but he should understand that what he might consider to be our not understanding the process or overreacting or whatever is seen by the netroots as another example of The Man keeping us down.  "black helicopter" is an incredibly offensive description for people who fall into this category.  through my own experiences and those i've read about (from all across the country), i would reply to mr. hanna, you're not paranoid if they really are after you.

the people want to be heard and want change.  and we haven't really felt like we're being heard and we definitely don't see a lot of change on issues that have broad appeal but are opposed by those with more access.  maybe it is just a misunderstanding, but it's not the responsibility of the followers to change that nearly as much as it is the responsibility of those that ask to lead.

so, mr. hanna, come back and continue the dialog.  hopefully you can learn more about our concerns and we can learn more about the mind-numbing "process."  but don't expect us to be ok with, "well, you didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's."


I don't agree. (8.00 / 2)
my sense from all over the liberal blogosphere is that pretty much every time progressive outsiders try and get involved in local/state democratic organizations they find themselves being locked out of the process.

In my experience, outsiders (progressive and otherwise) don't really get locked out. Rather, they sometimes try to dynamite the door instead of asking for the keys. IMO no one is trying to keep anyone out, but they're expecting newcomers to follow the same process everyone else follows. Granted it's sometimes difficult to learn the process, and a certain number of people will refuse to help you learn, but others are very willing to share their knowledge. I am on record in a comment above as being willing to share. I hope some of you will take me up on it.

it sounds like mr. hanna is a relative newcomer to the blogosphere and its style of politicking.

John Hanna doesn't need to be defended by me, but I'm getting the impression many of you here think he's grizzled fossil of some sort. Nothing could be further from the truth. He and Tim Carpenter (exec. director of the Progressive Democrats of America) used to be roommates, and one of them (I forget which) is the godfather of the other's children. I can assure you that John follows a number of blogs closely. He can dish it out, and he can also take it.

Rock on, Brother Hanna.


[ Parent ]
And neither do I! (5.00 / 1)
Gila and I have both seen John Hanna in action in Orange County, and I can assure you that he's not our enemy. Now yes, I don't always agree with him on everything. However, I probably do agree with him on at least 90 percent of the issues, and he's always willing to have a rational, respectful discussion on that 10 percent disagreement. Now yes, I'd like for the CDP leadership to be more respectful toward us, and to be more willing to work with us netroots and grassroots. But how can we really expect this if we refuse to be respectful, and if we won't even listen to those leaders who are trying to reach out to us?

Gila's right... We shouldn't work to alienate these potential allies.

Had enough of the "red county" right-wing crazy-talk bulls***? Well, then come and visit us at The Liberal OC! Yes, there ARE liberals in The OC! : )


[ Parent ]
Don't be naive (0.00 / 0)
IMO no one is trying to keep anyone out, but they're expecting newcomers to follow the same process everyone else follows.

No offense, but as a general statement, there will always be people trying to keep other people out of most organizations.  Those that have the power do not want to lose it.  If there is a threat to their power, they will often take any measure to retain it.  This is human nature.

Remember that the next chair of the CDP will be elected by the delegates that will be chosen in less than two years.  There will be a concerted effort by those wishing to retain power to make sure that certain people do not get in the way of accomplishing this.


[ Parent ]
Net Neutrality Resolution and Democratic Unity (8.00 / 5)
I am Brad Parker, the author of one of the Net Neutrality resolutions.

The only reason I was not able to speak before the Resolutions committee, when my resolution came up, is that I was a presiding officer in the Progressive Caucus meeting happening at the same time. Hopefully we will find a way in the future to focus on Resolutions when it is meeting by having no other conflicting meetings. Be that as it may, I am a member of the Labor Caucus and have told Ray Cordova, a leader of the Labor Caucus and the Resolutions Committee that I want to be on the Labor committee that studies and recommends on Net Neutrality. Ray assured me that I would be. I told Jim Gordon as well.

I am well schooled in every aspect of the Net Neutrality issue. I have been to DC lobbying in favor of the Markey amendment to HR5252 last year. My businesses are all on the Internet. I am a political writer on many sites on the Internet. I am a life long union member, A.F.of M. Local 47. Progressive issues are labor issues and vice versa.

AT&T wants to hoodwink labor into doing their dirty work of crushing Net Neutrality while they develop Internet 2, the privatized Internet. They will not succeed because we will prove to our union sisters and brothers that if AT&T, Verizon and the Telecoms are allowed to eradicate Net Neutrality then the entire Labor movement will be demolished along with it. That my friends is the end game, destroy labor. The Interent is the single greatest Labor organizing tool since the invention of the prinitng press. We must defend it as an open, accessible highway of information or the union movement and the Democratic Party are toast. Remember, 60% of the websites on the Internet are "political speech". That's the part the telecoms want blocked.

In our epic struggle to wrest control of the Democratic Party and then the nation from the Corporate Cronyists we will prevail. It will be a long hard road and no easy walk to freedom but we will prevail.

One last note: to those who broke the good faith bargain we achieved at the last minute on the floor to allow the so-called Democratic unity resolution to pass in exchange for our Progressive resolutions to be heard and voted on, you proved that the last bastion of discredited ideas is parliamentary procedure. Whoever planned and pulled this quorum stunt off, and we will know one day all of the names involved, you violated the spirit of the agreement and your own unity resolution by not allowing the voice of the people to be heard. We, Progressives, on the other hand, showed unity, decorum and respect for the process.

We will continue to bring the heat and the light. I thank John Hanna and Inola Henry for their conduct over the entire weekend. They were more than fair and I hope they return.

We will not backdown. We will not breakdown. We will breakthrough!


Brad (8.00 / 1)
it is great to have you here and to learn that you will be on the labor committee addressing net neutrality with our expertise.

[ Parent ]
winking the hoods (8.00 / 2)
Brad says "AT&T wants to hoodwink labor into doing their dirty work of crushing Net Neutrality while they develop Internet 2, the privatized Internet."

And that's precisely what happened with San Onofre State Park and the 241. The TCA has hoodwinked the Building Trades Council into doing their dirty work of paving over the parks.

Thanks, Brad. Oh, how I wish we could get more labor folks to understand this.


[ Parent ]
This is a tremendously valuable discussion (8.00 / 1)
Thank you to everybody who registered to talk about this issue. I know there are always issues with a new medium, and coming here shows an excellent willingness to engage in conversation. I don't think anybody wants to pick fights, rather we are all just trying to get what we think is best for the party and the issue.

So, thanks...

I think?


[ Parent ]
Delegate handbook (0.00 / 0)
On a few other lists, I've made the suggestion that the CDP publish a delegate handbook--including a simple guide to the resolutions process. I've been a delegate for 3 years and went to an all-day training organized by California for Democracy before my first convention. But I'm still learning stuff. The one-hour CDP training at the convention was a good attempt. But the unexpectedly long registration lines prevented many people from attending. The one I know who did still peppered me with questions all weekend.

I learned a few interesting things about resolutions from a committee member who was at the same airport gate as we were leaving San Diego. Understanding what she told me would have changed the dynamic considerably on Sunday I believe.

So I'm pleased that John Hanna is proposing a similar idea. As a professional writer and CDP delegate, I'd be happy to help put one together.

Unlike John, many of us are new over the last several years. At least half the delegates from my AD have tenures no longer than mine. Many of these new delegates are activists who quickly learned that one of the few routes to express themselves at the convention is through the resolutions process. Unfortunately, we clearly don't all have a complete grasp of the process. At least I know I don't. What we do have is energy, enthusiasm, and a real desire to make a difference. If we can find a way to successfully incorporate that into the CDP, I believe we'll all be better for it.

Chris Finnie, Santa Cruz County DCC, 27th AD


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Advertisers


Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox