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.
(I have some updated information and want to make sure everyone gets a chance to see it. - promoted by juls)
And the rest of the resolutions they did not want to have heard...
I learned a lot about the process of how resolutions are dealt with at California Democratic Party Conventions this weekend. It is not particularly democratic, which is not surprising. The party leaders decide what has a chance of getting approved and use the process to push off to the side any other proposed resolutions.
Take for instance the net neutrality resolution, which one would think should be heard in front of the Computer and Internet Caucus. Instead we learned upon arriving at the convention that it has been, along with a bunch of other resolutions, referred to another caucus, thereby eliminating any potential avenue for its viability at this party meeting. There is no process whereby you can appeal this move by collecting signatures, or any other appeals process.
So how and why did it get referred to the Labor Caucus?
