Friday, August 17th, 2007...5:59 pm
I Am Missed, Go Figure
I haven’t posted in a couple of days. No particular reason for this. Nothing nefarious going on, really. I got an e-mail from one guy who, I think, was trying to assign motives to my absence. At one point, I hope tongue in cheek, he wondered if I had taken a job with Fox News.
Well, I hear they pay well. Are they offering?
One long delayed post is my thoughts on last Saturday’s Democratic State Committee meeting in Prescott. As many of you know, we have a new state chairman, a fellow named Don Bivens.
In the run up to the meeting, there was a raft of rumors first of who the progressives had recruited to run for the office. Then there was a raft of rumors about what stunts the progressives would try to pull. Among the rumored maneuvers: a walk-out to deny a quorum for the meeting and running so many candidates that the number of ballots would exceed the number printed. Both stunts would have looked real bad if they didn’t find enough cooperative people to go along to make them work. Cooler heads prevailed, and they instead staged a floor demonstration.
Their initial gripe, at least the one publicized before the meeting, was that Bivens was recruited by some sort of star chamber and there should have been a “process.” I had trouble with this because candidates for both party and public office are recruited all of the time, and there isn’t a process at all. When I ran for vice chair, the “process” was finding a couple of people willing to nominate me. I hope by “process” they don’t mean someone should have asked them first.
In the end, they voiced several other gripes with the party. These were more understandable: many of the activists feel alienated by party staff and feel like state party leaders and members aren’t listened to. Point taken. The irony is that a big part of the reason why Bivens is now chairman is that many of the party’s królewięta had similar concerns.
As much as I was frustrated by some of the rhetoric thrown around by some of the progressives early on, I was taken aback by the response by the party. For some reason, non-members were put in the balcony. This was done despite the fact that there was enough room in the main part of the theater for all of the delegates and guests present. One woman, a well known long time Democratic activist, told me that it reminded her of the old days when Hispanics like her had to sit in the balcony at movie theaters. A bit hyperbolic, but since I never had to go through such things, I really wouldn’t know what sort of emotions it would summon up. It definitely was counter to the sort of openness that the party tries to promote. We have had much more contentious elections before (1999 and 2001 jump to mind), and this sort of thing was not considered necessary for a secure election back then. My own mother, who has been active in the party since the Goddard administration, was hassled going in to the hall.
For some reason, Yavapai College Campus Police were there. I asked an officer if they show up for all other events at the theater. He said no. Why the heck were they there?
I haven’t been a big supporter of the tactics of the Progressive Caucus, but the response to whatever threat folks thought they posed was way out of proportion. These were folks who only managed to muster 14% of the vote for their candidate in the last chairman election back in January. Chill out.
NB, And a very important “NB” at that - I’ve spoken to Bivens twice since he was elected, and I don’t pin any of this stuff on him. I think he’ll be an excellent chair.
5 Comments
August 17th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I was at that meeting sitting in the balcony and I was in the room when the progressive caucas meet, although i am not a member of that caucas. Their protest was not over the choice of Bivens, but why one chair was removed and here Bivens turns up as the new conquering hero. The process was the issue, the nominated there person, spoke their piece and sat down. They also protested by holding up thier signs which described what their beff was. I believe you have slightly misrepresented the situation.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Some history - there had been considerable controversy (and a contested race) when David Waid ran in January, because many people did not believe he intended to actually fulfill the office. But David was elected on his on his public and private promise to commit to the job for the full two years, and because everyone liked him, appreciated his work for the Party, and believed him.
Evidently it was announced behind the scenes already in April that David would not fulfill this promised term, and Don Bivens was recruited then. However, the elected party leadership, the executive board and even the first vice chair, was not told until July 6 and the State Committee was told on July 11 that David Waid was resigning – and Don Bivens was to be chair. Everyone should have been told in April, in my view, so there could have been an actual campaign and election. Contested races ultimately strengthen the party.
As it was, there was no possibility of any other candidate emerging. The caucus was told the only way to speak to the concern on the floor was to nominate a candidate, and have our say in the nominating speeches – so that is what occurred. LD 27 chair Jim Hannley was nominated, a prepared statement was read, Jim gave a great rousing speech and then declined the nomination in the name of party unity.
Most people in the room were in agreement that it was a classy event, in the best tradition of the Democratic Party, which is supposed to be the non-authoritarian one, and there is great hope for expanded responsibilities for the leadership team moving forward.
August 18th, 2007 at 8:48 am
It is interesting to me, as one of those who took part in so much of the Progressives’ planning and thinking about Saturday’s meeting, that you do not “get” the complaints about “process.” [By the way, although I was deeply involved in the planning and am a member of AZDPC’s Executive Committee, this comment is totally my personal one, has not been “vetted” by anyone, and AZDPC should not be held responsible for it.]
All the way up to Friday night before the meeting, no one wanted to run a candidate against Don Bivens. [Many of us agree with your final assessment of Don and just wish that the process that gave us his State Chairmanship would not have been so hurtful to the Party.] We were concerned about how this Spring’s alleged process hurt out Party. We wanted “one minute” on the floor to bring up our concern, and we were told no. So, rather than run a candidate, we came up with the idea of “voting no” on the process, knowing this would give Don the State Chair (we were not opposed to Don), but might give us the chance to bring the issue up on the floor of the meeting.
Then Friday afternoon we learned through our sources about the parliamentary tactics that were going to be used to stop even this idea of just voting no against the process. When our analysis of the Rules convinced us that their tactics were supported by the Rules (we like rules too), reluctantly, and since it was the only way to bring the matter to the attention of the floor, we decided to nominate a candidate to be able to use the nominating process to bring our concern about the damage being done to our Party by this process to the attention of the floor. That was the genesis of how what happened happened.
You don’t “get” our complaint, and evidently you see nothing out of the ordinary about what happened. This reaction is common among those who have “been there for years” and “know how it is done.” You have no idea how many times one or the other of us has been told by those “in the know” that State Chairs are “always” chosen this way and we should just live with it. Now we get the same thing from the webmaster of a blog with “rebellion” in the title.
The Party says that PCs are at its heart. The Party further says that the State Committee is the ultimate governing body. But the “insiders” in the Party don’t seem to really want what they say to be true. But “bringing the issue to the floor” is bringing the issue to the governing body of our Party. Our action grew out of deep respect for the people whom the Party claims, but does not really honor in action, are the heart of our Party.
We were constantly told in many implicit ways: Just shut up, and in return you can then get some change within the Party’s traditional way of doing things. In response to these hints, we refused to sell our silence, and instead spoke mere truth, simple factual truth, to the ultimate governing body of the Party — as a clear signal that we respect the ultimate governing body of our Party.
Please understand exactly what we mean by simple factual truth. Our nominating speeches were simply statements of the chronology and its meaning.
The insiders admit knowing of David Waid’s resignation at least by April, which probably means March. They admit they discussed and planned the precise timing of the public announcement of David’s resignation. They admit they got all the elected officials lined up well before the allowed David’s resignation to be made public. They then publicized David’s resignation at the very last moment, knowing full well (unless they are stupid, which they certainly are not) that this timing meant that there would be no chance of anyone to field another candidate. Clearly, they did not want a repeat of a State Chair race, and they did everything in their power, a power gained because they were insiders, to manipulate the process to prevent anyone else’s running for State Chair.
Anyone who does not “get” our complaint evidently see nothing wrong with this process. We do find this process harmful. We find this process deeply disrespectful of the State Committee [which they tout, and the Party’s Bylaws make, the ultimate source of decision making in the Party], deeply afraid of the grassroots and deeply hurtful to the Party to which we have dedicated much of our time, effort, finances and credibility.
We first met with Don Bivens as a body in Casa Grande on July 28, and we were prepared to support him and his time as State Chair. We regret that Don did not openly announce his candidacy (and therefore David’s resignation) in April, and begin meeting with all of us. That process would not have hurt the Party. That process would not have threatened to sour Don’s term as State Chair. Don and his supporter did not choose the path of openness. That was a shame.
We have been told by person after person [not just those already in AZDPC] that what we said on the floor of the State Committee “had to be said.” We have been told over and over that what we did was good for the Party. We hope so — depending on what happens next.
But now Don can begin his State Chair term without the sourness of “unspoken truths” tarnishing his term. The truth is out and the truth will out, and he is State Chair and we can all get on with the work at hand.
Your vaguely suggested bewilderment misses the big picture of how we are going to bring health and victory back to the Democratic Party.
I ask you to think about it, and join in the revigoration of this Party — through its heart and soul, a commitment to the ordinary working men and women, those who want to be and those who once were. In this commitment, nurtured through open and transparent political process, the Democratic Party can become what it should be.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:02 am
it’s the process, stupid!!!
i participated in bringing the process issue to the floor. why, because as a precinct committee person, i and others like me are the foot soldiers of the party. our voices and issues should be heard. the democratic party stands for “open and fair” communication, and that’s exactly what we, the progressives, did at the state convention in prescott. i sensed that all the progressive participants i talked to, felt that don bivens would make a good chair..the issue was not bivens, it was the process by which his name came forth.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I am gald Steve, Geri and Kathie took the time to educate the blogmaster on this issue. It was especially illuminating for them to point out that many Party members had the attitude that backroom chair selection was SOP and nothing to start a fuss about. Many in the Progressive Caucus have rejoined the Democratic Party because it is the only viable opponent of the Neo-Con takeover that reached its zenith with the phoney election of GWB. We are sensitive to and will not tolerate bosses running this party.———————————————————————————————————————-
Leave a Reply