Tuesday, February 10th, 2009...11:10 am
When Putsch Comes to Shove
I’ve been resistant to write a great deal about the goings on in the State Party because of my desire to keep most of the BS in the family. But, many of you have asked me to write about the events of the last few days.
First off, I am very disappointed that Paul Eckerstrom felt the need to step aside. I’ve known Paul for what seems like forever, and I really wish he could have found a way to stick around.
As for his reasons, I haven’t had a chance to discuss it with him yet. For now, I will take things at face value and not read any more into his stated reasons for having to resign.
However, no matter what his personal reasons were for resigning, There can be no doubt that there was an effort by the królewięta to take him out. Calls were being made even before we left the hall. Instead of trying to figure out how to work with Eckerstrom, they schemed to try to undermine him. There were even folks that tried to spin me with blatantly untrue and self-contractory stories. It was truly, truly bizarre. What was particularly disheartening was that many of the people that were doing this were people that I otherwise have great respect for.
The campaign carried out on behalf of Don Bivens (I don’t know that he was personally directing it, and haven’t heard any indications that he was) leaves me with doubts about Bivens’s assurances that things will change. If, as I believe to be the case, the troubles with the State Party come from it being run by an insular group that is unresponsive to direction and advice from the outside, then the total lack of respect for the wishes of the vast majority of party activists is a sure sign of a lack of change.
16 Comments
February 10th, 2009 at 11:22 am
As we used to say in the Sixties…RIGHT ON!
February 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
For the good of the order, is it appropriate to define krolewieta as those in the upper echelons of power and influence? I am basing this off of the context, but since it’s a sober post I figured I would seek clarification.
That said, I had the same experiences with Bivens supporters who were slandering both Eckerstrom and the activist base of the Party as a whole throughout the remainder of the meeting. This was ironically exemplary of precisely the arrogant attitude that provoked pushback in the form of Paul’s surprise victory.
I will readily admit as much as anyone that there are plenty of activists on the State Committee and elsewhere who can be frustrating and can be off-color, but at the end of the day it isn’t a zero-sum game; the cadre of professional operatives are not all alienated from the values of the Party, and many among the activist class are effective grassroots organizers who often have more experience and strategic prowess than the operatives with which they interact.
While Maria Weeg’s resignation, assuming it was directed by, well, someone (who knows who is in charge?) is a step toward peace, all candidates for Chair going forward must directly address a plan for restoring the mutual trust and respect between the operatives and the activists that is necessary for our Party to function.
To simply sweep it under the rug and rely on horse-trading at the March meeting will only delay the inevitable, and potentially lead to a long-term chasm like that between Pullen and James supporters on the Republican side (where the split might be more ideological than ours, but still has the operative vs. activist dynamic that is exhibited here.)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Great post, Vote Democratic. Although I think that the divide among Dems is more ideological than one might think.
As for Paul quitting, at risk of inviting the wrath of the many non-Maricopians who post here: I voted for Don Bivens. It was mostly out of concerns about fundraising, but also because, while I’ve no doubt that someone from outside the State of Maricopa can be an effective Chair, they cannot be so unless they are in a position to be able to spend a lot of time in the Phoenix area. (Yeah, I know, we suck. We lord ourselves all over the rest of Arizona like we own the joint. But facts are facts. We have most of the people and most of the money, and the damn office is located here.) If Paul were retired or independently wealthy my concerns would have been alleviated. As it was I couldn’t see him being able to commute to Phoenix a minimum of 2 to 3 times a week, plus traveling around the state regularly. As far as Don goes, I don’t think he put in enough office time and that’s something that better change if he gets put back in. The Chair IS a full time job, or should be. When the Chair isn’t fundraising s/he needs to be putting in face time at the office and at Dem organizations around the state. Phone conferences don’t cut it – the Chair needs to see what’s going on. Perhaps we need to think about making it a paid position, so that non-wealthy and/or non-retired people have an opportunity to do it, but let’s not kid ourselves about what the job really entails.
That said, if it is true what you allege in your post, Ted, then I want completely new leadership. I will watch and see how this shakes out.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
You’re right, Donna. The state office should be moved to a county where Democrats win elections.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Then move it. And fund it and staff it. What’s stopping you?
February 10th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I say this not to impugn any particular person or even to imply that these attitudes are to be found at HQ, but there is a fundamental difference between a paid staff that views their position as working for (and serving) the State Party (i.e. state committee) and running the State Party. The difference is not insignificant. There are some incredibly talented and dedicated people working for the ADP. There are also some exceptionally arrogant people who work there.
Maria’s departure is a good step, though I wish her well and truly wish her father a full recovery.
What I found most galling about the State Committee meeting was the arrogance of laughing about Randy Pullen’s election when we LOST to him. We lost and we laughed, much like Nero with his fiddle.
Wholesale changes are needed at the ADP, most especially starting with a recognition that we no longer have the fundraising capacity we have long enjoyed. We need to relearn how to run lean and mean and to put more reliance on our activists and grassroots leaders.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
We need a Governor. Period. Cleaning house is a VERY good first step, long overdue – but lets not kid ourselves, a monkey could dial for dollars as long as they are doing it on the Democrat Gov’s behalf. No Governor? No money. No money, no wins.
Whoever takes over the party should, i would hope, focus on the BIG picture of getting back the top statewide office. Without it, we’re dead. Legislatively boxed out and politically irrelevant.
Win back the Governor’s office, and then we can focus on recapturing incompetently-lost seats, true candidate recruitment, foster productive party/activism, protect incumbants and grow our house and senate margins. Ain’t gonna happen is all we got is little slivers of the house and senate.
We got 2 years, the choice is ours.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Yes, we need a governor. We also need a requirement for a Lt. Gov. of the same party!
February 10th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I think the argument that the state chair needs to live in Maricopa County to be effective is false. In an era where corporate executives telecommute thousands of miles, are we to believe that our state party can’t find a means to have it’s chair telecommute 90 miles? There is no reason whatsoever that a qualified state party chair cannot come from another county. Besides, doesn’t the ADP own a car? What’s keeping the chair from telling senior staff to climb in and drive to see him or her once a week or use video conferencing?
As for fundraising, I think that’s somewhat of a red herring. I can’t imagine that if the Chairperson of the Arizona Democratic Party called someone and asked to speak to them that they would not get a return call. I think most people will respect the office and the person in the job.
Sure, having a Rolodex helps, but that can be as much a disadvantage as an advantage. That some people would refuse to help a new chair who was properly elected because they didn’t like the outcome of the election is selfish and harmful to the party. The idea is to build capacity and building capacity means sharing knowledge and helping the new chair get comfortable in the job.
I like to think that if Paul would have stuck around, the usual fund-raising suspects would have offered to help him raise the money we need because that’s in the best interests of the party, the candidates and the districts. Looking at what we’re going to be up against in 2010, we don’t have time for anything else.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Amen to videoconferencing (and other green, money-saving technology)!
Big donors who only give when the Governor is making the request need education, and the party should develop independent ongoing donor relationships once we(/they) elect the next Dem Governor so we’re not in this position the next time.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Todd Landfried is correct. A 21st century business has the capability to conduct business by videoconferencing and teleconferencing. Don Bivens recently told a meeting of Democratic leaders that the ADP has funds in a restricted capital account for “bricks and mortar” that can be used for equipment like computers and presumably telecommunications equipment.
The Baja Arizona Democratic Coalition proposed back in 2005 that the ADP develop a telecommunications network to do exactly this (with the BADC as a pilot project), eventually to be networked to all of the county parties. We were told “what a great idea, we’ll look into it” – but it was never acted upon by the ADP.
Donna is also correct. The boss needs to be in the office on a regular basis to ride herd over the staff, but there is scant evidence that this has occured with any regularity with past chairs who did live in Phoenix (Don Bivens has admitted to this oversight).
Donna’s suggestion that the chair be a paid position has merit. Don Bivens recently described this as a “glorified executive director” that only a few state parties have attempted. Our own experience here in Arizona with David Waid concurrently serving as both chair and executive director was not entirely satisfactory.
If the objective is to have a full-time chair in the office, then the chair position must be a full-time paid position to permit the chair to live and work in Phoenix. The practical reality of this objective is to limit the chair position to individuals who reside in Maricopa County. The unpaid status of the chair position also tends to limit the position to individuals who are either independently wealthy or secure in their retirement.
There is a large pool of very talented and highly capable individuals whom the party cannot draw upon because they are not wealthy or retired and must work to earn a living. If the chair was a paid position, then the party would have a larger pool of talent from which to draw upon. And that individual could come from any county in Arizona, because they are to be paid to live and work in Phoenix.
Donna’s suggestion merits further consideration.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Todd, obviously Paul Eckerstrom disagrees with you.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:47 am
There was a paid chair once- Mark Fleisher paid himself. If you compare tenures, paid chairs vs. unpaid chairs, what are the quantifiable differences? If winning statewide offices is the measure, then independently wealthy chairs seems the way to go.
That and running against a certifiably crazy R, who we barely beat by 10,000 votes, helps. The parallels to 2002 and 2010 are striking – we need the $ though, to squeak by again.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Except unlike 2002, our candidates will have to run traditional because the courts have defanged Clean Elections to the point where it’s worthless. On the bright side, we have better and more moderate candidates who should have no trouble raising money over the kind of nutters who proliferate in the AZ GOP.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
An observation here:
We are already running up against the fact that with legislative salaries at $24,000 per year a lot of very qualified people can’t run for the legislature because they can’t afford the pay cut. This has helped Republicans because they have a deeper pool of independently wealthy individuals than we do, and it is certainly true that people who can afford to run for the legislature are unlikely to have any sympathy at all for the single parent having to work two jobs and feeding the kids Ramen noodles most nights just to make ends meet.
So if we would like to see a situation in which any talented, capable person can run for the legislature even if they aren’t already rich (or retired or at least single without kids), then can’t we make the case even more so for party chair? If you pay people nothing at all to do something then it severely limits the number of people who can afford to do it.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I wish real change would come to the ADP, but I won’t hold my breath. Hopefully the vacancies created by those who’ve moved up to Washington will provide an oppurtunity. Hiring people with virtues would be a good place to start.