Burnt Orange Report

Dallas County Democrats: Behaving Badly

By Vince Leibowitz

I, too, attended the meeting of the Dallas County Democratic Party Executive Committe at the CWA hall in Dallas tonight.

Being a county chair in a nearby county and concerned Democrat, I thought it might be an appropriate way to spend a Monday night. Plus, having heard about the conflict in Dallas County from people on both sides, I wanted to see what would transpire first-hand.

Unlike Byron, I wasn't liveblogging or even taking notes. I was standing in the back of the room with some SDEC-types and Dallas Democrats watching things unfold. So, I don't want to steal Byron's thunder, as he'll no doubt have a quality blow-by-blow post of the whole thing up soon.

In fact, I hadn't planned to actually blog anything at all about the meeting until about the very end, after I'd seen and heard so many things I had decided I just couldn't keep my mouth shut any longer.

I was fundamentally disgusted with what I saw at this meeting tonight. Among other things, for at least the next week, I'll have the image of former State Representative candidate Katie Hubner playing in my mind as she childishly shouted through a microphone at Dallas County Chair Susan Hays. More on that later.

Before I go any further, I want to announce that I am fully aware I'll probably be flamed to Hell and back in the comments of this post for what I have to say here. And, that's fine with me. Flame away. In fact, I feel so strongly about what I have to say I'll even publicize my email address so you can send your venom directly to my inbox. I'll also note that I am sure Byron and I will have different takes on the meeting (and possibly different versions, since he was far closer to the action than I was and I could not hear everything that was said).

So, I hope those reading the two divergent opinions will allow both of us our due and respect what we both have to say and understand that we are both blogging from two very different viewpoints.

In general, I was appalled at the conduct of some of the participants in this meeting. I have always believed that, even in a contensious situation like the one in Dallas tonight, there are ways to air grievances without lowering the discourse and acting inappropriate, immature, or childish. Sadly, I am not sure many of Susan's opponents ever thought to take a lesson from that playbook.

I was also amazed how the "opposition" was willing to, on one hand, use the Party rules and Roberts Rules of Order to their advantage to get what they wanted and, on the other hand, be so willing to disregard them (and even attempt to make up rules as they went along) when things weren't going to suit them.

On one hand, the meeting was a fine example of Democracy and grassroots activism within the Democratic Party being utilized to the best possible extent. Or, at least it was for about five or ten minutes at least an hour into the meeting. Aside from that, it was all shameful.

For one thing, regardless of whether or not I agree with their overall "agenda" (not the one on paper, but their real agenda), Chair Hays' opponents followed the rules and got the meeting called by petition. If there is a grievance to be aired, that's an appropriate step one can take. I'll give them that and even points for making use of a seldom-used rule. Second, they were successful in utilizing Party rules and Roberts Rules of Order to adopt their own "Petitioner's Agenda." Fine. "Democracy in action," and so forth.

They even successfully passed two major resolutions concerning party governance off that agenda--a major accomplishment given the circumstances.

For the most part, much of the debate surrounding the petitioner's agenda and even the adoption of the resolutions was under control. The second resolution was even modified from the floor to correct some conflicting language, all without too much bad behavior.

It's what happened before all of this and what happened after that made my stomach turn.

For one thing, before the Chair could call the meeting to order, she had to be sure a quorum was present. A lot of people around me were saying that was a "delay tactic," because she was answering a lot of the allegations put forth in a three-page front-and-back handout. However, I don't see it as such. For one thing, determining exactly who is there and who is not there and how many precinct chairs are still in good standing to constitute a quorum when you have as many precinct chairs as Dallas County has isn't a five-minute ordeal. I don't know how this was organized and perhaps it could have been organized to work a little faster. But, it was something that had to be done. However, a several people loudly and sometimes obnixously objected to the Chair answering the allegations before the meeting was called. She said she was doing it to save time. I think that's a valid reason for her to have done what she did.

Furthermore, those in opposition should have realized that being certain there was a quorum was actually more beneficial to them than to the chair. For one thing, if they had passed their resolutions and continued with other business and there not been a quorum, all of the action would have been null and void, and their efforts would have been in vain.

Second, when it came to swearing-in newly appointed (not elected) precinct chairs, there was a great deal of controversy because the Chair wanted to follow Texas law, which requires that a majority of the Executive Committee be in attendence in order to fill the vacancies. Evidently, swearing in the newly appointed precinct chairs would have been unlawful. Thus, if they had been sworn in and become voting members of the body, any decisions of the body could have been voidable. Once again, this is something that could have caused a great deal of problems for the opposition. But, they seemed to want to proceed with it anyway.

In addition, once the Petitioner's Agenda was adopted, I found it very tacky that the body wouldn't allow Sheriff Lupe Valdez to address the group. In the initial agenda submitted by the Chair, which was overridden by the Petitioner's Agenda once adopted, Sheriff Valdez was slated to give an address. I have no idea what she was going to address and, to me, it isn't relavent. Of course, the opposition evidently thought she was going to give an oration supporting Chair Hays, since she had previously signed a letter supporting her. Either way, this was the first opportunity the popular, newly-elected Sheriff had to address her core constituants, and she was denied that opportunity. A vote to allow the Sheriff to speak early was handily defeated. Of course, opponents pointed out that in item six of their agenda, they had a spot for "remarks of elected officials." Of course, given that everyone--including the petitioners/opposition knew this was going to be a maratnon meeting, the least they could have done out of courtesy to the Sheriff was to have allowed her to speak. This small courtesy wasn't even extended, and the wrangling over the issue, in my mind, cheapened the opposition. If Sheriff Valdez wanted to dedicate a portion of her address to supporting the Chair, that's her right to do so. I just have difficulty believing that, in a room where Sheriff Valdez was clearly greeted like a rock star and reveared like a saint, she was shunned in the name of party bickering.

Later on in the evening, the issue of whether or not a quorum was present reared its ugly head again. Clearly, it's possible to anyone standing in the back that a quorum might not have been present given the number of people with blue precinct chair voting cards in their shirt pockets or in their hands that kept walking out of the meeting.

Some of the ugliest debate and behavior was exhibited during this episode. And, when one precinct chair called for a roll call from the floor and the Chair tried to conduct it, all Hell seemed to break loose. Either side can utilize the rules to their gain, that's a given. I have no idea if the young woman who called for the roll call was an opposition person or a supporter of the chair--I wasn't watching how she voted. But, that person followed the rules and called for a roll call. When an attempt was made to conduct that roll call, nearly everyone in the room--especially the leaders of the opposition--seemed to forget, yet again, their manners.

One opposition leader even claimed the rules of the Texas Democratic Party included a provision that would essentially mean that "once a quorum is deemed present, it's always present" regardless of if it walked out the door. Such is nowhere in the rules.

Granted, it was a little strange when the roll was called and the name of a deceased precinct chair was called. But, all of the ugly remarks from the floor following that incident were unnecessary. I have no way of knowing if the Chair knew that person was dead, was looking at a list on which that person hadn't been marked out on or what. Sure, it was a mistake--even, I'll grant, a mistake that shouldn't have been made. But, there was no need for the ugly remarks that followed.

Sometime during the roll call, it got even worse, and at this point, I became engaged in conversations with some of the Democrats at the back of the room, so I wasn't privy to everything that followed as opposition leaders scrambled for a turn at the side microphone and chaos generally descended over the union hall.

During this time, I was talking to a Democrat who was part of the opposition. Even he said that the leaders of the opposition were doing their movement a disservice with their childish behavior, and that he couldn't believe what the meeting had become.

About this time, I ended my conversation and my attention was attracted toward the side microphone where the opposition leaders had taken control. Because of the loud noise in the hall and my postion, I couldn't clearly make out every word that was being said. But, I was appalled at the behavior exhibited by former State Rep. candidate Katie Hubner, who gained control of that mic and was evidently hurling demands at the chair to quit or resign. If I'm not mistaken, I do recall hearing a "damn" or "damned" as part of her remark, after which came much caterwalling, and such disorderly conduct that the Sargent at Arms (a union member evidently helping make sure this rowdy crowd didn't stage a bloody coup within CWA walls) declared that the meeting had become too disorderly to continue and was thereby adjourned. Of course, this didn't stop others from trying to sieze control of an already adjourned meeting and attempt to plow through the petitioner's agenda. It even got to the point where the Chair's mic was cut off (I understand by the party's own secretary) when she tried to urge everyone to leave the hall because the Union president had requested that everyone get the hell out of his building.

What was so interesting to me is that, following Hubner's Academy-Award callibur performance, the guy standing to my right turned to me and said "she just lost a lot of respect by doing that."

I cannot believe that an ex-candidate for State Rep would descend to such a level--even in the heat of a passionate argument. Not only is it bad manners, out of order and just plain inappropriate, it makes one wonder what she would have done had she made it down to Austin. Then again, watching her sieze control of the House mic and demand Tom Craddick's resignation might have been a good thing. But, Monday night in Dallas County, it was not called for. I was so appalled by it, I have to admit I turned to a nearby SDEC member I know and described her behavior with a couple of choice expletives. Of course, I wasn't at the mic, and I was speaking conversationally to the person next to me, not standing in front of a hall crowded with people seemingly ready to riot at any moment.

What was most disheartening to me was the man standing next to me early in the meeting. He was a new precinct chair and had come to be sworn in. He knew nothing about the interparty bickering and asked me if I knew what was going on. I told him I wasn't from Dallas County, and that I probably wasn't a good person to ask. After a while, he bemoaned the entire saga, and said he was ready to withdaw his name from consideration, saying, quite simply, "I don't need this."

No, he didn't need that. No one in Dallas County did. The Democratic Party didn't need that. Had the petitioners/opposition behaved a little better, they might have gotten a little farther. In fact, I'd dare say that they might not have lost the support of a few in their own crowd. The Chair appeared amenable or at least accepting of both of the opposition's resolutions, which ultimately passed. It was after that point that some healing should have begun, rather than continued activities that did nothing more than fractionalize the party.

On another note, I recognized many of the key players in the opposition movement from my service on the Permanent Credentials Committee at the 2004 Texas Democratic Party Convention. As you may recall from my post this summer at my old blog, there were some problems with the Senate District 23 caucus. Many of these people who were tonight taking (in many cases) improper advantage of party rules and Roberts Rules of Order and generally behaving badly were among those same people who came before the Credentials Committee asking us to insure that they were protected by the party's rules. I and others on the PCC stood up for those men and women. I, in fact, made the motion that resulted in an entirely new SD 23 caucus because I believed the rules had not been followed and that the interests of democracy and the party weren't served by the initial caucus. Given the allegations they proffered at that time, I can't see how what happened Monday night in Dallas was any better than what they were subjected to at the State Convention.

On a much lighter note, I was pleased to finally meet new Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez. She seems like a very nice lady. I also got to speak briefly with State Representative Terri Hodge, one of my favorite Democrats in the House. Also, after I was informally introduced, a lot of folks recognized me from posting here and over at the Political State Report, which was quite flattering. Of course, some of those folks may not be so glad I was there after reading this.

And, since I think it is appropriate, a sort-of disclaimer: I know Susan Hays and have served with her in various capacities related to Senate District 2 and the Executive Committee for the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas. I have read all of the allegations against her and talked to Susan and others on both sides. Susan has admitted that she made some mistakes, like sending out a letter supporting a federal judicial nominee on party letterhead. I am not defending Susan. Susan can, and has, ably defend herself against these allegations. However, I will note that the majority of the allegations facing her seem to me to be pretty petty. The argument of her opposition is that, when taken as a whole, they amount to a lot. I guess the case could be made for that. Several of the allegations are simply unbelievable (threatening to denounce Ron Kirk because his campaign didn't give the party a room at its victory party in 2002?) and others seem to simply be administrative difficulties any party of Dallas' size is likely to experience. However, the fact remains that some things are going right in Dallas County: Susan has raised a lot of money for the party, and did, contrary to one allegation, run a coordinated campaign. However, because of new laws, not one like the party has seen in the past. I will go on record as saying she probably should have called an executive committee meeting before the election. Nevertheless, her not doing that and these allegations aren't a good enough reason for her opposition to engage in counter-productive activities like tonight's meeting. As opposed to doing party building, this is something that will destroy the party. A lot of this seems to be about personalities and, perhaps, a little "old Dallas vs. new Dallas." Whatever the case, it's time to move forward, build on the party's success in Dallas County in 2006, and end the infighting.

There. I've said my piece.