Burnt Orange Report

I have a slightly different take on the meeting last night. Prior to the meeting the Chair and the opposition should have agreed to a single agenda. If that had been done in recognition that this was an executive committe called by the petitioners, then a lot of the frustration and uproar could have been avoided.

Instead, the attendees were forced to listen to Chair's report, but when it came time for the petitioners to present their issues, there were continual delaying tactics.

IMO, the petitioners were frustrated that the chair had not called an executive committee meeting since May 2004, which was perceived as an arrogant, autocratic management style. This perception was reenforced last night, because again the chair refused to listen to the executive committee.

Last night was a one-sided conversation. Autocratic, one-sided conversations lead to bigger problems.

I was impressed by much of the information that the chair presented, but I was disappointed that I did not hear an open discussion of the issues of the petitioners. These issues cannot be resolved without such an open and frank discussion.

It is time for the chair to listen to the executive committee and to find constructive ways to address the petitioners's issues.

Well, now that Byron mentions it, I'm still around after that fiasco of a state convention caucus in District 23, so I might as well get sworn in as precinct chair (whenever that happens) and try to do my little part to make things sane around here.

I left the state convention thoroughly disgusted but stayed around to help Martin Frost and Lupe Valdez.

But it's discouraging to watch an incompetent leader and loud-mouthed agitators battle for control of a meeting, when the rest of us just want to do the work.

I wish we had at least gotten to hear Lupe speak.

"Chair Susan Hays had failed to call a single executive meeting since May 2004."

So you decided to "fix" the problem by offering a competing agenda and shouting her down? Oh, yeah, that helps a whole bunch.

I think that the ideal situation would have been for a mediator to work to reconcile both sides. Unfortunately, I believe that the chair opposed such an offer.

I didn't decided to "fix" anything and I didn't "shout" anyone down... as you probably know... I am not a member of the Dallas County Executive Committee... I simply observed the events on the sidelines with my laptop.

I'm one of the many new precinct chairs who were dissatisfied with how the party was ran during the campaign but would rather resolve those problems than have a lynch mob take over.

When Bruce Rothstein called me to urge me to sign the petition calling the meeting, he billed the meeting as a "discussion" of the problems. But it was clear from the petitioners agenda that there was never any intention of "discussing" anything. They were there to take over the party, end of story.

I don't think Susan has done everything right, but I also highly disapprove of how the "petitioners" handled the meeting. I personally saw two pending chairs leave the meeting in disgust, vowing not to work for the party again.

I don't know how to resolve this, but I know mob rule isn't the way.

Isn't it the Party Secretary's job to maintain the list of Precinct Chairs so that it's current, thus avoiding the invocation of the dead during a roll call vote? I plead ignorance as to the law on this matter, but it seems like a logical duty, and it's certainly part of the Secretary's job at clubs to maintain membership lists, which I would think this to be roughly analagous. Perhaps that's what David was doing in the dead of night at the office--maintaining the PC list.

Byron,

You are EXACTLY right in saying:

"I think that the ideal situation would have been for a mediator to work to reconcile both sides."

However, Susan did not reject any such offer, to my knowledge. I do not believe the opposition brought this up to her.

Also, I can vouch for you on this:

"I am not a member of the Dallas County Executive Committee... I simply observed the events on the sidelines with my laptop."

I saw you sitting over there! That we can agree on!

I have been involved in Democratic Politics since I was 16. And since the Party Chair won't do it, I will apologize to everyone in attendance last night. It was the most embarrassing meeting I have ever been to. The party had a poorly maintained precinct chair list so no could tell who was pending, who had resigned, or who had moved. The chair ordered a quorum call which is not he motion to make.

I walked around during the delays and listened to story after story from new precinct chairs with stories to share, about mistakes that were made by the party regarding polling locations, hiring election judges over existing precinct chairs. Many people had arrived on no side but wanted to hear the arguments and make a decision for themselves. Two left, telling me they were not coming back. Three undecideds called for resignation, and one person, who said that if the meeting had gone as scheduled, she would have supported Chair Hays, says there needs to be a change in the Party Office.

I respectfully disagree [with Vince]. I was also standing in the back of the room.

If the chair had allowed the meeting to proceed – from the very beginning -- none of the disruptions would have occurred. The meeting was called by petition, not by the Chair. This should have been a clue to the Chair. She took every step possible to delay and obstruct the meeting.

From the viewpoint of the petitioners, the request for Sheriff Valdez to speak early was clearly a delaying tactic. We would have all liked to hear from her after the business was conducted. It could have been so easy – if only the chair had allowed it to be so. The meeting did NOT have to be a marathon session, and I, one of the petitioners, didn’t expect to be one.

Interestingly, the 23rd Senate District caucused on the street corner after the meeting was recessed and elected its representatives to the advisory committee.

Also, interestingly, I talked to a least one precinct chair who was prepared to support the chair when he arrived and changed his mind after observing her obstructionist tactics.

Kudus to David Griggs, who probably should have chaired the entire meeting!

The Party's list was so woefully in disorder, it was embarrassing. Pending Precinct Chairs that were voted at the last meeting (May 2004) were not listed. A Precinct Chair that doesn't live in his precinct was allowed to vote. Precinct Chairs that had resigned formally and given noticed were encouraged to come and vote anyway. Chair Hays ingnored Roberts Rules of Order when a vote of the body ordered her to continue the meeting.

I am no expert in Roberts Rules, so I spent some time last night reading them. The Chair relinquished the podium without adjourning the meeting. The sergeant-at-arms can enforce the ruling of the chair, but cannot adjourn the meeting. Hence the meeting was still going on when everyone went outside.

The motion was made to recess until April 2. Since we are at recess, the meeting will continue on April 2 at the agenda item we left off with.

I have made a call to State Party Chair Soechting to ask to intervene.

Beat her at the Polls!

By no means am I a Hays sympahthist and I think she does a god awful job but those who constantly seek to topple her with arcane rules or backroom deals are even worse.

Instead of rukus meetings and another cylce of a useless party organization why don't Dallas activist Dems pick a candidate for Chair who they think can do a better job (that is a low bar) and run in the primary?

That is how Democracy works.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Ken Molberg announced:

"I am not a member of the Committee, therefore I could not speak tonight. Being your SDEC person - - Let me go on record as saying how disgusted I was with our Party Chair who could not control the meeting, and who did everything to deliberately thwart your voice, regardless of which side you were on. I think this is testimony to the fact that this party needs to get itself together and move on, and she is not part of the plan."

I have a suggestion, which could still fit with the petitioner's agenda. Why not list the petitioner's complaints, with the most important first and allow "x" amount of time for selected petitioner's to speak or yield their time and then allow "x" amount of time for Chair Susan Hayes and her supporters to speak.

This would be done like it is in Congress with there is a total amount of time, which is split between 1 or more speakers.

This time should not only be used to complain but to also to make constructive suggestions for resolving the specific issue.

IMO, the petitioners have every right to air their grievances. If this approach had been taken, this discussion could have commenced even before we knew whether we had a quorum or not. Having a quorum is all about voting. Determining whether there was a quorum could have gone on, while the issues were being discussed. Then when a quorum was established, the resolutions could be voted on.

I do not have an opinion about the grievances one way or the other with one exception. The chair erred by not calling executive committee meetings prior to the election. I do have my observations from working in various campaigns over the past 25 years and what we need to do to put Dallas and Texas in the democratic winners column.

Chair Hayes said that we must treat everyone with respect and I agree with that. But the chair must be willing to have an open and frank discussion with the executive committee.

I think that some of these grievances may go poof, once we get a rational conversation going. Some of these issues may just be poor communications.

Here is what Ken Molberg had to say at the end of the meeting:

"I am not a member of the Committee, therefore I could not speak tonight. Being your SDEC person - - Let me go on record as saying how disgusted I was with our Party Chair who could not control the meeting, and who did everything to deliberately thwart your voice, regardless of which side you were on. I think this is testimony to the fact that this party needs to get itself together and move on, and she is not part of the plan."

Thanks for the eyewitness report. Unfortunate, but I think you could substitute the word Harris, Bexar, probably Tarrant where you have Dallas County and the story would be relatively the same.

Elaine said:

Kudus to David Griggs, who probably should have chaired the entire meeting!

- - -

We need someone like him to be elected as County Chair. I understand there are a number of good candidates offering their services.

Dear Paul Lynam (precinct1233),
You weren't there last night, but if you had been, you would have seen that the Secretary did maintain a list which WAS more accurate than the chair's list and DID reflect the fact that the pct. chair in question was deceased. We had our own sign in table and were able to sign people in and credential them quickly and efficiently. Also, we were able to determine a quorum in about 15 min. Unfortunately, the Chair refused to acknowledge the petitioners' sign in sheet or the petitioners' credentialing table staff. She also assumed authority to decide which list she was going to use when that should have been done by a vote of the assembly.

I wasn't able to attend the meeting, but I'm not surprise that there was some major drama.

Vince, I think you have blinders on. The chair needs to be accountable for her actions. There is an executive committee that she needs to work with, and they at the least need to have their grievances heard. I bet you have a committee in Van Zandt that you work with.

There's a lot of good candidates for Chair out there who would represent the views of the members of the Dallas County Democratic Party.

David Wilkins notes:

"Also, we were able to determine a quorum in about 15 min. Unfortunately, the Chair refused to acknowledge the petitioners' sign in sheet or the petitioners' credentialing table staff. She also assumed authority to decide which list she was going to use when that should have been done by a vote of the assembly."

Although the petitioners got the meeting called, it is the chair's duty to preside over it and determine if there is a quorum. I can see why she wanted her own people to check out if there was, in fact, one. Technically, this benefits you guys since the meeting was conducted legally.

yay for ken molberg! he's the son of our former gillespie county chair a few decades back.

-Which part of last night was supposed to help the party?
-or Democrats?
-or Democratic Causes?
-Who would want to be a part of a petty mutinous Democratic Party that would rather engage in "Bitch fights" than make real progress?
-Which part of last night doesn't smell just like the Clinton impeachement?
-What is the real agenda of the people who are running this "Cabal"?
-How many of those same people are vying for the Chair's position if it did become vacant?

Most importantly:
-How is the party supposed to move forward now?

DAVID WILKINS AND HIS PETTY MUTINY HAVE STABBED THE PARTY IN THE HEART! The only punishment for any mistakes is that the Captain should "walk the plank." The whole lot of them need to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for the way they handled themselves during this process and especially last night.

About myself. I'm not the kind to post to a blog site. I like to work quitely behind the scenes to enable elected officials to to accomplish what they wish. I am new to politics and was draw into the Democratic Party by Howard Dean. He got me excited about making a difference.

Believing in Dr. Dean's message that "You have the power, to change things" , I volunteered regularly for the Dean & Frost Campaigns. After the election was over, I went down to the DCDP Headquarters to offer my assistance. I had heard many complaints about party organization, but I don't believe complaints make things better...Action does. The only way to make a difference is to roll up your sleeves and get to work.

What I found was that the party was in serious need of help. I found that the party suffered from a lack of organization, which seemed to be driven by to few people doing too many tasks.

What I have since learned and taken away is that DAVID WILKINS AND HIS PETTY MUTINY HAVE STABBED THE PARTY IN THE HEART! They have pressed their campaign without regard for what they are doing to the party. They are scaring away investors and volunteers, creating a general ruckus, breaking into party headquarters (sounds like Watergate) and just generally running around being mutinous and creating a ruckus, rather than working for the party's success. The next election for Party Chair is about 1 year away, why couldn't they just wait it out and continue to build the base in the mean time?

Nothing they are doing is going to help build the party or its base. They are in fact hurting the party, by engaging in acts of distortion, innuendo and anger have driven away more people than they will ever attract to the Democratic Party. If you have any doubts, wait until the next meeting and see how many of those "New" precinct chairs show up again. One precinct chair is worth 50 volunteers and they can't easily be replaced. The entire thing has turned me off and makes me not want to participate at all.

Finally, the events of last night were not the end, but the beginning of a schizm that will no doubt take the better part of the next year to resolve legally. In the mean time, they have cost the party it's life blood.

Whether you are for or against Susan remaining as party Chair, you need to realize that this childish bickering serves no one but the Republicans.

I am in Denton County so I am not familiar w/ many of the Dallas County party's issues. It would be nice if executive committees met more often, however, there are only three statutory executive committee meetings. The first is to determine ballot order of the general primary election. The second and third are to canvas of the primary and runoff election. The position of party secretary is not required by statute and as far as I am concerned ultimately the county chair certifies the list of precinct chairs. Believe it or not, even here in Denton County, the chair would have a difficult time producing a current list of precinct chairs.

David Babb wrote, "They are scaring away investors and volunteers"

For years I was a four digit financial contributor to the DCDC.

Within a month of Susan's election I decided not to contiue the practice. Nothing has happened e then, including the 2004 election, causing me to change my mind. Things have gotten progressively worse with last night probably being a harbinger of meetings to come.

I am still an avid lifetime Democrat. However I intend to limit my support to candidates rather than the party until this mess gets straightened out.

So, I'm not sure that any runoff of support is "their" fault. I'm not so knowledgable or perception to have been the only one who saw this coming.

Dear "Investor",

Not sure exactly what it was that made you quit donating to the party, but I'm refering to "new" democrats, not lifelong ones. People like me who were just brought into the process and don't know anything about the history and really don't care. There were about 50 new precinct chairs there last night many of which will never return.

My larger point is that this sort of petty bickering has to stop. You decided to stop donating and that is certainly your perogative, but you didn't riot and do permanent damage to the party by removing your financial support. The Mutiny has done just the opposite by airing our dirty linen in public in front of the new neighbors.

I just have to point out once again to those who say "if Susan had just let the petitioners run the meeting, there wouldn't have been any problem," that, at no place on the petitioners' agenda was there scheduled to be a discussion of their complaints and Susan's responses.

For those of us who went in there with an open mind (and, yes, even though I like Susan, I have an open mind on this matter), we weren't going to be enlightened by what the petitioners had in mind, which was an agenda that jumped straight to adopting their resolutions.

When I was lobbied to return the petition requesting the meeting, Bruce Rothstein portrayed it as a discussion aimed at solving problems. Even if Susan had turned the meeting over to the petitioners, there would have been no airing of grievances or response from Susan.

If the petitioners were, as they claimed to be, reasonable and only interested in the good of the party, they wouldn't have come in there with nothing on their agenda but a set of resolutions aimed at cutting Susan off at the knees.

I honestly don't know where we go from here.

If CEC (County Executive Committees) throughout the state were respected and encouraged to operate correctly and fully we would not get into these kind of messes.

One fundamental problem is the mis-conception that the County Chair has "power" or "authority" simply becasue they are elected by the public.

The primary function of a County Chair is to chair CEC meetings. If they are not doing that regularly then they are dysfunctional. Any effort to have regular CEC meetings should be commended and encouraged. I wish the state party rules called for bi-monthly meetings at a minimum. I also wish the state rules called for the Chair to be elected from the CEC at the first meeting of a CEC's term.

I wasn't at the Dallas CEC meeting, but it sounded like democracy in action to me.

When new precinct chairs are recruited we need to make it clear to them that politics is not for wusses.

If authoritarianism rears its ungly head then "knock down drag-out" affairs like that meeting are sure to occur.

If those of little faith in democracy retreat, then so be it. The mighty sword of justice must be wielded by those with a courageous faith in democracy.

For every new chair who won't come back because they don't like to see people argue -- there will be 10 more replacements of better caliber. The reason is that a fully functioning CEC will establishe good local rules and demand that everyone follow them. When the Chair and any "mid-management" leadership types the CEC wishes to elect arise in such a climate they will have "their heads screwed on right" and understand that their position exists to serve the CEC and not vice-versa. People of high caliber natural seek out those kind of leaders to support. But those kind of leaders don't grow in a vacumn. They grow in a culture of service provided to the people -- the people in this case being the CEC.

The sad truth in Texas (and much of the country) for too long has been that leadership fueled by cronyism, elitism, and moneyed authoritarianism have found it in its interest to see to it that CECs are dysfunctional.

If a CEC is not functioning properly, then there is no one able to temper the power of corrupt or inept leaders.

Current party rules concerning CEC quorums and the like were developed under very different circumstances than we face today. Current CEC members have to aggresively assert their power and push the limits of the current rules because the current rule structure DOES NOT LEND ITSELF to empowering the CEC -- BY DESIGN. Think about it, if the CEC is not functioning to its fullest potential -- then what steps into that vacumn? In the past is was the corruption of democracy by selfish leaders. Today it can just as well be the debilitation of democracy of leaders who are paranoid and inept egotists.

In the old days, the "big dogs" had their way of dealing with ineptitude through decisions made in smoke filled back rooms. The grassroots was either humored or dismissed. Big money was the only show.

Now the grassroots are the only thing keeping the party going -- and they want to express their talents and make real contributions (besides their money). They don't mind good debates followed by a fair vote. After all a wise person once said, "the price of democracy is dialogue!"

Bexar County has had a petition circulating for some time now similar to Dallas'. We are giving our Chair every opportunity to call a CEC in the near future, but if he fails to do so then I suspect you will be hearing about a "knock down drag-out" CEC meeting in Bexar County as well.

You can find that petition at
http://satx.typepad.com/bcpcwc/files/Petition%20Calling%20CEC%20Meeting.htm

What can I say? I have worked for the party of the people and many of the organizations. From Lloyd Bentsen, Martin Frost, Ann Richards, Ron Kirk and Martin Frost. I agree with Mr. Moon and many of the young folks that were there. We need a Chair that will work with the people.

I am not a precinct chair and I have only been involved in Dallas Democratic politics for a couple of years. I went to the meeting last night with an open mind, not really knowing what was going on. I have to say, I found myself disgusted with the way the County Chair acted. She was just downright petty and arrogant. It is obvious that the majority of activist have lost confidence in her. I just can't understand why someone who is this hated by her peers would try to stay in power. It can only mean she has her own agenda and does not care about the activist who work and make up the Dallas Democratic Party.
I have looked at most of your blogs, and you all seem to disagree with each other, but there is one thing that seems to be true, the party WILL NOT be able to come together unless there is new leadership. That is the key. Neither side is going to budge, so it's time for a change!

Two other things:

1)Once a quorum has been called (and obviously achieved); only an obstructionist would call for a roll call. Under Robert's Rules, I do not believe the chair even has to recognize a motion for a roll call once the quorum has been called.

2)Every County needs "local continuing rules" and the foundation to those rules should be some mechanism for CEC member input to the process by which agendas for CEC meetings are developed. In this vein I have been promoting an online CEC member work center: www.dempc.org
If your county doesn't have local continuing rules I would be happy to set up an online proposed set for you as exists at www.dempc.org

Remember also, the Chair's crony expelled us from a UNION hall! The upper levels of the AFL-CIO definitely need to know about this. The Precinct Chairs deserve a letter of apology from the CWA for getting evicted - a complete lack of respect.

Obviously, the acts of a few people at the CWA does not speak for the entire CWA, and most certainly not for all of Labor. Those in the party with strong historical ties to Labor need to do everything in their power to patch this up. Remember, solidarity!

1) Shannon Bailey said he had received a call from the hall's Union President, "a good friend", who had asked everyone to leave.

2) Under Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, it clearly states on p. 338, lines 11-16: "If the chair notices the absence of a quorum, it is his duty to declare the fact, at least before taking any vote or stating the question on any new motion, which he can no longer do except in connection with the permissible proceedings related to the abscence of a quorum, as explained above." (Referring to page 336, line 33 - page 337, line 1, which states: "The only action that can legally be taken in the absence of a quorum is to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess, or take measures to obatin a quorum.")

3) Article VI.D. of the Texas Democratic Party Rules states: "The parliamentary authority of the Texas Democratic Party, its clubs and affiliated organizations shall be the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The parliamentary authority shall govern all meeting, committee and conventions except where superseded by federal and state laws and these Rules."

4) Under the Texas Election Code, the County Chair has numerous responsibilities, and one of the most important is the responsiblity for insuring the accuracy of the finances for the party primary and, if there is one, the primary runoff. The Chair has to file a sworn accounting with the Texas Secretary of State, with possible fines and criminal penalties involved if an erroneous or false document is filed.

5) This was the first election cycle under the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which introduced a slew of new challenges to keeping campaign finances within the law. It was simply easier this election cycle to let campaigns do their own financing than to run money through county parties. Now that there is an election cycle of experience with the new law, this current election cycle we are just starting should go smoother and people will know better what it is safe to do (without getting fined or thrown in jail). Susan Hays tried to explain that Monday night during the hour and a half of precinct chairs' time that she "wasted". (Precinct chairs need to know the big picture, too.)

6) A Democratic resurgence continuing or gaining strength in Dallas County is not a foregone conclusion! It will take hard work, organization, precinct chairs working their precincts, donors large and small, good candidates and campaigns, and respect for others in order for it to happen or be as strong as it can be.

7) I was utterly disgusted by the disrespect shown our newly elected Sheriff, Lupe Valdez, and Commissioner Price.

8) I have never seen so much childishness in a meeting in my entire life. My five year old is better behaved than numerous people I saw out of control Monday night. I agree Susan Hays has made some mistakes, and has been lacking at times with her interpersonal skills, but come on people, let her chair the meeting. (I think David Wilkins would have grabbed the gavel out of Susan Hays's hand had she had one.)

9) Is anyone paying attention to the fact that the Republicans running the Legislature are in Session down in Austin doing real harm to thousands of peoples lives right now, while we are destroying ourselves in Dallas County? Why are we not fighting them instead of each other? Insanity!

10) Is the "burn-the-witch" mob ready to do the real hard work and fundraising it will take to get more Democrats elected?

11) The Republicans are laughing at us! Thanks, people! Get a life!

In response to Ken Molberg's comment, the chair could not control the meeting because too many people were simply uncontrollable, never wanted her to control the meeting, and did everything they could to be disruptive.

The real agenda for the meeting for some of the instigators wasn't the petitioner's agenda, but rather to make things so untenable for Susan Hays that she quits, and apparently people are willing to burn the party to the ground and run off volunteers and donors in the madness.

To me, those aren't real Democrats -- those are people more concerned about their own petty fiefdoms than the good of the party as a whole.

Personally, I'd like to see the Dallas County Democratic Party County Executive Committee be more than a social club and get more people elected.

Longtime Democrat:

Your points might be valid, if the meeting had been called by the Chair but the chair had not deemed it necessary or useful to call a meeting in almost 1 year. That is a dysfunctional party organization with no organization or coordination. The petitioners called the meeting Monday night. And after 2 1/2 hours the chair was successful in making sure that none of the issues that the petitioners wanted to discuss ever saw the light of the day.

It is the chair that showed a lack of respect to the petitioners. If she was really a leader, she should have taken the initiative before the meeting and made sure that their was one agenda and that the issues were discussed openly.

Instead, this is a case where the chair won the battle but lost the war. The chair was more concerned with being in control and making sure that the open democratic discussion of the issues never took place.

If the chair had been a Republican and had avoided discussing any of the issues, then there would be a huge media brohaha and rightly so. We are fortunate that the media has not jumped on this yet but the chair needs to resign, the sooner the better. The Executive Committee has lost all faith that she is capable of having an open and frank discussion.

Longtime Democrat:

Your points might be valid, if the meeting had been called by the Chair, but the chair had not deemed it necessary or useful to call a meeting in almost one year. That defines a dysfunctional party organization with no organization or coordination. The petitioners called the meeting Monday night and after 2 1/2 hours, the chair was successful in making sure that none of the issues that the petitioners wanted to discuss ever saw the light of the day.

It is the chair that showed a lack of respect to the petitioners. If she was really a leader, she should have taken the initiative before the meeting and made sure that their was one agenda and that the issues were discussed openly.

Instead, this is a case where the chair won the battle but lost the war. The chair was more concerned with being in control and making sure that the open democratic discussion of the issues never took place.

If the chair had been a Republican and had avoided discussing any of the issues, then there would be a huge media brohaha and rightly so. We are fortunate that the media has not jumped on this yet but the chair needs to resign, the sooner the better. The Executive Committee has lost all faith that she is capable of having an open and frank discussion.

Sorry for the double post, but I got an error message, which indicated that it my message had not been posted.

"Arguments can be made as to whether the success was because of, or in spite of the leadership of Chair Susan Hays."

I suppose, but I think the winning campaigns would all give Hays immense credit for their victories in Dallas, especially the judicial races and Lupe Valdez. I know nothing of the dispute in question, but I know that Dallas Democrats after November owe Susan Hays more respect than she's apparently getting.

I mean, how dare she drop a high-paying gig at a top law firm to go elect Dallas Democrats! After all, these long-time precinct chairs obviously had everything under control up there in Dallas, right?

Further evidence, if any were needed, that no good deed goes unpunished.

As was previously pointed out by someone else, the Texas Election Code and the Texas Democratic Party rules only require 3 statutory meetings of the Executive Committee during even-numbered years (election years), for the purpose of dealing with primary election issues, such as the canvass.

The Texas Democratic Party rules do also say that the CEC "shall have primary responsibility for planning and for coordinating the General Election Campaign of the Democratic nominees within the county. . .This responsibility shall include raising funds for conducting local campaigns, supporting the statewide effort for the entire ticket, producing materials, and coordinating local services for all Democratic campaigns."

I'm not sure why Susan Hays didn't call an Executive Committee meeting in the last 6 months of 2004, but I would suspect the chaotic meeting of May 2004 had something to do with it. She had brought in a parliamentarian from the local parliamentarian society to help her with Robert's Rules, and more than once in that meeting when she was advised of a ruling by the little old lady serving as parliamentarian, the people in the crowd that didn't agree would shout out "You're wrong!" and make other disruptive outbursts.

I don't know myself, but I'm guessing maybe Susan Hays was concerned there would be a meltdown like there was last May if she held another meeting, and maybe she was afraid that would cause too much trouble for the campaigns of the candidates we were trying to get elected.

Additionally, the campaigns have to want to be coordinated by the County Executive Committee for the TDP rule about CEC coordination to have any effective application in the real world. Like it or not, despite the TDP coordination rule, we as precinct chairs and CEC members are not appointed from on high to lord over campaigns and candidates. Items mentioned in the CEC coordination rule like "raising funds . . .supporting the statewide effort . . .producing materials. . . coordinating local services for all Democratic campaigns" all sound to me like we are there to serve and support our nominees in the General Election, and not the other way around.

If you were a candidate, would you want your campaign and political future in the hands of the people had acted so immaturely and irresponsibly Monday night? If you want responsiblity, you must give people, e.g. candidates, the confidence you can act responsibly, and the May 2004 meeting sure as hell didn't do that.

Also, remember that the Texas Democratic Party rules are superseded by federal and state law if there is a conflict, and the argument could be made that the danger of getting into trouble with the new federal campaign finance law was so great that, thinking like a lawyer, she guided the party into focusing its efforts into individual campaigns instead of risking getting tangled up with a dangerous legal mess over campaign finances.

As for the agenda Monday night, just because a meeting was called by petition, doesn't mean that the petitioner's therefore could control the agenda of the meeting. For one thing, the petition campaign was deceptive at least in part due to the fact that at least some of the petitioners didn't clearly inform people what the meeting was about when they asked for signatures, and there was no formal detailing in the call for the meeting what the meeting's agenda would be.

This whole mess has its roots in the fact that most of the precinct chairs supported Bill Howell, who lost to Susan Hays by a vote of about 72% in the 2002 primary. Instead of moving on, people battled her, because they hadn't supported her and she defeated their guy, despite the fact that a huge majority of Democratic Primary voters having supported her. The utter lack of respect shown for Democratic party leaders elected by the people appalls me.

My understanding is that Susan tried to meet with many of the orchestrators of the meltdown over the preceding months, but they refused to do so. She tried to defuse the conflicts and keep things on an above board level, but they consistently refused to meet together to mediate the situation because they really only had one agenda, to get rid of her so they could put in their own person.

I agree, Susan Hays could have done a much better job of working through the issues she faced over the last year or so, and she could have been way, way more diplomatic in how she handled things, but some selfish people are willing to cut off our nose as a party to spite our face, simply because they have their own petty agendas. How shameful.

I have been an elected Democratic Precint Chair for over 20 years, and I attended the meeting wanting to hear more of an apology from Chair Hays for sending that letter on Democratic Party stationary endorsing a Republican for a federal judiciary position. I didn't realize until I received the e-mails from the petitioners that she had also failed to call the meetings she was supposed to call and to provide financial information of the the Executive Committee. I was horrified by the manner in which Chair Hays conducted that meeting. What an insult to me and the value of my time (and to all the others who were there, although I can't speak for them) that Chair Hays used all those stalling tactics and eventually had us thrown out of the hall. I found the petitioners to be very organized and to have submitted some excellent resolutions. I am now totally in favor of Chair Hays' resignation. I find Mr. LaMasters description completely accurate and I am pleased that anyone who wasn't there can get a sense of what took place. I couldn't be a more loyal Democrat and this whole experience saddens me to no end.

Re: "Arguments can be made as to whether the success was because of, or in spite of the leadership of Chair Susan Hays."

I do not know how strongly I have to disagree with Scott.

By Scott's logic path, the person that sets a house on fire then calls the Fire Department should be hailed a hero; and George HW Bush (King George the first) Defeated communism just because it came down on his watch.

These candidates won in spite of Susan Hays, not because of her. Many candidates and potential candidates are afraid to speak up for fear of retribution from Chair Hays and her thugees. If you ask them privately. they will tell you.

The only thing that I am ashamed of is that we asked these Precinct Chairs to attend this meeting. We promised them they would have a say and would have their concerns addressed. We failed them.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party.

"My understanding is that Susan tried to meet with many of the orchestrators of the meltdown over the preceding months, but they refused to do so."

Not true. The State Chair asked her to meet with the petitioners and SHE refused, saying it was not necessary. Prior to that she has met with some of us, but only at our behest, not hers. She has always been unresponsive to our concerns when we have tracked her down and spoken with her.

In response to the statement by 13th Century Democrat that "These candidates won in spite of Susan Hays, not because of her. Many candidates and potential candidates are afraid to speak up for fear of retribution from Chair Hays and her thugees. If you ask them privately. they will tell you."

Does that include Sheriff Valdez, Commissioner Price, Senator West, and Representative Anchia (who Bill Howell had the unmitigated gall to call a Republican, in addition to labeling all four, some of our most prominent elected officials, the "I got mine" crowd).

Who acted more like thugs Monday night? Chair Hays was trying to be calm and follow Robert's Rules!

Notwithstanding the self-serving declaration of the petitioners that the chair abandoned the podium, the Chair did declare the meeting adjourned until April 2nd. Period. End of story.

Do you think we can act like adults on April 2nd and not speak unless you have the floor or otherwise follow parliamentary procedure? Whenever the Chairmanship of Susan Hays ends, there will need to be another Chair, and they will face many of the same problems if the rank and file don't act their age and follow the rules in meetings.

If you folks would pay attention, you're not just shooting the Chair, you're devouring your own body parts!

If Susan steps down between now and the Primary, the CEC MUST elect a new County Chair, not only because the TDP rules require it, but because the County Chair has many legal responsibilities under state law for the party primary, and the estimate of expenses needs to be submitted to the Secretary of State way ahead of time. The fact that someone would suggest that the Advisory Committee run things until the primary shows a complete ignorance of the legal responsibilities that rest on the shoulders of whoever is County Chair. Don't the petitioners have someone lined up to step in as County Chair, or are they simply an angry mob that hasn't thought through how to actually get things done without hijacking meetings in total disregard of Robert's Rules? Is there not someone who wants to take on the responsibility of County Chair?

David Wilkins, your answer is not believable, and false. For evidence of that, others can look at the simple fact that Susan called the Democratic Summit on April 2nd in the first place, both in an attempt to bring people together and because she was having trouble communicating with the petitioners. To me, that sounds like she did want to meet with the petitioners, and doesn't sound like a refusal at all.

Beside, what kind of credibility do you think you have? Most observers, if they were honest with themselves, would see that you have a personal agenda against the Chair because she wouldn't hire you and also because she followed the law by declaring Domingo Garcia ineligible because of residency, which shut down your hopes of working for him.

You made an unauthorized entry into the party headquarters at night, supposedly for a good reason, but if you had such a good reason for being there, why did you cower in the dark when people arrived and then try to run out when they discovered you there?

I hope April 2nd will be an opportunity that people take advantage of to communicate like adults with one another and seek to reach the common ground of getting more Democrats elected.

Hey, everybody, I just heard from a neighbor who's helping me organize my precinct--the really good, productive meeting Monday night was with Democracy for America--they're doing the grassroots work that the county party should be doing.

They got a lot done. They also oppose the inefficiency of the county party, but they're actually DOING SOMETHING about it, instead of just submitting a competing agenda to the county party meeting and trying to shout down Susan Hays.

No wonder there wasn't a quorum at the county meeting--the real activists were at another meeting doing some real work!

I posted this on stoutdems, but I think I need to put it here too.

I have been involved in Dallas County Democratic party politics since 1972. In those 30+ years, I have never felt more ignored, disrespected and patronized than I did at the executive meeting on Monday night. This is saying a lot, since I have felt, ignored, disrespected and patronized since Chair Hays' began her reign.
I am not going to rehash what other people have said, I would just like to make a couple of points.
First, to the critics who have said that the petitioners only wanted to trash Chair Hays and bitch and did not bring anything positive to the meeting, I strongly disagree. There were two resolutions presented and passed, which can only help the party. Those were positive actions on the part of the petitioners.
Also, how dare anyone accuse our party secretary, David Wilkins of being the "ring leader" of this attempt to take back control of our party. I had numerous complaints regarding the current leadership, before any of the current issues were brought to light. David was doing his job, and a damn fine job at that. He devoted a great deal of time and energy in getting the petitions signed, so that the executive committee could have a much overdue meeting. I've even heard accusations that David, "broke into the party office". Excuse me, but isn't our elected party secretary allowed to go into the party office and obtain a list of current precinct chairs? That accusation is nothing short of slander. And, the people making that accusation should be ashamed of themselves.
Finally, it pains me greatly to see this internal conflict within my beloved party. However, I will not "sit down and shut up" (as our chair told us to do numerous times on Monday night). I will not go along simply for the sake of party unity when I believe the current chair is doing harm to the party I have worked so hard for during all of my adult life.
I believe with all my heart that we can get past these current problems and become a strong, unified and viable county party. I do not believe we can do that with the current Chairs' leadership. But, I for one am promising to work long and hard to help bring about a resolution.
G. Michele
precinct chair 2324
and proud to be a member of the newly formed advisory committee from SD 2

Long Term Democrat,

If you really want to communicate like adults, why don't you identify yourself instead of hiding behind this alias?

The self-reflection and self-examination of the Dallas County Democratic Party is what is relevant, not my identity.

I'm sure more people would speak more honestly about what they really think about the situation if they weren't so concerned with running with the herd and trying to stay popular and protect their chances of getting some Democratic Party plum down the road.

Can't people see that the Old Guard is trying to hold onto their meager power base and they are using this chaos which they are encouraging for their own purposes?

Long Time Democrat,

I have been a democratic volunteer for over 25 years. I am not a precinct chair nor am I running for anything.

But I find it very interesting that you are so adamant in your opinions in support of the chair Susan Hayes, I have to wonder what your agenda is.

Most people who do not have an agenda are more open-minded than you appear to be. It is this very open-mindedness or the lack thereof, that so distresses the large majority of the CEC. Surely, you are not saying that every precinct chair has some ulterior motive.

What the petitioners's wanted was a open-minded and fair discussion of their issues, which from the meeting Monday night is exactly what Susan did not want to happen.

So, I ask again, what is your hidden agenda?

Dear DCDP Democrats:

No matter on which "side" each of us finds ourselves, we all have several things in common, I believe.

1. We are all sick that there have to be sides (well maybe one or two love it, but no more than that),

2. We all want to beat Republicans,

3. We all want to fill the vacant precinct chair positions (or at least we should want that).

It is incumbent on every precinct chair to urge other chairs to come to the gathering on April 2 in sufficient numbers that there can be no quorum questions. While it may seem to be impossible, it is the one thing we can cooperate in doing right now and it is urgently needed. Let's try. If anyone already has an effort going to this end, please let me know how I can help.

The only problem with encouraging precinct chairs to attend the April 2 meeting is that it will enable a continuation of the disorder that was experienced at the February 28 meeting, should a 50% quorum of PC's actually show up and sign in.

I doubt that those PC's who support Susan will want to participate in more of the same rowdiness, let alone the completion of the rebels' agenda.

I think you can safely kiss goodbye the notion of there ever being another quorum at a DCEC meeting before next January.

Obviously, not everyone will want to try. I still believe that most precinct chairs really want to get past this and look to more productive times in the future. This is one small way to start, even if the job is enormous. We all have choices - we can continue to wallow in anger and hatred, launching ad hominum attacks, or we can find the place where civility and good faith in each other might have a chance. Attendance on April 2 is the responsibility of every precinct chair.

Linda Moore:

I have no hidden agenda, and I have been critical of some aspects of how Susan has handled things. My only agenda, seriously, is that we work constructively together toward the common goal of getting Democrats elected.

What I saw on Monday night was by far the worst meeting I have ever seen in my 23 years of being involved in politics, and in my mind, Susan was trying to talk rationally about things Monday night, and was continually shouted down and interrupted.

If we as Democrats don't wake up and stop cannibalizing ourselves, we will be a minority party in Texas for the rest of our lifetimes.

Dear Linda,
In answer to your question. Longtime Democrat's writing sounds alot like Sally Garcia. If so, then Sally's support for Susan is based on Susan having gotten her a job on a campaign last fall. It's pretty funny that three of the people spewing the most vitriol on behalf of the chair feel the need to post anonymously. Paul Lynam (pct 1233), and Tony McMullen (Daniel Babb) both have financial interests in supporting Susan too. Paul convinced the Democratic Party to end its contract with Southwestern Bell (a Union company) and purchase Burch Telecom (a Scab company) through him. Tony is the sometime IT guy for the Party office. Geoff Staples has enough integrity to use his own name. Unfortunately, that integrety stops short of disclosing his own financial interest in supporting Susan. Geoff's web hosting company, Hostricity, is the company the Party office uses for its web page and e-mail.

Most of Susan's few supporters have some personal interest in keeping Susan there. It's sad that the only supporters Susan can find are are people she's paying. What's even sadder is that they are resorting to republican tactics. Most pct. chairs want to talk about the problems with Susan's job performance, her misuse of Party resources, financial and personnel mismanagement, statutory negligence, etc. Susan's supporters know they can't win on the merits of the arguement, so they resort to petty personal attacks. Of course, if they want to question the motives of the good guys, two can play at that game. If they want to hide behind aliases, two can play at that game too.