Burnt Orange Report

So who is chairing the meeting on Saturday? Do you have to be part of some exclusive club within the DCDP to know that ahead of time?

According to Election Code 171.025(a)&(d), David Wilkins has to appoint someone to chair the meeting called "for the purpose of filling the vacancy", and according to 171.025(c), he has to inform the Executive Committee of the time, place, and purpose.

If the section of the Election Code that deals with this issue is to be respected, then the meeting should be "for the purpose of filling the vacancy" (the language of the actual law of the State of Texas), not "to continue the unfinished agenda items from the committee's recessed meeting" (the law of Ken Molberg).

As expected, it appears the "Concerned Democrats" choose to ignore the law to suit their purposes. Apparently the Republicans aren't the only ones that blatantly ignore the law for political ends these days.

Didn't Ken Molberg and his minions give enough leash to Wilkins so he could appoint a temporary chair? Or do they just not have their act together and they don't have anyone that people will respect that will agree to be a part of their schemings, and none of them has enough guts to do it?

I'm surprised the Concerned Democrats' posting made by their lackey David Wilkins doesn't include the following agenda items:

a) a ceremonial burning of Susan Hays in effigy,
followed by:

b) successive turns at playing "dunk the witch", followed by:

c) a pronouncement that anyone who doesn't kneel before Ken Molberg will be summarily ripped to shreds by a pack of wild dogs, followed by:

d) a gift to the faithful of a magic ring (modeled after Ken Molberg's) that gives otherwise ordinary people the power to ignore the law, be immune from lawsuits, and just make s**t up when it suits them.

Oh, but wait, someone forgot to tell Mr. Molberg that his ring came from a vending machine and doesn't really work.

I fail to see how these personal attacks against Ken are productive. I don't know who you are, but I'm pretty sure you aren't even old enough to remember the Dallas County party under Ken's leadership.
As a long long time Dallas Democrat, I resent being labeled "minion" and "puppet". What exactly do you think these personal attacks are going to accomplish? They do nothing to move the party forward.
Why don't you come out from behind your screen names and let us know who you are? If you are proud of your words, you shouldn't be afriad to let everyone know your identity.
gmichele

Ken Molberg is one of the best and brightest and bravest Democrats in the country. I know no one who has worked harder or loves our party more than Ken.
Your attacks on this good man will get you less than nothing , Dog.

I have just read on the Dallas party website that Wilkins is now calling the meeting based upon a ruling by the State Party. Then I see here that he says that it for the purpose of continuing the unfinished agenda items from Feb. 28th. and to elect a interim party chair to serve before electing a permanent party chair.

I have also hear through a reliable source that the ruling from the State Party actually came last Thursday directly to the Molberg "faction" who specifically did not relay this information to Robert Franklin, who Susan Hays had appointed as temporary chair. I understand that he had engaged in extensive talks with all parties to try to resolve the conflicts to have a smooth running meeting. In frustration, he called the State Party yesterday only to be told that a ruling had been given last Thursday.

What possible benefit could Molberg and Wilkins have gained in not making this information public and especially in not sharing it with Bob Franklin? If their adgenda is Party harmony, is this the way to accomplish it? Did Wilkins wait to publish his notice only after Franklin published the State ruling on the website? What is going on here?

From the best of on my understanding, the meeting April 2nd is, and always has been, meant for the continuation of the agenda from the February 28th meeting because we were unable to conduct the business that remained after we were interrupted. The April 2nd meeting was never meant to permanently fill the Chair's vacancy, doesn't have a thing to do with the statutes on the subject of filling the Chair's vacancy, and was scheduled by the Chair herself long before she announced her plans to resign. Nobody is making anything up or writing their own election code, and to say otherwise seems rather irresponsible to me.

Reading Yellow Dog's post above should remove any doubt as to what kind of people Susan Hays surrounded herself with and why she created so much divisiveness over her disaterous 3 year term.

I am even more confused. The April 2 meeting was orginally called by Hays, specifically to fill the position of Chair. Only now with Wilkins notification, does the object become to finish the February meeting. Hays had not called for this meeting before announcing her resignation. Isn't there a number of days in advance that a meeting's date and purpose are to be given to the executive committee? Is five days enough? It seems that Wilkins wants to use a meeting that Hays called for one purpose to use it for his own purpose. Yes the new Precinct chairs need to be sworn in .... but while Molberg was getting rulings from the State, why did he not get a ruling about what the Secretary has the power to do. From a layman's point of view, it looks to me like he can only call a meeting to elect a new permanant chair. He can appoint anyone he wants to be temperary chair. That temperary chair should run the meeting to elect the permanant chair. I agree that it should be postponed to allow candidates to make themselves and the adgendas known. But what Wilkins now proposes makes no sense to me!

We're only a few days away from this meeting and it seems to me that there is STILL an amazing amount of confusion over what the agenda will be and who the chair will be. Are we to be greeted by duelling agendas again? A fight about the chair, right out of the box? AGAIN?

I am not a member of either "faction" and I suspect that the silent majority would prefer to focus on healing and constructive action moving forward to 2006. Now that Susan has resigned, why is this continuing argument necessary?

I have just printed the relevant section of the Party's rules and the Texas Election Code. It is very clear that 1) "the secretary (Wilkens)of the county executive committee shall call a meeting FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILLING THE VACANCY."
2) "The authority calling the meeting (Wilkens) shall designate a committee member as temporary chair, who shall call the meeting to order and preside until the vacancy is filled."

So, Mr. Wilkins, please announce to us all whom you have appointed as temporary chair.

And according to these laws, the meeting which you call, Mr. Wilkins, can only be for the purpose of "filling the vacancy" of the County Chair. I would think that a motion could be made to postpone the actual election to allow for an informed electorate, but that is really the only business that can be conducted by this meeting.

A seperate meeting can be held if the executive members so wish which would convene right after the first called meeting, in which the new precinct chairs can be sworn in. This meeting would also have to be chaired by the appointed temporary chair.

So, let's follow the law and do this right.

"Confused Democrat" is another Susan stooge trying to obfuscate in order to create confusion.

The Election law is simple. The State Chairman's letter is simple.

Susan had no authority to call a meeting to choose her successor or to appoint a meeting chair. She apparently did not check the Code beforehand. Under the law, the Secretary calls the meeting to replace the Chair after the vacancy occurs, which is April 1st.

David Wilkins posted the meeting notice for the April 2nd meeting because he is legally obligated to do so.

Susan called the April 2nd meeting at the February 28th meeting. If "Confused Democrat" would read the minutes, he/she wouldn't be so confused.

The Feb. 28th meeting was recessed, not adjourned, therefore the agenda from the February 28th meeting is still in effect.

Crispin - since when did you stop being a part of the Susan faction? Before or after she resigned? You were passing out Susan's propaganda at the Feb. 28th meeting and you signed Liz Wally's bogus letter. I didn't fall off the cabbage truck yesterday.

Confused Democrat:
I believe that you are incorrect. Susan called a meeting to be held after her "Democratic Summit" on the 2nd of April in which we might
try to fill the precinct chair vacancies because according to her, we did not have a quorum to do so. This was said at the February 28th meeting, long before she announced her resignation. When she announced her resignation, Susan then attempted to convert the April 2nd meeting into one that would handle the issue of choosing a new Permanent Chair, but as I understand it, David is the only person who can legally call this
meeting, unless he chooses not to or is trapped under something heavy. In that event, the State Chair would call the meeting, but it would
still be distinct from the April 2nd meeting.

Tom Stevens: LOL. I was not passing out "Susan propaganda" at the last meeting. I happily admit to signing Liz's so-called "bogus" letter because I'm all in favor of ending the catfighting and getting back to work. That's been my stance all along. Have you and I EVER had one single conversation about this issue, eh?

Tom: That wasn't Crispin handing out stuff at the meeting, that was me. I also signed Liz's letter because I don't consider it at all bogus. (I'm curious to hear, though, why you do think it's bogus.) I know that my work with and for the Party makes me look like a member of the Susan "faction," and, at some level, I guess I am, inasmuch as I don't want to see her entrails on a platter before me.

As many people know, I was quite vocal in my complaints about how I felt abandoned by the Party during the campaign. I got no guidance or training or even regular communications. Since my background is in journalism and PR, I went to headquarters and asked "what can I do?" And doing the weekly roundup was the most obvious thing. Quite frankly, I'm proud of the fact that a weekly roundup comes out now on a (gasp) weekly basis and that DCDP now has a regular communication organ. Unless the new jefe wants somebody else to do it when he/she takes over, I plan to continue to do it under the next regime.

All I wanted then, and all I want now, is for this dispute to be resolved. I don't care who is chair, I just want it to be decided ASAP. I did what I could to help Susan stay on as chair because I thought continuity was the best course of action. But the party has been hobbled since at least December by all this garbage, this at a time when I've never seen local Democrats more energized and engaged. We could have been using our energies so much more efficiently than this.

So, no, Crispin wasn't handing out stuff at the meeting. I was. Crispin, for those of you who don't know her, is one of the most committed activists I've ever seen. Thank goodness for people like her (and everybody at Dallas DFA) and Peggy Henger, who are just ignoring all this crap (to the extent that ANYBODY can ignore a tornado of this magnitude) and continuing to work toward November 2006.

To say I am demoralized by all of this is an understatement.

If being a democrat interested in getting through this mess in a manner which can be challenged by anyone based upon the law, makes me a Susan Hays stooge, I guess I am although I have never even spoken more that a few words with her ever. I just want to get things done right!!

Ok, let's look at whose meeting we will be attending on Saturday. Will it be the one called by Susan during her "State of the Party" address? Will it be the one that was moved for by Shannon Bailey at the end of the Feb. meeting which is supposed to convene at 4pm? Will it be the one the David Wilkins called yesterday?

If it was the one supposedly put forth by Shannon Bailey and passed unanimously, I question if anyone besides the Secretary was there to record this, as per his own minutes, in the middle of page four, Mr. Freeland had ordered everyone to leave the building. It was further stated that the Chair abdicated the gavel, but does not indicate who was running the meeting at that time (David Griggs). Also, the sente districts caucused in the parking lot which is reported before this motion for the 4/2 at 4pm meeting supposedly happened. How was this physically possible??

This leaves us to the meeting just called by David Wilkins. He is legally and rightly calling this meeting. But why is he not openly appointing a temporary chair for the meeting? And I still contend that per Party rules and the Election Code, the only purpose by which he can call a meeting is to fill the vancancy of the Chair.

Now how does all this make me partisan to anyone? I am looking at Rules, Laws and Minutes. This is what they show. I just want clarification from Wilkins and for everyone to be very clear what these Rules and Laws call for. If we follow them, there should be no infighting at the Saturday meeting.

At lease Bob Franklin, the temporary chair, inappropriately appointed by Susan Hays, was trying to resolve these questions and problems before the meeting. He is the one when informed by the State Party that David Wilkins is the one empowered to call a meeting and appoint a temporary chair, who posted the information on the County web site. I have not been able to find out where Wilkins posted his call for the meeting except for on this blog.

Let's just somehow straighten this out before the meeting by following the Election Code and the Party Rules.

So by your comments, Amy, I can conclude that the kind of county chairman who left you feeling "abandoned by the Party" and elicited "vocal complaints" from you for having "got(ten) no guidance or training or even regular communications" doesn't really matter. You don't "care who's chair."

And in spite of your admitted dissatisfaction with Susan's performance, you still think "continuity was the best course". What kind of logic is that? How much of a disaster does it have to become before you decide continuity is a lousy course?

Calls for Susan's resignation were heard a year ago, it didn't just start in December. The irony is that if Susan had simply resigned right after the November election, say effective April 2nd, she would have walked into an Executive Committee meeting called by the Secretary to replace her and received a standing ovation while her opponents would have just sat on their hands. She could have plausibly claimed some credit for the Party's victories. Her reputation would be intact today. No one would have lost any sleep, least of all her.

No one ever demanded her entrails on a platter: she willingly offered them up.

I haven't been around very long (for which you may feel free to chide me if you wish), but all I've seen from those looking to get rid of Susan are complaints, complaints, and more complaints. When I went to the DCDP office and said "what can I do?," I was instantly given a job that I personally felt at least helped resolve what some of my issues were.

I knew many were calling for Susan's resignation, but I had been told repeatedly that she had no intention of resigning. Given that, I decided the better, more productive course of action was to do what I could to help resolve those issues that bothered me. I got no opposition from Susan and have found her to be easy to work with (although she has admittedly been sidetracked the last few months).

Has she done everything right? Hell no. But I have been far more disgusted by the actions of the "Concerned Democrats" than I have by Susan's actions or inactions. There has to be a better way to resolve these issues than throwing the entire County Party into chaos.

Yes, of course, Susan could have avoided all this chaos by throwing in the towel months ago. But by that logic, we Democrats can simply avoid all this national strife by just letting the GOP have their way.

I'm not going to get into name-calling or any of the other tactics I see used on this website (by people on both sides of the issue, unfortunately). Because the level of debate on this issue has been so contentious, however, and because anybody who criticizes even the tactics of Susan's critics is villified, I expect that I will be too. Knock yourselves out.

I'll just be over here organizing my precinct, serving as a precinct coordinator, writing the weekly roundup, and generally trying to be a good Democrat.

I truly hope we can all get past this.

Amy, the Roundups are great. Thanks for doing something positive throughout this storm.

Thanks. I work hard to make sure there's SOMETHING interesting in each one and that, most importantly, it comes out every Monday, rain or shine.

If you (or anybody else who is reading this) has any suggestions for the Roundup (activities, story ideas [e.g. how to become a deputy voter registrar, etc.], interesting club news, etc.), please send them to roundup@dallasdemocrats.org by Thursday at noon.

What is it with all of this negativity? People are working together, all sides are on the same page as far as going after the republicans and we are all moving forward (with the exception of Yellow Dog and Confused Democrate (sp?).

Why don't we call a 48 hour moratorium of the venom and divisevness, go to the meeting where our pending precinct chairs will be seated and listen as all voices are heard. Maybe we can even hear some more positive attributes like Amy Hunt's.

After the meeting, if you still do not like what has happened, you can restart the poison posting.

Michael Moon

Yes, I admit that my lest ring finger loves to add "e"s where they are not supposed to be, but that does not make my concerns any less valid. How can bringing up legal and parlimentary issue be described as "poison" and partisan? If we do not follows the rules, we just open ourselves up to more infighting.

What is wrong with having the Saturday meeting chaired by whomever Wilkins designates as Temporary Chair at 2pm to consider the way in which we will elect a new Chair? Then calling an emergency meeting to begin right after the first meeting where the Precinct Chairs can be sworn in and other business considered chaired by the Temporary Chair or new new Chair is one is elected at the first meeting. That way everyone gets what they want and we have followed the Election Code and the Party Rules and have not opened ourselves up to any dispute.

Can you hear the republicans laughing? Today, we must get back to work!