I was unable to attend the SDEC meeting called for this past Saturday, November 15, in Austin. For that reason, I will be unable to give my impressions of the meeting as I have frequently done in the past. I hope other individuals who did attend will give us their impressions. I have seen nothing like that yet; has anyone else?
In looking at the State Democratic Executive Committee Meeting Agenda as posted on the Party Web site prior to the meeting, I believe we may conclude that not much happened as concerns the business of the Texas Democratic Party. The only activities scheduled for Saturday morning were: 9:00 am Check-in and New SDEC Member Orientation and Training... at 10:30 am. Does this mean that this was the first meeting of the SDEC since the Convention in June? What else could it mean? If that is the case, The Texas Democratic Party SDEC played no part in the last 5 ½ months of the Presidential Campaign. Without directions from the SDE during that time, the Texas Democratic Party Chair, staff, or anyone else, could not have played a legal part in those crucial months, since the SDEC must handle party affairs between Conventions.
According to the Agenda, The General Session consisted of the usual Christian religious exercises and standard Agenda items. The item in anyway unusual was item VIII. Chair's Report, A) Reading and Approval of New Committee Assignments. Does this mean that committees had not met since before the Convention? What else could it mean? Since subcommittees cannot act without approval of the SDEC, committees could have done nothing since before the Convention.
There is seldom any Unfinished (old business on this Agenda) or New Business at the SDEC meetings I have attended. In the recent past, the business of the Texas Democratic Party has been improperly done in the subcommittees. This is where the motions have been made, debated, and voted on. The SDEC has then been asked to rubber stamp committee decisions in its very brief meetings without having taken part in the discussion and debate. The SDEC, our state decision-making body, literally has not known what was going on when it approved committee reports.
What has been the result of all this? As I have often reported, members of our House and Senate Democratic Caucuses in Austin have stated that the Texas Democratic Party is of no importance-a nonentity. They do not consider it in their deliberations.
Barrack Obama lost Texas by about 11 percentage points. What would have happened if The Texas Democratic Party had made an organized effort to turn out the vote in every one of our 254 counties? Could we have made up that 11 point deficit? I am sure we could have.
Finally, I pulled up the Texas Democratic Party Handbook as presently posted on the Party Web site. It still has many items in conflict with the Election Code and State Party rules. The most egregious of these seem to me to be the inclusion of 12 members of the DNC as members of the SDEC, and the statement that "if the CEC is unable to meet a quorum to make decisions, the county chair is still responsible for seeing that the statutory requirements for running a primary are met." These items are in direct conflict with the Election Code and The Rules of the Texas Democratic Party. There are many other examples.
The essence of the Election Code is that if a county wishes to elect candidates it must follow The Election Code. There is no law that says any county has to elect candidates, democratic or otherwise. If a county wishes to elect candidates, it must follow the law. If a county (or the state for that matter) doesn't follow the law in electing its candidates, their candidacy is in jeopardy.
Recently( April 23), I posted an article here and there in which, given the concern over the lack of organization of the Texas Democratic Party, I suggested that a review of applicable laws and rules be initiated by our Senatorial District executive committees. It seemed to me that these committees could more easily find centralized locations than other official organizations at which to initiate such a review. There was, it seemed to me, considerable interest in taking a close look at Election Code requirements and Party Rules. Now, 10 days later, that interest seems to have evaporated. What can be the reason?
I have been reminded that the reason for our current rules came about in 1968 when Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy won almost all the primaries, but the Democratic nomination went to Hubert Humphrey who won not a single primary. Democrats decided that wouldn't happen again. George McGovern headed a commission which rewrote national party rules. Our state legislature was controlled by Democrats at the time, so Democrats got to rewrite state party rules in much the same form they are today. The goals of those rules were to bring about more inclusivity and more participation by Grassroots Democrats in the governance of their party. Sad to say that latter goal has hardly been mentioned, let alone realized.
In my memory, there has never been a serious effort in Texas to turn out the Democratic vote in every precinct in our 254 counties. I have heard talk, I have seen plans, but I have seen no serious action. What is our hang up? Why can't we get organized to turn out every voter as our rules require? It would be a big job, no doubt about it. We Democrats would all have to work together to accomplish the task. And our reward? Participatory democracy, Democratic governance of our Party by the people-all of them. And as my Uncle Walt used to say "This is where the sticker lies." I am forced to conclude that the movers and shakers of the Texas Democratic Party, the elites, the power brokers, the Party bosses, all calling themselves Democrats, fear few things more than participatory democracy. They would rather lose than allow the people to govern the Texas Democratic Party. Correct me if I am wrong.
In the last day or two, I read that the Texas Democratic Party "hardly has a pulse." The article went on to say that the candidate campaigns turned out the Primary voters, not the Texas Democratic Party. I believe that to be essentially correct. On Primary eve when I finally got my "packet" from the Democratic judge, it was so stuffed with junk and last minute instructions (some incorrect) that I couldn't possibly absorb it all. I had tried to be as prepared for the Precinct Convention as possible, but it did little good. Imagine the confusion of someone trying to fill in for a Precinct Chair and expected to read and absorb all that information 15 minutes before the Convention was to begin. No wonder some walked off with the packet and never returned.
If the Texas Democratic Party is to interest Texans in Democratic Candidates and Democratic issues and activities, we are going to have to make a great effort to get organized. Where can we begin? I believe we should begin with our senatorial district executive committees (They are not the State Democratic Executive Committee-see your Rule book). Let's call meetings of the senatorial district executive committees at convenient locations within the senatorial districts as soon possible, advertise them widely within their boundaries, and urge all interested Democrats to attend and bring their ideas for getting the blood flowing in Democratic veins as quickly as possible. The ideas developed in each senatorial district would then be taken to a central meeting by a selected representative or representatives (not more than two or three) for review and consolidation. Those ideas which survive this process should then be presented to the Delegates at the State Convention for action as they see fit. This seems to me to be a way that we can reach our grassroots members quickly and begin the process of interesting Grassroots Democrats, once again, in the issues, candidates, and specific activities of the Texas Democratic Party.
An article in last Friday's San Antonio Express-News, "Editor taking aim at 'two-step' (4/11/08) states that Wendle Scott, owner and editor of a Nixon TX newspaper is determined to dump the present Texas primary election system known by some as the "Texas Two-Step." Apparently he means to do this by means of a resolution presented at the Texas Democratic Party State Convention in June. Scott and another advocate of dumping the Texas -Two Step have been studying The Rules of the Texas Democratic Party to develop their resolution. They should also be studying the Texas Election Code.
The basic structure and procedures of the Texas primary system are stated in the Election Code. Change to the Code would require action by the Legislature.
According to an audio interview with Ken Molberg, SDEC member and member of the Rules Committee, of February 20, 2008 posted on the NPR Website, the present Primary system was set up after 1972. The Two-Step Primary has been in place a long time. Why has it received serious criticism only now?
The major reason for confusion about the primary system is that it has been largely ignored. Few Democrats-or Republicans--have paid attention to it. When the chickens came home to roost in this past primary, they came in huge flocks to the confusion and consternation of all.
Few Texas Democrats realize that the two major political parties, those whose candidate received 20% or more of the vote in the last gubernatorial election, become strictly regulated when they decide to nominate candidates. Few understand the law and rules under which the primary must be conducted.
Many campaign workers and supporters came to precinct and senatorial district conventions feeling that they were entitled to take part in the delegate selection process. In many cases they were able to cause serious disruption until the process was made clear to them.
At the bottom of all this is the fact that the Texas Democratic Party has never strongly advocated Democratic Party organization at the grassroots level. As a result, turnout at precinct and SD conventions has been paltry at best. The unusual qualifications and support of our present candidates caused a primary turnout which the Texas Democratic Party was completely unprepared for. That could well happen again unless we Democrats make an effort to understand and enforce the law and the rules which Democracy requires.
The problems of the Texas Democratic Party are being discussed far and wide. I hope the discussion goes on and that more people get involved, because it becomes increasingly clear that the primary cause of the sad state of the Texas Democratic Party is the, so-called, committee system. It is easy to see why if one stops to think about it. The subcommittees act as gate keepers. They control every new issue or project that comes before the SDEC, and by the time the SDEC hears of those issues and projects, time and resources have been spent on them. When asked to approve or disapprove of them, the SDEC members, not having been party to the discussion and debate in subcommittees, are too timid to ask questions and almost always approve the recommendations of the subcommittee-especially when the Chair and all the august personages on the podium are smiling or frowning down upon them. Even if all the subcommittee members were strong of heart and pure of mind, they are apt to be influenced by the Chair and staff members in their choice of projects. They often appear to defer to such experts as Ken Bailey, Jim Boynton, Bob Slagle, and, of course, there is the Chair, Boyd Richie. None of these individuals are qualified to interpret the law which includes Party Rules. Only the courts can do that.
So what we have now under the committee system are distinct minorities deciding what issues the TDP will consider and what projects it will undertake. This is both undemocratic and unlawful. Article III, B., 8. states "No action of a subcommittee or any standing committee shall replace or supersede the actions or authority of the Committee as a whole, and any actions by subcommittees shall be subject to review and revision by the superior authority of the full Committee at its subsequent meetings."
Party Rules in Article III, A. 1. Duties of Executive Committees state, " The State Democratic Executive Committee (the "SDEC") shall carry on the activities of the Party between State Conventions in compliance with the law and with the directives of the Convention." A major responsibility of the SDEC is to decide what "the activities of the Party" will be. Anyone may suggest an activity, but only the SDEC in session can decide whether or not to pursue an activity. In most cases, these determinations should be made in the "New Business" phase of the SDEC meeting. The introduction of new business must be carried out in accordance with parliamentary procedures (Robert's Rules) to ensure democratic conduct of Party business. Only in this way can the people really govern their Party at state level through their elected representatives, the SDEC members.
Once the SDEC decides to pursue an activity, then, and only then, the activity is turned over to a subcommittee or individual, as appropriate, for its accomplishment. Those given the responsibility for doing the work required by an activity must receive explicit instructions covering what work is expected of them and how to obtain the necessary resources. Committee reports should consist of progress made and completion of those projects. They may, of course, include recommendations for changes based on committee members experience in carrying out their instructions.
Democracy demands that only the representatives of the people determine the course their Party will take. Such decisions must be made only before the SDEC for all to see, It is not possible for nonmembers of the SDEC to visit every subcommittee to find out what Party activities are being addressed. By attending only the SDEC meeting, a visitor should be able to learn of everything of importance the Party is doing and the progress that has been made. More importantly, SDEC members must have that information because they, themselves, have participated in all Party decisions. Those unable to attend SDEC meetings should be able to keep informed by reading the minutes of SDEC meetings which should be posted on the Party Website as quickly as possible or made available to them by their SDEC members.
We can have democratic governance of the Texas Democratic Party only by following the law and Party Rules. Only in this way can we expunge the cronyism, good-old-boyism, and elitism which now infect the Texas Democratic Party.
I attended the August meeting of the State Democratic Executive Committee yesterday, Saturday, August 25, 2007 in Austin. Since I could hear little of the discussion and debate that went on in the SDEC meeting and the earlier subcommittee meetings, this will be more of an overview than a report on the details.
Overall, my impression was that the SDEC meeting. had only a few bright spots here and there.
First of all, a few words on the subcommittee meetings. I managed to get to all of the 9:00 a.m. meetings before they adjourned with the exception of the Legislative Committee. I was pleased to learn that this Committee will undertake a review of The Election Code. That can only be to the good, since there is much confusion among Democrats and their representatives as to the requirements of that law. I couldn't hear the speaker or read the financial information cast up on the wall in the Finance Committee meeting. I think that it was in the Advisory Committee that Bruce Barrick made an impassioned presentation, which generated much discussion. It was heartening to see Committee members asking to be heard and speaking out. That can only contribute to the health of the Party.
All of the subcommittee meetings were held in salons on the same floor. The members were seated around tables placed in a rectangular manner so as to serve as a large conference table. The was no sound system, but the members appeared to be able to hear one another. I heard only a few complaints on that matter. There was seating for about 20 visitors in each salon. Seated among the visitors, I could not understand a thing unless someone was speaking directly to me. Two or three visitors told me that they could not hear well. I can hear reasonably well when there is a sound system with properly placed loudspeakers and where all those speaking use a microphone. Most of the subcommittee meetings were conducted under a loose interpretation of Robert's Rules of Order (RONR). Since there were 10 or more members at most of the meetings, more formality would have led to more effective meetings. In all the meetings, there was unnecessary background noise caused by people standing around the walls or moving about holding their own conversations. This went on when members who had been recognized by the chair were trying to speak. I heard no chair attempt to correct these violations of parliamentary procedure. Perhaps they didn't hear them.
I attended the Grassroots Committee at 10:00 a.m. I was particularly interested in this Committee meeting as I understood that it was going to up-date the grassroots manual.(Texas Democratic Party Handbook). I had earlier submitted a critique of the first 4 chapters of the document. The Chair, Marvin Sutton, told me that my critique would be considered in the Committee up-date and allowed me to say a few words. I thanked the Committee for undertaking the update. I believe the Handbook can be very useful for planning purposes once it is brought into conformity with The Election Code and The Rules of the Texas Democratic Party. I was asked to help with the up-date ,and I agreed to help in any way that I can.
At 11:00 a.m., I attended the Rules Committee meeting. This was the most spirited subcommittee meeting of them all. The room was packed. There were 18-20 members at the table and at least 40 Democrats in the visitor's gallery. State Chair Boyd Richie was there, along with Ken Molberg, Dennis Teal, Ken Bailey and other staff members. I thought I saw Anthony Gutierrez and Brian Pendleton, Regional Field Directors. Rose Salas was in the chair. Clearly, something big was afoot. Just what that was is not clear to me. John Robert Behrman spoke eloquently. Ken Molberg appeared to offer a rebuttal to what Behrman was proposing or requesting. Their exchange appeared intense if not heated. I did not hear a motion made, but the room was very noisy with much conversation going on along the walls. The Chair appeared oblivious to those disturbances and did much talking herself. Chair Richie addressed Behrman's proposal. I did hear the VAN contract mentioned. Perhaps that is what is was all about. It appeared to me that Behrman held his ground quite well. . One non-member tried to be recognized by the Chair but the chair did not recognize her.. The Committee did not hear whatever she wanted to say. As I said about the last Rules Committee meeting I attended in April, this discussion and debate should have been heard by the SDEC. As it turned out, the SDEC heard only a much-condensed Committee report, which was approved with little or no discussion.
The SDEC meeting began at a little after 1:00 p.m. There were 11 persons on the podium. Bob Slagle was noticeably absent. The Chair commented that Bob recently had surgery. I wish him well. According to the Agenda, there was to be an Opening, a Moment of Silence and Pledge of Allegiance and then a Roll Call (There were several empty seats.), all before the Call to Order. That is not in accordance with RONR. Be that as it may, what occurred next was strange indeed. There was a historical presentation apparently intended as entertainment, which lasted 30 minutes, almost 1/4 of the first meeting of the SDEC in 4 months. The presentation was reasonably well-done so far as I could tell, but the actors didn't use a microphone though one was available. I could hear little of what was said. I could hear the drummer all right. For those who weren't there, the skit included a march by a flag carrier followed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams (? = just guessing) Betsy Ross(?), Patrick Henry (?), George Washington and a drummer. All of the historical figures spoke for several minutes. It was a classic case of preaching to the choir. It went on and on.
Finally, the Agenda was approved, the minutes of the April meeting read and approved, a couple of special guests recognized (no speeches). The Treasurer's Report, and the Chair's Report. The Chair's Report was mercifully short and delt, for the most part, with Town Hall meetings around the state. The Committee Reports were routine until the Rules Committee Report when there was some question which Rose Salas, Committee Chair, apparently tried to answer from the podium. The report passed with, perhaps, one or two "nays." No revolt here.
Then came the Finance Report. After the Report, a member asked that all SDEC members be given a hard copy of the report. Another member stated that there should be a copy of the budget on every desk before the SDEC approves it. I did not hear motions on these matters, but they could have been made. It appeared to me that there was much opposition to furnishing comprehensive budgetary and financial information to SDEC members. My question: how can the SDEC possibly "carry on the activities of the Party between State Conventions....," as Party Rules state it "shall" do, without complete budgetary and financial information at their fingertips? It is not possible. I will have to wait to see a copy of the minutes before I know what the outcome of this exchange was.
Far too many SDEC members seem reluctant to exercise the authority they have been given. They explain that Party decisions are made in the subcommittees and their duty is to approve whatever comes out of those committees often after action has been taken and money spent. They do not see--or do not wish to see-- that the subcommittees can legally take action on a matter only after the SDEC has approved that matter and assigned it to a subcommittee. A subcommittee cannot deviate from the instructions of the SDEC.
Whatever the outcome, I was pleased to see that at least three or four SDEC members did not quail before the State Chair and staff members up there on the podium. I hope other SDEC members will take heart, follow the example of those few brave souls who stood up and spoke out yesterday, and run the Party between Conventions as the law and democracy demands.
After the Committee Reports, it was all down hill. There was no Old [sic} Business and no New Business. This was the first business meeting of the SDEC in four months and there was no New Business. Can this be true? New Business is the place on the Agenda where members can introduce new items of business once having obtained the floor. "So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business, by hurrying through the proceedings (RONR, pg. 349). New Business is the place on the agenda where all new activities of the SDEC are normally initiated. It is the place on the agenda where SDEC members have the opportunity to bring the concerns of their constituents before the SDEC. It should be the lengthiest activity on the agenda if those constituents are to be truly represented. Those members, who do not take this opportunity, should be looked at long and hard before being reelected.
Unless SDEC members assert their authority and change their schedule, there will probably be only one more SDEC meeting before the Primary Election. There will be literally hundreds of decisions to make, and who will make them for us? Who will be minding the store?
I journeyed to Austin this past Saturday, April 28, 2007, to see what I could see and hear at the quarterly meeting of the Democratic State Democratic Executive Committee--the SDEC. I did see a spark or two of Democracy fly up here and there. A few individuals gathered up their courage and got to their feet to speak out. They got little encouragement from the podium. Few SDEC members seem to see standing up and speaking out as a basic part of their role.
I attended the meetings of the Grassroots Committee at 10 a.m. and the Rules Committee at 11 a.m. Most of the time in the Grassroots committee was spent in forming subcommittees and discussing goals for those committees. As I recall the committees established were the Precinct Chair and County Chair Support Committee, the Outreach Committee, the New Democrat Welcome Committee, and the Grassroots Handbook Updating Committee. There was considerable discussion, and the Chair, Marvin Sutton, seemed to be trying to do a good job of conducting the meeting. I can't comment on the content of the discussion as it was very difficult to hear what was said. There was no sound amplification system. I believe it was decided that only SDEC members could serve on the subcommittees. That would seem to eliminate much help and possible expertise. Members also agreed that they could communicate in any way possible in carrying out their tasks since Committee decisions would constitute recommendations to the SDEC. My overall impression was that the Grassroots Committee was in sore need of direction from the SDEC. One quarter of 2007 is behind us and this committee is still getting organized. By this late date, it should have teams out in the field helping the county parties organize Grassroots Democrats. Representatives of these teams should have been reporting their progress to the Grassroots Committee in this meeting.. The members of this committee represent a wealth of talent and experience. The CEC should have put all of this expertise to work months ago. One Committee member stated emphatically that "The bottom line is to win. It don't matter if we don't win." He didn't suggest the best way to do that.
I attended the Rules Committee meeting at 11:00 a.m. This committee meeting was a horse of another color. I knew something was afoot when I tried to get in the room. It was already packed. It appeared to me that all the officers and staff were there. State Chair Boyd Richie and DNC member Bob Slagle were practically arm-in-arm. Dennis Speight, Ken Bailey, and Jim Boyington were there. It looked more like a full-blown SDEC meeting rather that a subcommittee meeting. I heard someone say there was disagreement on the question of delegate apportionment. Many people had a copy of the 2007 Delegate Selection Plan in their hand. It appeared that Black Democrats were unhappy with the number of delegates they had been apportioned for 2008. I can't be sure of that because the room was packed and noisy and there was no sound system. At one point, State Chair Richie accused a Black member of threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party. This member protested that he had not threatened to sue, that he merely stated that he would pursue his options. Bob Slagle then lectured the complaining member about the legal aspects of the situation. I could hear little of it, but I was sure I had heard it all before. The upshot of it was that the Blacks lost in the Committee. Since so many people had spoken out, I asked to speak too. I wanted to ask if this debate would be repeated in the SDEC meeting. I was not granted the floor.
State Chair Boyd Richie called The SDEC meeting--the main event?-- to order sometime after 1 p.m. Many people were late getting back from lunch because the Rules Committee ran overtime and the room was not quite ready. At that point, there were about twelve persons on the podium looking down on all. The second item on the Agenda called for invocations and the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't recall an invocation being given but the Pledge of Allegiance along with the Pledge to the Texas flag were recited. Since these are exercises which not all Texas Democrats can take part in because of their religious nature, their propriety at SDEC meetings should be discussed by the SDEC. The role was then called. I couldn't hear well as the responders had no mikes and there was much commotion in the room. Several responded with "Sustaining Member." I was surprised to hear Bob Slagle's name called. DNC members are listed as members of the SDEC in the Texas Democratic Party Handbook, but I thought that was just another of many errors in that document. DNC members are not listed as SDEC members in The Election Code or The Rules of the Texas Democratic Party. But Bob Slagle was certainly present. I don't believe he ever sat down. He appeared to have much to do with running the meeting. The DNC was certainly well represented. After the role was called the meeting was called to order. Richie declared a quorum, but there appeared to be many vacant seats. I estimate that there were 30 or 40 visitors. Technically speaking, if calling the roll is the method by which the presence of a quorum is determined, that should come first, followed immediately by the Chair's calling the meeting to order. The Chair does not exercise his or her authority as presiding officer until the assembly has been called to order.
Next on the Agenda was the Agenda's approval which was done unanimously without discussion. This was followed by the approval of the minutes of the January meeting. The minutes were also approved unanimously without discussion. Next came recognition of special guests. Four interns were recognized for their service. There was a young man named Rodriguez and four young women. I did not hear the names of the women mentioned.
The Treasurer gave his report next. Again, I could not hear the figures quoted. The report was adopted by the assembly though this is normally not necessary or proper.
Ken Molberg gave the Nominations Committee Report. I could hear little of what he said except that I believe he introduced Shannon Bailey as replacement member for SD16, Molberg's old SD precinct. I did not hear a vote to approve Bailey in this position or a vote approving Molberg as SDEC member from SD23.
Rose Salas gave the Rules Committee Report. There was a mini version of the discussion regarding the selection of delegates, which took place in the Rules Committee meeting earlier. It was not nearly as spirited, but was much more interesting than any committee report I have heard before in an SDEC meeting. Several persons spoke pro and con. A woman in the visitor's section spoke at length in favor of reconsidering the Rules Committee Report. Another woman in the visitor's section asked to speak, but Chair Richie told her that he had been advised that he could not recognize non-SDEC members. He got bad information. Party Rules permit any Democrat to participate fully in Party meetings except where prohibited by law or Party Rules. Non-SDEC members could not, of course, vote on questions before the assembly. Field Director Brian Pendleton contributed to the discussion by circulating a cordless mike around to many of those who spoke. That did help, but the room was fairly large, and he couldn't get around to every speaker. The major debate on this matter took place in the Rules Committee. It should have taken place in the SDEC General Meeting. The Committee's report was accepted without all SDEC members having heard all of the discussion of the matter. Not all who wished to speak on the matter were able to speak. Such discrepancies do not contribute to the health of the Texas Democratic Party.
Other committee reports were swiftly made and approved with little or no discussion. There was no "Old" Business. There was no New Business. No new
business? This meeting marked the end of the first quarter of 2007. We are looking at a Primary Election early next year with an enormous amount of work to be done to prepare for. There was no new business? We face a State Convention and a National Convention early in 2008 and a Presidential Election in the fall--and there was no new business.
Toward the end of the meeting, Boyd Richie put out a call for volunteers saying "Staff and I can't do this all alone." The Staff and Boyd Richie aren't supposed to do the work of the Party all alone. They most certainly are not supposed to decide what is to be done. That is the responsibility of the SDEC. This call for volunteers brings up an area in which Democrats are weak. Volunteers must do most of our work, but we don't have a plan covering the recruitment and employment of volunteers. Such plans exist. We should choose one. But the SDEC has abdicated its authority and turned its responsibilities over to the Chair, the staff, and the subcommittees and gone home for four months. It has left no instructions in the form of new business. What should the SDEC have done in this critically important meeting? It should have determined what is left to be done to prepare for the Primary Election, the coming 2008 conventions and the general election, and it should have delegated tasks and necessary authority for their completion to the proper subcommittees and the Chair. It should have instructed the Chair to monitor subcommittees to be sure they are on task and on schedule. It should have instructed the Chair to call a special or emergency meeting of the SDEC if serious problems arise. We are in a battle, folks. We can't allow our generals to turn everything over to the colonels and the sergeants and head for the golf course. If we do, we may be in for the disaster of our lives--and we would deserve it.
John McConnell, Democratic Precinct Chair
Precinct 3047
Bexar County, Texas
The cause of the state of "amazing disrepair" [described by SA
Express-News columnist Jaime Castillo] of the Texas Democratic Party
at all levels in Texas is not brought upon by a few individuals, no
matter how rich and powerful they may be. We all know that a
democracy must be a rule-governed society, yet so few Democrats seem
willing to spend the few hours necessary to learn the necessary
rules. They will spend hours and hours working for candidates, and
they often donate more money to the Party and its candidates than
they can really afford. Yet they will not take those few hours
necessary to sit down and study the rules which would make them
informed Democrats, able to make informed choices which would help
make the Democratic Party, once again, a political force in Texas.
Why is that?
Some tell me that the rules give the power to the majority--and they
are afraid of the majority. They are afraid that they won't often be
in the majority.
Others tell me that they are afraid to challenge authority. They were
taught that they must obey their parents, their priest or minister,
their teachers, the neighborhood policeman, and so on. Now that they
are adults, they just can't bring themselves to challenge that guy
(usually a guy) up there on the podium. They don't realize that he
(now and then a she) is only a functionary whose function is to
conduct the meeting. The don't realize that the power to govern lies
with them, the members, as democracy demands.
We will all be in the minority at times, but, if we all insist that
that democratic goals are pursued, we will be in the majority more
often than not.
What do you think? Think fast! The forces of evil are at work.
John McConnell, Democratic Precinct Chair
Precinct 3047
Bexar County, Texas
(I missed this from earlier this week. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
To Democrats who are concerned,
I journeyed to Austin on Monday the 8th to attend the State Democratic Executive Committee's first meeting of 2007 at the Hyatt Regency on Town Lake. The location was beautiful.
I got there in time to attend the Grassroots Committee meeting. I have mentioned that meeting in another report. I will say that the Chair, Marvin Sutton, was trying to conduct a good meeting. I believe he will improve with practice. A major problem was caused by the lack of a sound system. It appeared obvious to me that members of the Committee were having trouble hearing one another. Nothing is more important in a meeting of a deliberative body than that the members are able to hear one another and have the opportunity to respond to what others are saying. Democratic decisions are not possible unless these conditions exist.
I entered the Texas 1 Ballroom where the SDEC General Session was to be held at about 5 minutes before 1 p.m. On looking about the room, my heart sank. I could see immediately that nothing important would happen here today. There were no floor microphones for the members to use. It was clear that input from SDEC members was not anticipated or desired at this gathering. As it turned out, the acoustics of the room were so poor that even though those at the podium who used a microphone were difficult to hear unless they held the microphone just so. Only a few members complained about this situation.
Chair Boyd Richie called the meeting to order some few minutes after 1 p.m. I am not sure if the members approved the Agenda. The Chair asked for a moment of silence to commemorate some group. It may have been Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and casualties, but I can't be sure. Next, Bob Dean led the Pledge of Allegiance.
I don't know if there was a quorum present or not. Secretary Ruby Jensen called the roll. I heard only one member respond with "Sustaining Member." The use of that phrase seems to me to be an attempt to shame others into becoming sustaining members. I am glad that the practice seems to be losing favor with the members. Members will be glad to be sustaining members when the SDEC asserts its authority. That didn't happen on this occasion
I have only a hazy notion of what was said from there on because I could not hear clearly. I shall have to wait to read the minutes of the meeting to get an idea of what transpired. I did hear a bit of an exchange concerning the fact that unfinished and new business were not included on the proposed agenda.
