Title: Re: the result

Thank you for you comments. I believe that I may post whatever pleases me, and you will note that I have done exactly that. You are welcome to do the same.

 

The schedule was changed several times, and even the one that I printed off the website and brought with me was not what we had at the convention. I can’t exactly recall, but I believe that there were changes made only three days before the convention. As I came with my wife, we had made plans to spend time together away from the convention.

 

It was made quite clear to Elizabeth and the convention team that one hour would not be sufficient for by-laws. At every step the chair kept reminding us that we were pressed for time and had to give up the room for a presentation at a specific time.

As you yourself noted at the last bod meeting, the importance of the convention was party business. Fund raising is great, and I applaud your efforts and successes in that vein. However, I think you should (and probably do) understand that a number of us were there to conduct party business.

People who were attendees should not have been expected to be checking the website everyday for possible changes. People who had been to previous conventions had a different idea of what the business meeting would be like. While it became evident to me that we would not be having all party business on one day, it wasn’t that understandable to others from their past experiences. Even though I kept sending out updates to members who had expressed the desire to be present for by-laws and constitutional changes, they had lives and their own schedules.

On Sunday, quite a few members showed up and were upset when they discovered that they had missed a very important portion of the business meeting.

 

John Berntson was well aware of the content of the proposed bylaws and constitutional changes being proposed. This had been posted on the website over a week in advance, and links to it broadcast on several statewide lists. John is on at least two of those lists. He had ample opportunity to suggest his own amendments or argue points about them. He wasn’t absent, and he was involved with Dez and I concerning a discussion about SJR03-010 and HB03-1227, which originated on the LPCO-Chat list.

I believe that I can tell ‘physically imposing’ from just a big guy. I’ve always liked John, but in the by-laws hearing he was loud, impolite, and physically imposing. Other people noted it as well. Doug Anderson seemed to be playing a side-kick role for John, and it took me several hours to get him to understand that I wasn’t trying to change the rules all by myself, but was a representative of the voice of dissent. John never allowed me to discuss these issues with him, as Doug did. I had a similar experience with Mike Spalding, who figured it out and was willing to have open and friendly discussions, but only after swapping a few insults with encouragement from Berntson.

I don’t understand why John was being this way. It hadn’t been my experience with him in the past. The party doesn’t need this kind of behavior, and I would hardly have expected it from the past party chair.

 

I am pleased that we managed to get some changes made. I am also pleased that there was participation and members were able to air their views – whether in favor of changes or not.

What I am not pleased with is that by-laws and constitution were not decided on the same day as candidate nominations. This is what members had come to expect and had relied upon in timing.

 

You are welcome to criticize my opinions, but you should expect me to respond. I’m not interested in a ‘flame war’. I made this posting as informational, but I am opinionated and as I am no longer a bod member I don’t see a reason to contain myself.

You may not be aware of this, but for the past year I’ve actually been pretty reserved. I’m done with being reserved for the time being.

 

I believe that we had a GREAT convention, despite my disgust of the business meeting being split up. My wife loved Mark Rutherford and actually entered into several discussions over dinner that I never would have imagined. Cindy has been a total Dem all her life, but this experience gave her pause to think about other possibilities. That in and of itself was worth all the hassle.

 

paul

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of MONTE POAGUE
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Bruce Eckhart
Subject: Re: the result

 

Whine, whine, whine. The schedule was posted weeks before the convention. Anyone who was too stupid to look at the schedule before attending is probably too stupid to vote anyway.

As for what was “slammed” and what was not, this is politics, when you want someone to support your “bill”, lobby them before hand. It’s not their fault if they refuse to vote in favor of something they haven’t had time to consider, it’s your fault for not explaining the purpose before the vote.

Maybe you should have talked to John about the changes that were being proposed instead of attacking him for being “a physically imposing person”.

Michele P

[|>]

 

Reply via email to