Dennis Hill's response is essentially correct: the change that David
Brauer suggests would take an amendment to the Minneapolis DFL Party's
constitution. There are three ways to go about proposing such an amendment:
First, through the existing Constitution Commission, which is
currently reviewing the constitution with a view toward a comprehensive
overhaul. That Commission can propose an amendment for consideration at the
upcoming City Convention in May, but it is more likely that it will identify
multiple possible solutions to each problem identified, and then seek input
from delegates at this year's Convention without a formal vote, so that the
new Commission that takes office at the Convention can frame proposals based
on that input. Those proposals would then be circulated for comment through
the senate-district organizations, and offered for a vote at a special City
Convention this year or next year or at the regular biennial Convention in
2003.
Second, through the incoming Constitution Commission, whose members
will be elected at the upcoming ward conventions and will take office when
the upcoming City Convention adjourns. Any amendment proposed through the
new Commission can be considered at the regular biennial City Convention in
2003, or at a special City Convention before then.
Third, by a motion from the floor at the Convention, if the Central
Committee indicates in issuing the call that the constitution may be
considered. The Central Committee will be meeting on Monday the
twenty-second, and I will be preparing the agenda today and tomorrow,
including a proposed call. I will be happy to work with anyone who is
interested in proposing an amendment so that it can be brought before the
Central Committee.
BRM
Brian Melendez (Ward 3), Chair,
Minneapolis DFL Organization
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph. 612.336.3447
Fax 612.336.3026
-----Original Message-----
From: David Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 10:24 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Bad DFL caucus rules
Lots of meat in Fredric's recent post, but I'm only going to touch on a
couple of things:
First, the item about Barb's list mishap is toward the bottom of:
http://checksandbalances.com/MN/players-page/pp001221.htm. There is also an
interesting item on Lisa McDonald gunning for union support via city
low-voltage wiring inspection...see "Over Extending Authority" at
http://checksandbalances.com/MN/players-page/pp001227.htm.
Second, Fredric hits on a longstanding major gripe of mine: that the DFL
locks in its 2001 delegates at its 2000 (presidential or legislative year)
caucuses. This means any candidate not organized two years before election
day (i.e., many non-incumbents) can't influence the party endorsing process
by getting their grass-roots supporters to become delegates. (St. Paul, on
the other hand, picks new delegates during the city election year.)
Although at the major-office level, the DFL endorsement process is wheezing
like a dying man, it still has great influence at the council level. It has
always seemed to me a violation of the DFL's alleged grass-roots ethos to
lock in its selectors so far in advance. I suppose the argument FOR doing so
is that attendance is higher during even-numbered years. But in a state
that's justifiably proud of its same-day voter registration, it seems
ridiculous to shut down city council delegate selection 11 months before a
city election year even begins, and 21 months before the election itself.
(I've always hoped some new Democratic voter who just hit town arrival would
sue the party for disenfranchisement, since the rule is also in effect a
residency requirement mandating that you live here in February 2000 to
decide the party's nominee in 2001. But I admit this is only symbolic, since
the party has wide latitude to make its own rules.)
I've always believed these restrictive rules exist to protect incumbents and
insiders who show up annually. I think it is one reason the DFL is not as in
touch with the electorate as it should be.
I'm pondering offering a resolution at my local caucus to change the
practice. Of course, one resolution at one caucus won't do much. Anyone have
advice about how to make a bigger impact?
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
