As a practical matter - unless some delegate can convince a majority of
delegates that the caucus system is sorely broken I doubt constitutional
fiddling would get to first base. This years city convention has much
business to conduct and given the pre-convention rhetoric going around it
could be a long one. Any one remember the convention when Sharon Sayles
Belton was endorsed for the first time - it adjorned at around 2 or 2:30
am.
> 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
>
>
>
>
John Ferman
Harriet Avenue
Kingfield Neighborhood
Minneapolis
Ward 10 Pct 10
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
