Thanks to the encouragement (but not necessarily endorsement) of city DFL
chair Brian Melendez, I've begun the process of asking that the city DFL
charter be changed to allow the selection of delegates in city election
years. (They are currently selected the previous year, at even-year precinct
caucuses.)
As I understand it, list member and 11th ward candidate Scott Benson (or
someone he recruits) will make a motion tonight at the DFL Central Committee
meeting (at least, I think it's the Central Committee) to discuss the change
at a later meeting to re-do the city DFL charter. According to Brian, Scott
"will move [that] 'The call shall indicate that the agenda may include
consideration of a constitutional amendment relating to precinct caucuses
for the election of delegates to future conventions.'"
OK, that's the legal mumbo-jumbo. I haven't written the resolution yet - I'm
still looking for your feedback and help! - but I did send Brian a letter to
circulate to the DFL Central delegates explaining what I am up to and why.
Here it is (incorporating some minor changes based on questions already
received). Please, please - and thoughts, questions, improvements, either
direct to the list or to me.
Here 'tis:
To inform tonight's debate and lessen uncertainty, here's what I'm thinking
of proposing:
1. The resolution will specifically ask that new DFL delegates be elected in
city caucuses in city election years for the purpose of endorsing
Minneapolis city candidates (park board, library board, city council, mayor,
and any other city elected offices).
2. For broader state, regional, county, or party-governance concerns, these
city-year delegates do not necessarily have to "supercede" DFL delegates
elected in legislative years. I believe this will change the wording of
Article 4, section 2 of the Minneapolis DFL charter, which currently states
"Delegates and alternates elected at the most recent precinct caucuses shall
be delegates and alternates to the ward conventions."
3. The purpose of the change is:
A. To enfranchise within the DFL endorsement process those city residents
who have moved into the city since legislative-year caucuses. Currently,
those voters, who may move into the city as early as (for example) Feb.
2000, have no say within the DFL party on endorsements for offices elected
November 2001.
B. To further enfranchise DFLers who move into a new ward. According to the
current constitution, elected DFL delegates who then move to a new ward
become the last alternate there. Practically, this means they will probably
be delegates. My change will remove their second-class status.
C. Allow city council candidates to effectively grass-roots organize all DFL
voters willing to debate and decide the endorsement. Currently, the
city-endorsing delegates are selected many months before many council
contenders, especially challengers, have even decided to run. If candidates
are allowed to organize the widest possible group of DFLers, they can expand
the party's base, by giving DFLers two chances per biennium to come to
caucuses, instead of one.
4. At this time, I have no opinion on the move to shrink the size of the
citywide DFL convention (currently, all ward delegates are eligible.) I
believe the change in how we pick ward delegates is the most important
change, and any reform of the citywide convention can occur independently of
that.
Other comments:
I have heard that electing new city-year delegates may be more expensive to
the party. I would like some informed party person to estimate those costs
for me.
Related: I would like to have some codicil recognizing how much additional
publicity the party can/should afford to do if new city delegates are
elected.
I plan on talking to St. Paul (which chooses city-year delegates) to see how
they do it and what pitfalls we can avoid.
Some people argue that city-year caucuses will actually lessen
representation, because those caucuses will probably bring out fewer people
than a presidential- or legislative-year caucus. That might be true, but is
no certainty. In a new millennium, we should try new ways to make ourselves
more current and relevant -- we can always go back to the old system if this
lays an egg. I believe that in wards with competitive races, numbers may go
up because candidates have an incentive to drive supporters to the caucuses,
and those are the important places. In uncompetitive wards, numbers will be
small, just as they now are. Instead of seeing huge numbers of delegate
slots open because many even-year attendees are less interested in odd-year
races, we will have a vital, active group of city-oriented delegates chosen
closer to election day.
I acknowledge it may be harder for some delegates to make an additional ward
caucus (in the odd, or city-election years) and they may lose their
participatory rights for the citywide endorsing convention. I'm open to the
possibility of an even-year delegate remaining eligible for the city-wide
convention, perhaps through an "absentee" document - though this is not a
critical part of my initiative. But some sort of absentee eligibility might
mingle & preserve the "old blood" while allowing campaigns to beat the
bushes for "new blood."
I also acknowledge that off-year, odd-year caucuses (held in years without
city council elections, but with other offices such as school board), might
have tiny attendance. But they're not bursting at the seams now, are they?
Again, I am open to options here, though in general I believe caucuses as
close as possible to the next election is best for representation and
democracy. Also, anyone especially motivated to participate in these
off-year, odd-year endorsements will almost certainly be eligible under the
new system just by showing up.
And I'm open to other additions/questions/concerns before the formal
resolution in introduced March 3. Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] or call me
at 612-822-8601.
Sincerely,
David Brauer
Ward 10 - King Field
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
