> OK, Mr. Melendez, I'm confused. I've got a printed copy of the ward 6
rules
> which clearly states:
> "To debate or amend these rules or the agenda before they are adopted by
the
> convention requires a two-third (sic) vote of the convention."
>
> I'm also wondering what Rick Stafford was referring to in the conversation
I
> had with him.
> I've scanned my mail to see if he has sent any comments, or if there's
> anything new on the list, but haven't seen anything yet.
>
> Inquiringly yours,
>
> Arthur LaRue
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Melendez, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Arthur LaRue'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "minneapolis issues
list"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:47 AM
> Subject: RE: [Mpls] RE: DFL rules & exclusion
>
>
> > The rumor that appears in Arthur LaRue's message, that there is "a
> > provision that requires a 2/3 majority to debate or amend proposed
rules,"
> > also surfaced earlier this year. It was not true with respect to the
ward
> > conventions (about which I first heard it), nor is it true with respect
to
> > the City DFL Convention. Each convention is the final authority for its
> own
> > rules, which it can adopt by a simple majority, and which are debatable
> and
> > amendable on the convention floor.
> >
> > There was a process of the kind that Mr. LaRue's message mentions,
> > which the State Central Committee imposed last year on the
senate-district
> > (and county-unit) conventions, for which the State Central Committee
> adopted
> > standard rules. There are no such rules for the ward conventions or the
> > City Convention, and the State Central Committee did not extend its
> process
> > to them.
> >
> > (A footnote: The City DFL Central Committee did propose a set of
> > standard rules for the ward conventions. I sent the following message
in
> > February in response to a question about whether a ward wanting to
depart
> > from the standard rules must obtain permission from the City Campaign
> > Committee: "I don't think that the Campaign Committee's approval is
> > necessary for a change to the rules for a particular ward. The Central
> > Committee voted that 'each ward convention's rules shall be proposed in
> the
> > same form as the standard rules for senate-district conventions that the
> > State Central Committee adopted for the 2000 election cycle, with
[certain
> > specified] changes.' As [the questioner] suggested, each ward
convention
> is
> > the final authority for its own rules: it can accept, modify, or reject
> the
> > proposed rules, with or without the Campaign Committee's action, and the
> > Campaign Committee's failure to act on a change for a particular ward
(in
> > fact, even the Campaign Committee's active disapproval for such a
change)
> > would not stop the ward convention from adopting whatever rules suit it.
> > The ward pre-convention committees that are coming up with changes to
the
> > standard rules are the first step in the ward convention's process, and
> they
> > must answer only to the ward convention itself, not to the City Central
> > Committee or Campaign Committee. To coin a phrase, we're not the boss
of
> > them.")
> >
> > BRM
> >
> > Brian Melendez, Chair,
> > Minneapolis DFL Organization
> > E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Ph. 612.336.3447
> > Fax 612.336.3026
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arthur LaRue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:21 PM
> > To: minneapolis issues list
> > Subject: [Mpls] RE: DFL rules & exclusion
> >
> >
> > The question of the city convention passing a "6th-district type"
> resolution
> > will be interesting, indeed. One of the new (as far as I know) wrinkles
> > this year was a provision that requires a 2/3 majority to debate or
amend
> > proposed rules. So if you want to ask a question about the rules, you'd
> > better do a lot of lobbying pre-convention - otherwise you're stuck with
> > them. (yes, I know that there is the theoretical possibility of 2/3 of
the
> > delegates voting do discuss a rule change, but I'm trying to stay rooted
> in
> > reality.)
> > According to Rick Stafford (personal conversation at the W6 Convention)
> this
> > change was mandated by the state CC (please correct me if I'm wrong).
He
> > added that he, and others, fought this rule, but were unsuccessful.
> > So it would appear that while at least one provision of the rules was
> > instituted solely for W6 (and, we presume, against the candidacy of Park
> > Board Commissioner Dean Zimmermann), other changes which tend to stifle
> > dissent are coming down from the state level.
> > Arthur LaRue
> > 6-6
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
