The message that Arthur LaRue posted last night on this thread
repeated a message that he had sent me offline on Wednesday night/Thursday
morning, to which I replied (also offline) a few hours later. Now that the
question has been posted online, I am posting my response as well.
BRM
Brian Melendez, Chair,
Minneapolis DFL Organization
St. Anthony West (Third Ward)
-----Original Message-----
From: Melendez, Brian
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 2:31 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: FW: [Mpls] RE: DFL rules & exclusion
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur LaRue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:34 AM
To: Melendez, Brian
Subject: Re: [Mpls] RE: DFL rules & exclusion
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
Rick and I did exchange messages earlier today, and I am forwarding
the relevant excerpt below. Rick was more right than I had realized.
Ironically, I totally agree with Rick in opposing the State Central
Committee's two-thirds-to-debate-or-amend rule and, when we adapted the
standard rules for senate-district conventions for the ward conventions, I
specifically deleted the language from the City Central Committee's
resolution that would have made them mandatory for the wards. (As I said in
my first message on the subject, "we're not the boss of them.")
Unfortunately, I missed the internal reference in the standard rules that
purports to apply even before they are adopted, which ought to have been
deleted as well, but was not. My message to Rick points out the absurdity
of an unadopted rule purporting to govern the manner of its own adoption,
but I can understand now why it was confusing folks.
As I mentioned in my message to the mpls-issues listserv, I
circulated an opinion in February to the Campaign Committee's
listserv--which included all the ward organizers and conveners--that the
two-thirds-to-debate-or-amend rule did not apply, which I still consider
correct for the reasons that I offer below. Unfortunately, I was then
overlooking the wording in the standard rules that you and Rick have called
to my attention, which never ought to have been there in the first place,
and was technically null anyway; but nobody else called it to my attention
until today. I am very sorry for the confusion.
BRM
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Stafford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:25 PM
To: Melendez, Brian
Subject: Re: [Mpls] RE: DFL rules & exclusion
Brian:
This 2/3 majority to amend the rules was used at the either the 8th or 9th
Ward conventions as well as this was the ruling from the parliamentarian at
the 6th Ward convention by Jackie Stevenson, DNC Member and member of the
State DFL Bylaws and Constitution Commission.
1. That message that I quoted in my message to the mpls-issues
listserv was posted to the Minneapolis Campaign Committee's listserv in
mid-February. Shows how much my opinion is worth, I guess, if at least
three wards disregarded it. (It does take a two-thirds majority to amend
the rules once they have been adopted. It does not take a two-thirds
majority to debate them or to amend them before adoption, as it did at the
senate-district conventions last year, which was what I understood Arthur
LaRue to be saying for the ward and City conventions.)
I told LaRue that I believed her ruling was applied because of the 2000 Call
regarding Standardized Rules for CU/SD conventions and since these were the
rules adopted in regard to standardized rules by the city DFL for the ward
conventions that his provision in the Call applied. I never really
investigated this issue in regard to the Sixth Ward because all campaigns in
the Sixth Ward agreed to the rules being proposed.
2. I checked the Call this morning before I posted that message
(which is why I did not respond last night, since I did not have a copy with
me). The Call imposes the two-thirds-to-debate-or-amend rule only in the
case of senate-district and county-unit conventions, not in the case of
congressional-district conventions or the State Convention. There is also a
section of "General Rules" that "apply to all . . . conventions . . . and
other Party meetings," which covers the ward and City conventions, which
does not contain the two-thirds-to-debate-or-amend rule.
3. I just noticed after reading your message that the standard
rules for ward conventions that the City Central Committee proposed contain
a rule that "to debate or amend these rules or the agenda before they are
adopted by the convention requires a two-thirds vote of the convention."
That rule ought to have been taken out of the standard rules, and it is
probably the principal source of confusion. I would still have argued,
however, that it was null because the rules are not the rules until the
convention adopts them, so a rule's effect--especially with regard to the
manner of its own consideration--cannot precede its adoption. The Call's
general rules provide that "all procedures not covered by [other authority]
shall be determined by Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised," which
contains no two-thirds-to-debate-or-amend rule, but instead provides for
debate automatically and amendment by simple majority.
BRM
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
