Sheila, I will respond in more detail to the issues list either tomorrow or Friday, but will point out to you today that this amendment reverses a change made to the constitution last time. It was that amendment you should oppose if you feel your argument #1 is important. I am proposing we return to the rules that have been in use for at lest the 30 years I have been involved in the process if not for the entire history of the DFL party. I have other reasons I think are more important that that, but am currently in the midst of another project I must finish by tomorrow morning. Perhaps you are new to the process, and if so that is fine, but we have always had delegates elected at the biennial caucuses serve for two years. I maintain that the new proposal will result in fewer, not more people being involved in the process. I also believe that having known delegates representing the party serves to strengthen the party and our endorsement system particularly for city elections. My arguments are philosophical and grounded on what I believe would be best to strengthen the party over time and avoid unintended consequences. I have no other ulterior motive. I respect the fact that there are those who will disagree with me, and I can respect some of the arguments in favor of new system but believe on balance that the new procedure is detrimental to our party. While St. Paul may use a similar system, its circumstances differ materially, but I will make that argument later. I am however, happy to hear from the opponents of the proposal as it helps me better prepare my response. Not to attack those I disagree with nor to call their actions cynical, but to better engage in a debate about a decision taken without notice or much if any debate during a contested mayoral convention two years ago. I've already strayed too far into some of my arguments and must get back to the work in front of me.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sheila a. scott Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] DFL: Proposed constitutional change I also oppose the amendment, and these are the reasons I've stated to others: I am against it for a number of reasons: 1) changes to any constitution should rarely happen and only under very serious conditions, i.e. to correct racial/gender/etc equality. 2) The people who attended this years precinct caucuses did so for this year's races, not next year's. 3) I had people in my district who could not be delegates this year because of conflicts on their calendars, but, they usually are delegates, and had they known, they would have signed up as delegates and then contacted their alternates to attend. 4) Some of the new delegates would feel forced into doing something they didn't sign up for. In addition, as Loki stated, it would limit the number of delegates next year, as some will have moved, others just won't show. And,I suspect those who move as frequently as every year, are those who the DFL likes to represent itself as defending. This is not inclusive for anyone. I don't know anything about the person(s) pushing this amendment, or their intentions, I'm against it for the above reasons. I, as much as the next person, am very happy to see the numbers that turned out for the caucuses and conventions, and it would be great to keep them coming back. We do this by communicating with them, explaining the process (most of the newbies I've talked to have absolutely no idea how all of this works), and continuing to contact them personally throughout the year(s). Lets have some outreach to these new delegates to assure they'll want to be involved in the future. And, lets not stop there, lets reach out to others, get them registered to vote, and make them feel welcome to the process. Thanks! Sheila A. Scott Lind Bohanon Neighborhood Camden Area Senate District 58 REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
