From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It doesn't surprise me that this is being trotted out at an even numbered year convention.
It is saying that the Minneapolis DFL doesn't care about city issues (no chance for a city platform), or people that move to the city after March 3, 2004. That is just plain wrong.
Hugh Gitlin St. Paul, a city with odd year caucuses that work. ------------------------------
Hugh--I would be glad to hear more about what makes the St. Paul caucuses work. If you have them every odd year, it seems to make more sense, as they are a regularly scheduled event that St. Paul residents can keep in mind as March rolls around. If DFLers in St. Paul have caucuses every year as an opportunity to meet and discuss politics, that sounds great. One problem with the Minneapolis system right now is that we have caucuses that are completely tied to what city-wide races are up for election in November, which means that they cycle in and out. We do not necessarily have them every odd year.
From: loki anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'd be mighty interested in knowing where the mayor, DFL council members and members of the city boards who are up for re-election next year stand on the issue of whether or not to hold precinct caucuses next year. Do we let new people into the process next year or should we limit our conventions to the delegates and alternates elected this year?
Loki Anderson ---------------------------------
I understand this argument when it comes to people moving into the city, but otherwise, how does this limit the numbers of delegates? Especially with the great turnout this year, I suspect that we would actually have MORE delegates for next year's convention if we relied on this year's caucus attendance. I want to encourage people to be involved, but shouldn't that best be handled by increasing caucus attendance overall?
From: "sheila a. scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
Actually, the city-only caucuses are a result of a recent constitutional amendment. Next year would be the first time the amendment required city-only caucuses. The proposed amendment in effect repeals a previous amendment, rather than instituting something new. Sometimes in these discussions we forget the context of the debate.
2) The people who attended this years precinct caucuses did so for this year's races, not next year's.
Many people who attended caucuses did so with very different intentions. Some had resolutions to propose. Some had interest in getting involved in politics for the first time. Many did not even know what attending made them eligible for. As a Senate District Chair, I spend a lot of time explaining to new people how the Minnesota political party system works, and I know that very few people stayed home from caucuses because they were interested in next year's races but not this year's. Many people who attended this year assumed that their delegate status would be good through next year's convention--I spent quite a bit of time explaining that to people on caucus night.
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.
This indeed is a valid problem. This is why I am concerned about the immediate application of the amendment, if it passes. I think that we would need to have some plan in mind to handle people in this exact situation.
4) Some of the new delegates would feel forced into doing something they
didn't sign up for.
Well, nobody forces them to go. In fact, from attendance at previous city conventions, it seems that few delegates feel compelled to attend. Out of a potential 5000+ delegates, we were originally planning for 1200. With the huge turnout this year, it was clear that we should plan for a higher number.
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.
People who have moved within Minneapolis are still delegates or alternates to the convention. So, for those people, it does not actually limit their participation. This concern certainly applies to anyone who moves into the city. However, if people choose not to show, that is a concern no matter when we have caucuses. Again, I see the primary issue is to keep people interested in involvement.
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
------------------------------
Absolutely, Shiela--I do hope we get this kind of continuing turnout. I think, if anything, we can best do that by maintaining caucuses as community-building activities, not just part of the election machinery. If we have city-only caucuses some odd years, but not others, I think we are apt to continue this kind of confusion. That is why I support something regular that everyone can anticipate--either have caucuses every single year, or every other year. I see the "sometimes we have them, sometimes we don't" approach as problematic. If we want to be most inclusive and bring more people into the process, we need to make the system more sensible to people who haven't been involved in the past.
David Weinlick Chair, SD63 DFL Armatage
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
