Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

RBC Violations of DNC Charter "Sunshine" Provisions

The “Magic Number” is still 2025, or 2209. But its not 2118.

That’s because, in violation of the DNC charter, a secret meeting was held, and secret votes were taken -- violations of specific Charter “sunshine rules” provisions. A deal was struck among Obama supporters on the committee to completely ignore what is known as the “fair reflection” rule (see note below), and to treat the constituency groups that had provided Hillary Clinton with considerable margins in two states (Hispanic/Latino voters, older voters, women, Jewish voters in Florida, older voters, working class voters, rural voters, and women in Michigan) as “half voters”.

(Cross-posted from The Confluence )

These violations occurred with the direct knowledge and involvement of Party Secretary Alice Germond, and Co-chairs James Roosevelt and Alexis Herman. Because of their knowing and willful violation of Party rules, they should be stripped of all authority in the Party organization, and removed from the DNC entirely. And if Howard Dean or any other party official was cognizant of the violation of the Rules, they too should lose their jobs.

The Democratic Party Charter (Article 9, section 12) states “All meetings of…official party committees…shall be open to the public and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.” Yet a two hour closed meeting in which business before the committee was discussed was held, and secret votes were taken during that meeting.

Here is the sequence of events:

1) When the morning session was begun, an agenda for the afternoon session was announced. That agenda was not followed, but no vote was taken in public to change the agenda – that vote had to have been taken in secret, in violation of the rules.

2) Throughout the morning session, members were admonished to use their time to focus on questions to those who made presentations because there would be time for discussion of the issues raised during the afternoon session. (At one point, after letting Donna Brazile make an extended statement that had no question, the chairs cut off Harold Ickes when he began to respond with his own statement, because it was not a question.)

3) When the meeting was reconvened, co-chair James Roosevelt announced that “Members over lunch have reviewed the testimony and oral arguments that were made/given this morning and are ready to proceed to motions….” No public vote was taken to proceed to motions, which means that a vote had to have been taken in secret for Roosevelt to make that announcement

4) One member of the committee noted in regard to Michigan that “this resolution was not my first choice.” This is significant, because the challenge brought before the committee by the State of Michigan was for full voter representation, yet there was no discussion whatsoever of that aspect of the actual challenge brought forth by Michigan. A vote of some kind had to have been taken to not consider the “first choice” resolution, which was consistent with the challenge brought before the committee.

5) Co-Chair Alexis Herman announced that three resolutions would be offered, and debate limited to 10 minutes on each resolution. No vote was taken in public to limit the number of resolutions to be offered, or to limit debate. A secret vote had to have been taken to allow that to happen.

6) At the end of the morning session, a one hour lunch period was announced, the time for the meeting to reconvene was announced, and the public, which has a right to be present for all meetings, was instructed to be back in their seats in an hour.

7) The public showed up on time. Neither Party Secretary Germond, nor Co-Chairs Roosevelt or Herman, showed up to reconvene at the appointed time. It was their responsibility as party officials to reconvene the meeting as announced. Their failure to show up is indisputable evidence that they were active participants in the violation of the DNC Charter provisions.

8) According to various news reports, and a personal conversation I had with Germond, business before the committee was discussed in the two hour period after lunch, and before the meeting reconvened. (Note that there is nothing wrong with discussions held during the one hour lunch period – it is the two hour period after the announced one hour lunch that violated the Charter.)

9) When the meeting was finally reconvened, the agenda was ignored, and resolutions and debate were restricted by executive fiat in violation of Roberts Rules of Order, which is the guide for how meetings are supposed to proceed.

10) Herman stated that she was “really ready to go home” even before any discussion of the first motion was permitted.

11) Herman announced the people who would be permitted to speak to the first motion, and announced it will be time for a vote.

12) When asked why there was no extended discussion in the afternoon, Germond told me that the extended morning session had resolved the members’ questions. Yet, Germond also acknowledges that business before the committee was discussed during the two hour period between the end of lunch, and the reconvening of the meeting. Germond is clearly prevaricating, because both statements cannot be true.

13) At the meeting two members of the committee made it clear that a vote had been taken, and the results predetermined before the afternoon session had convened. One member knew that her resolution “has no chance of passing this body”. Another stated “there is no deal.” Neither statement could have been made absent some kind of vote in private.

14) After the meeting, one member (Katz) of the RBC stated that Obama “had the votes” to impose his 50-50 split in Michigan. Clearly, some kind of secret vote had been taken at the secret meeting.

What all this adds up to is that the resolutions passed at the afternoon session can have no effect because the decisions themselves were made in secret in a corrupt manner that Obama’s supporters could not have done in public. The corruption of Alice Germond, James Roosevelt, and Alexis Herman, all of whom had a responsibility to stop the private “illegal” meeting and reconvene in public as scheduled, disqualifies them from any further participation in Democratic Party affairs.

Barack Obama and his supporters on the committee engineered a deal in secret to treat constituency groups that have consistently supported Democrats – and who have consistently supported Hillary Clinton during this primary season. Key constituencies that have consistently voted for Democrats were treated as “half citizens” in Florida and Michigan.

And there can be no question that it was the intent of Barack Obama to provide different treatment to different voters. In Michigan, Obama had his representative demand that the delegates in Michigan be provided with full voting power, (while completely ignoring their votes, and demanding a 50-50 split) while demanding that Floridians – a state with large number of Jewish voters, Latino/Hispanic voters, and older voters –were to be given only half-representation. Obama’s position was so internally inconsistent that it can only be seen as an effort to disenfranchise those constituencies that have consistently supported HillaryClinton, and provided her with a considerable margin in Florida among both delegates and the popular vote.

And “the rules” is no excuse. If “the rules” compel you to treat some Americans as being unequal to all other Americans, then there is something wrong with the rules. Anyone with an ounce of human dignity would recognize this, and take the easy an appropriate step of resigning from the RBC rather than enforce a provision of the rules that is an insult to human dignity.

Indeed, resignation wasn’t necessary – any member of that committee that truly believed in equality had another option –just have a sufficient number of these principled members leave the meeting before the vote to maintain a quorum, but assure that those members who were willing to treat Jewish, Latino, and women voters as deserving of full human rights would prevail. At that point, a quorum call could have been made, a new “majority” established based on the quorum, and the voting rights of Florida citizens could have been restored.

The impact of the contempt displayed by Barack Obama toward not merely Hillary Clinton voters in general, but the women, Jewish voters, Hispanic/Latino voters, and older voters who have consistently provided far greater support to Clinton, cannot be underestimated. These voters are key to victory in November, and by insisting that these voters be treated as second class citizens, Barack Obama and the Rules and Bylaws Committee have signaled to those voters that the Democratic Party is more concerned with power politics than with representing their interests.

A NOTE ABOUT “FAIR REFLECTION”
It should be noted that the concept of “fair reflection” is related to the actions of the voter – it is not, and cannot be interpreted as, “what the voter wished he could have done under other circumstances”. Rather, it is a requirement that delegates be apportioned by states based on the votes as they were cast.

Rule 13 A of the “Delegate Selection Rules” is entitled “FAIR REFLECTION OF PRSIDENTIAL PREFERENCES” and it states:

“Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.” [emphasis added]

The rest of rule 13 provides detailed information as to how to allocate delegates based on the results of the primary election. In no way can it be interpreted as being about “who people would have voted for if other peoples names were on the ballot”. The RBC had two choices – either accept the Michigan primary as a “fair reflection of the expressed presidential preferences” of the voters in Michigan, or deny Michigan any delegates whatsoever.

Obama’s supporters talked a lot about how important “the rules” were when disenfranchising Jewish, Latino/Hispanic, seniors, and women voters, but felt free to completely ignore the rules when it came to Michigan by literally stealing delegates that Michigan votes has awarded to Hillary Clinton, and giving them to Barack Obama. There is no greater evidence that it was not “the rules” that governed the RBC; instead, it was simply a power play designed to ensure that Barack Obama could declare victory on June 2.

This could not have been accomplished in public – the gross hypocrisy of the Donna Brazile and the rest of Obama’s corrupt supporters could not have withstood the “sunlight” that the “open meetings” provisions demand. This kind of corruption can only occur behind closed doors.

Finally,a personal note: it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that the corruption is merely among Obama’s supporters – Harold Ickes and other Clinton supporters had an obligation to not merely go on the record in opposition to this corruption, but to be impassioned advocates for open and honest governance of the Democratic Party. Obama and his supporters are corrupt, but Harold Ickes and the Clinton supporters acted as enablers of this corruption, and cannot be held blameless for what happened. It may have been the “politically expedient” thing to do at the time, but “collegiality” and “unity” should never trump principles. Thus, personally, if Barack Obama is the nominee, I will leave the Democratic Party with no regrets.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

Please note that the key points here -- including Paul's actual reportage (!) on Alice Germond -- are factual--that is, the sort of things that a reality-based community ought to be paying attention to.

If Roberts Rules apply, then the original agenda had to have been changed by a vote of the committee, or the rules had to have been suspended. (Were they?) Yet the agenda was changed, but with no public vote either way. And as Paul points out, that's a violation of the sunshine provision. And that's a prima facie case that the results of the Committee's deliberations are, if not illegitimate, open to appeal. So, leaving the realpolitik aside, and the cries for unity aside, this is a simple, factual matter that demand to be placed on the record. Can anyone refute Paul's timeline?

Special Double Bonus Prize to the first commenter who says "Get over it!" Ill means, ill ends.

NOTE Of course, this is not an entirely bad thing, since the Party now has a mechanism to re-open the issue in August, if circumstances change, in keeping with bringiton's desire to keep Clinton in the game. These people are all so twisty they have to put their pants on with corkscrews, and on a process level, I'm betting that goes for those who wear pantsuits too.

UPDATE Is there a transcript?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

you get right to the heart of problems, don't you.

and the research involved to get this info?

i wouldn't know where to begin.

on a somewhat related matter,

vastleft wrote left this comment to an earlier corrente post:

"More than four delegates stolen in MI
Submitted by vastleft on Thu, 2008-06-05 15:46.

If Edwards had been on the ballot, and if I lived in Michigan, I would have voted for him.

Once the race came down to Hopey vs. Hillary, she had my vote. Any folks like me had their votes stolen if their “uncommitted” votes were swung into Obama’s column.

I guess I don’t know whether Edwards was technically able to pledge his votes to Obama. But I do know that not every uncommitted vote was a vote for him, or by someone who definitely would have preferred that he get it instead of Hillary.

reply
vastleft "

all this bears on "legitimcay". but, as i wondered at anglachels' some time back, what is dynamic legitimacy? what changes and when can or do generate any actual social consequences for illegitimacy?

or is the concept simply static - a word that goes no further than definition and rules of usage?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

the resolution that was passed did NOT assign the uncommitted delegates to Obama, instead it relies upon the Michigan State Democratic Party to ensure that everyone who is supposed to be uncommitted votes for Obama.

BTW, this doesn't take much research -- the charter and delegate selection rules are readily available, the video is available on c-span (but its a really bad feed -- the longer a c-span video is, the worse the feed it seems), and Alice Germond's phone number wasn't hard to find at all.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

so far, there is no transcript of the meeting available... (it was hell transcribing the quotes from the meeting I did use)

oh, and on the "unocmmitted" thing... it should be noted that the Michigan Democratic Party virtually admitted that it was violating party rules at the meeting when it announced that it had already begun the delegate selection process based on their compromise proposal, and then said that it was being implemented on the "district" level.

Basically, the state party admitted that it was actively engaged in ensuring a specific outcome for the "uncommitted" delegation -- thereby shutting out people who supported someone other than Obama out of the process entirely.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

from an article by paganpower at noquarter

the reference to a nytimes op-ed piece:

vote by the numbers

neil degrasse tyson wrote:

"... Two questions arise in the face of this result. Whom should the Republican candidate prefer to run against to maximize his party’s chances of retaining the White House? And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it? ..."

none of this seems especially new, but the question lingers in the air

and in paul l's post at correntewire.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

That none of what you say qualifies as "illegal." No laws were broken.

The DNC is a private, non-profit organization and the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the political parties’ constitutionally protected freedom of association protects their decisions about how to select their nominees generally.

Rail all you like about how the RBC meeting was run and how all of Roberts' Rules were violated but in the end, the party’s associational rights are protected by the First Amendment.

I work for a 501(c)3. Unlike the DNC we have a longer, more extensive set of constitution and bylaws. I've been there 18+ years and for 10 of those part of I was a staff liaison to 5 different committees. (Our organization operates through 45 different committees.) I've compiled agendas, briefing books, helped to run meetings. People come late; chairpersons change the agenda on the spot. Committees have gone into "executive session" behind closed doors. Committee members leave the room to have separate conversations. Decisions are made over dinner or lunch and don't have formal votes.

And none of what you allege comes close to "corruption." Herman & Roosevelt were in charge of the meeting; they ran it as they see fit. You disagree with that. But calling it "illegal" and "corrupt" is extreme. You have no proof of "intent" or "secret votes".

I'll let Somerby close for me:

No, you can’t read people’s minds (not reliably). If you intend to be even modestly decent, you can’t make up any “paraphrase” you like. You need to be especially careful when you tell us what someone “really” said. You ought to be especially careful about saying what somebody “meant” or “thinks.” (Or about reporting the “impression” they somehow “gave” you.)

Submitted by lambert on

1. If what you're saying is "There's nothing illegal, so there's nothing wrong" comes perilously close to a Republican talking point.

2. Below, Paul distinguishes this case from the examples that you give. Are your examples comparable, or not?

Finally, seating these delegates was an important matter. This wasn't like the Kiwanis club not following Roberts Rules when voting to pick the date for its next bean supper. We're picking a President here, for pity's sake! I'd expect respect for procedures to be comparable to the importance of the matter involved.

Do you know the history of Roberts Rules? IIRC, they were standarized during America's Westward expansion, when lots and lots of meeting had to be held because -- modulo genocide issues, here -- there were no rules: No states, no territories, no towns, everything from scratch. So you'd have a meeting run one way, and then thirty miles west, you'd have meetings run another way, and everybody got pissed because they outcomes didn't seem fair.

Sound familiar? Without Roberts rules, you might as well be in the Wild West.... And for the Kiwanis that might not matter, but it sure God ought to for a party that calls itself Democratic.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

When a party, even one that is deemed private, gives votes to one candidate from another and does it in a way to disadvantage the first for no apparent reason, there's a problem. It doesn't pass the smell test. They claimed they were unable to break the rules for Florida and Michigan delegates. They freely admit that Florida did nothing wrong but felt it was impossible to reverse their ruling of 2007. But when it came to uncommitted delegates, they had no problem writing new rules on the spot to take into account all the imaginary voters who wanted to vote for Obama but stayed home during a primary with record turnout because someone told them it was a waste of time. This is a consideration that we gave no other voters in any other state. It is particularly egregious considering all the shift workers, moms with small kids, elderly and imfirm in caucus states who very much wanted to vote but couldn't because of time constraints.
No, it may not be in violation of any federal laws. But to say that it wasn't corrupt is disingenuous. It was corrupt as all get out. The nature of the vote deserved much more openness and a high degree of fairness. After all, this is just the presidency of the US at stake. But I didn't see Obama turning down the gifts to him and I didn't see the DNC reprimand the committee for discriminating against one of its most loyal members or the loyal party voters and base.
What are we to make of the candidate and party who believes that the ends justify the means? Well, we know what *you* think about it.
I don't have to be a mind reader to figure out what was going on here or to attribute meaning to various individual's actions.
The actions and outcome speak for themselves. I hold my elected officials and their party apparatus to a higher standard and will make them accountable the next time I vote.
Come together at The Confluence

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

from my viewpoint, your argument that no laws of the land were broken is a red herring.

the key fact for me is that the dnc

changed its own rules,

"flexed its own rules",

ignored its rules,

re-wrote its own rules, etc

just as paul lukasiak has documented,

in order to reach a desired outcome - senator obama's nomination.

without that manipulation of the rules, sen obama would not have achieved his recent "victory".

in short, in an extremely close nominating contest, the dnc took sides and forced an outcome.

now,

moving outside the specifics of the dnc's violation of its rules,

sen clinton is the more experienced and the more competent politician of the two.

manipulating the rules for her benefit would have been understandable, though unnecessary, as being in the party's and the nation's interest.

that did not happen.

for some time to come, i intend to remind the dnc that they bent and deformed their rules in order fix the outcome of the nominating process on the less experienced and less politically competent candidate.

that's the heart of the issue.

the great value of paul's work here is that it goes into detail, chapter and verse,

detail that others like me can read, understand, and use in our arguments about the dnc's conduct.

before paul wrote this, i had not seen anything remotely like it, had you?

nor would i expect to from the corporate media.

this is a very valuable contribution to make to the discussion of obama's legitimacy as a candidate.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

you beat to the rebuttal and you did a damned nice job of rebutting.

thanks

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

What our resident Obot is incapable of understanding is that the post is about violations of the DNC's own rules.

Like most Obots, the misread what you wrote, then draw conclusions based on their own lack of reading comprehension skills.

In fact, it may well be illegal in the sense that the DNC solicits donations under the charter -- and in violating its own charter provisions, is acting in a fraudulent manner.

The rights of "association" enjoyed by the Democratic party are really no different from those given to corporations -- and when corporate executives act contrary to the corporate charter, that's fraud and corruption.

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

...charter and/or non-profit status. If I were the GOP....

ADDED: Also, any decision made in violation of its own rules can be nullified. Corporations must follow their own rules.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

An interesting concept -- I'd have to look at Michigan election law; I assume that the Democratic Party has an automatic spot on the ballot, and based on that, could request some kind of injunctive relief to stop the Michigan Democratic Party from assigning delegates contrary to the actual rules of the DNC. (It would also help to have a copy of the Michigan Democratic Party's charter...)

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that since the state certified the votes as-is and rendered them fairly and accurately counted=rendered them legal and above-board, it violates voters' rights to reallocate those votes contrary to their expressly stated intentions--and "uncommitted" counts as a clear vote as well, according to state law, etc....

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

From the NYT, an editorial that looks at what would likely happen if the November election were held today. From a system developed by a couple of scientists to predict presidential elections using poll data, one that correctly predicted Bush's re-election in 2004 and the winner of every state but Hawaii:

When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

This causes him to ask two questions:

Whom should the Republican candidate prefer to run against to maximize his party’s chances of retaining the White House? And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?

Good questions, I have one more. What does it say about the Democratic Party that its elite chose the weaker candidate (and it was the SDs who chose Obama)?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

speaking of lawsuits...
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/lit...

its a lawsuit filed by three Florida delegates in Federal Court alleging violations of the equal protection clause in the DNC's decision to sanction the state 100%. I assume than an amended brief will be filed at some point, now that the DNC has chosen to disenfranchise floridians only 50%.

The killer argument, IMHO, is that the DNC demanded that the Florida Democratic Party hold caucuses, an act that would be in violation of the pre-clearence laws (i.e. any change in voting procedures in some Florida counties has to be approved by the Justice Department) and then punished them for not violating the law.

Submitted by lambert on

Why not?

If they give your votes to somebody else, you can give your invitation to somebody else!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

lambert brought anglachel to my attention.

three of anglachel's petite essays on legitimacy are worth reading, or re-reading,

in the context of this discussion

which paul lukasiak has initiated

with his detailed critique (above) of the dnc rules and by-laws committee's manipulation and evasion of dnc rules.

fine stuff. read'em.

then reflect some more on paul's post.

1. legitimacy not unity

2. legitimacy lost

3. revolution of the saints

these essays are not only thoughtful, they are the best of political writing, combining both analysis and passion in balanced measure.

dogooder's picture
Submitted by dogooder on

to help him through the stages of grief

A_B's picture
Submitted by A_B on

Taking a step back from the totality of errors that Lukasiak makes, which render his post, not only completely wrong, but somewhat amusing, people are hanging their hat on there being an unprecedented reversal and Clinton will be the nominee, basically, based on a long lunch and conspiracy theories about "secret votes" that Clinton supporters were in on. It's astounding that people live in a world where they think this would happen even assuming Lukasiak had any comprehension of what he was talking about.

corinne tried to be nice and explain there was no violation of the rules, but Lukasiak resorted to calling her an "Obot." Nice. So calling people names is clearly approved behavior. I know Lukasiak does it all the time, but I want to highlight it up front.

I'll start with lambert's own link to Robert's Rules of Order:
"The agenda and all committee reports are merely recommendations! When presented to the assembly and the question is stated, debate begins and changes occur!"

The agenda is a recommendation. It is not cast in stone and it is not necessary to put changes to a vote.

If the agenda, or, technically, "Orders of the Day" is violated, someone can make a motion for "A Call for the Orders of the Day". http://www.robertsrules.org/rror-03.htm#20
Otherwise, nobody cares and things proceed. Nobody objected. So, as lambert's link notes, "Silence means consent!"

Maybe if and when Lukasiak is on the RBC he can make these motions, but since nobody did, they are non-issues.

Indeed, the deafening silence of all present regarding any portion of how the meeting was conducted means they all consented to every single "violation" that Lukasiak lists. Therefore, there is no ground for objecting to any of the numbered issues raised by Lukasiak. That's it.

But Lukasiak, clearly unfamiliar with Robert's Rules of Order, compounds the error by looking to the DNC Charter states that "votes shall not be taken by secret ballot." Everyone seems to have missed this. Ballot. There is no evidence of a ballot.

lambert's link helpfully explains that a ballot means, "By Ballot -- Members write their vote on a slip of paper, this method is used when secrecy is desired."
http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.h...

The DNC charter, therefore, allows secret votes. Let's assume those happened and it was done by raised hand in a closed room. The DNC charter would not have been violated because it was not a ballot. Would it have violated the spirit of the rule? Probably, and feel free to take a violation of the spirit of the rules to the Convention.

If it wasn't already clear without a point by point refutation, let me try to explain how stupid this post is with more specificity. Lukasiak says in his first point regarding the Agenda, "that vote had to have been taken in secret."

First, to violate the DNC charter, it would have to be a BALLOT. No ballot, no violation.

Next, the Roberts Rules don't require a vote on changes to the Agenda. So, it would be wholly unnecessary to even vote on a secret ballot. Rather, Ickes or somebody would have to made a motion for a Call for Orders of the Day. Nobody did. So it's not a problem. If Ickes, or anybody else, had a problem with a long lunch, they should have made a MOTION. Otherwise, things continue.

Therefore, these alleged votes are not only unnecessary, but show that Lukasiak doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'll cherry-pick another one:

"When the meeting was finally reconvened, the agenda was ignored (1), and resolutions and debate were restricted by executive fiat in violation of Roberts Rules of Order (2), which is the guide for how meetings are supposed to proceed."

(1) See above, there was no requirement that the Agenda be strictly adhered to. If somebody had a problem with it, they should have made a motion.

(2) Again, if anybody has a problem, Robert's Rules of Order present them with the motions that they should make. Nobody did, so they consented.
http://www.robertsrules.org/motions.htm

However, this is my favorite of Lukasiak's points:
"After the meeting, one member (Katz) of the RBC stated that Obama “had the votes” to impose his 50-50 split in Michigan. Clearly, some kind of secret vote had been taken at the secret meeting."

That's hysterical. First, secret votes are A-OK under the DNC rules. However, you have to be a first-class moron to think that members of the committee need to have a vote to know where the members stand on a particular issue. When somebody says Obama "had the votes" it's because it's usually not much of a secret because people are allowed to discuss their positions outside of a vote. How do you think we all know where Ickes stood on the issue? Was it only his position in the Clinton campaign, or perhaps the words coming out of his mouth? Multiply that times the other committee members.

Lukasiak continues this Quixotic journey. Discussing Rule 13 A of the “Delegate Selection Rules”" he says that "it is a requirement that delegates be apportioned by states based on the votes as they were cast." Good lord.

No.it.isn't. It's not on it's face, and it isn't as demonstrated by the RBC meeting itself. It's called "fair reflection." Not, "Based on the VOTES. PERIOD." A basic rule of interpreting just about any document is you use the language before you and assume the drafters knew what they meant to say and knew how to say it.

When they say "fair reflection" they are explicitly disavowing strict reference to the vote. If they wanted it to mean what Lukasiak thinks it means, it would have said something less ambiguous than "fair reflection."

For obvious reasons, they like to stick to the votes as cast, but when, for example, one candidate's name is not on the ballot, then "fair reflection" provides an explicit authorization to interpret the presidential preference of the voters. If you think it only means VOTES, and nothing else, then you're a fool.

Indeed, Carl Levin and Mark Brewer, relying on the vote, exit polls, and other data came up with what they thought was a "fair reflection" of Michigan voters. Don't like it? Well, take it up with their methodology. Argue that relying exclusively on the vote is a better method.

What do people think they were doing? Did people think, "gee, that Carl Levin sure is a moron bringing up exit polls when 13(a) requires a strict adherence to the vote!" Is that what you really think? Were you surprised when nobody made that argument?

Let me be clear: one can argue that the actual vote is a better method of determining voter preference. One cannot, however, say that determining voter preference is based solely on the vote and anything else is a violation of the Delegate Selection Rules.

Indeed, Rule 13(A) is a somewhat extraordinary rule because it explicitly contemplates a "fair reflection" consisting of something else beyond the vote. Lukasiak is clearly unabile to read and understand the plain language of the rule.

"Thus, personally, if Barack Obama is the nominee, I will leave the Democratic Party with no regrets."

I hope we can survive without your constant stream of flawed analyses.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

candidate not actually on a ballot is not in any way "fair"--especially when that candidate intentionally and explicitly took themselves off the ballot, thereby removing themselves from consideration or any possible "reflection".

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

But thanks for playing.

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A_B's picture
Submitted by A_B on

Excess verbiage doesn't disguise bullshit
new
Submitted by myiq2xu on Sat, 2008-06-07 23:56.

But thanks for playing.

Who are you talking to? According to MS Word, Lukasiak's magnum opus of errors is 1875 words, while my response was 1209.

Now, beyond the stupidity demonstrated by your failure to actually check the number of words used, is the utter absence of any relevance of word count to the merits of either position.

Indeed, you make no effort to substantively respond in any way. I read the cited documents. Did you? Lukasisak doesn't understand what they say. Do you? Lukasiak doesn't appear to have even the barest understanding of Robert's Rules of Order. Do you?

I don't engage in the day to day stupidity of the anti-Obama coalition here, which according to recent surveys represents only 19% of Clinton voters. If you don't like Obama, whatever. People didn't like Kerry either and voted for Bush. It happens.

But when someone posts a deranged and baseless rant about the Rules and demonstrates and absolute absence of any understanding on which he speaks in an attempt to de-legitimize the Democratic Party's nominee for president, then it's up to actual Democrats to say, "this guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about."

Go ahead and disagree with me. Awesome. Let's have a dialog. Bit if you don't have shit to say other than some asinine word-count crap, then STFU, not because you like Clinton, but because you're a moron.