I forwarded Paul Z's latest to Adolph Reed, who responded: Paul Z: >>>Doug, I didn't vote, but was chairing the meeting, so why don't you call >>>for expelling all who voted in favor of this great crime--that would be >>>more consistent with your statement? > Adolph Reed: >There actually was some discussion of barring everyone who voted for the >endorsement from holding office in a reorganized chapter, but we decided >that doing so could be unfair to individuals who may have voted out of >genuine ignorance of what the Convention had passed. This obviously did not >apply to Zarembka, who was present and active at the convention and who, as >chapter chair, had a responsibility to communicate the convention's actions >to chapter membership. I don't know what Zarembka's game is, but it's clear >that he instigated the Fricano endorsement while simultaneously trying to >feign innocence. I'd be concerned, if I were his ally, to see his >willingness to push provocative actions joined so consistently by >sophomoric attempts to maintain plausible deniability of his responsibility >for them. > >As to Barizoni's concerns, perhaps some who voted for the Fricano >endorsement didn't realize the gravity of their action; that's one reason >that the INC voted to provide for the chapter's reinstatemnt. But it's >absolutely certain that Zarembka knew, and it's also absolutely clear that >he has been attempting to organize against the democratically decided >actions of the Cleveland convention since the moment it was adjourned. The >Fricano endorsement wasn't a simple mistake. Sending him a letter pledging >a LP endorsement is exactly the kind of thing that could open us to a >Taft-Hartley investigation and at the very least bog us down in costly >litigation when we should be building the party. As to all the procedural >tap-dancing about who had authority to do what when, Tony moved quickly as >acting National Organizer, the de facto agent of the as-yet-convened INC. >The seriousness of the situation demanded immediate, peremptory action, and >the INC agreed that waiting for the first INC meeting, which couldn't be >held until August, would be dangerous. > >The bottom line is this: it's time to get to work trying to build the >party,mainly but not exclusiveley inside unions. The Zarembkas of the world >have been sent a clear message that the LP isn't going to tolerate >violations of core policy that are potentially destructive of that >party-building effort. For those who feel the need to run or work for >candidates for electoral office, it's easy enough to do so under the flag >of the New Party or the Democrats or the Vegetarian Party or whatever. >That's not the route the Labor Party has chosen for itself for now, and if >anyone can't abide by that choice, they should take their politics >elsewhere.
