Re: Bad DFL caucus rules
David, I believe what you are proposing with regard to the election of delegates to the Mpls DFL City Convention requires a constitutional ammendment to theM pls DFL Constitution. I'd start by getting a copy of the constitution from the chair of the Mpls DFL. Each election cycle the local party unit, (Mpls DFL) usually sets up a constitution committee for the city convention that is charged with reporting to the convention any proposed constitutional ammendents for consideration by the city convention. I believe that might be the proper course of action to pursue to achieve your goal of changing the delegate election process. Of course I could be wrong, but that's how you would go about it if you lived in St. Paul. P.S. to supplement the attempt to change the constitution you could also draft a precinct caucus resolution in support of the proposed constitutional ammendment. It couldn't be decided at the precinct caucus level but it would be a way to build support and visibilty for the ammendment. Dennis Hill St. Paul DFL Ward 2 Co-Coordinator Second, Fredric hits on a longstanding major gripe of mine: that the DFL locks in its 2001 delegates at its 2000 (presidential or legislative year) caucuses. This means any candidate not organized two years before election day (i.e., many non-incumbents) can't influence the party endorsing process by getting their grass-roots supporters to become delegates. (St. Paul, on the other hand, picks new delegates during the city election year.) Although at the major-office level, the DFL endorsement process is wheezing like a dying man, it still has great influence at the council level. It has always seemed to me a violation of the DFL's alleged grass-roots ethos to lock in its selectors so far in advance. I suppose the argument FOR doing so is that attendance is higher during even-numbered years. But in a state that's justifiably proud of its same-day voter registration, it seems ridiculous to shut down city council delegate selection 11 months before a city election year even begins, and 21 months before the election itself. (I've always hoped some new Democratic voter who just hit town arrival would sue the party for disenfranchisement, since the rule is also in effect a residency requirement mandating that you live here in February 2000 to decide the party's nominee in 2001. But I admit this is only symbolic, since the party has wide latitude to make its own rules.) I've always believed these restrictive rules exist to protect incumbents and insiders who show up annually. I think it is one reason the DFL is not as in touch with the electorate as it should be. I'm pondering offering a resolution at my local caucus to change the practice. Of course, one resolution at one caucus won't do much. Anyone have advice about how to make a bigger impact? David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 ** This e-mail and its attachments have been scanned for viruses. NDIS/ADCS University of Minnesota **
RE: Bad DFL caucus rules
Dennis Hill's response is essentially correct: the change that David Brauer suggests would take an amendment to the Minneapolis DFL Party's constitution. There are three ways to go about proposing such an amendment: First, through the existing Constitution Commission, which is currently reviewing the constitution with a view toward a comprehensive overhaul. That Commission can propose an amendment for consideration at the upcoming City Convention in May, but it is more likely that it will identify multiple possible solutions to each problem identified, and then seek input from delegates at this year's Convention without a formal vote, so that the new Commission that takes office at the Convention can frame proposals based on that input. Those proposals would then be circulated for comment through the senate-district organizations, and offered for a vote at a special City Convention this year or next year or at the regular biennial Convention in 2003. Second, through the incoming Constitution Commission, whose members will be elected at the upcoming ward conventions and will take office when the upcoming City Convention adjourns. Any amendment proposed through the new Commission can be considered at the regular biennial City Convention in 2003, or at a special City Convention before then. Third, by a motion from the floor at the Convention, if the Central Committee indicates in issuing the call that the constitution may be considered. The Central Committee will be meeting on Monday the twenty-second, and I will be preparing the agenda today and tomorrow, including a proposed call. I will be happy to work with anyone who is interested in proposing an amendment so that it can be brought before the Central Committee. BRM Brian Melendez (Ward 3), Chair, Minneapolis DFL Organization E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph. 612.336.3447 Fax 612.336.3026 -Original Message- From: David Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 10:24 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Bad DFL caucus rules Lots of meat in Fredric's recent post, but I'm only going to touch on a couple of things: First, the item about Barb's list mishap is toward the bottom of: http://checksandbalances.com/MN/players-page/pp001221.htm. There is also an interesting item on Lisa McDonald gunning for union support via city low-voltage wiring inspection...see "Over Extending Authority" at http://checksandbalances.com/MN/players-page/pp001227.htm. Second, Fredric hits on a longstanding major gripe of mine: that the DFL locks in its 2001 delegates at its 2000 (presidential or legislative year) caucuses. This means any candidate not organized two years before election day (i.e., many non-incumbents) can't influence the party endorsing process by getting their grass-roots supporters to become delegates. (St. Paul, on the other hand, picks new delegates during the city election year.) Although at the major-office level, the DFL endorsement process is wheezing like a dying man, it still has great influence at the council level. It has always seemed to me a violation of the DFL's alleged grass-roots ethos to lock in its selectors so far in advance. I suppose the argument FOR doing so is that attendance is higher during even-numbered years. But in a state that's justifiably proud of its same-day voter registration, it seems ridiculous to shut down city council delegate selection 11 months before a city election year even begins, and 21 months before the election itself. (I've always hoped some new Democratic voter who just hit town arrival would sue the party for disenfranchisement, since the rule is also in effect a residency requirement mandating that you live here in February 2000 to decide the party's nominee in 2001. But I admit this is only symbolic, since the party has wide latitude to make its own rules.) I've always believed these restrictive rules exist to protect incumbents and insiders who show up annually. I think it is one reason the DFL is not as in touch with the electorate as it should be. I'm pondering offering a resolution at my local caucus to change the practice. Of course, one resolution at one caucus won't do much. Anyone have advice about how to make a bigger impact? David Brauer King Field - Ward 10
RE: Bad DFL caucus rules
As a practical matter - unless some delegate can convince a majority of delegates that the caucus system is sorely broken I doubt constitutional fiddling would get to first base. This years city convention has much business to conduct and given the pre-convention rhetoric going around it could be a long one. Any one remember the convention when Sharon Sayles Belton was endorsed for the first time - it adjorned at around 2 or 2:30 am. Dennis Hill's response is essentially correct: the change that David Brauer suggests would take an amendment to the Minneapolis DFL Party's constitution. There are three ways to go about proposing such an amendment: First, through the existing Constitution Commission, which is currently reviewing the constitution with a view toward a comprehensive overhaul. That Commission can propose an amendment for consideration at the upcoming City Convention in May, but it is more likely that it will identify multiple possible solutions to each problem identified, and then seek input from delegates at this year's Convention without a formal vote, so that the new Commission that takes office at the Convention can frame proposals based on that input. Those proposals would then be circulated for comment through the senate-district organizations, and offered for a vote at a special City Convention this year or next year or at the regular biennial Convention in 2003. Second, through the incoming Constitution Commission, whose members will be elected at the upcoming ward conventions and will take office when the upcoming City Convention adjourns. Any amendment proposed through the new Commission can be considered at the regular biennial City Convention in 2003, or at a special City Convention before then. Third, by a motion from the floor at the Convention, if the Central Committee indicates in issuing the call that the constitution may be considered. The Central Committee will be meeting on Monday the twenty-second, and I will be preparing the agenda today and tomorrow, including a proposed call. I will be happy to work with anyone who is interested in proposing an amendment so that it can be brought before the Central Committee. BRM Brian Melendez (Ward 3), Chair, Minneapolis DFL Organization E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph. 612.336.3447 Fax 612.336.3026 -Original Message- From: David Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 10:24 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Bad DFL caucus rules Lots of meat in Fredric's recent post, but I'm only going to touch on a couple of things: First, the item about Barb's list mishap is toward the bottom of: http://checksandbalances.com/MN/players-page/pp001221.htm. There is also an interesting item on Lisa McDonald gunning for union support via city low-voltage wiring inspection...see "Over Extending Authority" at http://checksandbalances.com/MN/players-page/pp001227.htm. Second, Fredric hits on a longstanding major gripe of mine: that the DFL locks in its 2001 delegates at its 2000 (presidential or legislative year) caucuses. This means any candidate not organized two years before election day (i.e., many non-incumbents) can't influence the party endorsing process by getting their grass-roots supporters to become delegates. (St. Paul, on the other hand, picks new delegates during the city election year.) Although at the major-office level, the DFL endorsement process is wheezing like a dying man, it still has great influence at the council level. It has always seemed to me a violation of the DFL's alleged grass-roots ethos to lock in its selectors so far in advance. I suppose the argument FOR doing so is that attendance is higher during even-numbered years. But in a state that's justifiably proud of its same-day voter registration, it seems ridiculous to shut down city council delegate selection 11 months before a city election year even begins, and 21 months before the election itself. (I've always hoped some new Democratic voter who just hit town arrival would sue the party for disenfranchisement, since the rule is also in effect a residency requirement mandating that you live here in February 2000 to decide the party's nominee in 2001. But I admit this is only symbolic, since the party has wide latitude to make its own rules.) I've always believed these restrictive rules exist to protect incumbents and insiders who show up annually. I think it is one reason the DFL is not as in touch with the electorate as it should be. I'm pondering offering a resolution at my local caucus to change the practice. Of course, one resolution at one caucus won't do much. Anyone have advice about how to make a bigger impact? David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 John Ferman Harriet Avenue Kingfield Neighborhood Minneapolis Ward 10 Pct 10 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
