Monday, May 15, 2006
Proposal 220 fails 63/37/1
With 101 votes cast, Proposal 220 would have had to have 68 votes in support to pass. This 2/3 super majority was required I gather because it was a change to the by-laws, or some other similarly fundamental document. With only 63 votes in support, Proposal 220 was 5 votes shy of the number needed.
From what I saw on the National Committee email list the folks who voted against Proposal 220 did so because they were concerned about votes for committee chairs, caucus chairs, and other national leaders being elected by secret ballot. I raised that concern myself independent of reading their email messages, and wrote about it here.
A couple of others also expressed my concern that the proposal is simply too complicated and verbose to not look at it with suspicion. That level of detail in a document so critical that it requires a 2/3 majority seems kinda a bad idea. It should be written so it can be read and understood by a simpleton like me, and that was not.
I can assure you that there were all sorts of "He isn't being nice to me." and "She's a liar and she knows it." and "If everyone would carry their own weight and not expect other people to do it all..." involved, but the end result should concern us all.
Clearly there is a need for some sort of system to elect our national party leadership. Personally, I think it is obvious that the real stopper for most folks was the secret voting provision. The folks who want a secret ballot won't have one under either the current rules, nor any rules likely to pass before the next National Committee vote at the next convention. The proposal should be trimmed down dramatically, should reference top quality guidelines for running such a vote rather than codifying the specifics into the by-laws etc, and should be brought up for a vote ASAP, or as a first piece of business at the convention.
We should all be concerned that it takes us this long to tend to stuff that is so obviously needed as these changes, but what the hell? We're all pretty damn busy truth be known, and most all the real work is done by a small number of folks.
Let's see if someone can't grab the bull by the horns and kick back something the National Committee can support very quickly. I feel sure it can be done if someone will let someone else take credit for getting it done.
From what I saw on the National Committee email list the folks who voted against Proposal 220 did so because they were concerned about votes for committee chairs, caucus chairs, and other national leaders being elected by secret ballot. I raised that concern myself independent of reading their email messages, and wrote about it here.
A couple of others also expressed my concern that the proposal is simply too complicated and verbose to not look at it with suspicion. That level of detail in a document so critical that it requires a 2/3 majority seems kinda a bad idea. It should be written so it can be read and understood by a simpleton like me, and that was not.
I can assure you that there were all sorts of "He isn't being nice to me." and "She's a liar and she knows it." and "If everyone would carry their own weight and not expect other people to do it all..." involved, but the end result should concern us all.
Clearly there is a need for some sort of system to elect our national party leadership. Personally, I think it is obvious that the real stopper for most folks was the secret voting provision. The folks who want a secret ballot won't have one under either the current rules, nor any rules likely to pass before the next National Committee vote at the next convention. The proposal should be trimmed down dramatically, should reference top quality guidelines for running such a vote rather than codifying the specifics into the by-laws etc, and should be brought up for a vote ASAP, or as a first piece of business at the convention.
We should all be concerned that it takes us this long to tend to stuff that is so obviously needed as these changes, but what the hell? We're all pretty damn busy truth be known, and most all the real work is done by a small number of folks.
Let's see if someone can't grab the bull by the horns and kick back something the National Committee can support very quickly. I feel sure it can be done if someone will let someone else take credit for getting it done.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 12:38 AM 
