Author: Emmett O'Connell (Page 128 of 176)

Last Monday and roles of PCOs provided by statute

January 26, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

During the county central committee meeting on Monday we introduced the bylaw change that would allow participation by “paid members” in local Democratic affairs. Right now, the only people who vote on what our local party does are PCOs, who are elected or appointed.

This change, that would allow pretty much anyone who is interested into the process, is important to me because it recognizes how things have changed in the past 100 years. Neighborhood political organizations are reflected in the PCO idea (only one representative for a geographic area). But, we don’t live in an era of neighborhood connections, we live in an era of much more flexible social connections.

Anyway, there is some confusion about what roles PCOs are afforded under state law. Some think that PCOs are the only ones allowed to vote in our affairs, but that isn’t actually true. There are very specific roles for PCOs:

What Roles are Provided for Precinct Committee Officers by statute?

Electing a chair and vice chair of opposite sexes during a county party reorganization (29A.80.030)

Electing a state committeeman and state committeewoman to the state central committee. (RCW 29A.80.020)

Electing a chair of a legislative district chair (RCW 29A.80.061)

Fill a vacancy on a major party ticket (RCW 29A.28.011)

Nominating qualified polling place workers (RCW 29A.44.430)

Beyond the above, votes on who to endorse, our budget, resolutions, etc…, our affairs can be open to all comers.

Edwards not all that netrooty compared to Richardson

January 21, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Over at Scoble’s blog, he gives too much credit to the netroots outreach of John Edwards:

One thing I just saw over at TechMeme is that USA Presidential campaigns now are conversations?

Really? So far only one Democratic candidate has met with bloggers who aren’t avowed supporters of his (and has had live chats on DailyKos), that I can see. Only one candidate has invited a blogger behind the press lines.

Yes, its a great thing that Edwards is doing, but he’s not the only one doing it. He’s the only one that is going way out of his way to take credit for it.

Bill Richardson has had two sit downs with bloggers, that I know about. Both happened well before Edwards’ well publicized tripping with bloggers and both were with groups that didn’t necessarily support him.

The first, I’d admit, was put together by a couple of pro Richardson guys (me and Ken Camp), but it was attended by now seriously pro-Edwards Will.

This wasn’t a high powered group of folks, but rather some regular folks that Richardson wanted to reach out to because he recognizes something in the netroots that I think he likes. Twice during the meeting his handlers tried to move him on to the next meeting, and twice he brushed them off so everyone could have a chance to get their answers.

You can find the audio of that meeting here. Also attending were Jimmy and Goldy, among several others.

He also met with some bloggers in South Carolina.

Also, if you check out the blog from Richardson’s 2006 race, you’ll notice its a community blog.

Richardson’s netroots coolness

January 21, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

I’ve been on the internet off an on all morning, watching the reaction to my guy announcing his candidacy. One of the neatest things is this post (not directly related to Richardson for President) but rather on the difference between campaign controlled “house parties” and less formal “meetups” (from Joho):

But campaigns generally are not re-creating MeetUp. They’re replacing meetups with house parties. That’s what the Kerry campaign did, and I could never convince Zack Exley (who’s also civic-minded, bless him), who was in charge of Kerry’s Internet campaign, that house parties are fundamentally different than the Meetups that fueled the Dean campaign.

First, and most obviously, house parties traditionally are traditionally fund raisers. Dean Meetups were not. The house party message is clear: Have a nice chat while you take out your checkbook.

Second, campaigns generally assume more ownership of house parties than Meetups. At times, the Dean campaign provided some topic they thought the group might want to talk about. A couple of times, Dean addressed the Meetups via TV. But there’s a real difference in feeling between that and arriving at a friend’s house and being dealt the official house party “kit” materials.

Third, and most important, house parties are in private spaces. Meetups were in public spaces. A house party is put on for the attendees. The host has an obligation to make sure it goes well. But a Meetup in a bar or a restaurant is an empty space within which we are trusted to figure out what to do…what to do during the Meetup and what to do to take our country back (as Deaniacs put it). House parties are parties with guests. Meetups are meetings among citizens.

On the Richardson for President website, they’re linking to the several dozen zanby groups that have been started by Richardson supporters this last year.

Progressive Spirits, like Drinking Liberally, but not

January 20, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

I’m going to start a “Democratic Drunks” one of these days, but for now, we have enough drinking lefties in Olympia. Here is the link to DL.

WHAT is Progressive Spirits!? It’s an informal get together where people meet with like minded folks and have a beer, glass of wine and get aquainted … no program, no speeches, no announcements, no being talked at.

WHEN: Tuesday, January 23d, 5:30-7:00 pm

WHERE: Fish Bowl Brew Pub

WHO: Open to anyone who considers themselves liberal, progressive, or whatever, but Sponsored by TC Pro-Net.

WHY: Because you owe yourself a beer with friends after all those meetings you attend

Other counties and their membership

January 19, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

You’d be surprised by how many county Democratic organizations don’t post their bylaws on the internet. Though here are some examples of Washington county organizations that don’t follow the strict PCO-only rule.

Whatcom County:

Section 1: Open Membership

The Central Committee shall be open to all who support the party and wish to be known as Democrats. All members shall enjoy equal rights, protections and opportunities in all proceedings. Discrimination on the basis of sex, race, age (except where state or federal law precludes participation), religion, sexual orientation, economic status or ethnic origin is prohibited in the conduct of Central Committee business.

Section 2: Membership
The membership of the Central Committee shall consist of:

Precinct committee officers (hereinafter referred to as PCOs), elected or appointed, who are duly certified by the County Auditor in accordance with RCW 29A.80.040.

General members, who are registered voters, residents of Whatcom County and have paid their membership dues to the Central Committee.

Associate members, who are not registered to vote in Whatcom County but have paid their membership dues to the Central Committee.

Clallam County has a Democratic Club, a parallel organization that meets separately from the county central committee, which might be something to consider if this membership idea fails. Or even if it doesn’t, I don’t know.

The Grays Harbor County Democrats mix the Club idea with membership. Central Committee meetings are limited to what is actually outlined in law, and everything else is at the club level:

3.2 All citizens who wish to declare themselves Democrats are eligible, upon payment of a $5.00 annual dues, to be members of the Grays Harbor Democratic Club. Democratic Club members will be eligible to vote on all matters not restricted by law at the next GHCDCC meeting following the meeting at which their yearly fee was received.

3.3 The right to vote in all matters not specifically restricted by state law to Democratic precinct committee persons is granted to Democratic elected officials and members of the Grays Harbor Democratic Club with legal voting residence in Grays Harbor County.

Baird helps us live down our soft serve hamburger machine failure

January 18, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Our man in the 3rd, Baird on Colbert:

No more plans for “West Field” mine in Centralia

January 18, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

The silver lining of the closure of Transalta’s Centralia mine had been that they’d expected in about five years to have another mine open:

TransAlta is one of Canada’s biggest private power producers with coal, natural gas and hydroelectric plants in Canada, the United States, Mexico and Australia. The company said the Centralia mine was too expensive to maintain.

TransAlta officials have said they will seek approval for coal mining nearby at a site known as West Field, but that process could take up to five years.

According to Paul Hirsch at Environmental Law in Washington State blog, that isn’t going to happen either. As of yesterday, when the Corps of Engineers filed a notice in the federal register, Transalta is no longer working to open another mind down there.

Right wing netroots=impotent

January 16, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

This graph displays the impotence of the right wing netroots.

They don’t really exist. They talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, they don’t matter.

After the President crowned Sen. Mel Martinez as RNC “general chairman” in November, the right wing netroots exploded. Most of all, they were mad that Martinez was a pro-amnesty guy, but it also seemed like there was an impression that we’d entered an era where publically voted positions would no longer be anointed from above.

The race for chair of the Democratic National Committee is a perfect example of how the netroots can influence an election like this. This post from two years ago on MyDD is a perfect example of what was going on at the time. There is no parallel on the right wing netroots today.

By the beginning of December of 2006, though, all wind was out of their sails of the right wing bloggers who didn’t like Martinez. No umbrella organization was created, no altnerative candidate floated.

The rebellion against Martinez isn’t coming from your wired everyman (like the support for Dean in 2005), its coming from inside the RNC. An insider rebellion, even if it is succesful, will be much different than the organized opposition that came from online Democrats in 2005.

Martinez will have a fight, it will most likely be too little, too late, and it didn’t come from the netroots.

Membership compromise discussion

January 16, 2007 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

When I first starting talking about some sort of compromise in terms of a rank and file membership in Thurston County, I was hoping there would be a healthy discussion on this blog, our county Democratic blog, or somewhere else. That didn’t happen, but after we discussed the idea last week at the county executive committee, I emailed the idea out again.

Since then, there has been a more than healthy email conversation. Not as public as I would have liked, but there have been some changes in how I’d propose the compromise now. Those changes are reflected here.

The nut of the compromise is that someone can’t just show up one day, pay their $20 and be a member. They have to prove their commitment through a series of options, such as being a member of a TCD committee. One of the changes to the propose bylaw outlines who decides when someone has been active enough to become a voting member. In the current draft, it would be the Executive Committee, in a manner similar to how they approve unelected PCOs.

While most of the emails discussing the change have been supportive, not all have, including Guy Hoyle-Dodson’s from this morning:

This is asinine. Are you deliberately trying to drive away involvement by rank and file democrats? This kind of strident money grubbing, pedantic exclusiveness, and distain for keeping the county party a truly open public institution will only end in the total irrelevance of the TCD. It is just the outcome that was feared when dues were thrust upon us two years ago. Then as now, it is not well thought out.