Can Bush Do Whatever He Wants? Jane Harman Doesn’t Know

As today’s article in the LA Times “Bush insists Congress can’t halt Iraq buildup”demonstrates, Bush is not going to sit on his hands while Congress considers whether it’s going to do anything to prevent him from escalating the Iraq occupation without its authority.  The strategy is pretty clear that they are getting the troops in place in Iraq without approval and then will dare Congress to de-fund real live troops who are “on the ground”.  They may even drop the bogus claim that Congress hasn’t the authority to stop the president because they won’t need it anymore.

They’re just aiming to achieve a fait accompli to make it an “anti-troops” decision not to fund the escalation.

Time is of the essence to head the administration off at the pass.  No time to waste.

Enter Jane Harman —

— this is from her interview with Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday last week (Jan 10).  (I’ve transcribed it myself).

Mitchell:  What’s the point of a symbolic vote against [the increase of the troops in Iraq] – either you are going to cut off money for the troops or  – shouldn’t you just go along with what the President wants?

Harman:  Well, um, you know, I think there are constitutional issues about what he can do in his capacity as Commander in Chief, but we write the checks and it is high time for Congress to do the oversight necessary to do the oversight necessary and have the materials to do the oversight necessary and I believe we are going to do that.  One of the ideas I’ve been floating is to put all the additional war costs on budget – no more supplemental spending […] this is no longer an emergency under the definition of an emergency.

OK, that wasn’t exactly an answer to the question put to her.  If she’s going to have any impact, she’s got to cut off the funding – is she willing to do that, Mitchell asks.  In her answer, she raises the issue of Bush’s constitutional powers as commander in chief.  That is not a good sign!  As she should have known, it is well within the powers of the Congress to prevent funding from going for an increase of troops – and there’s multiple precedents of past Congresses doing exactly that.

Mitchell tried again —

Mitchell:  Congresswoman, you’ve talked about more oversight, but Joe Biden said on Meet the Press that constitutionally, Congress doesn’t have the power to do what Ted Kennedy and Ed Markey and others are suggesting – cutting off the funds.  Do you agree with that or not?

Harman: Well, I think we have to look at that.  Uh, I think there are constitutional issues.  He is the Commander in Chief.  Ah, Congress did vote for a resolution to authorize the action in Iraq. I supported it at the time based on what turned out to be wrong intelligence, and I was wrong.  But there have to be levers now, four years into this, to gain – to regain – Congress’ traction as an independent branch of government and I believe we will find out what these levers are.

An ignorant or disingenuous Democrat asserts the fallacy that Bush has the right to make war however he wants and Congress must fund it, something that is pretty clearly wrong, and Jane Harman – definitely not a newbie to Congress – has no idea that that’s false!?  And she has no clue what “levers of traction” Congress has to check the president’s power?  With a president who’s been asserting unchecked power going on five plus years, it’s pretty pathetic she’s only now getting around to figuring out what power congress has to check his power.

Pretty soon, Bush will get what he wants because he’ll “change the reality” while unprepared and unsure congressmen and women like Jane Harman dither, and by that time the threat of anti-troop/anti-American demagoguery will make it all but certain congress won’t act – even if, by that time, they’ve realized they do have the authority to deny Bush’s escalation.

(crossposted from my blog that mostly covers Jane Harman, From the Fever Swamp)

Grassroots Victory in the 16th Assembly District

(More AD success. danwood also blogs at A Progressive Alamedan. Edited to move some text below the jump – promoted by jsw)

Yesterday we had our elections for delegates to represent the 16th Assembly District (Alameda, Piedmont, and most of Oakland) for the Democratic Party.  We had  265 votes cast, which was phenomenal turnout.

The winners:

Women: Michelle Gabriel, Suzy Goldmacher, Linda Joseph, Tara Marchant, Rachel Richman, Veronica J. Williams

Men: Mark Briggs, Arnold G. Fong, Jason Gohlke, Wayne Nishioka, Anand Singh, Dan Wood.

Mark Briggs was elected as the Executive Board representative.

It was a clean sweep for the candidates who had organized together as a progressive slate.  I think this was due to some intense outreach on our part to our friends and neighbors, and the fact that we had the backing of East Bay For Democracy and the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, who apparently contacted all of their members with our information.  It also didn’t hurt that 2/3rds of our slate was endorsed by assemblymember Sandré Swanson and 100% of it was endorsed by former assemblymember Wilma Chan.  We worked really hard to put together a group of people that is active, passionate, and diverse in many ways, and I think our district will be well-represented.

I was very pleased to win and see the fine folks I was running with all win.  Actually it was kind of surreal that we all won, because there were many other great, progressive candidates running as well, and I wished that somehow there was some way for them to win as well!  We are all on the same side here, regardless of slight differences in approaches to things.  Choosing among candidates who are so like-minded is difficult.  Fortunately – I hope – those who didn’t make it as delegates will continue their great work.  Actually, there are possibilities for some of them to become delegates in spite of the election results; elected officials like Sandré Swanson can appoint up to five delegates themselves.  He has a great selection to choose from.

The election process was a bit strange, though I guess it went smoothly as could be expected.  I had heard about a few logistical problems that had happened around the state in Saturday’s elections, and I made a point to warn our convener and the many volunteers about them, just to be on the safe side.  Most ballots were cast by people showing up, filling out their ballot, and then leaving, so when it came time for the candidates to give their one-minute speeches, it wasn’t in front of a particularly big audience.  I think that next time, it would be better to have a particular scheduled time for the event to start, then a time for the speeches to start, and then after the speeches are over, a period of time for the ballots to be cast.  That way, people could do a quick drop-off of their ballots if needed during  certain time period, but at least the candidates would be likely to have a more substantial audience.  Keeping the ballot boxes open for a bit of time after the speeches would allow for latecomers, allow candidates and citizens to talk and discuss after the speeches but before the votes, and possibly give people a chance to pick and choose candidates better, based on what they heard.

In any case, I’m jazzed for this April’s convention in San Diego.  I really appreciate everybody who took time out of their busy day to come out in the cold for this.

(Cross-posted and slightly updated from A Progressive Alamedan)

A “Far-Left” Manifesto for Yolo County

(Surf Putah, which you will find in the California friends of our blogroll, is a great site for Yolo Cty. politics. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Well, I’ve made the cut, having been linked in the “Yolo Blogs” category over at Republican Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad’s new website (which looks quite nice, really). Along with the link (a good web resource for Yolo County in its own right), Rexroad gave this site this little introduction:

If you want to know what the people at the far end of the spectrum in Davis are doing….surf Putah.  I really can’t explain this stuff. Generally, if you find an opinion expressed here Matt Rexroad will be on the other side.

Since I’ve been identified as the far end of the spectrum, I figure that it’s as good a time as any to lay out what us inexplicable far-out Davisites are thinking about Yolo County. Ironically enough, I find myself to the center, or at least in a slightly different direction, from many self-defined “progressives” here in Davis, especially on the issue of development, the axis which city politics seems, rightly or wrongly, to revolve around. Mostly, though, I find that the perpetual battle over political labels to be a fairly useless one, since it assumes a coherent binary political debate, when in fact things tend to be far more complex in real life. I believe that governments ought to balance their budgets responsibly, instead of borrowing and spending with bond measures; am I a conservative? I believe that people generally ought to mind their own business, and that government and religious beliefs are best kept separate where neither can mess the other up; am I a liberal? I believe that all people are created equal, and ought to be treated as such; am I a progressive?

So for the benefit of both Rexroad and those who might follow his link to my site I’ll toss out where this inexplicable far-left blogger would like to see Yolo County headed:

1. Making it possible for Yolo farmers and ranchers to make a decent living, so that they can grow crops instead of subdivisions. The reasons why it is getting harder and harder for small farmers and ranchers to get by are complex, and the roots of the problem more often than not lie well outside of Yolo County. And yet, preserving a healthy and locally-rooted agricultural industry is something that should be central to any vision of a future Yolo County. Protecting farmland from development by easements, or buyouts is one way to help curb development pressure on productive ag land, but it is perhaps more important to ease the market pressures of falling agricultural commodity prices and rising fuel and other operating costs. Encouraging fuel-intensive or alternate fuel usage, aided by ag research over at UC Davis, might help to insulate Yolo agriculture from rising gas prices. Requiring school lunches to preference local farmers and ranchers might help to provide more demand for those products. Teaching gardening in elementary school, as they do at Fairfield Elementary school out in the county, might help to diminish the urban-rural split as well, and give our kids more appreciation for the folks who grow their food.Encouraging new agricultural industries in the county to replace the loss of all those closed tomato canneries in the past decade would help too.

Ultimately, reversing the decades-long national policy of free trade deals that flood domestic markets with foreign imports, and national policies that encourage overproduction are the real key to saving the family farm. Food is one thing, like military technology, that is a bad idea to rely on foreign imports for. We shouldn’t be flying walnuts in all the way from China when we can grow them out perfectly well in Winters.

2. Keeping development off the floodplain, and strengthening the flood control measures where we have already built close to rivers. The Yolo Bypass is a sound approach to the long-term pressures of river systems and seasonal flooding, and Yolo County has been smarter than many counties in this regard. Woodland desperately needs some way of guarding against winter flooding on Cache Creek, and hopefully some hydraulically sound solution will be found in the next couple of years, whether it be stronger levees or some bypass channel upstream of town. While the pressure for more housing is and will continue to be acute because of population growth (more on that below), we need to be steadfast about avoiding Natomas-style floodplain sprawl, because the moment any houses are built there we will collectively be liable for paying for their protection, indefinitely. In places such as West Sacramento, where flooding will always be a problem, we need to make sure that their levees are hardened to withstand severe flooding.

3. Providing adequate housing so that the children of Yolo residents can afford to actually live in their hometowns. This is one area where I part ways with many Davis progressives, in that I do not believe that a no growth or even slow growth model is either smart or just. When a town limits its housing stock like Davis has done, it might preserve the population size of ther town, but the nature of the community cannot but change with the skyrocketing housing prices. As long as people continue to have children, as long as the university increases its student and professorial population (which it will, since it is tied to state demographic growth), and as long as people want to move into this county of ours, we are going to have to have reasonable housing options. Yolo County has both one of the higher rates of growth in the state as well as one of the higher birthrates. All those people are going to have to find somewhere to live.

My sense is that we’d be better off encouraging the cities of Yolo county to start urbanizing in their downtown cores, close to the highways and train stations, to at bare minimum a level of density that our cities reached at the turn of the 19th century (the tallest buildings in most Yolo towns are perversely often the oldest ones). Build up a couple stories, get some people in those downtowns, and then get the downtowns built up along walkable, new urbanist lines, so that people don’t have to drive everywhere just to go about everyday life. This will allow more housing to be efficiently defended by floodwalls where floods threaten, and it should make room for many Yoloites who are currently priced out of even renting here anymore, let alone own houses. Additionally, when suburban housing is built, aim for smaller lots and smaller two story houses the way you used to see in the 20s and 30s, instead of the spread-out ranch tract housing that uses land as if it’s still cheap. Land is expensive, and denser housing makes better and more economical use of that land. And enough already with the huge luxury mcmansion developments for out of towners.

4. Support more small businesses to fulfill city needs, avoid big box megastores. As I wrote during the Measure K debate last November, there is a need for more and better retail in Yolo County, especially here in luxury boutique-saturated downtown Davis, but that we ought to be encouraging small and locally owned businesses to fulfill those needs rather than inviting big box retailers in to suck up the whole market, and siphon that revenue out of the county to some out of state corporate headquarters. Far too often it is posed as a false choice between the status quo and big box megastores, when in fact a third way is possible. One of the problems is that commercial rent is far too high in Davis, but as best as can be done, the city governments and county government should work to ease whatever barriers to starting businesses exist for small local businesses.

5. While this might be seen by some as working at cross-purposes to #4, we really need a living wage for the county, to say nothing of the über-expensive city of Davis as well. People who work in town ought to be able to afford to live in the same communities, or failing that, in the county. While the statewide minimum wage hike of $7.50 goes partway, a hike to a living wage of $10 or higher would help a great deal, and lessen the class segregation that we get when rents get so rediculously high. Living wage ordinances in other towns have shown that they don’t destroy the local economy as predicted, and that the recipients of those wages tend to plough most of that money back into the local economy, creating a virtuous economic cycle. Finally, a living wage is simply the right thing to do, since anybody who works hard every day at a job, any job, deserves the dignity of being able to make ends meet.

6. Along with this, since the National and State governments seem incapable of getting universal health insurance passed, we need to find some way of at least covering children, from prenatal through delivery and child medical care. A significant number of the working poor in Yolo County either are children or have children, and helping to cover the often exorbitant costs of child healthcare would not only go a long way towards lessening that burden on those families (in effect, a net wage raise), it would also help to guarantee that those children got adequate health care, immunizations and so on. This in turn helps to limit problems for the county down the road dealing with epidemics and overtaxed emergency rooms. Disease does not recognize any difference between rich or poor, insured or uninsured, citizen or immigrant; we’ve all seen how quickly a cold or flu can move through an elementary school or a daycare.

Anyone who claims to be in favor of family values ought to be willing to help make sure that people don’t get bankrupted by the costs of giving birth, let alone raising a kid. It is in our best interest personally as well as as a societally to make sure that these kids are covered, at least until the state and federal government get their acts together and get something funded. Since Yolo is a fairly poor county government-wise, this will have to be a fairly bare bones plan without accompanying state funding, not unlike any serious levee solutions. Assemblywoman Wolk, we’re counting on you to help talk some sense into the Governor.

7. More state parks. We have in this county both beautiful hiking up in the hills to the west of us, as well as a beautiful river to the east. Why there aren’t more state parks or recreational infrastructure helping people to get to them is beyond me.

8. The reestablishment of the old interurban train network in the Central Valley. The Capitol Corridor has been a great success since its inception a decade ago, but relatively little work has been done to apply the same logic to the Valley itself, and try and link the cities and towns of the Sacramento Valley together like they once were abnout a century ago, before the rise of auto-fueled sprawl. The old train lines are still there, connecting most cities up and down the valley to Sacramento, and yet they sit virtually unused for commuter traffic. Fixing them up a bit and running basic commuter lines on them would help to take traffic pressure off the highway system, and help us to accomodate what population growth the region will see in the decades to come. It also uses a lot more fuel, which brings us to the next point:

9. Countywide efforts at conservation and alternative energy. As our populations grow, and global warming gives us hotter, dryer summers, we will see increased stresses on our water and electric usage. As peak oil runs hard into increasing global demands for fuel, gasoline and natural gas are going to persistantly rise in price, hurting commuters, farmers and businesses alike. We should be getting ahead of the curve by working to lower our communities’ water and energy footprints, and thus our exposure to price increases and shortages. Having UCD’s stellar environmental engineering research at the ready is a huge advantage; let’s take advantage of it.

10. A justice system that treats all Yolo residents as equal members of their communities, that serves and protects Black and Latino citizens as well as White citizens. Doug Paul Davis over at the Davis Vanguard has done such great reporting on this issue that I won’t try to duplicate it, but rest assured our police forces and justice system need serious revamping on the issues of racial profiling and how we combat crime in general. While gang violence is real, criminalizing an entire neighborhood, as was done in West Sacramento, seems to me to violate the rights of the very citizens that our justice system is ostensibly supposed to protect. Likewise, while out of towners commit crimes in town, treating huge swathes of our community as perpetual suspects does real and lasting harm to the community as a whole. We can do better.

—–

So there you have it, one Yoloite’s “far-left” take on things. While I expect that Matt and I disagree on several of these issues, i’m not sure that he and I are diametrically opposed on all of them. Statewide and nationally, however, I suspect that our political differences are clearer and less common ground possible to reach. I leave the question of whether the above opinions are way off the end of the spectrum up to the reader.

(originally posted at surf putah

I’m now a delegate!

(Remember dday! – promoted by blogswarm)

[Cross-Kosted]

Ok, so I know this has been leaked, but I figure it’s time to put up a diary on this: I am now a delegate from my Assembly District to the California Democratic Party!!  I’m pleased that so many of us, including dday and Rebelatheart, have also won–any other victorious bloggers, please feel free to chime in!

I’m sorry that I’m so late in posting this diary, but the official results were only tallied at around 8:00PST, for reasons I’ll explain below, and I was involved in supervising one of the necessary recounts.

Thank you so much to everyone that voted and helped spread the word–you were all phenomenal, and without you, I don’t think I would have won.  The margin wasn’t very large.

dday was there and took video, and the embed is below the fold.

First of all, the results:

We had a very large turnout for the election, with 214 ballots cast.  This dwarfs turnout for previous years in our Assembly District, and is a testament to how many more people are getting active in the party.  I received votes on 97 of those 214 ballots, for a total of 3rd place among the 24 male candidates.

If you read dday’s diary on his victory, you know that there are two competing slates.  Both dday and I were campaigning on the Progressive Slate, and like in his district, my slate swept, with all six men and all five women running on our slate taking delegate positions–though it was far closer in the 42nd than it was in the 41st.

Before I begin and describe the proceedings, I need to give a personal round of thanks to dday.  He got me involved and interested in running in the first place, and he also recommended that I join the progressive slate, rather than campaign on my own–in which case I would have had no chance whatsoever.  I’m looking forward to working with him and all my fellow victorious bloggers.

The meeting itself was kind of a madhouse–most of the people showed up early, voted and left, which they were completely entitled to do by CDP bylaws.  So even though we all went up and gave speeches before however many people cared enough to either stay and listen–or to actually allow their votes to be influenced by candidate statements–the vast majority of the ballots had already been cast by the time I went up to speak.  Here’s the video of my speech:

As you can see, I rushed it a little bit because I kind of bit off more than I could chew in the 1-minute timeframe that I had.  And yes, that orange shirt is an intentional reference to DailyKos and the community here that came out to support me!

There was a little feuding between our slate, and the members of the opposing slate–many of whom are fine progressives with whom I have absolutely no issues whatsoever, so it’s a little disappointing that we all had to run against each other.  But for the most part, everything was civil–with the exception of a little spat about the Executive Board election.  I won’t get into the details of that, but suffice it to say that one of the members of our slate was running for Executive Board in the 42nd, and most of the opposing slate supported the incumbent, and that’s where most of the division was.

The Presiding Officer of the meeting was John Heaner, the local party official from our Assembly District–if you watch the YouTube video of my speech, John is on the right in the suit with the red tie.  The Presiding Officer is in charge of running the meeting, timing candidate speeches, and supervising the vote count.  John did an admirable job in each of these respects, despite a fair amount of drama.

Our meeting officially began at 2, though balloting ended early, and the speeches began at 3.  After that, any remaining ballots were collected and the counting procedure began.  But there was a major complication–and one of the things I intend to do as a delegate is push for reform of these election procedures.  A minor issue, but an important one for the Democratic process.

You see, in addition to being able to cast ballots for delegates before the speeches and proceedings have begun, voters can also cast ballots for the Executive Board position before the proceedings.  The problem is that anyone who wins election as a delegate is eligible to nominate themselves for e-board.  But because voting on e-board is allowed before the delegate candidates have been certified, the appointed delegates running for e-board have an unfair advantage over the candidates that can only nominate themselves after they win their election.  I even received a couple of votes for e-board, though they were invalid because I didn’t nominate myself for the position.  So one of the things I intend to do is change the CDP bylaws to only allow votes to be cast for Executive Board once all nominations have been closed.

So anyways.  As dday wrote in his diary, CDP bylaws require that all ballots be counted twice.  Needless to say, this takes an awfully long time.  It was already 5:40 by the time the first count was announced and nominations for e-board could be accepted, and we had to be out of the meeting room by 6!  So John Heaner drafted two more counting teams for the delegate ballots, and quickly rushed through the e-board speech and nomination process, and the 20 or so die-hards that wanted to see the process through to the end walked a few blocks to a nearby Coffee Bean to finish our Party business!

At the Coffee Bean, I was selected by John to help oversee the counting of ballots for the Executive Board candidates, while others were chosen to help complete the second count of all the 214 delegate ballots.  While the vote for the Executive Board went without a hitch (Susie Shannon won), and the second count there was a mere formality for certification, the second count of the delegate ballots produced a completely different story!

You see, the male delegate who got the sixth most votes––Ricco Ross, a member of our slate–only got two more votes in the first count than the two candidates who were tied for seventh.  But the second count showed him trailing by eight!  So John, I and several others conducted a recount of the ballots of the three candidates in question.  The hand recount, affirmed as valid by all the participants in true Roberts Rules of Order fashion, affirmed that Ricco won by two votes–but with different vote totals than the first recount showed.

That concluded the final piece of business that John had to do to certify our election as delegate, and at around 8:05pm tonight, I officially became a delegate to the Democratic Party from my district!  And then I went home and wrote this diary 🙂

Spocko vs. KSFO: Now in the NYT

Well, Spocko has gone bigtime.  Now, he’s featured in the New York Times.  Yup, the Gray Lady has taken an interest in the 5th tier blogger’s fight with KSFO.

A San Francisco talk radio station pre-empted three hours of programming on Friday in response to a campaign by bloggers who have recorded extreme comments by several hosts and passed on digital copies to advertisers.
The lead blogger, who uses the name Spocko, said that he and other bloggers had contacted more than 30 advertisers on KSFO-AM to inform them of comments made on the air and to ask them to pull their ads.(NYT 1/15/07)

More over the flip…

Let’s just say the Gray Lady gave KSFO something to feel gray about.  Rogers and Morgan come off looking like ignorant blowhards (pretty accurate there) fighting desperately for their jobs.  All in all, fairly accurate.  Mike Stark, of Calling All Wingnuts, also made an appearance:

Most of the callers were sympathetic during Friday’s broadcast, but one blogger who has supported Spocko’s cause, Mike Stark, was encouraged to call in. The extended dialogue perhaps can best be summarized by one exchange.

Mr. Stark: “You’ve spoken of the number of apologies you have tried to make. How many apologies does a professional get before they realize they are an incompetent and move on to another line of work?”

KSFO’s Lee Rodgers: “Well I haven’t apologized for anything and I am not going to start with you. How the hell do you like that, creep?”

Yup that Lee Rogers is quite professional and classy.  At some point you wonder when ABC is going to grow tired of the idiocy emerging from KSFO and just change formats.  Is it really worth the bad press for them?

Tight Battle in 42nd

(Nice results – promoted by blogswarm)

I was the convenor for the 42nd Assembly District.  Check in actually went very smoothly and ballot counts matched up.  Assemblyman Mike Feuer spoke and answered questions before the crowd of 214 voters, 100 more than in 2005.

The Progressive Slate won 11 of 12 seats, but don’t let those results fool you. 

But while high profile and positive message candidates such as our own Dante Atkins (Hekebolos) and Brad Parker won handily, the difference between the bottom two of the Progressive Slate and the Progressive Action Coalition was less than 10 votes.
More in the extended…

If 10 more people had voted for the Progresive Action Coalition candidates, there would be two different men and two different women delegates.

I even lost my E-Board race by a mere 11 votes.

I have to respect the Progressive Slate in the 42nd for organizing well and they deserve props for that.  Brad Parker, Dante Atkins, Ricco Ross and many others were very positive in their message and vision and I hope we get to see more of them in the future.

The energy is coming from the Netroots these days and it showed as turnout between Dem Clubs and Netroots were nearly even (I hope I get to see each of these people in a campaign office in ’08).

Far more dissapointing were the personal attacks and distortions by certain members of the Progressive Slate.  Several of the other members of the Progressive Slate voiced their personal distaste for the attacks.

It got so bad that I had to take a point of Personal Privilege to respond to some very baseless accusations about my personal character.

My position on Prop. 89 was also distorted, but then again, it shows that they are learning how politics really works.

So what’s next for the winners?  I can only hope that their activism will match the incredible enthusiasm these people have.

In 2006 we did not see many of them in our local campaign offices, and that is where they need to be if they really want to make a change.  The Party does not make policy, the candidates do, and as activists we need to do more get out and take the time to help those candidates that believe as we do.

I’m appointed to Central Committee so I will very much look forward to working with each of them in the future.

It was a great race and alot of fun to put together.

Leno Slate Sweeps AD-13

(Leno was rolling 20 deep with his team whipping votes and won big – promoted by blogswarm)

Today, over 400 people voted in the Delegate Election in Assembly District 13.  Mark Leno’s slate swept.  THe full slate is over the flip.

Female:
London Breed
Kamala D. Harris
Jennifer Longley
Hydra Mendoza
Eva Royale
Leah Shahum

Male:
Jeffrey C. Anderson
Alec Bash
Daniel Enrique Bernal
David S. Chiu
T. Toye Moses
Michael Sweet,

E. Board Rep: David S. Chiu

73rd ADEM

Here are the election results for the 73rd ADEM:

Nonie Fickling
Judy Jones
Francesca Kelly
Marsha McCauley
Mary Panish
Denise Penn

Patrick Burkett
Brian Boyle
Phil Hanneman (elected to e-board)
Jim Kempton
Jake SanGiorgio
Mike Stone

We had 26 people on the original ballot, but 5 people withdrew, leaving only 21: 9 women and 12 men. Several people listed on the ballot didn’t come to the meeting and most didn’t even provide a statement to be read. Only 6 female candidates did attend the meeting, and all were elected. Ten male candidates attended but of course 4 were not elected. Three central committee members in attendance offered to make 3 of the unelected men their central committee alternates. The other man was not interested in being a central committee alternate.

Forty-four people cast ballots. At least 3 people showed up too late to be credentialled, but I don’t think it would have affected the outcome if they had come earlier.

Two years ago only 13 people ran for the 12 seats in our AD, and fewer than 20 people cast ballots. To have doubled the candidates and voters in that time is great progress, I think!

Several of those elected are just becoming involved in the Party. I’m looking forward to their participation!