When I was at the aforementioned CDP training in Ventura over the weekend, the attendees were asked by a show of hands how they found out about the training: friends, emails, their local club, County Committees, etc.  Lastly was…the CDP website.  And the only hand that went up was mine.  Instant political geek cred right there.

So when I checked the CDP website recently again and saw this item, it made me a little curious.  It’s innocuous enough: establishing a set of guidelines on the part of the Rules Committee for the Legislative Action and Equal Opportunity committee (henceforth (LAEO).

I asked sources (an honest blogger doesn’t reveal sources, so don’t ask) what this may be about, since it isn’t something that happens all that often regarding these committees–and I got more than I bargained for.

See it below the fold.

This is complicated, but the bottom line is that it comes down to some people being upset that the LAEO Committee was recommending an endorsement of a bill on which the CDP hadn’t officially taken a position through its platform or resolutions committees.  And who’s upset?  John Hanna of the Resolutions Committee (who, as a Calitician, is more than welcome to weigh in here).  This is from an email I have obtained that John Hanna sent to members of the Resolutions Committee:

One of the things Inola and I would do is to look out after the Resolutions Committee’s jurisdiction. We were always sensitive not to step on various other committee’s toes. So when I saw our Chair send out an email blast about the Democratic Party’s position on Afghanistan troop withdrawal, I scratched my head because I thought we had tabled our Afghanistan resolution as a Party unity measure.  I remember the Chair of the progressive Caucus asking us to do that. Turns out the Legislative Action Committee recommended endorsement of a bill  (HR 2404) that covered the issue and it was adopted by the E-Board.  Neither the Platform nor a prior resolution had addressed this issue.

…

The immediate issue that prompts my request was the Legislative Action Committee’s recommendation to the Executive Board to pass legislation that called for an exit strategy for the United States armed forces currently in Afghanistan. The Platform is silent on the Afghanistan conflict and the Resolutions Committee has tabled — at the request of the head of the progressive Caucus — a comprehensive resolution on Afghanistan. As such there was no policy for the Legislative Action Committee to evaluate legislation coming before it.

We have two public policy committees — Platform and Resolutions. Both committees have vigorous processes to vet policy proposals and rules that require a good measure of fairness and due process.  The Resolutions Committee keeps track of prior positions so as to avoid inconsistent results or duplication.  Adding another committee to make policy recommendations to the E-Board or Convention could easily result in inconsistent positions, conflict, and a tendency for some writers of resolutions that may have a legislative component to “forum shop” or even try to get to the floor from both committees, resulting in a potential of contradictory recommendations. That is what happened in this case, and I submit this will be the modus operandi in the future.

First things first, I don’t think John Hanna’s recall of the events surrounding the tabling of the resolution on Afghanistan is fitting.  I was not at the most recent Executive Board, but I am pretty well tied in to the Progressive Caucus and its goings-on, and based on everything I heard, the resolution was tabled at the behest of Progressive Caucus Chair Karen Bernal because the Resolutions Committee had done a wholesale gut-and-amend to the resolution, and Bernal did not want to create any conflict for Chairman Burton’s first Executive Board session.  Again, I wasn’t there, but that’s what I heard.

So what is John Hanna proposing?  Quite simply, to make the LAEO Committee subservient to other policy committees in the CDP:

To expedite that process, the Legislative Action Committee could develop — with the advise and consent of the Rules Committee — procedural rules that require the proponent of a legislative change to cite the particular platform section or resolution that sets forth the policy the legislation seeks to support. If there is no policy than the legislation would need to go to Platform or Resolutions for a policy write-up and possible return to the Legislative Action Committee.

This proposal to make the LAEO Committee subservient to the two policy committees stands in direct conflict with the Standing Rules that the LAEO has operated under since November of 2007, which I quote in part:

LAEO shall be guided by, but not limited to, the following when making recommendations on legislation:

1) Timeliness of the legislation.

2) Positions taken by the DNC, DNC Committees, DSCC, CDP resolutions and/or platform committees, and/or positions taken by CDP Caucuses that may conflict with or adhere to issues related to the legislative request.

3) Status of legislation in the CA State Legislature, U.S. Congress or other appropriate legislative body.

4) Impact DSCC may have on outcome of legislation.

5) Historical principles of the DNC and DSCC and communities it represents.

6) Factors that may affect potential substantive changes to legislation, such as whether legislation requires 2/3 majority to pass legislative body.

7) Constitutionality.

I can’t read John Hanna’s mind.  I don’t know if he was thinking this needed to happen a long time ago, or if the position specifically taken by the LAEO Committee on Afghanistan prompted this type of action.  But if you’re going to make LAEO entirely subservient to the Policy Committees, you may as well strip the “LA” element out of it–after all, it no longer has its own voice on which legislation it’s going to support, especially if John Hanna’s proposal that the LAEO Committee find the specific resolution or platform point that supports the bill is adopted.  In that case, you may as well form a separate Equal Opportunity Committee and make a Legislative Subcommittee that is comprised of people from Platform and Resolutions who can be the most familiar with current and former resolutions, as well as the impending Platform document to be ratified by the CDP during off-years.

Either let LAEO keep its independence and allow the full body or E-Board to vote on the recommendations, or kill it and make it officially subservient.  But don’t keep it as a supposedly independent committee and force it to play follow the leader.