( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
NOTE: I am reposting this from a long comment I just made in a diary posted by Julia Rosen about the incident at the Resolutions Committee meeting last night. I am reposting it here as a diary so that John’s response can potentially be read by a larger audience.
Thank you to everyone who posted supportive comments in the aftermath of the sign incident with John Hanna.
Since I told you earlier that I was planning to talk with John, I can now tell you what happened.
In the interim period, many people talked to me about how to respond, some going so far as to suggest that I call the police to file a report.
Something about that didn’t feel right. In my gut, I knew that what happened clearly crossed the line (to be kind) but that I needed to talk to John before taking any kind of action. I did not know John but I felt I needed to give him a chance to explain himself.
He did, both publicly and privately. I wasn’t in the room when the meeting adjourned, but from what Julia told me, John offered a very sincere apology to the Resolutions Committee and others present for his behavior.
Brian (Leubitz), who is on the Resolutions Committee, privately asked John to meet with me. Juls called me and I came over to the meeting room shortly thereafer.
More below the fold…
John approached me and immediately and thoughtfully apologized for his behavior. He was quite forthright and direct. I sensed that his regret was coming from a very sincere place.
We talked for a good 45 minutes with him, Brian, Juls and a two of John’s colleagues. It was actually one of the most edifying and intellectually stimulating conversations I’ve had in Anaheim.
While consistently acknowledging that what he had done was wrong, John then went on to talk about what led up to this altercation and how it might have been avoided. For example, he respectfully suggested that we should have approached the co-chairs of the meeting before positioning our sign in the room.
It’s a fair point. I am mindful that we could have made a more formal request to place the sign and easel inside the room. Crunched for time, we failed to follow the expected protocol. If I had to do it over again, I/we would have followed it. I’m not sure what the outcome would have been, but at least it would have started the conversation on a more collegial level, perhaps leading to an amicable solution for everyone.
I don’t know John that well, but I got the impression from our conversation that he is a very thoughtful, very judicious and presumably fair individual who overreacted to a high-stress moment with an uncharacteristic physical response.
I accept his apology.
Hopefully, this unfortunate incident can be a potential bridge-building opportunity with the Resolutions Committee members. To that end, I have invited John Hanna to reach out to the grassroots and netroots and engage our communities in a dialogue about the resolutions process.
In the end, as many of you know now, the censure resolution itself was not officially heard by the Resolutions Committee. A number of members objected to it being considered, due to its submission as a late resolution, per party rules.
You can read more about the Resolutions Committee outcome in a piece Rick Jacobs posted at the Courage Campaign.
Thanks again for your support, everyone.
Onward.
Eden James
Managing Director
Courage Campaign
