I am proud to announce that last night, the Ventura County Central Committee became the first committee nationwide to approve the FireDogLake resolution only supporting such healthcare reform as contains at least the choice of a robust public option.  Robert Cruickshank’s Central Committee in Monterey had the resolution on the agenda, but did not get to it before the scheduled adjournment.

This is part of a national effort to get Democratic clubs and central committees nationwide to adopt similar resolutions over the coming month, and forward them on to Congressmembers whose districts are geographically aligned with the county/club making the endorsement.  My brother and fellow Calitician Dante Atkins helped rewrite the language of the resolution so that it fit with California resolution rules.

If you are a member of a Democratic or progressive club–or, better yet, a member of your Central Committee–I highly encourage you to submit the same or very similar resolution to your local club/committee as well, in order to leverage maximum pressure on your representatives.

The text of the resolution adopted by the VCDCC was as follows:

WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and

WHEREAS, public polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, “keep the insurance companies honest,” while co-ops or so-called “triggers” are inadequate in and of themselves to address the health care crisis by creating significant competition for the medical insurance industry; and

WHEREAS, Republicans and their allies in the health insurance industry have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the Democratic majority and administration to reasonably discuss the issue with the American people, and have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee urges Democratic members of Congress to vote for only such healthcare reform proposals as contain at least the choice for a robust public plan at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourages Democratic legislators to use any available parliamentary means to pass such reform;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee shall send a copy of this resolution to all members of Congress who represent at least a part of the geographic region of which this Committee is the officially sanctioned body of the Democratic Party.

The resolution will be forwarded on to Elton Gallegly and to Lois Capps.  Capps has not signed the FDL pledge even though she represents a D+10 district; FDL is also placing phone pressure on 106 Democratic representatives in such districts to encourage them to sign the pledge for a public option.

Several weeks of hard work have paid off, and the California Democratic Party is poised to provide a major tool in the fight for justice and accountability for the Bush torture regime.  The Resolutions Committee included on their consent calendar the resolution to begin a Congressional inquiry into Judge Jay Bybee and other lawyers who wrote opinions justifying and providing the fig leaf of a rationale for torture, with all punishments allowable under the law, including impeachment.  

Without the release of the OLC memo from August 1, 2002, showing Bybee admitting that waterboarding gives the impression of imminent death and allowing it anyway, showing Bybee allowing the CIA to put detainees in a small box with bugs in a Room 101-style exploitation of phobias, I’m not sure this resolution would have passed.  But the release massed a groundswell of support from the grassroots.  My petition to urge the CDP to support the resolution gathered 4,827 signatures in about a week.  Courage Campaign hopped aboard as well and got 9,000 or so sigs on their petition.  Activists called the CDP offices and pushed for passage.  And the party got the message.

Resolutions can go flat if they aren’t picked up and used as a tool.  Today, when it passes the full party on the convention floor in a few hours, we can celebrate.  Tomorrow, we put this to work.  Thanks to everyone who put in the time and effort to get this done.

UPDATE: Here’s the full text of the resolution, on the flip:

CALLING FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF JUDGE JAY BYBEE AND OTHERS FOR THEIR ROLE IN ALLOWING TORTURE AS PART OF “ENHANCED INTERROGATION”

Whereas, former Assistant Attorney General, and current Federal Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Jay Bybee signed the “Bybee Memo,” or “Torture Memo” of August 1, 2002, which advised the C.I.A. that “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment was at times allowable under U.S. law, and authored, co-authored and signed other memos on “extraordinary rendition” and “enhanced interrogation,” more of which are being currently revealed to the American public as the new Administration brings them to light; and

Whereas the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, the supreme law of the land under Article VI of our Constitution, requires the prosecution of those who authorize torture, and it has been established that waterboarding is torture; and

Whereas, on January 15, 2009 before leaving office, President George W. Bush, in an effort to cover his culpability, and the culpability of others, had his Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice issue a memo stating that certain opinions issued in 2001-2003 with respect to “the allocation of authorities between President and Congress in matters of war and national security do not reflect the current view of this Office;”

Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party supports resolution of inquiry and vigorous investigation of these and related actions by the Congress of the United States, including the full use of Congressional subpoena power authority and all appropriate remedies, to disclose completely the possible criminal actions of Judge Jay Bybee and others to the American people and to take necessary and available action with appropriate remedies and punishment allowed by law; and

Be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution with its original authorization be sent to the Office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and that copies of the signed resolution be sent to each Democratic member of the California delegation to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.

The deadline for submitting resolutions to be considered at the State Party Convention is late April quickly approaches.  I’m interested in what resolutions people are hearing about — particularly at the Progressive Caucus gathering later today, which unfortunately it looks like I will have to skip.

Most critically, I’m interested in whether anyone has heard of a resolution calling for a state Constitutional convention.  Such a convention could eliminate the 2/3 “Percentage of the Beast” Rule for the state budgets, limit initiatives (say, ones that encroach on civil rights and liberties), etc.  From conversations I’ve been having, it sounds like it may be the most likely route to get rid of the supermajority requirement for budgets.  I’d like to assume that someone is drafting and submitting one — but is it happening?

If it isn’t, would anyone like to collaborate in writing one — really quickly?

(from my DailyKos diary this morning–it’s important for me to try to bring CA issues to the national spotlight.)

And by that, I refer to the California Democratic Party.

As you may know by now, the resolution authored by progressive activists to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein was not heard by the CDP Resolutions Committee.  If you read my previous diary on the subject, you’ll realize just how contentious this issue was, and that the end result was exactly as expected.

There will be a lot of complaints about the result, and understandably so.  Nevertheless, an official censure is a huge step, and the end result is no surprise, given the momentous nature of the struggle in question.

But I’d like to share another story with you that might even better exemplify just how much change and reform we still need in the California Democratic Party, as well as give you some insight into how the party machinery works.

It all starts with a news item you may or may not be familiar with: the Speaker of the California State Assembly, Democrat Fabian Nunez, came under fire last month for reports of using campaign funds to pay for lavish expenses at luxurious destinations in Europe and California:

The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a “meeting” at Cave L’Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two “office expenses” at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a “meeting” at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

You know, the type of thing that it’s really, really hard to justify using a campaign account, even if you’re Steve Maviglio from Speaker Nunez’ office (whose previous foibles I have mentioned before).

I, and many other activists, were disturbed at these reports–though admittedly, even more disturbed by Speaker Nunez’ claims to be “middle-class”:

There’s not too big a difference,” he said, “between how I live and how most middle-class people live.”

Because I can tell you, I’m racking up those $10,000 hotel bills at luxury resorts in Europe all the time!  It’s just part of the middle-class lifestyle.

Regardless, I decided submit a resolution concerning transparency for travel expenses to the Resolutions Committee for consideration at the Executive Board meeting in Anaheim this weekend.  Now, originally, I wrote my resolution specifically calling for Speaker Nunez to fully account for the legislative or fact-finding purpose behind his travel expenses.  I was assured, however, that such a targeted resolution would have no chance of passing the Resolutions Committee, so I rewrote it to be more general, especially since there have been many, many Republicans who have been guilty of the same type of thing on perhaps a much worse scale in recent years (paging Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, anyone?), and resolutions are supposed to be statements of “philosophical intent” regardless.  So here’s the text of my resolution:

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED TRAVEL EXPENSES

WHEREAS, in recent years, officeholders of both major political parties at both the federal and state levels have been accused of using campaign-paid travel expenses to enrich their personal lifestyles;

And WHEREAS, travel expenses to more exclusive locales paid for by lobbyists or other special interests create the appearance of and possibility for conflicts of interest in the legislative process, especially for officeholders with higher stature in legislative bodies;

And WHEREAS, California law requires that travel expenses for members of the State legislature have a legislative purpose;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party, in the interests of accountability, transparency and good governance, calls upon all federal and state legislators to fully disclose the legislative or fact-finding purpose behind all travel and accommodations expenses paid with campaign funds;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Party encourages all federal and state legislators to use campaign funds to pay only for travel and accommodations expenses regarding a transparent, easily understandable legislative or fact-finding purpose, and supports investigations into use of campaign funds that do not meet this criterion.

Now, to my mind, that’s just about as harmless as you can get for a resolution on this issue.  It’s bipartisan, mentions no names, and calls for the easily shared values of transparency, accountability, and good governance.

Apparently, however, the values of transparency, accountability and good governance aren’t shared by certain members of the Resolutions Committee.  Either that, or this resolution was still so dicey for the people at the highest echelons that they couldn’t even take this amount of heat.

Now, I originally got a call on Saturday from my friend Brian Leubitz, founded Calitics and who sits on the Resolutions Committee, that they wanted to insert language into the resolution concerning accountability for the fact that some of Schwarzenegger’s travel expenses were picked up by a nonprofit group.  I told Brian to assure the rest of the Resolutions Committee that I had no objection to inserting “accountability for Arnold” language into the resolution if the main thrust of my language remained unchanged.  But then later that afternoon, this was the text I got back from the Committee:

Whereas, in recent years candidates at the federal and state levels
have been accused of not fully disclosing how they raise and spend
funds and of misusing campaign funds; and

Whereas, in recent years some officeholders have paid for expenses
through the use of non-profit organizations, eliminating virtually all
disclosure of which individuals and interest groups are actually
paying for the expenses of the officeholders; and

Whereas, California and federal finance rules require that expenses
paid with campaign funds have a campaign, governmental, or political
purpose;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party, in the
interests of accountability, transparency, and good governance,
supports modifications in state and federal law that would require
non-profit organizations who pay for officeholder expenses to fully
disclose the sources and amount of funds the organization has obtained
and the purpose behind all activity paid for by the organizations in a
manner similar to that required for campaign committees; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party supports
state and federal legislative and regulatory changes to facilitate and
require that candidates and officeholders fully disclose in a
transparent manner the campaign, governmental or political purpose
behind all activity.

Notice a problem here?  Well, I certainly do: All references to travel expenses were excised from the resolution.  I called Brian to tell him that the Resolutions Committee had voided the entire point of my resolution and that I wanted to see the phrase “travel expenses” actually appear in my resolution about travel expenses.

But alas, it was not to be.  The Resolutions Committee took their new anti-Arnold resolution and moved it to the consent calendar.  Now, I wasn’t at the general session of the meeting on Sunday because of work obligations, but I could have still called one of the e-board members I know to have them pull it from the consent calendar for the purposes of amending it according to my specifications, but I decided not to bother, especially since everyone was so preoccupied with Feinstein and the amendments would have likely failed on a floor vote regardless.

The only thing it proves, though, is that when all is said and done, it’s the elected officials that control what the party does, rather than the party trying to keep the elected officials in line with party values.

And this doesn’t just manifest itself in a reticence to acquiesce to large-scale significant actions like censuring Dianne Feinstein.  The craven desire to kowtow to elected officials and not dare to acknowledge their wrongdoing is so pervasive that a resolution whose language focused primarily on a Republican can’t even be passed if it dares to mention an issue on which a prominent Democratic elected official has been lacking.

And that, my friends, is a sad situation that calls for action and reform.  Am I antagonized? Certainly.  But am I forlorn?  Not at all.  (Do I sound like Donald Rumsfeld when I ask rhetorical questions and provide the answers? Yes.  Is it fun? absolutely.)

You see, the worst possible thing we would do is give up and operate on the assumption that the system is impermeable–because it isn’t, and we’ve already made significant strides in California.  But there’s more work to be done.

And let me ask you something: do you know how your state party would act in a similar situation?  If you don’t, why not find out?

And most of all–keep fighting for good governance that’s accountable to the people.

(cross-posted from Courage Campaign)

Things took a pretty nasty turn, unfortunately.

I entered the California Democratic Party Resolutions Committee  meeting room with Eden James, Courage Campaign’s Managing Director, bearing our sign and easel.  We found a free space at the front of the room and set up the sign.

Almost immediately, Resolutions Chair John Hanna approached us, demanding that we remove the sign.  Eden politely asked if there “was a rule” against signs in the meeting rooms.  Hanna replied “yes.”

Kathy Bowler, CDP Executive Director, then calmly approached me, stating that the sign should be removed because the room was getting full and she had staff she needed to get into the room.

John then grabbed ahold of one side of the sign, attempting to remove it from Eden’s hands. Eden, maintaining his hold on to the other side, repeated the question to John about whether a rule existed against signs inside the meeting room. John said “yes”again and Eden asked to see the rule, saying that if there was an actual rule against signs inside the room — he would respect it.

Increasingly angry, John threatened to call security. Eden, surprised, calmly responded that John “should go ahead if that’s what you want to do.”

Suddenly, Hanna then shoved his side of the sign and Eden at the same time, forcibly pushing Eden backwards. Eden held on. John shoved again, then pushed Eden’s shoulder back with the palm of his hand.

Stunned, Eden let go of the sign as John ripped it from his hands and threw it to the floor. An unknown person then picked up the sign and sprinted it out of the room, taking it to the staff room (according to Kathy Bowler).

More below

This is the Last thing that we wanted to happen. And Eden is one of the most peaceful, non-aggressive people that I have ever met. It was shocking to see his calm, determined words met by violence.

The goal of bringing the sign into the room was to provide a visual representation of the large number of people, clubs and groups supporting the resolution to censure the Senator.

Our purpose in continuing to discuss moving the sign was to get a clear reason and clarification of the rules surrounding bringing in signs. If a rule was presented against posting signs, we would have respected it without question. And indeed, we would have entertained a discussion about its removal due to space issues.

We are shocked and shaken by this turn of events and so are many others. It is extremely disappointing that something as simple as trying to bring a sign into a room (that lists organizations supporting a resolution) can escalate into physical violence.

Eden and I want to commend Kathy Bowler for her professionalism throughout this incident. John Hanna’s conduct, on the other hand is shocking, upsetting, and completely inappropriate.

This resolution should be addressed on its merits. No matter what side you are on, this discussion does not deserve to be marred by physical violence.