I wanted to give everyone an opportunity to see this comment left at the bottom of my first post titled “Setting the Record Straight”.  Thank you John for coming by to clarify.  I will be the first to admit that I do not have a very nuanced understanding of the resolutions process and indeed there were some inaccuracies in my post.  Most of us are very new to this process and we are learning. 

Obviously, this is happening in a very public way, but one that will lead to greater understanding.  It seems to me that the amount of misinformation is a direct result of poor communication about the process.  Given the vast turnover within the delegate population, I think it makes sense to rethink how you communicate the process to the delegates in an ongoing manner at the convention.

My name is John Hanna & I am along with Inola Henry one of the Coordinating Co-Chairs of the Resolutions Committee.
We have been in this position for 20 years, Inola a little longer then me. If you are going to be blogging from the Convention you should get your facts straight. I feel obligated to correct a number of innacuracies in your post. First, let me deal specifically with net neutrality:

1) The Party did not “kill net neutrality” as your headline suggests. They’ve been referred to the Labor Caucus with a request that they report them back to the Resolutions Committee at the July Executive Board Hearing.

2) There were 4 net neutrality resolutions, not one.

3) All of them referenced support for specific legislation; the resolutions committee has consistently over the years referred resolutions that refer to specific legislation to the Legislative Committee. Not doing so this time was an oversight which most likely happened because we were referring it to the Labor Caucus and because we were just plain tired from spending countless hours dealing with well over 100 resolutions. But to make sure that members of the Black Helicopter Caucus don’t feel we’re trying to “deep six” net neutrality by sending it to the labor Caucus, I will make sure staff will also send it to the Legislative Committee at the Executive Board with a request they report back to us with their findings.

Fair enough.  I think actually we will have to reword the resolution so that it does not refer to any specific legislation and also talk with CWA to make sure we address their concerns.  I hopefully should have some more on that soon.

4) You suggest these resolutions should have gone to the Computer and Internet Caucus—-but one of them actually was FROM THAT CAUCUS!!! Since the four were similar it didn’t seem the obvious choice to refer it back to that caucus but, to elminate any concern about favoritism, I will also make sure that staff sends these 4 similar resolutions back to the Computer and Internet Caucus and  request that they report their findings back to the Resolutions Commiittee.

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at here.  You seem to already be admitting that all four were going to be forwarded to another caucus and at no point would have an opportunity to reach the floor.

5) With regard to your absurd claim that somehow this decision was made to cater to AT&T and we knew about their opposition: a) see above reference to Black helicopter Caucus, b) I am the one who suggested we refer this to the Labor Caucus and I had NEVER heard the AT&T had issues with net neutrality and c) I suggested this because I was aware that CWA has some concerns although they were generally supportive and thought these could get vetted out at the labor caucus. I talked to Jim Gordon about it at the Convention—he said the net neutrality folks will be happy with what the Caucus will send back to Resolutions.

Obviously, I was not privy to any conversations that you had.  I was simply laying out what seemed to be a likely course of action.  While you personally did not know about AT&Ts opposition, it is widely known to the staff and CWA people. 

Thank you for speaking with Jim Gordon.  I hope I made it clear at the end of this that I feel it is possible, even likely even, that the bloggers will be able to find a compromise with those in the Labor committee to allow it to proceed.

6) HERE’S THE KICKER— The Resolutions Committee allows proponents of timely submitted resolutions to speak to their resolution at the Committee even though they may refer it to another Committee. This is the time for proponents to argue about why it should NOT be referred. Amazingly, NONE OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE 4 RESOLUTIONS SHOWED UP TO SPEAK TO THEIR RESOLUTION. All went to the Computer Caucus. Had even one of them showed up and made a strong pitch, the recommendation that it be referred might have been changed. The Committee changed other recommendations based on proponents comments and it might have done it here.

This is the first I have ever heard of this.  Every other person has said that this year was unique in that resolutions that were referred to other caucuses had no opportunity to progress at this convention.

Now on general matters, as I mentioned I have been co-chair of this Committee for 20 years and have been a State Committee delegate since 1975, attending every state convention. Your unverified accusation that the “Party leadership” has someone poised to make a quorum call is the first time I have ever heard of such a charge. This is just another Black Helicopter Caucus fantasy. Quorum calls are made by bitter antagonists(see Mideast) or people who just plain disagree with what they think the convention is about to do. For the leadership, as you note in your post, it just causes people to get upset. I can assure you that neither Art nor myself nor Inola nor Steve nor Lisa were involved in any way with this quorum call.

The latest information that I have says that it was Mullholland who worked through Karen and Ted to make the call.  Indeed, one person in the comments overheard him doing just that and Art being upset at him.  At no point did I believe that the resolutions committee had any sort of plan.

As for the “phone calls” , Inola and I do go over all the resolutions with staff before the meetings. Art is never on these calls. Art has never asked either Inola and I to kill or table or refer a resolution. The phone calls are designed primarily to make sure the Committee works efficiently. With over 100 resolutions I can assure you that this effort is labor intensive–it takes alot of our time and we wouldnt do it if it wasn’t necessary to allow the Committee to get through everything. Inola and I have never had a complaint from Committee members that we were somehow trying to force issues down their throats. in fact, committee members feel free to reject our suggestions–deciding often to pull various resolutions from our committee consent calendar. We also will ask some of our Committee members to take on the task of trying to draft a compromise resolution. Bob Farran and Emily thurber do this quite a bit. I did this myself on the San Onofre resolution and it was my rewrite which the Convention passed, helping to avoid a bitter battle between environmentalists and the building trades.

I have made it clear that I think these calls actually make sense.  You do need to be able to get a handle on these numerous resolutions.  Obviously my sources were inaccurate with regards to Torres being on the call.  Striking a deal is what we hope to have happen with regards to the net neutrality resolution.

Next time you have some issues with the Resolutions Committee, why not try talking to Inola or myself before you post this stuff? Even main stream media call me to get my side of the story before they go to press.

Well, we aren’t exactly the press and we correct as we go along, which is what I did yesterday and what this is intended to do.  Thank you again for coming by and creating a dialogue.  We have now had both the Rules and the Resolutions Chairs leave comments and it has been very helpful.

(I have some updated information and want to make sure everyone gets a chance to see it. – promoted by juls)

And the rest of the resolutions they did not want to have heard…

I learned a lot about the process of how resolutions are dealt with at California Democratic Party Conventions this weekend.  It is not particularly democratic, which is not surprising.  The party leaders decide what has a chance of getting approved and use the process to push off to the side any other proposed resolutions. 

Take for instance the net neutrality resolution, which one would think should be heard in front of the Computer and Internet Caucus.  Instead we learned upon arriving at the convention that it has been, along with a bunch of other resolutions, referred to another caucus, thereby eliminating any potential avenue for its viability at this party meeting.  There is no process whereby you can appeal this move by collecting signatures, or any other appeals process.

So how and why did it get referred to the Labor Caucus?

Several weeks ago the Party leadership and upper level staff had a conference call lasting several hours to discuss the proposed resolutions.  They have these calls prior to every convention.  At that meeting they discuss who is on either side of the issue, what the party has at stake and decide what to do about them.  They have several choices.  The ones they want to have heard are allowed to proceed.  All others are either denied due to technicalities, or referred to other committees. 

In this case they knew that AT&T, a major party donor and sponsor of the convention, opposed the deal.  Since Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker, 1st Vice-Chair of the Party sits on the Executive Board of CWA #9400 they knew about CWA’s issues with net neutrality.  They also knew that Jim Gordon, Chair of the Labor Caucus, is also with CWA.  Thus, they could be assured that the concerns of the organization would be addressed when the resolution is heard at a later date.  In addition, one must be a member of a union and a dues paying member of the Labor Caucus to be heard at their meetings.  Those supporting net neutrality would be unlikely to have someone to carry this for them at any meeting.

The only way a net neutrality resolution will ever have a chance of being endorsed by the California Democratic Party is to have CWA on board.  The focus would have to be on how packets get treated and not deal at all with the issue of big companies like Google helping pay for building out the next generation of high speed in the country.  Otherwise the Party leaders will deny us at every turn.  Now it is possible to navigate the system and pass a net neutrality resolution, but it will take a lot of effort to make it happen.

Back to the process for a minute.  The Party leadership knows very well about the ability to do as someone did today, end the session abruptly by calling for a quorum.  In fact, they have a delegate prepared in advance to do just that if a resolution they do not want to have approved makes it through the appeals process (signature gathering) to make it to the floor.  That is not what happened today.  In fact, this was exactly what they did not want to have happen, as was evident in Chairman Torres’s reaction.  They had already set it up in a way that was favorable to them and wanted the debate that was occurring to happen.  Now they will have to deal with the fallout from a number of upset delegates.

This was an eye opening experience for me and a lot of bloggers.  We learned a lot about how the process works.  If we do ever work to support a resolution we must be prepared to compromise and work with the leadership, while still pressuring from the outside with grassroots support like the impeachment resolution folks did.  Bloggers are very good about working strategically.  This is one case where we would have to do just that.

[UPDATE] I just heard that part of what I wrote was inaccurate, with regards to Torres and a plan to have someone call for a quorum.  It could have been senior staff from elected federal/state Democratic leaders who had that plan in place.  It was related to two specific issues, neither of them having to do with Iraq or any of the war-related issues.  Now, that’s not to say that the Party couldn’t have that as a plan, given the fact that a number of the staffers are there as delegates.

 
Inola Henry told everyone who was listening at Resolutions on Friday and Saturday that the committee has calls before the convention where resolutions were discussed.  That of course makes lots of sense.  The information I have about the phone call between Torres and upper level staff was related to me as likely standard practice each year.  The specifics about the net neutrality resolution lays out a likely path, not an absolute one.  I know that the call probably occurred, but do not have knowledge about what exactly was discussed.

As you can tell, I am having a hard time getting a straight answer on this.  If what I have up is inaccurate in any way I would be more than happy to issue a correction.  To the best of my knowledge this is what I believe occurred.  To confirm the phone call would require a direct confirmation from a Party staffer.  That I do not have.