Recently, the first Vice Chair and Controller of the California Democratic Party joined a California Assemblymember to call for delegates to “help us rewrite the rules and make common-sense reforms….” They have proposed to change to one rule of the California Democratic Party.

I applaud their call for reforms. I support their call for rules changes to accomplish that reform. But, though the change they propose is an important one, it is hardly enough. Here are some other ideas that would actually bring the greater accountability these reformers call for:

1. A new Statewide Strategy Committee would work with the CDP Political Director, the Vice Chairs, representatives from Democratic elected officials, and county central committees to develop a statewide strategic plan to win upcoming races. It would also target swing races based on competitive criteria, including vote history and voter demographics. The Party would perform polling in selected districts to further refine our targets.

2. The Chair and Executive Director develop the coordinated campaign plan in conjunction with Regional Directors and a new Campaign standing committee. This Committee will also work with Regional Directors to develop candidate training programs statewide. Training will include how to develop a campaign plan, a website, and a fundraising plan

3. The Voter Services Committee will be tasked with developing a tactical voter-registration and volunteer-building plan, based on the strategic plan. The committee will develop specific targets for each region in the state, with particular emphasis on swing areas targeted by the statewide strategic plan.

The committee will work with the staff Political Director and the Regional Directors to implement the plan statewide, and will make detailed quarterly reports to the Executive Board.

4.  The mission of the Organizational Development Committee will be expanded to include training and support for chartered organizations so they can more effectively participate in campaigns, with an emphasis on areas targeted by the strategic plan. This training will also be a vehicle to acquaint local organizations with the strategic plan and state Party resources, and to disseminate best practices throughout the state.

Organizational Development will also collect information about resources available and needed by local Party organizations through an annual survey that evaluates existing tools and programs. Chartered organizations and county central committees will complete this survey.

5.  A new Fundraising Committee will work with a staff Fundraising Director to develop a fundraising plan, do major donor outreach-and small donor development. The staff Finance Director will work with the committee to implement the plan, with numerical goals for each donor base. The Finance director will hire experienced staff to support development of each category of donor outreach. The committee will make quarterly reports to the Executive Board on fundraising targets and results.

6.  Regional Directors will appoint members of state party standing committees for a term of two years. Each region will be able to appoint one member to each committee. Members will then elect a Chair and two Vice Chairs for each two-year term.

7.  To encourage attendance at regional events, statewide party officers such as Vice Chairs, Secretary, and Controller will be reimbursed for mileage and hotel costs when attending events outside of their own region. Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs may also be reimbursed for attending  events  in support of one of the tasks assigned to their committee.

8.  The California Democratic Party will establish and maintain an accurate database of email addresses for all delegates, regional directors, and central committee chairs to facilitate two-way communication between them.

9.  The Party will establish a password-protected section of the website where it will post training documents, videos, and podcasts. It will also establish a section to enable various Democratic organizations and counties to share best practices. Strategic plans, coordinated campaign plans, financial reports, and other documents that facilitate statewide coordination will be posted online in this password-protected section of the Party website for easy dissemination to relevant organizations and officers.

10.  The California Democratic Party will institute a new standing committee, called the Special Technology and Campaign Infrastructure Committee. With members from the Computer and Internet Caucus, Executive Board members, the Campaign Committee, and members of the community with expertise in evaluating campaign technology-this committee will recommend effective technology tools and report these to the Vice Chairs and the Regional Directors for review and approval. The committee will also take into account feedback from the annual Organizational Development assessment results. Volunteers from the Disability Caucus will evaluate any tools and technologies for accessibility.

The Political Director of the party will be responsible for working with the Technology Committee to oversee implementation of the plan, with competitive bids from contractors. The CDP will not award any contract without a competitive bid process, and approval by the committee. Nor will any funds be disbursed until tools are deemed accessible.

The Party will implement a “search” function on the CDP website to facilitate easy access to information and tools online.

11.  The party will initiate a survey of skills and experience and establish a database of volunteers who are willing to use these in the service of candidates and issues campaigns. Volunteers will specify how many hours they are available, geographic or other limitations, and what types of activities they are willing to work on. This database will be maintained by CDP staff and available to campaigns and organizations that have been chartered or endorsed by the CDP.

12.  An addition to Section 4 of the existing bylaws, AGENDA:

c. A detailed agenda shall be available to members of the state Party in a password-protected section of the Party website at least sixty (60) days before a statewide convention or Executive Board meeting and will include agenda for caucuses and committees. Members may request additions or changes to the agenda in writing until thirty (30) days before the scheduled meeting. Changes will be submitted to the Executive Director either by mail, or by email.

It is time for all of us to look at the rules and bylaws of the California Democratic Party. We need to find ways to open up the decision-making process, to facilitate information and skills sharing, to ensure transparency and accountability, and to make this truly a state party–rather than one that is run by a Chair and Executive Director with little oversight by the rest of the Party. Delegates, Executive Board Members, Regional Directors, and other statewide officers are duly elected members of the Party who must have rights and who must assume responsibilities. As chair, this is much of the work I hope to do.

Chris Finnie, candidate for chair of the CDP

Hector De La Torre on the Democratic radio address and my blow-by-blow response:

Hello, this is Assemblymember Hector De La Torre.

HI

How would you feel if your city government seized your land for no other reason than to build a strip mall or a Wal-Mart Supercenter?

CHEATED. ABUSED. EXPLOITED. INFURIATED. SOLD OUT BY GOVERNMENT WHO’S SUPPOSED TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY RIGHTS. I THINK THAT’S ENOUGH

If you’re like most Californians, you’d be understandably upset.

NO S**T

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision known as Kelo versus New London, Connecticut.

I’M WELL AWARE

Some argued that this case greatly expanded the ability of state governments to purchase private property from one person for the private gain of another person or corporation.

IT DID GREATLY EXPAND IT. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BUT I THINK YOU LEAVING OUT LOCAL WAS UNINTENTIONAL

Many feared the Kelo decision was overly broad and would unduly endanger private property rights. To protect homes and small businesses, I authored Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, the Eminent Domain Reform Act.

IT IS OVERLY BROAD. TELL ME ABOUT ACA 8

The Eminent Domain Reform Act prohibits State or local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied home for transfer to another private party. This is unprecedented.

OKAY, BETTER THAN NOTHING AT ALL. BUT WHAT ABOUT RENTAL PROPERTIES? APARTMENTS? BUSINESSES? FARMS? CHURCHES?

TAKING AWAY THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD ISN’T AS BAD AS TAKING AWAY WHAT PAYS FOR THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD. WHY? IF THEY TAKE AWAY THE LATTER, YOU’LL LIKELY ALSO LOSE THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD

This constitutional amendment also would prohibit government from using eminent domain to acquire property where a small business is located to transfer to another private party

SOUNDS GOOD! EXCEPT THIS DEFINES SMALL BUSINESS AS <25 EMPLOYEES, WHILE CALIFORNIA LAW DEFINES SMALL BUSINESS AS <100 EMPLOYEES

unless there is a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight.

LOOPHOLE ALERT! BLIGHT, OF COURSE, BEING WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS. CITIES CAN DECLARE A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE BLIGHTED (UNDER EXTREMELY VAGUE STANDARDS IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE) AND THEN TAKE ANY PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING MALL, LUXURY HOMES, ETC… THIS LOOPHOLE COMPLETELY NULLS THE PREVIOUS POINT YOU MADE

But before eminent domain is allowed a small business owner must have the opportunity to be a part of the new development.

THE OPPORTUNITY BEING WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT WANTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT MAY WAIVE IT

If a small business does move, it will receive the fair market value of the previous location, moving expenses, expenses to reestablish the business at a new location, and compensation for the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments for up to three years.

BETTER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE NOW. HOWEVER, THIS MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT: IF THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE SOMEONE TO MOVE FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S PRIVATE GAIN.

In short, this is legislation grounded in a simple concept: the government should not have the ability to abuse its eminent domain privileges, and during the rare times when eminent domain is appropriate, business owners will be fairly compensated.

NO, THIS IS LEGISLATION GROUNDED IN PROTECTING THE STATUS QUO WHILE MAKING PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT REFORM HAS TAKEN PLACE. THIS IS WORSE THAN NOTHING.

This philosophy has guided legislative Democrats for years.

IF THERE’S ANY ISSUE WHERE I QUESTION MY ALLEGIANCE TO THE DEMOCRATS, IT’S THIS! THE LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD ME, ON THIS ISSUE, THAT THERE’S FROSTING ON MY CUPCAKE WHEN THERE ISN’T. NOW YOU’RE TRYING TO SELL ME PAPER DISGUISED AS FROSTING

Last year, the State Legislature listened to voters and passed several new laws to protect peoples’ homes.

LIKE WHAT?

We made it harder for government to proclaim an area “blighted.”

OH, YOU MEAN SB 1206? BULLS**T. AGAIN, YOU’RE TRYING TO TELL ME THE PAPER IS FROSTING. THOSE STANDARDS IN THE BILL WERE VAGUE, AND MOST WERE ALREADY CURRENT LAW. LOOK AT ALL THE TIMES IT SAYS “MAY” INSTEAD OF “MUST” AND LOOK AT ALL THE UNDEFINED TERMS.

Raising the requirements for an area to be declared blighted helps protect property owners.

AND SB 1206 DIDN’T DO THAT!

An area has to be declared blighted before a redevelopment agency can use eminent domain.

THAT WAS ALREADY THE CASE! THE PROBLEM IS THAT BLIGHT IS SO VAGUELY DEFINED THAT IT IS WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS. SB 1206 DID NEXT TO NOTHING

Raising the requirements for an area to be declared blighted helps protect property owners.

AND SB 1206 DIDN’T DO THAT

To keep the process out in the open, we increased state oversight by involving the Attorney General, the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development to protect your rights as a property owner.

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT. BUT GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD IN CLAIMING TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN YOU’RE NOT, I’M NOT GOING TO GIVE THIS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

Now that these bills have been signed into law, California has clearly taken steps to protect the rights of homeowners and other property owners.

THE ONLY BILL WITH ANY TEETH THAT CAN BE REFERRED TO HERE WAS SB 1650. SB 53, 1206, 1210, AND 1809 WEREN’T EVEN WORTH THE PAPER THEY WERE PRINTED ON

And with your support, the Eminent Domain Reform Act will take those protections even further, into the California state constitution.

NO, I’LL SUPPORT REAL EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS BILL, JUST LIKE THOSE OTHER ONES, ISN’T EVEN WORTH THE PAPER IT’S PRINTED ON. I’D RATHER HAVE NOTHING THAN THIS PIECE OF CRAP

To add, this proposal doesn’t even define “private person” which is an essential term. So this proposal would allow for the taking of property for private use if the government participated in some undefined way. The government could construct a public facility, condemn the surrounding land and give it to private developers.

Lastly, this proposal doesn’t entitle the person to attorney fees if the court rules that the government isn’t in compliance with this section. Thereby, this continues to deny many property owners a day in court