Tag Archives: John Perez

Speaker Election This Week

While John Perez allegedly has 29 votes for the speakership within the Democratic caucus, there has been no official vote of either the Democratic caucus or the Assembly as a whole.  That’s going to change this week:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, is planning to hold a vote to elect her replacement on the Assembly floor this week. The two front-runners for the job – Assemblyman John Perez, D-Los Angeles, and Kevin DeLeon, D-Los Angeles — spoke for about 20 minutes this weekend, and were set to meet again today to discuss the race.

The vote would likely be a voice vote, and could come Wednesday or Thursday, as the house reconvenes to discuss education policy. (Capitol Weekly)

The two leading candidates had a conversation over the weekend, and Mayor Villaraigosa is trying to keep the peace amongst the warring LA factions over this race.  The troubling thing is that nobody really knows how this is going to play out.

Also of note, it looks like Jared Huffman of Marin is quite close to Perez, as the CW article relies on Huffman for the Perez perspective.  I don’t know if that means anything, but perhaps Huffman would have a more visible role in a Perez speakership.

Forget 41

You might have noticed that we’ve been talking about this whole Speaker’s race thing. First there were like 4 potential candidates, then two, Felipe Fuentes and Kevin De Leon, and then 3, with the addition of John A. Perez.  And then, Speaker Bass announced that she would be the 29th vote for a future Speaker Perez.

Yet things can never be that easy. This is California, and these are Democrats.

First there was the poll about Gil Cedillo challenging Perez for the assembly district. And then, over the last three days or so, there’s been a discussion of the number 41. Because for some reason, the fact that Speaker Bass is #29, that a consensus in the Caucus has been reached, that’s all now insufficient.  41 has been popping up in whispers around the Capitol, in random hints in quotes in newspapers and on the web.

41 is a powerful number. It’s the number that seperates Democrats from ceding power to the Republicans in the Assembly. It’s the number that allows progressives to maintain whatever semblance of power. It’s the number that keeps vows from being made to Republicans that Democrats will have to maintain.

It’s the number that represents the line that Democrats haven’t crossed.  Sure, it’s been flirted with, and Willie Brown crossed it in the 90s to take the Speakership from the Republicans.

There is only one way that the number 41 becomes relevant, if we let this become bigger than it should. If we let personal ambition and personal grievances become larger than what is best for the caucus. And more importantly, if we let what’s best for the state take a back seat.

Democrats are the Assembly Majority. The Assembly Majority Caucus chooses the Speaker.  The same as it ever was, the same as it should be. The Member who has the majority of the Majority becomes the Speaker. Forget 41. 26 is the number that matters.

I’m just going to come out and say it

Because I believe that John Perez’ sexual orientation is playing a role in the ongoing fight over who becomes the next Speaker of the Assembly here in California between the aforementioned Perez and Kevin De Leon.  As I’m sure we’re all aware, the election of John Perez to the post would make him California’s first ever openly gay Speaker.  And based on the words coming out of Karen Bass’ mouth, it sounds like it should be a done deal, given the fact that the choice of the majority caucus is usually confirmed without issue and Perez supposedly is the choice of the Democratic majority:

Bass said she had not spoken to de León about her decision to endorse Pérez. She said she wanted to be “very respectful and give him some space.”

“At the end of the day, democracy prevails,” she said, contending that she was the 29th vote in favor of Pérez, which is more than the traditional 26 votes needed to push a nomination forward.

So, why is there still an issue?  Because Asm. Kevin De Leon is still fighting, despite a lackluster showing from the Latino Caucus of the Democratic majority, which endorsed him in underwhelming fashion:

On Wednesday morning, de León met with a group of supporters within the Assembly’s 17-member Latino caucus at the Sheraton Hotel.

Ten members of the caucus attended the meeting, with seven present pledging their support for de León as speaker. Pérez is also a member of the Latino caucus, but he was not present.

Color me unimpressed, of course, when you claim an endorsement with less than 44% of the vote among voters who aren’t your opponent.  So all in all, it would seem that De Leon’s position isn’t all that strong.  But now I’d like you to consider the words of another De Leon supporter: Assemblymember and current candidate for Attorney General Pedro Nava:

“I do think that’s what really matters and what people should focus on was the number of votes for speaker is not 27 or 29, it’s 41,” said de León supporter Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara.

“I think that we have a large number of very independent-thinking people who are not going to be stampeded into making a decision,” Nava said.

Remember what I said about the choice of the majority party usually getting confirmed as Speaker without much hassle.  Well, 41 is, of course, the number of votes required to win confirmation as Speaker by full vote of the Assembly.  What Asm. Nava’s words quite clearly suggest is that De Leon’s supporters are contemplating going outside the Democratic Caucus to secure some Republican votes in order to defeat Perez, who would be the choice of the majority of Democrats.  If that’s not what Asm. Nava meant, I highly encourage him to clarify, because that’s the only logical interpretation of his statement.

And if that is the case, why would the Republicans agree to support De Leon against Perez?  They’re both Latino labor leaders from the Los Angeles area–except one of them is gay, and one of them isn’t.  And given the fact that many Republicans still see being gay as some sort of terminal character flaw that leaves one unfit for any public or private responsibility, it would be no surprise if that were reason enough for at least some Republicans to join the De Leon faction to support him against the wishes of the Democratic majority.

And then, of course, we return to the plight of Senator Gil Cedillo, who obviously has reasons to support De Leon over Perez because, as I’ve written earlier, the good Senator so desperately needs to serve in the Assembly for his last two remaining years of eligibility that he is willing to challenge Asm. Perez in the Democratic Primary, even if Perez is elected as Speaker.  Obviously, Cedillo has every incentive to promote De Leon’s bid, because trying to unseat a sitting Speaker in your own Party’s primary undoubtedly won’t win you a lot of friends.  Of course, there is no word on what Senator Cedillo will do if he either a) loses to Perez, or b) wins and serves his two years.  Given his unbridled desire to hold another political office and his lack of ability to do so in either circumstance, I hope he will determine that his life still has value.

But humor aside.  How likely is it that Cedillo will able to win a traditional campaign against Perez, regardless of whether the latter is the Speaker?  Cedillo won’t get the endorsement of the Democratic Party because Perez is the incumbent and he only needs 50% of the delegates.  And I really doubt anyone will give a boatload of money to someone who can only serve in the Assembly for one term and then has to leave town with little hope of promotion to a higher office.

And given the fact that they’re both strong leaders in the Latino community, the only way I see Cedillo being able to have any chance whatsoever is to make Perez’ sexual orientation an issue, most likely in a fashion that is slightly less than above board.  And given the fact that Cedillo’s previous campaign was more than up to the task of using character assassination in his failed run for Congress, I have no doubt that his next team would be willing to use the same sort of scorched earth approach.

So what’s the bottom line?  I call on Asm. De Leon and Senator Cedillo not to make this an issue, either in the campaign for Assembly Speaker or in Cedillo’s quixotic primary challenge.  California Democrats support full and total equality and acceptance of the LGBT community, and it would be a shame if one of our own used the issue for personal gain among a far less tolerant group of people–such as, for instance, the California Republican Party.

Bass Takes Heat for Speakership Race

Since Willie Brown was termed out, the Assembly Speakership has been pretty much an LA thing.  The LA members, and some other muckety-mucks, particularly now the former speaker and current mayor, get together to decide who will be the next speaker. While it might not actually be that simple and quick, it is the gist of it.  So, people knew it was pretty much over when Speaker Karen Bass said this:

“I really very deeply believe that John will be a speaker that reflects the strong Democratic values that brought all of us here,” Bass said. “The momentum is such that it’s time for a resolution.” (SacBee)

Of course, the other big competitor, Kevin De Leon, still hasn’t conceded anything as he attempts to get 26 votes within the caucus despite Bass’s remark that she was Perez’s “29th vote.”  

During such a contentious process, there are always going to be some hard feelings.  It’s hard to imagine it any other way, such is the system that term limits has given us. Willie Brown’s days as Ayatollah of the Assembly are over, and the consistency that Willie provided with his iron grip of the office are also gone. And pretty much everytime, there’s a story like this:

Hurt feelings and allegations of treachery are de rigeur when it comes to the politics of the speakership. But the story of Assemblyman John Perez’s rise as a candidate for speaker reveals the little talked about Machiavellian side of Karen Bass, a speaker who is often cited for her calm personal demeanor and affable political style.

Bass, D-Los Angeles, came out publicly in support of Perez’s speakership bid Wednesday, telling the press about her decision before the caucus had formally chosen a new leader. But Bass’s press conference has angered some Assembly Democrats, who complained that they had the idea of a Perez speakership forced upon them with no time to coalesce as a group. (CapWeekly)

In the end, everybody will move past this, and this will be just one more little private score in a town full of scores to settle.  One can only hope that the bitterness doesn’t extend to policy and that the caucus can move forward with the business of the state. I am sure this will happen in due time, but with a pending budget battle, moping time is a luxury we may not have.

Yes We Can: Perez In California = Progress for the Nation

John Perez is not a household name. Yet. In the coming days, Perez may well make history, becoming the first openly gay speaker of any state legislature in the United States.  

This, from the California that narrowly voted to undo same sex marriage.  This from the same California that faces as much as $40 billion in deficits in 2010.  This from the same California that has a minority majority population, but where Latinos are fast becoming the majority.  This from the same California that used to provide the best education on the planet to all and now can not graduate the majority of most high school students in Los Angeles.

John Perez is  California.  He’s openly gay.  He’s Latino.  He’s a son of Los Angeles.  He’s an intellectual, a strategist, an environmentalist, a labor leader.  He’s an organizer, a skilled consensus-builder, a unifier and a stunningly disarming public speaker.  John is that rare elected official that we know will hold the public interest at heart.  

The only real question is why John would want the job?  If he becomes Speaker of the California State Assembly, he’ll face the worst problems this state has seen since the depression or even before. But he wants the job — and I can’t imagine a better leader in Sacramento to take it on. John has all of the qualities, and from what I hear, most of the support necessary to win. If the Democrats in the assembly unify behind John and avoid the “speaker wars” that have often marred the period since term limits passed, he will become the speaker.

I’ve known John for nearly six years.  We met in March 2003, when I was a relatively inexperienced but highly motivated supporter of Howard Dean’s candidacy for the White House.  I had, for years, been involved in politics, but never so deeply as Dean’s inspiring campaign to reverse the direction of our country.  

At the suggestion of a mutual friend, John met with me at  a restaurant at Universal City Walk right after one of the first Dean “Meetups” that would propel that campaign forward. He sat with me, very patiently explaining the who and the what of California labor and progressive politics.  He did not need to do that; he could easily have looked at this relative neophyte in state politics and said, “if this is what Dean has to offer, I’m out of here.”   But he did not.  And he was always there to help, after I became Chair of Dean’s presidential campaign in California and then went on to found the Courage Campaign.

California rarely has the opportunity to place the assembly in the hands of a speaker for more than a year or two.  John would follow Karen Bass, who has lived through one of the worst imaginable times in our history.  Karen is a true progressive, and she supports John.  So do I.  And while these leadership battles seem very arcane and insider, it’s time for all of us in this state who support progress to understand that we have a stake in who leads our assembly.

In the next few days, John Perez may well make history.  And, as progress marches on, he will eventually live in a state that allows him to marry the man he loves.

(Cross posted on Huffington Post)

Rick Jacobs is the Founder and Chair of the Courage Campaign.

It’s About Time: LGBT Leaders in California

The SF Chronicle says that John Perez has locked up the Speakership and the transition will start shortly:

We’re hearing that Assemblyman John A. Perez, D-Los Angeles, has the votes to grab the speakership — if he does, he would become the Assembly’s first openly gay leader in California history. (SF Gate blog)

As a gay man myself, such a result would once again remind me why I love this state. Despite Prop 8 and all the ridiculousness surrounding it, I put up with the mess in this state because it offers such opportunity. California has been a leader in civil rights, and will continue to be a leader.  This would be just one more step along the road to full equality for the LGBT community.

That being said, Perez, or whomever is the next Speaker, will only continue to preside over the continuing downward spiral.  The system is set up to fail. The gridlock, the supermajority, the budget twisted in knots, these are the issues that face the incoming Speaker. Why anybody would want that job is still somewhat beyond me.

Congratulations on that. Perhaps there’s still time for a recount.

Go ahead, Senator Cedillo. Destroy the last shreds of your tattered reputation.

This will be brief.  It is with amusement that I read from Capitol Weekly’s Twitter feed that Senator Gil Cedillo is intent on challenging John Perez for his Assembly seat now that he is termed out of the State Senate–even if Perez is elected as speaker, which is an outcome that is looking increasingly likely.

Keep in mind that last time we saw Gil Cedillo, he was engaged in a mean-spirited, borderline racist, and completely mendacious campaign for the 32nd Congressional District against newcomer Emanuel Pleitez and current Congresswoman and former Board of Equalization Chair Judy Chu.

There are a couple of things that really stand out to me about this.  First, I was under the impression that Senator Cedillo had already served his terms in the Assembly from 1997 until 2002.  If he’s contemplating running, he obviously has some eligibility left, but how could it extend beyond one term?  I would appreciate enlightenment on this issue. (UPDATE by Robert: According to Capitol Weekly, Cedillo has 1 term left – he replaced Louis Caldera in 1997 when Caldera became Army Secretary under Clinton.)

Second–challenging a sitting Speaker of the Assembly who is also a Latino with roots in the labor movement to move to the lower house?  Whose support, endorsements or fundraising does he really think he’s going to get if he pulls a move like that?  He certainly won’t get the support of the CDP, or the prominent members of the local party.

And lastly, after the hit that the Senator’s reputation took in light of his disastrous campaign for Congress, why would he want to follow that up by challenging a sitting Speaker when we have an opportunity to have several uninterrupted years of continuous leadership in that position due to the fact that we’ll apparently have a Speaker who isn’t in his last term?

Sometimes, I guess, the thirst for an office convinces people to do things they probably shouldn’t.  This is one of those cases.

LACDP Summit Lunch Liveblog: Coalition Building

Following is the liveblog of the LACDP Summit Lunch Panel on Coalition Building with:

  • Assemblymember De La Torre
  • Peggy Moore of OFA
  • Henry Vandermeir of the CDC
  • Arisha Michelle Hatch of the Courage Campaign
  • Dorothy Reik of PDA
  • Gary Vaughn of SEIU 721

This very interesting panel was moderated by Assemblymember John Perez.  

John Perez:  Great to be here, we’ve got a great panel of people who have been involved in coalition politics.  People use the term “coalition” in many different ways, some not so good, such as Bush’s “coalition of the willing”, some good such as when progressive groups come together.  Coalitions are a coming together of different groups for a shared interest.  They’ve identified that interest in themselves, and someone else.

First and foremost, you have to frame the issue around which people will coalesce.  Second, you need to have trust between the partners.  Third, there has to be a mechanism to mitigate when coalition partners have a dispute.  Last, there have to be ways to measure success, and ways to build on that success to move forward.

One example of a coalition coming together on a specific approach will be presented by Assemblymember Hector De La Torre.

Assemblymember De La Torre: AB1060 is a bill that requires that all alcohol sales at grocery stores be done where there is a human checkout person who will check all the codes.  Currently you can go to an automated stand with only one person monitoring 4 or 6 machines.  One person can’t monitor all of this, and it’s not just about minors.  It’s also illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is already drunk.  If you aren’t next to the person and able to check, you can’t tell.  Also, teenagers have figured out how to bypass the the freeze mechanism to get around the alcohol sales barrier.  No one is saying that the alcohol has to be locked away like cigarettes, just that a human has to be at the checkout.

Labor is with us on the bill, but it couldn’t be UFCW versus the grocery stores.  So we need to build a coalition.  Young people, parents’ groups, PTA, MADD, etc.  And it was hard, because there were other issues including Mike Feuer’s lock device bill.  It took a while but we were able to convince them that this was in their interest and necessary.  And in the end, UFCW never appeared publicly as the supporter of the bill, but rather PTAs and MADD and those other groups.  You have to figure out who the best spokesperson and the best face for the issue is.  It’s nice to be right, but winning is important.  You have to have the right face on it.  And AB1060 is still on the Senate Floor, so please sign in favor of it.

Question: These machines are anti-employee!  We need to boycott any stores that have them.

De la Torre: I get askede a lot about whether it’s a labor bill.  It’s not: it’s about how we conduct business in this state.  We the people get to decide how business is conducted in the state.

Perez: That was a great example of how to build a coalition.  In terms of format, we’re going to take 20-25 minutes to go through the panel.  Each panelist will take about 4-5 minutes to give their presentation, then I will moderate the Q&A.  First presenter is Peggy Moore.  Peggy is Political Director of OFA, has organized various campaigns for social justice in Oakland.

Peggy Moore: OFA serves as the President’s field team.  The election last year was exciting and folks got involved who had never been involved in a campaign before.  It was an historic movement, but getting into office was just the beginning of making the change.  OFA was created so that we can support the President on the ground.  Staff of 9 in California, but we’re in 48 states.  We have a phenomenal group of volunteers, and we were phonebanking our hearts out from one congressperson to another, depending on who we needed to give our love to.  Right now it’s all about supporting the healthcare agenda.  But pretty soon it’ll be energy, and immigration and other issues.  So we’re working with HCAN, labor, done press conferences, actions, phonebank, etc.  And when we move to education, we’ll be expanding our coalition building.

We are a part of the DNC.  OFA is a project of the DNC.  Our structure works where we have community organizers who create neighborhood teams.  We want to have people ready and waiting on the ground in an instant when we need to support the president.  We have 150 to 175 organizers ready on the ground.  We’re training people to be ready for action.  The issue is transferrable, doesn’t matter what it is.  We’re just trained to be on the ground and help people organize.  We’ve also been working with Learn to Win.

Perez: Thank you Peggy. Next up is Henry Vandermeir, serving in second term as Chairman of the CDC, and Political Director of the Orange County Democratic Party.

Henry Vandermeir: Obviously, one of the things from the party’s point of view from the coalition point of view is to get our own party working together.  With over 400 clubs across the state, getting them to cooperate is important.  Or if there is a speaker coming and you don’t have enough people in your club, invite people from other clubs to come.  Work together on it and help activate people and get a candidate elected.

It’s important to reach out to PDA, Wellstone and all the other groups out there.  We’re all working toward the same goals.  Not a single one of all these organizations has the resources to do what needs to be done in California all by themselves.  So we need to make them realize that in order to make things happen in this state, we need to cooperate.  Leave our egos at the door when you walk in, work together, quit worrying about “these are our people, these are our precint leaders”.  That’s what gets us into trouble.

There have been issues getting cooperation between clubs and OFA.  We need to reach out to them and make sure that we’re all working together.  It’s not rocket science, it’s all common sense.  That’s what we need to do at the club level.  We cannot reinvent the wheel, we don’t have the resources individually, we need to work together on all of this.

Perez: Next is Arisha Michelle Hatch, the Southern California field manager of the Courage Campaign.  She’s responsible for organizing volunteers on a county by county basis.

Hatch: We’re like MoveOn.org but for California.  We like to call ourselves the greenhouse for the grassroots, in that we have a lot of different members with a lot of different interests.  I work for the Equality Program, which was established after the passage of Prop 8.  We sent out a viral video ad called Don’t Divorce Us, which got a lot of new members.  While many of those are interested in marriage equality, most are interested in healthcare, and secondarily education.  I joined Courage because they were trying to emulate what Obama did during the election.  The Equality Program was founded because every 4 years, California does a great job exporting labor and talent to the battleground states to the detriment of California, so we’re out here to build a permanent progressive infrastructure in California.  In terms of Equality, it’s not just about marriage: it’s about making sure the playing field is level in all areas such as education and healthcare.

Perez: Next is Dorothy Reik, Vice Chair of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, delegate to the CDP from the 41st assembly.  Led a series of forums on single payer healthcare, Gaza, food safety, etc.  She comes to us through the peace movement, and her club has close ties to the Topanga Peace movement.

Reik: PDA was started by Tim Carpenter after the 2004 DNC convention.  The idea was to further our progressive agenda by working inside and outside the party.  That means working with groups that don’t traditionally work with the party.  We have six issues: healthcare for all.  We don’t support hte public option, and stick to that.  We’re upset about the removal of the Kucinich Amendment.  We want out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and want to end all wars.  We want economic and social justice, everyone should be treated equally.  And as far as right to marriage, we want everyone to be able to marry.  Clean and fair elections, which we don’t have in this country: we can’t have voting machines at the front end or the back end either.  Stop global warming, environmental issues we’re on the front lines working against the corporations who want to keep overheating our globe and world until our children don’t have a world to work in.  If you think oil wars are bad, wait until we get water wars.  And accountability, because Obama’s Attorney General won’t prosecute for torture.  We want Obama to address our issues, not Obama’s issues.  We want OFA to work with us, and take directions from us, because we believe Obama has been taking directions from the corporations.

We have conference calls where you can talk to Tim Carpenter.  I get jealous listening to OFA talking about paid staff.  Outside of Tim Carpenter who gets a stipend, almost all of our people are volunteers.

Perez: Final panelist is Jerry Vaughn.  Public Relations Director of SEIU 721, the largest public employee union in CA since 2005.  721 represents more than 80,000 public works from Santa Barbara to Orange County to the border.

Gary Vaughn: With such a large region like that, we have a diverse region that we represent.  Social workers, sanitation workers, RNs, attorneys.  We’ve worked with OFA on various issues and a number of other orgs.  Oftentimes, unfortunately, we are good at making use of other organizations, but we have a difficult time reciprocating.  We don’t have a permanent structure in the community, but rather come in to help win an election.  That’s where we can make improvements to build coalitions.  And we can work better with people on the other side of the ideological divide.

Question from Deana Igelsrud: I’m the e-board rep from the 47th district and co-chair of CA Majority Rule.  A lot of your volunteers were new to the process and excited about the election.  Many of the more seasoned veterans are more interested in the issues.  How do you build coalitions with new people and keep them engaged when it comes to issues?

Perez: Part of the difference is between building an electoral coaliton and a governing coalition.

Peggy: We all supported Barack, but many of us have issues with how he’s handling healthcare.  So we’ve had camps and trainings to invite people to participate.  We are organizing people around healthcare.  We’re online, calling structures we have in place.  And then when it comes to education and energy, those issues pop in too.  People will show up based on their passion.  Our job and focus is to teach people to organize effectively in their communities.

Perez: It seems like every election cycle, you see a peak of activism, but then some people drop off, and some stay involved.  So people who were involved in 2004 now see themselves as old hands.  How has that experience been, Peggy?

Reik: PDA truly is a movement.  We reach out not only to Democratic clubs to work with us, but we also reach out to other groups in the city and the state to groups like One Care Now, and the group standing against the Three Strikes Law.  So we try to reach people and bring them into the Party and into the progressive movement who may not have been politically involved before.  If someone came to me interested in food safety legislation, we did a forum for that to help teach people about that.

Thom O’Shaughnessy: How do we follow and deal with these three tenets: 1) learning how to agree to disagree, 2) how to marry orthodoxy with pragmatism, and 3) how to trade horses in a soft IOU for working on each other’s issues?

Gary Vaughn: We don’t have an answer to those dynamics.  When we have 30 asks of the legislature, given what we can accomplish, can we make 30 asks effectively?  Maybe we need to bullet down to 3 or 4.  Others would say no, we have to push all our issues.  But in other circumstances, we need to know what we have to walk away from the table having gotten.  Our first rule is, do no harm, especially since we have so many budget cuts.  And let’s look at who is doing the work.  And certainly, having wealthier Americans and Californians paying more is worth looking at.

Perez: There’s been a significant debate about gay marriage, given CA and ME.  One complaint is that the LGBT movement hasn’t been involved in coalition politics, that they ask for help but don’t necessarily provide it.  Arisha, what are the challenges in bringing people out of their comfort zone?

Arisha: Courage is well-situated to work on this issue.  Courage is multi-issue unlike some of the other organizations.  One of the things we’re trying to stress in our organizing work is trying to get people to show up, and stress the importance of showing up for community organizing work.  One of the things we’ve been trying to do is stress the importance of not being a one-issue movement.  Bringing people along in their feelings about marriage equality is important, but has to be paired with helping with the issues that matter to them.

Carolyn Fowler: These are not, or shouldn’t be competing organizations.  What is the best way for organizations to reach out to the clubs?

Henry Vandermeir: One of the things you need to do is find out who you’re actually going to talk to.  Know what your resources are.  Common sense would tell you we have all the contact information for all the clubs.  If we want OFA to contact them, well, why not just go to the source?  Make it easy.  It’s a two way situation though.  We don’t just need to contact the presidents.  They also need to contact us.

Peggy: We work closely with the CDP, and getting a list of all the clubs.  We’re going to be at the eboard meeting coming up next weekend.  Coming up and saying, this is who we are and how we work together.

Dorothy Reik: We do it the old-fashioned way, pick up the telephone and call up the club leaders in our area, see if they’ll cosponsor, or join our food safety or other forum.  We have organizing calls, ways to reach out to club presidents and other people, and would love to work with OFA and other groups.

Question: Republicans by and large stand together and are united in their ranks.  We have as Democrats got not to do that among ourselves.  If you don’t like something Obama is doing or whatever, that’s fine and do it in private.  But in a public forum, I find it very offensive to be attacking Obama and what he’s trying to accomplish.

Perez: I’ll take that as a comment.

Question: We have a challenge of people not voting for candidates or working for candidates, and focusing instead on issues.  They need to work for candidates as well.

Gary Vaughn: We do trade with candidates: we work on your campaign, and we’d like you to work with us on these issues.

Question: I’m very disappointed in Organizing for America.  And I love PDA.  You’ve had time to organize your people, and i’ve been to several OFA house parties.  But they don’t teach people how to organize.  They don’t have to join a Democratic club, but they are afraid to even visit a club.  You are spending money giving orders, call this person and say that, not teaching them how to think.  I would like to see Obama people not be afraid of us.

Perez: People take various tones, some more positive and some more critical.  I would ask us to be as productive and respectful in our discourse as possible.  Sometimes it’s hard not to feel the passion we feel about these issues.  There is concern with the difference between a bottom-up approach and a top-down approach, so speak to those issues.

Peggy Moore: I’m proud to work for OFA.  And I’m a president of an East Bay Democratic club.  I understand some of those frustrations that people might have.  But there is a focus we have.  We decided that the issue was healthcare, and this is how we’re going to organize around healthcare.  And there are some groups that think we should be approaching it in a certain way.  I’m not going to be on the street with Organizing for America, challenging the President.  That’s not going to roll.  Other organizations can do that, and they have every right to.  By pushing Single Payer, we may have gotten a public option, which wasn’t on the table before.  But we have a job and responsibility, and we have other issues to deal with as well.  We listen to people about how to do our job better.  We are training people to do the job, and we’ve been around less than a year.  And a lot of the people who voted for Obama and who need healthcare are not Democrats.  So it’s important that we continue to have these conversations.  I will come to a Democratic club and have a conversation with you, I’ll give you my card.  We may not always agree, and I’m OK with that.

Perez: It is a very difficult transition to go from being an activist to running an electoral campaign, and then move to how to govern.  Understanding that as a legislator, understanding that I had to choose often between a number of undesirable options, it’s very difficult.  But it is incredibly valid for us to be frustrated and to express that frustration, because we too came to the campaign with expectations and we want to see many of those expectations met.  So thank you for your openness and commitment to working with all the clubs, and you hear the frustration expressed, and after all these years in the wilderness we want to get as much as we can as quickly as we can.

Question: The point was to encourage Obama activists to get involved in the clubs.

Peggy Moore: We do encourage people to participate.  We have several members from the Obama campaign, that once the campaign was over, were looking for a place to go.  And some of the members have participated in the Democratic clubs.  And some of the clubs are better than others.  And when you get them in the door, we need to keep them in the door.

Eric Bauman: We need to be careful about putting fingers in people’s eyes.  There are Obama activists who don’t like the Party or our movement.  Just as there were Dean activists with the same perspective.  We need to be figuring out how to do this together.  The other side is together and working together.  We need to work together and stop poking fingers in each other’s eyes.

Question: I’m from the John Muir Democratic Club.  How do we raise consciousness of a particular Get Out of Afghanistan bill?

Henry Vandermeir: As far as getting resources, you need to figure out which organizations are going to be more receptive to what you’re working on.  As mentioned previously, some organizations are particularly focused on certain issues, so it has to be a targeted campaign.  Same thing goes for organizations, you have to figure out which organizations are going to be helpful and cooperative, and which will not.

Perez: Just take a last minute from each of you to talk about any takeaway messages in terms of investing in coalition politics.

Dorothy Reik: We need to work together, but we need to give our message to the powers that be to tell them what we think are the best policies.  We need to elect Democrats, but not just any Democrats.  We need to elect the Democrats who are in favor of what we believe in.   We have one of those, Marcy Winograd, running against Jane Harman.

Gary Vaughn: When we talk about coalitions, we have to try to make connections outside of our norm, including with moderates and conservatives.  Break through the partisanship.

Peggy Moore: Thank you for giving me the opportunity.  I need all of you, your mentorship, need you to keep us on track.  We’re working for a better America.  I want to personally invite you over to the opening of our new office at Centinela and Jefferson in Culver City on Thursday.

Arisha Michelle Hatch: I’m personally a baby of the Obama movement.  I challenge you as leaders and organizers to plug into the energy of the movement, and challenge you to question whether you’re creating an environment conducive to plugging in.

Henry Vandermier: Tolerance is a virtue.  If people agree with you 50%-75%, then consider yourself lucky.  Remember that when you go to work on coalitions.

Perez: I want to thank the panel, and bring back Eric Bauman.

Eric Bauman: Thanks to our moderator Assemblymember Perez.

Critical Mass On Budget Reform

The weekly Democratic radio address (which ought to be a YouTube address, come on guys) called for an end to the 2/3 requirement for budget and tax increases.  This is the first time in my memory that so many lawmakers are openly talking about revising 2/3.  It’s not a new problem – 28 of the last 32 budgets have been late due to legislative squabbling, with the fights becoming more protracted than ever over the past decade.  And every economic downturn, no matter how slight, sets off a crisis.  Assemblyman John Perez made it clear:

The budget would not have taken so long and would have not included non-budget related issues like an open primary if California did not have the unusual requirement of a two thirds vote for budget approval.

Reforming this two-thirds requirement should be a priority for all Californians.

Perez did not reference whether the new requirement should be the arbitrary 55% number, which is what the current initiative being circulated states, or a simple democratic majority.  We’ve learned where a number of Democrats stand this weekend:

• Darrell Steinberg decided not to mention 2/3 hardly at all in his op-ed in the Sacramento Bee.  That’s a lack of leadership.  No elected official should be speaking in public and pass up the opportunity to advocate for majority vote.  He instead opted for a Broderist call for working together and the awkward tag line “Smarter going forward.”

In comments to David Greenwald, Steinberg did call for repeal, but failed to pick a side.

“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress…. It doesn’t really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis… We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”

• Karen Bass is also talking about 2/3, but she is looking at the arbirtrary standard:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has proposed one that would allow lawmakers to approve budgets with 55 percent majorities if they do it by June 15. After that, it would take two-thirds votes.

It’s not necessarily that this kind of measure would definitely not pass because all the thrust of majority democratic rule is lost, but that’s certainly a factor.

• In that same article, Loni Hancock calls for a simple majority:

Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require only simple majorities to approve budgets.

“California needs to have a normal democracy like every other state in the nation except Rhode Island and Arkansas,” she said.

That’s a talking point.  55% is mush.

The point is that we have the Democratic leadership finally talking about the main impediment to the perpetual budget crisis.  Without two-thirds, you can fix a tax system that is too closely tied to boom-and-bust economic cycles.  Without two-thirds, you can end the virtual bribery of Yacht Party and moderate lawmakers.  Without two-thirds, you can end the Big Five process that facilitates official secrecy and backroom deals and use a deliberative process involving the committee structure and relying on the input of the entire caucus.  And without 2/3, you won’t have to hear from high Broderist windbags tinkering on the margins with proposals that make them feel good but will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.  It’s kind of hilarious that the LAST proposal in George “Can’t We All Get Along” Skelton’s long list in today’s column is this:

* A simple majority vote for budget passage; 55% at most. Scrap the two-thirds vote requirement.

Bauman Unanimously Re-Elected, Ups Ante as LACDP Chair

Eric Bauman is going to raise $1 million dollars for 2008.  The best part is how he’s going to spend it.

Last night, members of the Los Angeles County Central Committee raised their hands to take an oath of office from Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, and took to electing Party officers.  Among them was Chairman Eric Bauman, unanimously re-elected to a fifth term.

I’m told that’s a record.  From his words last night, it’s easy to see why.

Bauman has been singled out here as someone who speaks his mind and knows the mechanics of electioneering, even when his opinions and techniques run against the grain of some Democratic leaders.

He showed what he’s made of in thanking the Central Committee and looking ahead to 2008 – and perhaps beyond:

Now is the time to rebuild, refresh and reassemble the mosaic that comprises our Democratic Party for it is only through unity, strength and shared purpose that we can be successful this fall.

As we work to build unity however, we must take seriously our responsibility to remind those we have elected or put in positions of power of their obligation to do the right thing by our Party and our people.

Whether it is protecting those most at-risk from harsh budget cuts or standing up for our Constitution or avoiding situations and actions that have the appearance of impropriety, as leaders of our Party, we must not fear holding feet to the fire and speaking truth to power.

If we truly are leaders, we must act like it: respectfully, responsibly, but fearlessly.

Who else senses a little tough love in there?

What I find interesting about Bauman’s leadership of the LACDP is not just his (sadly uncommon) willingness to speak truth to power, but how he marshalls forces and resources on the ground to help candidates up and down the ballot, even in those districts often written off as unwinnable.

After the jump I’ll share what I heard last night (and from Bauman separately), and what I’ve seen him do to build and strengthen the Democratic Party in Los Angeles County.

In nominating remarks, presumptive Assemblyman John A. Pèrez noted that in Bauman’s time as LACDP Chair, the organization had grown from an annual budget of $50,000 to over $1 million this year.

The amount raised is important.  However, what really matters is how it’s being spent – a wider topic of some discussion here at Calitics (and across the party) in recent weeks.

Continuing his speech, Bauman reminded Party members how they chose to spend their war-chest when they adopted a budget earlier this year:

That’s why LACDP’s leaders have spent months setting goals and formulating an aggressive plan to educate, motivate and mobilize LA County’s 2,070,210 Democrats.

Our plans for 2008 are extensive and include everything from direct voter contact programs to voter registration to providing comprehensive training for Democratic activists.

Of course we will assist clubs and groups who open campaign headquarters; work with the California Democratic Party; and maximize the quality, effectiveness and impact of our Red Zone program. We will also work with our colleagues in rural, red and purple areas around the state to help them best take advantage of this incredible Big Blue Wave year.

As Chair of this Party, I staked out an aggressive goal in January to raise a minimum of one million dollars this year to fund our various programs – and more than half of it has already been raised. That is a testament to a talented staff and committed members who have worked hard to ensure we have the resources we need to accomplish our goals.

Most importantly, these funds are being used to support candidates for local, state and federal office and to fund the critical activities that will grow our Party and support our grassroots activists and volunteers.

Bauman’s details of how the funds would be used – for grassroots activities and Party building – fired up the membership.  Whether it’s in candidate campaigns, PACs, or Party Organizations the fastest way to stifle grassroots fundraising is to have that cash disappear into a vacuum or worse, to have it used for purposes unfathomable to the rank and file.

I’ve had some personal experience with Bauman’s grassroots programs.  A close friend of mine was a Red Zone candidate two years ago and benefitted from guidance and resources from Bauman and the LACDP staff.

I myself had the privilege of leading two training sessions for the Red Zone candidates and their staffers last weekend.  These are citizens from across the county (or whose districts reach into the county) who are answering the call of civic duty by running in tough Republican Districts.  They are doctors, teachers, and parents taking up the mantle of our Party and LACDP has their back.

Bauman has had his eyes on California’s rural, red and purple regions for a long time.  In recent months, he has worked to export this Red Zone program beyond his home county – a good model as CDP moves toward implementing their 58 County plan.

Full disclosure: I am proud to have previously worked for John A. Perez and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party – both mentioned above.  I tapped these relationships to copy/paste from printed remarks, instead of transcribing my recording.