backtothedrawingboard.jpg, image/jpeg, 376x243
Nevada Democrats go Back to the Drawing Board
by Genelle
Friday December 10, 2004 at 03:11 AM
I would suggest reading the first article before reading this one, as this one does not make complete sense without the first.
Since my first article on the Democratic Party, I attended the December 4th Central Committee meeting in Tonopah and I have been piecing everything together in my head ever since. Only the three of us were able to make it (George Matthews, Larry Gering, and me), but this time George had a handout which basically said the following:
George, Larry and I each had a stack to hand to people so we could be heard regardless of any tricks they had planned. When we came in the hotel, Charlie Waterman (chair of the Clark County Dems) and another guy were sitting on the couch and George walked up to them to hand them one. Both of them refused to read it and Charlie started yelling at George that he was just here to make trouble, to make a name for himself, and that we're not accomplishing anything. George was fighting back (verbally) but he wasn't responding to what Charlie was saying. What I learned from Charlie was the State Party has no power of its own- it's run by the paid execs and Harry Reid and Shelley Berkley. When I could get a word in, I was asking Charlie questions like ‘Why do you stay in if it's pointless?' He couldn't really answer me but I know he understood that I was really just wanting to know, not being smartass. He was getting increasingly frustrated with George, and it's too bad, because he stalked off and I think Charlie, as cynical as he is, could shed some light on this sick organization that younger people need to know and understand if someone would just listen to him.
So that ended badly. We felt really deflated and like it was a bad idea to come. Because we were so far, we stayed and went to the meeting anyway. While the executive board was meeting, all the non-execs were out in the lobby waiting, and while I probably should have talked to lots of people, I really only talked to one guy John Abbott who is the guy responsible for working out a platform for the party. He was talking about how little attention it gets and how ridiculous that is, because *why* are people here if it isn't for a common belief in the platform? Details- always the tedious details that annoy people. He was supportive of the handout George had written, but he liked Debbie... That seemed to trump everything with everyone. Our point was really muddled by questioning an actual person instead of a board or a policy or a letter. In hindsight, it probably would have made more sense to bring to light the other three examples plus everything that happened with the Kennedy Kaplan race all at the same time. Of course we probably wouldn’t have gotten it all out before we were slung out the room… and even if we did, again, our point would have been muddled with the “information overload” syndrome. Who knows.
The meeting started and I was sitting on the second row and George and Larry were in the very back row. That was a mistake... So I was sitting where all the execs were standing on the side so I could hear them before the meeting was called to order planning their motions and getting people set up to second the motions, etc. There was a parliamentarian there this time. The meeting started and the first motion was for a "flexible agenda", quickly seconded, voted on and passed. Rebecca watched for my reaction on this one. All I could do is laugh and write it all down to figure out later- I knew they had us at this point. They were slick and ready for anything. They had a couple other quick motions- I just felt so hopeless and unprepared. One of the quick motions was approving the meeting minutes from last time which were *not* accurate. There were two things in their version of the minutes that stood out: Debbie's position was not to be voted on: she was to come before the body and answer questions as to why she violated the bylaw. The other thing was there was nothing in there about moving the primaries to an earlier date. So the meeting minutes got approved (ergo they were suddenly the "truth"...) without discussion.
So it went on, and they got to the Debbie issue. The Chair excused herself and appointed an interim chair to conduct this part of it. A guy chaired it and gave Debbie a chance to make a statement. She basically explained about how she'd been in politics since she was a teenager and her mother (Harriet Trudell) got her in it, etc. etc. She said she took the position because she felt so honored to be a scheduler for Tom Gallagher. She said she didn't know it was against a bylaw... Question-time came and it was restricted only to questions directed to HER, not any other execs, and no debating allowed (unless you're on her side.) I didn't ask any questions because all this was completely beside the point. What Debbie did was completely in keeping with everything else the NV Dems has been doing for years. She shouldn't be up there any more than any of them. It was humiliating to even watch it. They completely missed the point. Debbie was never considered the heart of the problem, only the starkest *example* of the problem. Larry asked her a question and then someone else asked the question "how is it that officers of the NV State Dem Party can become officers without knowing the bylaws?" Another question from someone clearly clueless but compassionate and in tune with the humiliating nature of the whole thing was, "should we change the bylaws so that it's ok to do this kind of thing?" It was funny to see the reaction to that! Debbie and her mom were both frantically saying NO- that's not what we're saying, and they admitted what she did wasn’t right. If I could do it over again, I'd have asked "do you think what you did was in step or out of step with what the rest of the party was doing to promote Tom Gallagher?" And another would have been "did anyone else know you took the position and if so, did they also not know the bylaws?" And then finally "did any of the officers know the bylaws at all?"
Anyway, thankfully that ended and they moved on. Two other things happened, but I'm going to skip unimportant details so this doesn’t get too long. One thing was the rurals got up and all had the same complaint: not enough bottom-up organizing. Execs aren't listening to "the people." For example, we're telling you to quit sending Californian environmentalists out here to talk to these miners about why they should vote for John Kerry!! This “strategy” hurt the rural counties in large ways. It reminded me of the article titled “Las Vegas Nights” posted a couple weeks ago by another volunteer Dem who took the time to write out his thoughts. The common theme in his letter, in my first article, and in what the rurals were saying was “listen to the people”!
There was another "moment" like last meeting- a woman from another county brought up the fact that the vice chair of her county had been onstage with GW Bush in seeming support of him during the Kerry campaign! She was angry that her email to the State party concerning this was never answered. Everyone was really mad and they set up the same kind of deal they did with Debbie- he'll have to come to the next meeting to answer questions about it.
The last thing that happened was there was a committee formed with the following goal(s): get legislation passed to protect/affect election law, campaign finance law, and (I found out later) to review the bylaws of the State Dem party. What made me and several others angry was the Chair (Adriana Martinez) formed the committee, and IMMEDIATELY appointed Harriet Trudell as chair without discussion. There was another lady who stood up and complained that while she's not from here, she's never seen a meeting run like this where a committee can be formed with no nominations on who would chair it, and nothing is presented in context, everything is done right above people's heads, there's no discussion, no questions... A woman from another county (Marsha) had stood up and insisted that the work from this committee should have the goal of getting something to the legislature before they break and before the Repubs have a chance to get their legislation through first. Harriet was clearly angry at anyone who was suggesting that. She was saying we need to review it first. So I wanted this Marsha lady to be co-chair of the committee so I asked how we can nominate people to the committee. The parliamentarian told me the committee chair had been appointed by the Chair. APPOINTED. Just like that. No nominations, no voting, no nothing. And to be on the committee, you were to contact Harriet- no nomination necessary. People were really irritated with this. The meeting ended and we drove home.
As frustrating as all of this was, we feel like we did some good with it, because we opened the door for others to make complaints against party leaders. It happened on its own- we didn't even need to press the Debbie thing. Also, George told me Rebecca had been poring over the bylaws for an entire week leading up to this meeting. That's good! Another good thing: the rurals are organizing. They even have a website of their own now. Also, the formation of this committee is a sign of immense hope for me. To work on revising bylaws and to get serious legislation concerning election law is something that is at the heart of so many issues.
Monday, George forwarded an email from Harriet asking us (those of us who had supported this complaint) to be on the committee. George added a very convincing argument in favor of doing this. When I got it, I was torn, given the way the committee was formed and more practically, my own lack of time! But the email (both George and Harriet) seemed sincere and I feel like it is a great opportunity to work toward fixing something that maybe can be fixed. They're honestly asking for some work, some time and concentration on helping them fix something that is clearly wrong with the party. I believe democracy is a do-it-yourself thing- it should not be left to the same people who brought us Kerry. It needs people who think differently and who are not afraid to question the way things are. It’s happening in other places: just visit here for stories of others who have invigorated their local Dem party by joining up with or replacing those in power who were bad for the people, good for the machine.
At the very least, we have caused some serious questions to be asked of the Nevada State Democratic Party. I hope other Democrats will join us in helping them regroup, helping them back to the drawing board. Progressives need to come together right now- between elections, to get this party on its feet. There is a Las Vegas group of Progressive Democrats if you are interested in organizing, or you can call the NV State Democratic Party at 737-VOTE and state that you want to be on the Campaign Law Review Committee.
|