One Dem's View of the SCC Meeting in Socorro on Saturday

The Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting and related events took place this weekend in Socorro. I'll be printing a few views of what occurred. Here's one of them.

Report from Anne Kass:

John Wertheim had a rough day Saturday at the Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting in Socorro.  First the gay/lesbian group and its supporters discovered he had unilaterally removed their resolutions--which HAD been passed by the State Resolution Committee--from the packet of passed resolutions because, he explained, he thought all the others were non-controversial and could be passed quickly as a packet, where the gay/lesbian ones would spark controversy.  He didn't want to lose the whole packet.  So he put the gay civil rights resolutions on a separate unattached page that had the heading "Special Consideration." Logical, but stinky and not his call. 

So the gay/lesbian rights folks beat him up for an hour or so, before the meeting started.  Then I went after him about the living wage resolution, and by time I got to him he was frustrated and yelling about how he'd done more for the living wage than I ever had, and I was a conspiracy nut suggesting he and Richardson had got together to keep the living wage resolution buried, and how dare I question his commitment, and rant, rant, rant. 

I asked him why he tabled the resolution.  He said because Hess had objected to it.  I reminded him that Hess has merely wondered out loud whether a living wage was different than the minimum wage, and if he had listened and just answered the question, it would not have been a problem, and his action made it look like he and Hess were working together, and besides, why didn't he tell us that the tabled resolutions were history, and on and on.  Then some women started in on him because he had, unilaterally again, combined a couple of reproductive rights resolutions, which changed one of them, and so by time the meeting started, he had become rather contrite.

Early in the meeting he announced several appointments to the Central Committee and Sheryl Williams Stapleton took the microphone and challenged his authority to do that.  Then the Los Alamos County Chair, Steve Fetik made  a motion to change the agenda order so resolutions would come before the speakers (with Richardson, Denish, Bingaman, Udall, Patsy Madrid and state legislators all sitting there waiting to wax eloquent).  The motion was voted on by voice vote, and John declared that it had lost, but IF it did, it wasn't by much.

Then it came time to elect State officers, and the treasurer, secretary and vice chair went without a hitch, meaning the existing office-holders were voted back in unanimously.  Then the State Chair office came up and Ann Dunlap nominated Mel O'Reilly, who had agreed to have his name put forward, with Terry Riley seconding it.  We had speeches and a ballot vote.  Mel took 108 votes of the 294 cast, not bad given that all the speakers had gushed over John when they talked, and the challenge had come out of the blue.

When the resolution agenda item finally came to the floor, John announced that he had made a mistake by separating the gay/lesbian resolutions, and they were again part of the packet (even though in physical reality they were not, and so most people didn't even have a copy of them). Then there was a motion to adopt the whole packet of resolutions, a second, and then a woman got to the microphone about the reproductive rights thing, and John said, would the committee as a whole object if the separate reproductive rights resolution were added, and the crowd agreed it was o.k. and then Terry jumped up and said what about the living wage resolution, and John asked the crowd if it was o.k. to add that too, and the crowd agreed, and, as Molly Ivins says they say in Texas:  Viola!

Interestingly, every one of the speakers mentioned how half or more of the members of the Central Committee were new, and wasn't it wonderful that people had become involved, and welcome, and so on, but Richardson revealed how antsy all these new faces made him.  When he started his talk, he said, "There are a lot of new faces here.  In fact, who are you?"  and then he said, "I like new energy, and it's great that someone suggested that you want to talk about resolutions first and Richardson and Bingaman can just wait and listen to us."  I think the "leadership" are a little unsettled about the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

If any of the so-called "leaders" who attended the meeting to give their speeches were really top notch, (Tom Udall actually comes close) she or he would have said, in response to Steve Fetik's motion that resolutions be discussed before speeches were given that it was a fine plan, and that the "leaders"--who always claim they want to hear from their constituents [but only by way of them responding to questionnaires created and sent out by the "leaders" which are designed to prevent dialog or, heaven forbid, actual face-to-face exchanges]--that the  leaders would love to participate in the discussion of resolutions.  But NOOOO.  They want to go first, talk, and get the heck out of there.  Listening?  What's that?

I also think, the next time Richardson starts to pontificate about how Democrats need to reconnect with American values, that the best way to do that is to engage in lively discussions about ideas (resolutions) so we can get beyond the labels and jargon of family values, whatever the heck that might mean, and start to actually develop operative meanings for the words that get thrown about.  Resolutions are how we articulate and understand the core principles and values, but it often seems to me that "leaders" just want to talk in sound-bites, talking points, buzz-words or what ever label you prefer to give to the empty language they all seem so skilled at using.

So, that's what you missed if you weren't there. It was a good event. 

Anne Kass