Dustyn Thompson Files Grievance Over 13th RD’s Clubby Endorsements
To Erik Raser-Schramm and David Woodside:
I would like to file a formal complaint about the events that transpired on 2/12/18 at the 13th representative district committee meeting.
Background information: In the year and a half since I was elected to serve on this committee I have only missed one meeting. The normal attendance at our meetings is usually in the single digits, around 7 people. On this night, 15 members showed up, with the addition of two new members, who were later voted onto the committee. It was on the agenda for 2/12/18 that we would discuss endorsements for multiple races at our next meeting on the second Monday in March. This was to allow for Dave Woodside, chair of the NCC Democratic party, to be able to attend and guide the newly elected chair, Eli Infante, through the endorsement process.
Timeline: After discussing the fact that we would be voting on endorsements next month, Eli Infante proceeded to read two letters, one from Rep. Mitchell and another from Ken Woods, detailing their requests for an endorsement from the 13th RD Committee. After reading the letters, the Vice Chair, Steve Burg, reminded the committee that it was past practice to always endorse the incumbent in a race, particularly if they serve on the committee. He went on to detail that the only case that they did not endorse an office was if the seat was vacant with no Democratic incumbent with multiple people serving on the committee running for that same seat. After this, Patricia Blevins made a motion to move that the committee vote to endorse Kenneth Woods for the 1st district of NCC council, and Larry Mitchell, who was not present, for our State House Representative. The motion was seconded after an amendment by Mike Matthews to separate the vote into two separate votes to any avoid conflicts of interest. In attendance was Jordyn Pusey, from the 13th RD Committee, who is also running for the NCC Council for District 1. Jordyn was denied the opportunity to present her case for her candidacy before the vote, even though she was in attendance.
I repeatedly raised the issue that the vote for endorsements was not on the agenda for this evening, and that we should be fair and allow for proper notice by keeping it on for next month as planned. However, my concern was overruled by those in attendance, with the exception of the chair and Mrs. Pusey, and I was Informed that “this is just the way things are done.” There was no motion to amend the agenda on the floor, which is required by Roberts Rules of Order. I stated that committee members should have proper notice of an endorsement vote, and that there should be complete transparency and inclusion in the endorsement process, and that what was happening tonight was not the democratic process by which we should operate. The vote proceeded unabated.
The vote to endorse was 12 yes – 2 no with one abstaining to endorse Ken Woods, and 14 yes -0 no with one abstaining for Representative Mitchell.
Whereas, it is the position of this Democratic Party of Delaware that we operate in a fair, inclusive, and transparent manner, we should not only be required to notify all committee members of any meeting that will include endorsements at least a month ahead of time, so that they can make plans to research candidates and attend said meeting, but should also require RDs to allow those who are interested in running for the office being voted on to speak about their candidacy if they are in attendance at said meeting before the vote commences. This would be the most fair and transparent way we could conduct these endorsements, and that is what this Democratic Party of Delaware states are two of its core principles. It is not just to allow an RD member who is running for office to load the room and force a surprise vote to support an endorsement for their own candidacy. It is disrespectful to the other candidates, and an affront to our democratic values as a party.
Whereas, it is already difficult to bring people into the political process, we should do everything we can to abide by democratic values and operate in the most transparent manner possible. We cannot expect new people to get involved in our party, if this is how we are going to conduct ourselves.
Whereas, it is my understanding that the 13th RD does not have the power to endorse a council district that is split amongst multiple RDs, as the district in question is. I formally request that the State Party and the County Executive Committee void the endorsement and formally recommend procedures to the RD Committee on how this particular race is legally supposed to be handled.
Whereas, there is a great deal of confusion on the endorsement process overall, I request that the State Party spell out clear guidelines for how RDs are to conduct endorsement votes, and request that they consider including the suggestions above that deal with the timeline and voting procedures.
Whereas, the Delaware Democratic Party believes in inclusion and bringing people into the political process, I would request that the State Party and the County Executive Committee immediately move to establish an interim guideline on if, when, on what grounds, and how the Subdivisions or the State Party is able to revoke access to the VAN Network from any particular candidate for office. I further request that this be put into writing, and distributed publicly and directly to each RD member for clarification and transparency purposes.
Respectfully,
Dustyn Thompson
13th RD Committee Member
Great job Dustyn Thompson! The idea of ANY RD automatically endorsing the incumbent is un-Democratic. There should be no endorsements by any RD until after the final filing to run date and any candidate in a primary has been heard by the RD at a publicly announced meeting. Nor should the party be able to block access to the Votebuilder database (VAN). A party that calls itself Democratic should bend over backwards to BE democratic. I’m sorry to hear that it’s not just the 14th RD who believes in ramrodding endorsements through just because “that’s the way it’s done!”
This committee is about as incestuous, and about as over-the-hill, as a committee can be.
Having said that, I don’t care whether what the committee did was in violation of the rules. Why? Because, when a district committee has incumbents, most of the members invariably have been recruited by the incumbents. If they were technically out of compliance, they’ll do the same damn thing while being technically in compliance. The other reason why I don’t care what a moribund committee does is b/c I know what they WON’T do–work hard for their endorsed candidates.
What I DO care about is that challengers rise up to run for office in districts with such moribund committees and self-serving incumbents.
Ken Woods is merely a second-generation hack, succeeding his first-generation hack father. Larry Mitchell has parlayed his police background into the state rep seat and, wait for it, a position as head of Security for, wait for it, Del-Tech.
Patti Blevins collected second paychecks from a variety of not-for-profits while serving in Dover.
Grassroots challengers could knock over the whole lot of them. Jordyn Pusey would be a significant upgrade over Woods. That’s a great place to start. Now, if someone would step up to challenge Mitchell…I wouldn’t be shocked if he stood down. Uh, does Mike Matthews really live in that district?! Run, Mike, run! Hey, you could be in the Senate by 2020.
That should have been Woodside.
And this is why I would never get involved personally in party politics. It’s like garbage collection — somebody’s gotta do it, but it ain’t gonna be me, because it’s impossible to scrub away the stink.
By all means please continue to do things they way they’ve always been done. Don’t change one iota. It’s so much simpler to bring down a stationary target.
Why were the votes 12-2 and 14-0 if people were upset about the process?
If you read the complaint, the meeting appears to have been stacked and the endorsement vote was sprung on the challengers.
Yes but why didn’t challengers on the committee, like Dustyn, vote no? Maybe I am missing something.
Thanks for sharing.
I will be filing a grievance as well. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that “the theory of relativity does not apply to ethics”..or transparency, inclusion, or basic decency for that matter.
Like El Som said, he likely would have been endorsed anyway. He’s been the chair of the RD for a long time. Why he would feel it necessary to rig the process shows his character, and will show grassroots advocates that they have to keep showing up, and standing up.
Pete’s minions did the same thing in 2016. It was not necessary for him to win and it caused a lot if hurt feelings and split the RD.
Dustyn makes an interesting point in the bolded comment above. However, what happens when an agenda was never adopted in the first place, which is the case of what happened Monday night? Seems like Dustyn may not have a case. Even bigger, seem like the RD may go back to the drawing board. It appears all sides need to share in a little blame here.
With 7 regular attending members, the RD is probably run fairly loosely. I’m not a stickler on Roberts Rules of Order. But when primary season is upon us, the Party should try to see that some basic fairness is applied.
[ ] Don’t allow people to sign up as members of the RD on the day you are voting on endorsements.
[ ] Don’t say the voting on endorsements is happening in March, then have the endorsements vote in February.
[ ] Allow people who are present to speak..
You know, basic stuff.
Democratic Party Rule 9.1 says all meetings of the Party must follow Robert’s Rules. So I think this is a bit problematic on both sides.
Jordyn was allowed to speak and she was absolutely never denied that opportunity. That’s all I will say.
So… “Jordyn was denied the opportunity to present her case for her candidacy before the vote, even though she was in attendance.”
…that’s not accurate?
Correct. There was a period of discussion after the motion was made and seconded and she said nothing. What happened on Monday night is a lot deeper than what has been reported in this grievance.
…though I will give Dustyn credit for calling out that a motion to amend the agenda was never made.
But then again an agenda was never adopted at the top of the meeting, so it’s probably a moot point.
I was not allowed to speak about my candidacy before or after the endorsement. I spoke up about the lack of transparency, and objected to the vote. I defended myself against Ken’s statements about me. I also provided some context about the People’s Congress during the remaining meeting. No one is alledging I was never allowed to speak at all.
I’ve heard for years it doesn’t matter what the truth is in politics, it matters what it looks like. This looks bad for the Committee.
I should say so. After it had been reaffirmed that the endorsement vote was going to be the following month, Blevins made a motion to move that the committee vote on its endorsements then and there. WHY?
If I’m Jordyn or Dustyn, or any fair minded person for that matter – I’m thinking, What the fuck?
That said – the approach moving forward should be. Okay, now it is on. Patti Blevins, LOSER. Get ready to lose once more.
I commend Mr. Thompson for using authorized procedures to address his grievances. He states his case well. Mr. Raser-Schramm, I hope you are listening.
The redress he is asking for seems perfectly reasonable. It all has to do with preventing twitchy insiders from creating these kinds of shit messes in the future.
The City of Wilmington went through this last year. Dozens of coordinated grievances to overthrow old hacks. Seems like the rest of the party needs the same medicine.
Closing this out with a WIN for small d in DE: Dustyn gives a final update – vote was voided and rules in place to prevent this gross injustice in the future.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V9k7vtlHJDPLtgrEi4Rj2biAXpr7e8AEog6smWlKdAw/edit
By the way, my friends who left the 23rd RD tell me that Vince D’Anna did something very similar on behalf of Paul Baumbach during the primary to fill Terry Schooley’s vacant seat. The RD lost half of its members as they quit in disgust over the treatment of their choice, Jerry Grant.