It is the middle of 2009, the middle of a heated national debate about monumental issues like healthcare reform, energy policy, and re-regulating the financial industry. There is an incumbent Republican United State Senator up for re-election next year who has moral and ethical problems that would put even other Republican members of the Senate to shame. The seat is there for the taking (with a fight, no doubt, but more winnable than anyone had expected it to be after Vitter won re-election in 2004).
We have a Republican Governor who trashed federal stimulus spending while bragging about the state's economic performance — which has been fueled by years of federal disaster relief dating back to the storms of 2005 and those since. That same governor is in the process of dismantling the public health delivery system by shutting down public hospitals — a long-cherished dream of Republicans and a mission that Jindal has pursued since his days working for Mike Foster.
But, the Louisiana Democratic Party is no where to be found in any of this. Not standing up for our President. Not working with candidates to develop a strategy to take Vitter's seat. Not pointing out Jindal's budgetary hypocrisy (fueled by his apparently incurable case of Blind Ambition). Not working with legislators and local government leaders to deal with the upcoming reapportionment of political districts after the 2010 Census.
The party's absence is directly attributable to the person who sits as chairman, Christopher Whittington. The actions of the executive director Whittington hired as part of his re-election bid has made the party the target of at least two lawsuits.
The highly regarded communications director left shortly after the executive director did.
The entire staff of the party consists of two people, neither of which has any executive power. They are merely at the party's Government Street headquarters in Baton Rouge to turn the lights on and off, answer the phone and get the mail.
The Jefferson/Jackson Dinner in Baton Rouge two weeks ago was a farce. James Carville spoke, but for less than 10 minutes. There were no statewide elected officials in attendance. Senator Mary Landrieu was not there. There were about seven members of the state Legislature in attendance. The event started late and ended early. The speaking ended before 8 p.m. Had Rep. Karen Carter Peterson not given a stem-winder of an address that out-lasted Carville's talk, the event would have lasted less than 30 minutes.
Word is now that Whittington has said that the party will not hire an executive director at this critical time, that "we are going to take a vacation from that."
Imagine that. A political organization taking a vacation from political work.
Anyone who has watched Whittington fight to keep his job while letting the party's work wither will not find this as a surprise. Whittington's fight has always been about keeping control of the party apparatus so that he and his cronies can keep control of the money and the favors that flow through the state party during election cycles.
The crony list includes lawyers, consultants and various hangers-on.
Meanwhile, the party does not do the basic work of crafting a message, registering voters, and winning elections.
But, that's OK with Whittington because, again, this is not about politics. It's about control of money and favors.
There are people on the Democratic State Central Committee and even on the party's executive committee whose efforts guaranteed Whittington's re-election who are now said to be disenchanted with the course things have taken. That course is no different now than it was when they worked and voted for Whittington; he is still playing the same game only now those former allies find that Whittington does not care about the party and its fate. They are shocked! Shocked I tell you! That this petty little man has turned on them.
The sad fact is that the party's constitution and by-laws are such a shambles that any attempt to oust Whittington is a waste of time and effort. He and his various legal advisors twist the interpretation of those rules to make them say whatever it is that serves Whittington's puprposes.
This is not a political organization. This is not a political party. It is a club run by an ever-shrinking group of insiders who are determined to hold control of the organization for the sole purpose of demonstrating that they can.
Every additional day that Chris Whittington holds the otherwise meaningless title of "Chairman" of the Louisiana Democratic Party is further proof of his complete and total disregard for the well-being of the party and its interests.
Chris Whittington has brought this party to the bring of ruin. Why is he holding on? Why is the state central committee letting him?
Showing posts with label Chris Whittington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Whittington. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Thursday, April 3, 2008
LDP run by Scofflaws?
Is the Louisiana Democratic Party run by scofflaws?
It's beginning to look that way to me.
My March 27th post about the party's Congressional District Caucus elections not complying with state party by-laws did not prompt action by the party to correct the error. Instead, the leadership of the party worked to suppress the post from various moderated Democratic lists "for the good of the party." I've appealed those decisions, but party insiders who benefited from the tainted elections are part of the appeal process, so I'm not hopeful.
The March 27th post also prompted an after-hours phone call from the party chairman, which I missed. I responded to the call by placing a call to his law office the following day, but he did not respond.
So, on Monday, March 31, I composed a letter (PDF) formally calling on the chairman to call Congressional District Caucus elections in the manner called for in the by-laws. As the image of the letter on the right shows, I cc'd copies of the letter to several key officers of the party: the First Vice Chair; the Parliamentarian; the Legal Counsel; the Clerk; and the Executive Director.
The letter said:
Mr. Whittington:
This letter constitutes a formal call for you, as chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party (LDP), to enforce the party's by-laws with regard to the formation and election of leaders for the Congressional District Caucuses.
The March 15th elections of chairs for the LDP's Congressional District Caucuses do not comply with the processes specified in Section 17 of the LDP by-laws. Therefore, the people named as holding the 14 seats on the LDP Executive Committee linked to the election of chairs from the seven respective Congressional District Caucuses cannot be considered duly elected.
The number of seats in question (14) constitutes half of the Executive Committee of the party. The failure to provide for elections in compliance with the party by-laws for the Congressional District Caucuses undermines the credibility of the party. The failure to follow the by-laws in these elections also undermines the legitimacy of the Executive Committee and the credibility of its actions.
As a member of the party and as a duly elected member of Lafayette Parish Democratic Executive Committee, I call upon you, the other officers of the LDP Executive Committee, and your staff to follow the instructions provided in Section 17 of the by-laws to convene the Congressional District Caucuses and to then conduct the elections for the offices of the caucuses in compliance with Section 17.
This is not about personalities; it is about process.
Adhering to clearly delineated party processes as specified in the party Constitution and By-Laws builds confidence in the party's systems and legitimacy for the party itself.
Sincerely
Mike Stagg
I mailed the letter to the chairman via certified mail with a signed return receipt (PDF). The image on the right is the receipt for payment of the service and the signed proof of receipt that was returned to me today (April 3).
As the March 27th post explained, this is a matter of "shall" dictating party actions at one point in the March 15th meeting of the Democratic State Central Committee but that same "shall" being declared optional later in the meeting.
This is the very kind of opportunism that created the notion that the LDP is a club operated by party insiders for the benefit of party insiders.
Duly elected LDP officials have been formally notified that the Congressional District Caucus elections held on March 15th do not comply with party by-laws and, therefore, are not valid. They have no excuse for not enforcing those by-laws.
The party website indicates no change in the status of those seated via those invalid elections.
Is the party leadership committed to building the party, as they say? Or, are they scofflaws who can only gain power through manipulation of party processes?
This is not about personalities. A number of the people claiming those 14 seats are friends and acquaintances. It is about building a true party that operates transparently in a manner that builds trust and confidence in party institutions among the members.
So, far, the LDP's leadership is failing this test.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The LDP's Congressional District Caucus Elections Were Not Valid
The Louisiana Democratic Party (LDP) held elections for Congressional District Caucus chairs when the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) met in Baton Rouge on March 15 to elect the officers for the party Executive Committee.
Those Congressional District Caucus elections were not carried out in accordance with the party by-laws governing elections for those positions. The results of those votes, then, are not valid.
The party by-laws (PDF) provide specific guidance for how these 14 seats (two for each of the state's congressional districts) are to be filled. That can be found in Section 17 — Congressional District Caucuses, which reads in full:
As those of us who attended the March 15 DSCC meeting learned, "shall" is a powerful word. It is, according to the party chairman (Chris Whittington), the party legal counsel (Kenny Hooks), and the party parliamentarian (Sen. Derrick Shepherd), immutable. There is, they each said at various times that day, no way around "shall."
It is not a suggestion; it is a commandment.
So, Section 17 of the by-laws directs the party to hold these caucuses and the elections in the respective congressional districts and it lays out how this is to take place.
That section directs that these caucus meetings shall be held within 60 days after the creation of the new executive committee. That is, the person who served as chairman prior to March 15 could not convene these caucuses. The could be convened only by the new chairman and after each potential participant in the caucuses had been notified of the time and place of the various caucus meetings which are to be held in their respective congressional districts. There is also a 10-day advanced notice provision that could not be exercised until after the results of the election for chairman were determined.
It's right there in the by-laws. And there are a lot of "shall's" directing how this is to be done.
Having these elections in Baton Rouge around the meeting where the executive committee elections were held does not comply with the state party by-laws.
It does not matter how the party has done it in the past. The by-laws say "shall." There is no wiggle room.
There was an admission of procedural problems with the caucus elections in the 7th Congressional District, at the Tuesday, March 25, meeting of the Lafayette Parish Democratic Executive Committee. At that meeting, DSCC members Stephen Handwerk and Mary Werner told our committee (I'm a member of that committee), that they would hold a new election at a district-wide caucus that would be held sometime in April.
It was a magnanimous gesture that speaks well for them and their commitment to fair election processes in the party.
The other good Democrats who erroneously believe they were elected to similar positions in Baton Rouge at the DSCC meeting should follow Stephen and Mary's lead and agree to step down and re-open the process so that the elections can be held in compliance with the party by-laws.
Newly re-elected party chairman Chris Whittington should act pro-actively to hold elections that will comply with the by-laws by first notifying those who mistakenly believed they were elected to these caucus chair positions on the 15th about the procedural error that allowed these caucuses to occur and those elections to take place. Then, he should work to call and convene the Congressional District Caucuses in the manner prescribed in the by-laws and call for these legitimate elections to be held at the appropriate time and place and in the way directed by the by-laws.
These are not trivial elections. They are for 14 seats on the LDP Executive Committee. Mr. Whittington says he has no agenda, that he does the bidding of the executive committee. These elections, then, are for control of the party.
Breaking a Disturbing Pattern
The casual, off-handed manner in which these Congressional District Caucuses were convened and these votes held is part of a disturbing pattern of disregard by Mr. Whittington and others on the executive committee for the sanctity and importance of elections as vehicles for conveying legitimacy.
While power, prestige and other assets accrue to the victors of elections, the victors do not win the right to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the process. That right is retained by the vanquished. It is a principle well established in international law (thus, opposition parties frequently call in international monitors to observe election processes for their transparency and fairness).
We've also seen a stark demonstration of this fact in our own country in recent years. In the eyes of the American public, Al Gore's decision in December 2000 to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision handing the presidency to George Bush cast more legitimacy on that decision and Bush's ascendancy was absolutely essential to the acceptance of that decision and that outcome.
Since February, Louisiana Democrats have engaged in three elections — the February 9th party primary; the March 1 party convention delegate elections; and, the March 15 state party executive committee elections.
It is both ironic and disturbing that the election in which there was the most confidence in both the process and the result was the February 9th election that was run by the Louisiana Secretary of State's office, which happens to be held by a Republican.
The delegate selection election was a farce. One of three polling places in Lafayette never opened. There were stories from across the state of un-tended ballot boxes, of delegate candidates campaigning at the ballot boxes, and people shuttling ballots between cities.
The party executive committee elections reeked of manipulation due to the fact that 27 people were appointed to the DSCC and allowed to vote for officers even though candidates other than the incumbent chairman and his cronies knew who these appointees were. To top that off, some of the appointees were allowed to vote by proxy without ever having seen or heard from any candidates other than those aligned with the chairman's ticket.
The failure of the party leadership to provide transparent and fair processes to govern party elections undermines confidence in the results of those elections and, thus, the party itself.
Democrats believe in fair elections. The way to ensure that the party is unified is for the party to conduct its business and its elections in a fair and transparent way. That approach will build confidence in the party and its leadership.
The Congressional District Caucus elections held on March 15 do not comply with the party by-laws. The results, therefore, are not valid. The Congressional District Caucus elections need to be carried out in a manner that complies with the by-laws. Doing this is an essential step toward building new confidence in the party's leadership that recent elections have done so much to undermine.
Those Congressional District Caucus elections were not carried out in accordance with the party by-laws governing elections for those positions. The results of those votes, then, are not valid.
The party by-laws (PDF) provide specific guidance for how these 14 seats (two for each of the state's congressional districts) are to be filled. That can be found in Section 17 — Congressional District Caucuses, which reads in full:
A. Congressional District Caucuses shall be held in each of the State's Congressional Districts. These Caucuses shall be held for the purpose of electing representatives from each Congressional District to serve as members of the Executive Committee of the Democratic State Central Committee. A Congressional District Caucus shall be subordinate to the Democratic State Central Committee and shall not endorse candidates for public office.The "shall's" that are highlighted here are crucial.
B. A Congressional District Caucus shall be comprised of members of the Democratic State Central Committee who reside in and are registered to vote in the Congressional District. In addition, a Chairperson or First Vice-Chairperson of a Democratic Parish Executive Committee shall be a member of the Caucus in the Congressional District in which he/she resides and is registered to vote. All Caucus members shall be eligible for election as officers of the Caucus or as a Congressional District Representative to the Executive Committee of the Democratic State Central Committee.
C. The Chairperson of the Democratic State Central Committee shall call a meeting of each Congressional District Caucus no later than sixty (60) days following the organizational meeting of the Democratic State Central Committee on a date and at a place to be designated by the Chairperson. Members of the Caucuses shall be given at least ten (10) days advance notice of the date, time, and place of the meeting and shall be provided with the name, address, and to the extent possible, the telephone number of each Caucus member in his/her respective District when notice of the meeting is given. Caucus members present at the time of the meeting shall constitute a quorum.
D. Officers of each Congressional District Caucus shall be a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, who shall be of the opposite sex of the Chairperson, and a Secretary. Each Caucus shall be represented on the Executive Committee of the Democratic State Central Committee by two members, one male and one female. The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Secretary of a Caucus may also be elected to serve as a Caucus Representative to the Executive Committee of the Democratic State Central Committee. (Emphasis added.)
As those of us who attended the March 15 DSCC meeting learned, "shall" is a powerful word. It is, according to the party chairman (Chris Whittington), the party legal counsel (Kenny Hooks), and the party parliamentarian (Sen. Derrick Shepherd), immutable. There is, they each said at various times that day, no way around "shall."
It is not a suggestion; it is a commandment.
So, Section 17 of the by-laws directs the party to hold these caucuses and the elections in the respective congressional districts and it lays out how this is to take place.
That section directs that these caucus meetings shall be held within 60 days after the creation of the new executive committee. That is, the person who served as chairman prior to March 15 could not convene these caucuses. The could be convened only by the new chairman and after each potential participant in the caucuses had been notified of the time and place of the various caucus meetings which are to be held in their respective congressional districts. There is also a 10-day advanced notice provision that could not be exercised until after the results of the election for chairman were determined.
It's right there in the by-laws. And there are a lot of "shall's" directing how this is to be done.
Having these elections in Baton Rouge around the meeting where the executive committee elections were held does not comply with the state party by-laws.
It does not matter how the party has done it in the past. The by-laws say "shall." There is no wiggle room.
There was an admission of procedural problems with the caucus elections in the 7th Congressional District, at the Tuesday, March 25, meeting of the Lafayette Parish Democratic Executive Committee. At that meeting, DSCC members Stephen Handwerk and Mary Werner told our committee (I'm a member of that committee), that they would hold a new election at a district-wide caucus that would be held sometime in April.
It was a magnanimous gesture that speaks well for them and their commitment to fair election processes in the party.
The other good Democrats who erroneously believe they were elected to similar positions in Baton Rouge at the DSCC meeting should follow Stephen and Mary's lead and agree to step down and re-open the process so that the elections can be held in compliance with the party by-laws.
Newly re-elected party chairman Chris Whittington should act pro-actively to hold elections that will comply with the by-laws by first notifying those who mistakenly believed they were elected to these caucus chair positions on the 15th about the procedural error that allowed these caucuses to occur and those elections to take place. Then, he should work to call and convene the Congressional District Caucuses in the manner prescribed in the by-laws and call for these legitimate elections to be held at the appropriate time and place and in the way directed by the by-laws.
These are not trivial elections. They are for 14 seats on the LDP Executive Committee. Mr. Whittington says he has no agenda, that he does the bidding of the executive committee. These elections, then, are for control of the party.
Breaking a Disturbing Pattern
The casual, off-handed manner in which these Congressional District Caucuses were convened and these votes held is part of a disturbing pattern of disregard by Mr. Whittington and others on the executive committee for the sanctity and importance of elections as vehicles for conveying legitimacy.
While power, prestige and other assets accrue to the victors of elections, the victors do not win the right to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the process. That right is retained by the vanquished. It is a principle well established in international law (thus, opposition parties frequently call in international monitors to observe election processes for their transparency and fairness).
We've also seen a stark demonstration of this fact in our own country in recent years. In the eyes of the American public, Al Gore's decision in December 2000 to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision handing the presidency to George Bush cast more legitimacy on that decision and Bush's ascendancy was absolutely essential to the acceptance of that decision and that outcome.
Since February, Louisiana Democrats have engaged in three elections — the February 9th party primary; the March 1 party convention delegate elections; and, the March 15 state party executive committee elections.
It is both ironic and disturbing that the election in which there was the most confidence in both the process and the result was the February 9th election that was run by the Louisiana Secretary of State's office, which happens to be held by a Republican.
The delegate selection election was a farce. One of three polling places in Lafayette never opened. There were stories from across the state of un-tended ballot boxes, of delegate candidates campaigning at the ballot boxes, and people shuttling ballots between cities.
The party executive committee elections reeked of manipulation due to the fact that 27 people were appointed to the DSCC and allowed to vote for officers even though candidates other than the incumbent chairman and his cronies knew who these appointees were. To top that off, some of the appointees were allowed to vote by proxy without ever having seen or heard from any candidates other than those aligned with the chairman's ticket.
The failure of the party leadership to provide transparent and fair processes to govern party elections undermines confidence in the results of those elections and, thus, the party itself.
Democrats believe in fair elections. The way to ensure that the party is unified is for the party to conduct its business and its elections in a fair and transparent way. That approach will build confidence in the party and its leadership.
The Congressional District Caucus elections held on March 15 do not comply with the party by-laws. The results, therefore, are not valid. The Congressional District Caucus elections need to be carried out in a manner that complies with the by-laws. Doing this is an essential step toward building new confidence in the party's leadership that recent elections have done so much to undermine.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Whittington proves he is unfit to serve
Chris Whittington has resorted to subterfuge in a desperate attempt to hold on to his job as chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party (LDP).
He must be stopped.
Whittington's subterfuge became apparent only on Tuesday of this week, four days before the election for party officers. On that day, the Louisiana Democratic Party released a list of appointments made by Whittington to fill 27 of the 41 vacancies on the DSCC.
Whittington's defenders say that he did not try to "pack" those slots with people favorable only to him.
I don't believe that. One person personally told me that she was offered a seat on the DSCC if she would support Whittington's re-election. The offer came from a sitting member of the LDP executive committee who lives in the same House district as this woman. I don't believe this offer has been the exception; I believe it has been the rule.
The "not packing" argument also misses the point by a mile.
The point is that for the past four months, as Whittington has been assembling this list of hand-picked potential DSCC members, he and his camp have been the only parties to the LDP election that have access to the names on that list. Other candidates for chair (as well as other offices) were denied access to that pool of voters.
These are not the acts of a person interested in conducting a fair election. These are the acts of a person determined to use any means necessary -- legitimate or otherwise -- in order to hold power. One can only wish he'd used as much imagination and creativity against Republicans last year that he's using against fellow Democrats in this race.
This goes to the heart of the ability of the LDP to conduct an open and fair election. The 27 people Whittington wants to appoint constitute a captive constituency who have not been exposed to or heard from the other candidates for chairman in the race. Those people constitute almost 16 percent of the total of the DSCC and, if allowed to vote, would constitute almost 14 percent of all votes cast.
This is more than enough votes to change the outcome of this closely contested election.
BACKGROUND
To understand what Whittington is attempting, one must go back to December of 2007 when Democrats across the state filed to run for seats on the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC). Theoretically, the DSCC is governing body of the LDP. It has 210 seats (two for every House district in the Louisiana Legislature; one seat for a male, one seat for a female).
When qualifying ended in December, there were 41 seats for which no one had submitted qualifying papers and fees.
With the party coming off a disastrous round of state elections in which we lost the governor's office, the secretary of state, the commissioner of insurance, and the commissioner of agriculture and forestry, dissatisfaction with Whittington's performance was running high (and still does).
The race for chairman has turned into a hotly contested six-candidate field, with Whittington trying to fend off challenges from Paul Aucoin (running with the support of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, Congressman Charles Melancon, and Lt. Gov. Mitchell Landrieu), Opelousas Mayor Donald Cravins Sr., Larry Ferdinand, William Sumlin, and Dr. Steve Kirkikis. I've endorsed Mayor Cravins.
It is widely believed within the party that Aucoin and Cravins have the votes to force a run-off that might not include Whittington. That belief, though, is based on the idea that there are 169 eligible voters who will cast their ballots when the DSCC meets this Saturday in Baton Rouge.
Questions arose about how those 41 vacancies would be filled shortly after the end of the December qualifying period. One party officer assured me personally and others publicly that, according to the state party by-laws, the vacancies could not be filled until after the election of the new slate of officers.
That view is based on Article I, Section 9 of the Party By-laws, which reads:
Under this rule, only the DSCC members who qualified for office but were unopposed or who won election to the DSCC in the February 9 election could vote on the new slate of officers, including the chairman.
But, Whittington and his coterie of lawyers cite Article I, Section 4 of the by-laws that call for the chairman to fill vacancies as soon as possible after they occur. That section reads:
FAIRNESS & TRANSPARENCY DENIED
The issue is that Whittington has concealed the list of appointments and, thus, denied his competitors access to voters who will decide his own fate as party chair. He has denied his competitors — and the party — the benefit of a fairly contested election.
The official response of Whittington and his backers is that "everyone who's been on the committee for a while knows that this is how we handle these matters." Whittington's supporters like to portray him as something of a reformer in the party. But, replacing one club with the members of another club is not reform. It is a coup.
What this party needs is open and transparent processes, which generate trust and confidence among its members. Whittington's attempt to manipulate this election ignore that need and, in fact, will do great damage to the members' confidence in the party and its leaders.
His acts fail the test of transparency and fairness necessary to bestow legitimacy on the results of any election.
If these heretofore-secret DSCC members are allowed to vote, the outcome will be tainted because of the way Whittington restricted access to this pool of potential voters. Imagine being a candidate for a district office and finding out four days before the election that the district boundaries have been expanded by your opponent to increase the size of the district by 16 percent.
This tactic would not pass the standards that international election observers use in second and third world countries where they certify the fairness of elections there. It should not be good enough for the LDP.
By this brazen attempt to steal the election of LDP offices, Chris Whittington has proven that he is not worthy to hold the seat he so desperately wants to keep. It is a clear demonstration that he does not care about the fate of the party; that his sole concern is his own grip on power.
Does he really believe he would have a chairmanship worth having -- one considered legitimate in the eyes of party members -- if he goes through with his plan to manipulate this election?
CONTEMPTIBLE
Whittington's ploy demonstrates wide-ranging contempt for the our party, its members and its traditions.
Whittington shows contempt for Democratic National Committee, which in every national election deploys a phalanx of attorneys as part of its election integrity project to ensure that elections are carried out in a fair and transparent manner across the country.
Whittington's brazen attempt to manipulate this election would not pass the DNC's basic test for fairness. To hear him talk about his commitment to "seeing through to completion" projects started by the DNC and then to try to subvert this election is nauseating.
Chris Whittington has demonstrated contempt for the state party at multiple levels. He has demonstrated contempt for:
ETHICALLY UNFIT TO SERVE
On an earlier occasion, I said that my opposition to Whittington was not personal, that it was based on the quality of leadership he had not provided the party during his tenure. This changes that.
It is personal now.
Chris Whittington's attempt to steal this election provides conclusive proof that he is not ethically fit to serve as chairman of this party.
He must be stopped.
Whittington's subterfuge became apparent only on Tuesday of this week, four days before the election for party officers. On that day, the Louisiana Democratic Party released a list of appointments made by Whittington to fill 27 of the 41 vacancies on the DSCC.
Whittington's defenders say that he did not try to "pack" those slots with people favorable only to him.
I don't believe that. One person personally told me that she was offered a seat on the DSCC if she would support Whittington's re-election. The offer came from a sitting member of the LDP executive committee who lives in the same House district as this woman. I don't believe this offer has been the exception; I believe it has been the rule.
The "not packing" argument also misses the point by a mile.
The point is that for the past four months, as Whittington has been assembling this list of hand-picked potential DSCC members, he and his camp have been the only parties to the LDP election that have access to the names on that list. Other candidates for chair (as well as other offices) were denied access to that pool of voters.
These are not the acts of a person interested in conducting a fair election. These are the acts of a person determined to use any means necessary -- legitimate or otherwise -- in order to hold power. One can only wish he'd used as much imagination and creativity against Republicans last year that he's using against fellow Democrats in this race.
This goes to the heart of the ability of the LDP to conduct an open and fair election. The 27 people Whittington wants to appoint constitute a captive constituency who have not been exposed to or heard from the other candidates for chairman in the race. Those people constitute almost 16 percent of the total of the DSCC and, if allowed to vote, would constitute almost 14 percent of all votes cast.
This is more than enough votes to change the outcome of this closely contested election.
BACKGROUND
To understand what Whittington is attempting, one must go back to December of 2007 when Democrats across the state filed to run for seats on the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC). Theoretically, the DSCC is governing body of the LDP. It has 210 seats (two for every House district in the Louisiana Legislature; one seat for a male, one seat for a female).
When qualifying ended in December, there were 41 seats for which no one had submitted qualifying papers and fees.
With the party coming off a disastrous round of state elections in which we lost the governor's office, the secretary of state, the commissioner of insurance, and the commissioner of agriculture and forestry, dissatisfaction with Whittington's performance was running high (and still does).
The race for chairman has turned into a hotly contested six-candidate field, with Whittington trying to fend off challenges from Paul Aucoin (running with the support of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, Congressman Charles Melancon, and Lt. Gov. Mitchell Landrieu), Opelousas Mayor Donald Cravins Sr., Larry Ferdinand, William Sumlin, and Dr. Steve Kirkikis. I've endorsed Mayor Cravins.
It is widely believed within the party that Aucoin and Cravins have the votes to force a run-off that might not include Whittington. That belief, though, is based on the idea that there are 169 eligible voters who will cast their ballots when the DSCC meets this Saturday in Baton Rouge.
Questions arose about how those 41 vacancies would be filled shortly after the end of the December qualifying period. One party officer assured me personally and others publicly that, according to the state party by-laws, the vacancies could not be filled until after the election of the new slate of officers.
That view is based on Article I, Section 9 of the Party By-laws, which reads:
Section 9 - Election of Officers
At the first meeting following the election of new members of the Democratic State Central Committee, the newly-elected members shall elect officers for the Party in accordance with the Louisiana Election Code and the Louisiana Democratic Party Constitution. (Emphasis added.)
Under this rule, only the DSCC members who qualified for office but were unopposed or who won election to the DSCC in the February 9 election could vote on the new slate of officers, including the chairman.
But, Whittington and his coterie of lawyers cite Article I, Section 4 of the by-laws that call for the chairman to fill vacancies as soon as possible after they occur. That section reads:
Section 4 - VacanciesThese two sections provide some ambiguity as to the proper course for seating new members, but for Whittington to act unilaterally and with such stealth are what call his motives into question and raise questions about his suitability for office.
A. A vacancy occurs in the membership of the Democratic State Central Committee when a member dies, resigns, no longer meets the qualifications for membership on the Committee, or no one qualifies and is elected to succeed a member whose four-year term has expired.
B. In the case of a vacancy on the Democratic State Central Committee, the Chairperson of the Democratic State Central Committee shall appoint a member to serve for the remainder of the unexpired term subject to the approval of a majority of the membership of the Democratic State Central Committee in attendance at a legally constituted meeting. The person(s) appointed must meet the guidelines provided in the Louisiana Democratic Party Constitution for membership on the Democratic State Central Committee and shall be required to pay a filing fee equal to the Party fee assessed by the Parish Clerk of Court as set forth in La. Rev. Stat. Title 18:464. Such filing fee shall be shared equally between the Democratic State Central Committee and the Parish Executive Committee from where the appointed member resides. All persons appointed may serve as temporary members until ratified at the first order of business by a majority vote of the Democratic State Central Committee.
FAIRNESS & TRANSPARENCY DENIED
The issue is that Whittington has concealed the list of appointments and, thus, denied his competitors access to voters who will decide his own fate as party chair. He has denied his competitors — and the party — the benefit of a fairly contested election.
The official response of Whittington and his backers is that "everyone who's been on the committee for a while knows that this is how we handle these matters." Whittington's supporters like to portray him as something of a reformer in the party. But, replacing one club with the members of another club is not reform. It is a coup.
What this party needs is open and transparent processes, which generate trust and confidence among its members. Whittington's attempt to manipulate this election ignore that need and, in fact, will do great damage to the members' confidence in the party and its leaders.
His acts fail the test of transparency and fairness necessary to bestow legitimacy on the results of any election.
If these heretofore-secret DSCC members are allowed to vote, the outcome will be tainted because of the way Whittington restricted access to this pool of potential voters. Imagine being a candidate for a district office and finding out four days before the election that the district boundaries have been expanded by your opponent to increase the size of the district by 16 percent.
This tactic would not pass the standards that international election observers use in second and third world countries where they certify the fairness of elections there. It should not be good enough for the LDP.
By this brazen attempt to steal the election of LDP offices, Chris Whittington has proven that he is not worthy to hold the seat he so desperately wants to keep. It is a clear demonstration that he does not care about the fate of the party; that his sole concern is his own grip on power.
Does he really believe he would have a chairmanship worth having -- one considered legitimate in the eyes of party members -- if he goes through with his plan to manipulate this election?
CONTEMPTIBLE
Whittington's ploy demonstrates wide-ranging contempt for the our party, its members and its traditions.
Whittington shows contempt for Democratic National Committee, which in every national election deploys a phalanx of attorneys as part of its election integrity project to ensure that elections are carried out in a fair and transparent manner across the country.
Whittington's brazen attempt to manipulate this election would not pass the DNC's basic test for fairness. To hear him talk about his commitment to "seeing through to completion" projects started by the DNC and then to try to subvert this election is nauseating.
Chris Whittington has demonstrated contempt for the state party at multiple levels. He has demonstrated contempt for:
- the state party election process by denying a level playing field for all candidates;
- the members of the DSCC by not providing them a clear set of rules as to how those vacancies will be filled and how this election will be conducted; and
- all Democrats who took part in the party elections in February in the belief that they were taking part in a meaningful process that could produce a more vibrant party.
ETHICALLY UNFIT TO SERVE
On an earlier occasion, I said that my opposition to Whittington was not personal, that it was based on the quality of leadership he had not provided the party during his tenure. This changes that.
It is personal now.
Chris Whittington's attempt to steal this election provides conclusive proof that he is not ethically fit to serve as chairman of this party.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Essay: Who Will Lead Us?
There is a lot of talking and maneuvering going on across the state now about who will be the next chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party (LDP).
It’s all interesting but most of it misses the point because the focus started on the candidates for the job instead of the tasks at hand.
The person best suited to lead the LDP can’t be identified without first identifying what those tasks are. Here’s what they are — and what those tasks will demand of our next party leader — from where I sit.
Three Essential Tasks
The next LDP chair faces three essential tasks in the coming year, all of which will demand immediate attention. They are, in order: 1) rebuild and re-unify the party; 2) serve as the leader of the opposition party in this state; and 3) win elections.
1) Rebuilding & Re-unifying the Party
Despite the fact that this is a presidential election year and there are three open congressional seats up for grabs across the state, the primary job of next LDP chair is to rebuild a party apparatus that has atrophied at the state level and all but disappeared at the local level.
Why? Because a strong party apparatus is the foundation upon which successful campaigns are built.
Louisiana’s open primary system enabled Democrats to forget the lesson. The party primary system has been restored in federal elections, opening the door — and creating the need — for strong party organizations.
The success of Republican candidates across Louisiana in recent years has been built on an active party base that produces volunteers and dollars to support the party’s candidates in all kinds of races. These are the people whose first question is not "Can you win?" but is instead "How can i help?"
If Democrats are going to get back in the habit of winning elections, we need to focus our efforts on rebuilding the party’s infrastructure in our state. Democrats need to get back into the habit of asking first how they can help. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) understands this and, under the leadership of Howard Dean, has spent considerable money trying to help parties at the state level kick-start and/or advance that work.
Building an effective party means making it open to party activists — partisans — not just those who can write big checks.
A consistent story emerges when you talk to Democrats across Louisiana. It is this: that “the party” turned down their efforts to help; their calls were not returned; they were never contacted to help in campaigns. “The party” acted like what it has really become, a closed club of insiders who the party like it’s a private preserve.
The party leadership continues to treat party activists like we’re a nuisance when, in fact, we are the backbone of the party. The path to success for this party will require party leaders who will work to bridge the gap between the grassroots and the suits, between blacks and whites, and between the progressives and the rednecks.
We all call ourselves Democrats for a reason. The next party leader needs to engage the party faithful in a broad-ranging conversation about why we are all Democrats in order to identify the common ground that unites us under the banner of this party.
Democrats are hungry to know each other. The state party should convene a regular series of regional meetings, conducting campaign workshops in the day for activists and fund-raisers in the evening. The grassroots activists should be included in those fund-raisers and the check-writers should be invited to the workshops. Democrats need to get to know each other and the party is the vehicle needed to do that.
Every Democrat should have a seat at the table. No faction should be excluded.
No small reason for the mess this party is in goes to the matter of race.
In some ways, African American Democrats in Louisiana find themselves being used as fundamentalist Christians are recognizing that Republicans at the national level have used them.
White Democratic leaders in Louisiana have been happy to have African American support and votes but have not been willing to return the favor for African American Democrats when they challenged white Republicans in district and statewide races.
The party needs to elect leaders who break with that past; who send a message that this party is committed to unleashing the potential of our party and our state by tearing down the barriers that separate us.
The best way to ensure that our party is united would be for the leadership of the DLP to reflect its constituents. At least 46 percent of Louisiana voters registered as Democrats are African American; a greater percentage than that provide the votes that elect Democratic candidates. The leadership of the party should reflect the diversity of the party. Either the chair or the executive director should be an African American and/or a woman.
2) Serve as the Leader of the Opposition Party
Effective January 14, the LDP became the opposition party in Louisiana politics. Democrats will not be obstructionists, but the duty falls to our party to help people distinguish between the Jindal/Republican fairy tale and reality. That work should have already started.
There are immediate openings for Democrats to expose Republican hypocrisy on ethics reform, starting with the refusal of the Jindal administration and its Republican allies to tackle campaign finance reform.
During his campaign for governor, Jindal made “ending pay to play” and removing “even the hint of corruption” part of his mantra. Yet, his blue ribbon ethics transition panel ignored the most direct form of pay to play in Louisiana politics — direct contributions from companies either working or seeking to do business with government. Jindal’s own campaign garnered significant sums of money directly from corporations.
Republicans benefited from the ability and willingness of people who lead companies to write checks to back their candidacies. Corporate campaign contributions fail both the Jindal promise to end “pay to play” and the “hint of corruption” standard that he pitched voters during the campaign.
There is also the matter of the heavy contributions from nursing home owners that went both to the Jindal campaign and the political action committee operated by now-Speaker Jim Tucker. Were there any policy discussions that took place in connection with those contributions? There are big state policy issues that affect nursing homes. They were certainly in the Jindal and Republican camps. What is the connection between that money and those policies? Only the LDP has the standing to raise those issues.
Jindal’s campaign also benefited greatly from the bundling of LLC contributions that pushed the boundaries of legality on campaign contribution caps. Again, more than a hint of corruption here, but no Jindal administration action will be forthcoming on this.
There is also the matter of the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office sharing its database management company with the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority (LCRM) during the election. What was the nature of the work that GCR & Associates was performing for the Secretary of State and what was the nature of the work it was performing for the LCRM? Was the Secretary of State’s database turned into an arm of the Republican statewide campaign in 2007? This matter goes to the heart of free and fair elections.
Ethics reform was a major rallying cry for those who led the Jindal campaign and its satellite operations (like the BluePrint). Democrats are in position to either push Jindal towards real reform or reveal the pitch to have been a scam. This is a task for the next leader of the Louisiana Democratic Party.
The LDP charter calls for the party to engage in research, the kind of which could turn these items into major issues for Democrats as we begin the four-year long effort to strip away the myth of Jindal and Republican competence and honesty. That work will require a commitment and thoroughness that appears beyond the capacity of the current leadership of the party.
3) Winning Elections
There will be no fewer than three open seats in the Louisiana Congressional delegation this year. Democrats need to be organized and motivated to help Democrats challenge and win in every one of those races. The best way to provide help is to revitalize the local party infrastructure, helping parish executive committees reconstitute themselves where needed and function more efficiently where they already exist.
Convening Democrats across the state could make a difference in these races and could speed the process of re-energizing the party at the local level. In races where multiple Democrats qualify to run, the party should ensure that each Democratic candidate has access to all the tools at the state party’s disposal, including databases of voters, volunteers and contributors.
If the party is strong at the parish level, it can help candidates for congress as well as help to re-elect our Democratic U.S. Senator.
The old days of leaving the business of organizing campaigns solely to candidates died with the death of the open primary system in federal elections. Success in 2008 will require that Democrats return to building campaigns — and the party — from the ground up.
Running strong campaigns in the congressional races on tap for this year is one way of ensuring that the national Democratic ticket not only campaigns in Louisiana, but also spends money in Louisiana right through November. The last Democratic presidential campaign to spend money in Louisiana late into the campaign was Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaign. He carried Louisiana and won re-election.
In the intervening years, the national party abandoned our state and left the field to the Republican message.
That is one big reason why Louisiana has appeared to be a Republican state: Democrats have left a message vacuum, which they filled. Energizing the state and local party, fielding strong campaigns for Congress, running a strong re-election campaign for Senator Landrieu, these are the elements that will bring the national party back into Louisiana and Louisiana back into the fold as a Democratic state.
Who Will Lead Us?
The race for chair of the LDP is not solely about Chris Whittington or the Landrieus. It is about the future of the party for which we all proclaim our loyalty and allegiance. Still, since Whittington is the incumbent and appears committed to trying to keep his job, his record in the job is pertinent to the discussion.
Under Whittington’s watch the party lost the following state offices: governor, secretary of state, commissioner of agriculture and forestry, and commissioner of insurance.
The party also lost the leadership of the House of Representatives.
It failed to build up infrastructure at the party level, despite receiving funding and support from the Democratic National Committee for precisely that work.
The party did raise money but it squandered it on ill-conceived advertising that discredited the party in the eyes of many voters.
It stiffed party activists at all levels, in all regions of the state.
There is no other word to characterize this but failure. It can’t be called leadership.
Despite this record, there are people on the current executive committee of the LDP working frantically to make the case that Whittington should retain his post. In my view, they are confusing their personal interests with the well being of the party. They hope that by helping Whittington keep his job, they can keep their positions. That is legitimate only if you are willing to totally discount the fate of the party.
I know some of these people. They are better Democrats than that. They should stop those efforts now. Whittington’s record speaks for itself. It is indefensible.
The selection of the next chair and executive director will send a message to the party faithful and the general public about who we are as a party and where we are headed. The re-election of Chris Whittington will say that Louisiana Democrats are content with being ineffective failures.
If Not Chris Whittington, Then Who?
It should be clear that the next leader should not come out of the Landrieu camp. Tying the party to the campaign of the highest ranking Democrat on the ticket and ignoring party building is how we got in this mess. Besides, the Landrieus have not been able to find a candidate who can defeat Whittington and their opposition to him has had the unfortunate effect of galvanizing support for him.
So, a framework of sort emerges. First, it can’t be Whittington because the party can’t get the fresh start it needs if it is led by the person responsible for the colossal failures of the recent past. Second, it can’t be a Landrieu person. Third, grassroots activists don’t have the numbers to elect one of our own as chair. We can, however, help decide who that next leader will be (which is a big step up from where we’ve been over the past four years!).
Chris Whittington can do the party a great service by not seeking re-election as chair, but identifying someone from the trial lawyers camp as a possible replacement.
Any and all candidates should be required to publicly declare themselves no later than February 15 — one month before the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) meeting where the new leadership will be elected. And, they should be required to provide detailed plans for how they will work to restore the party’s political fortunes.
The Landrieus, who don’t appear to have the votes to defeat Whittington need to quit talking about wanting to help rebuild the party and actually come sit down at the table with the rest of us who have been proclaiming the need for this work for years. You’re either in or you’re out, but come to the table on the same terms as everyone else. Everyone gets a seat and everyone gets a say.
Louisiana Democrats have a real opportunity to jump-start the rebirth of our party right now. But, that can only happen if everyone is willing to put aside their delusions of grandeur, roll up their sleeves, and get to the work at hand.
It’s all interesting but most of it misses the point because the focus started on the candidates for the job instead of the tasks at hand.
The person best suited to lead the LDP can’t be identified without first identifying what those tasks are. Here’s what they are — and what those tasks will demand of our next party leader — from where I sit.
Three Essential Tasks
The next LDP chair faces three essential tasks in the coming year, all of which will demand immediate attention. They are, in order: 1) rebuild and re-unify the party; 2) serve as the leader of the opposition party in this state; and 3) win elections.
1) Rebuilding & Re-unifying the Party
Despite the fact that this is a presidential election year and there are three open congressional seats up for grabs across the state, the primary job of next LDP chair is to rebuild a party apparatus that has atrophied at the state level and all but disappeared at the local level.
Why? Because a strong party apparatus is the foundation upon which successful campaigns are built.
Louisiana’s open primary system enabled Democrats to forget the lesson. The party primary system has been restored in federal elections, opening the door — and creating the need — for strong party organizations.
The success of Republican candidates across Louisiana in recent years has been built on an active party base that produces volunteers and dollars to support the party’s candidates in all kinds of races. These are the people whose first question is not "Can you win?" but is instead "How can i help?"
If Democrats are going to get back in the habit of winning elections, we need to focus our efforts on rebuilding the party’s infrastructure in our state. Democrats need to get back into the habit of asking first how they can help. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) understands this and, under the leadership of Howard Dean, has spent considerable money trying to help parties at the state level kick-start and/or advance that work.
Building an effective party means making it open to party activists — partisans — not just those who can write big checks.
A consistent story emerges when you talk to Democrats across Louisiana. It is this: that “the party” turned down their efforts to help; their calls were not returned; they were never contacted to help in campaigns. “The party” acted like what it has really become, a closed club of insiders who the party like it’s a private preserve.
The party leadership continues to treat party activists like we’re a nuisance when, in fact, we are the backbone of the party. The path to success for this party will require party leaders who will work to bridge the gap between the grassroots and the suits, between blacks and whites, and between the progressives and the rednecks.
We all call ourselves Democrats for a reason. The next party leader needs to engage the party faithful in a broad-ranging conversation about why we are all Democrats in order to identify the common ground that unites us under the banner of this party.
Democrats are hungry to know each other. The state party should convene a regular series of regional meetings, conducting campaign workshops in the day for activists and fund-raisers in the evening. The grassroots activists should be included in those fund-raisers and the check-writers should be invited to the workshops. Democrats need to get to know each other and the party is the vehicle needed to do that.
Every Democrat should have a seat at the table. No faction should be excluded.
No small reason for the mess this party is in goes to the matter of race.
In some ways, African American Democrats in Louisiana find themselves being used as fundamentalist Christians are recognizing that Republicans at the national level have used them.
White Democratic leaders in Louisiana have been happy to have African American support and votes but have not been willing to return the favor for African American Democrats when they challenged white Republicans in district and statewide races.
The party needs to elect leaders who break with that past; who send a message that this party is committed to unleashing the potential of our party and our state by tearing down the barriers that separate us.
The best way to ensure that our party is united would be for the leadership of the DLP to reflect its constituents. At least 46 percent of Louisiana voters registered as Democrats are African American; a greater percentage than that provide the votes that elect Democratic candidates. The leadership of the party should reflect the diversity of the party. Either the chair or the executive director should be an African American and/or a woman.
2) Serve as the Leader of the Opposition Party
Effective January 14, the LDP became the opposition party in Louisiana politics. Democrats will not be obstructionists, but the duty falls to our party to help people distinguish between the Jindal/Republican fairy tale and reality. That work should have already started.
There are immediate openings for Democrats to expose Republican hypocrisy on ethics reform, starting with the refusal of the Jindal administration and its Republican allies to tackle campaign finance reform.
During his campaign for governor, Jindal made “ending pay to play” and removing “even the hint of corruption” part of his mantra. Yet, his blue ribbon ethics transition panel ignored the most direct form of pay to play in Louisiana politics — direct contributions from companies either working or seeking to do business with government. Jindal’s own campaign garnered significant sums of money directly from corporations.
Republicans benefited from the ability and willingness of people who lead companies to write checks to back their candidacies. Corporate campaign contributions fail both the Jindal promise to end “pay to play” and the “hint of corruption” standard that he pitched voters during the campaign.
There is also the matter of the heavy contributions from nursing home owners that went both to the Jindal campaign and the political action committee operated by now-Speaker Jim Tucker. Were there any policy discussions that took place in connection with those contributions? There are big state policy issues that affect nursing homes. They were certainly in the Jindal and Republican camps. What is the connection between that money and those policies? Only the LDP has the standing to raise those issues.
Jindal’s campaign also benefited greatly from the bundling of LLC contributions that pushed the boundaries of legality on campaign contribution caps. Again, more than a hint of corruption here, but no Jindal administration action will be forthcoming on this.
There is also the matter of the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office sharing its database management company with the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority (LCRM) during the election. What was the nature of the work that GCR & Associates was performing for the Secretary of State and what was the nature of the work it was performing for the LCRM? Was the Secretary of State’s database turned into an arm of the Republican statewide campaign in 2007? This matter goes to the heart of free and fair elections.
Ethics reform was a major rallying cry for those who led the Jindal campaign and its satellite operations (like the BluePrint). Democrats are in position to either push Jindal towards real reform or reveal the pitch to have been a scam. This is a task for the next leader of the Louisiana Democratic Party.
The LDP charter calls for the party to engage in research, the kind of which could turn these items into major issues for Democrats as we begin the four-year long effort to strip away the myth of Jindal and Republican competence and honesty. That work will require a commitment and thoroughness that appears beyond the capacity of the current leadership of the party.
3) Winning Elections
There will be no fewer than three open seats in the Louisiana Congressional delegation this year. Democrats need to be organized and motivated to help Democrats challenge and win in every one of those races. The best way to provide help is to revitalize the local party infrastructure, helping parish executive committees reconstitute themselves where needed and function more efficiently where they already exist.
Convening Democrats across the state could make a difference in these races and could speed the process of re-energizing the party at the local level. In races where multiple Democrats qualify to run, the party should ensure that each Democratic candidate has access to all the tools at the state party’s disposal, including databases of voters, volunteers and contributors.
If the party is strong at the parish level, it can help candidates for congress as well as help to re-elect our Democratic U.S. Senator.
The old days of leaving the business of organizing campaigns solely to candidates died with the death of the open primary system in federal elections. Success in 2008 will require that Democrats return to building campaigns — and the party — from the ground up.
Running strong campaigns in the congressional races on tap for this year is one way of ensuring that the national Democratic ticket not only campaigns in Louisiana, but also spends money in Louisiana right through November. The last Democratic presidential campaign to spend money in Louisiana late into the campaign was Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaign. He carried Louisiana and won re-election.
In the intervening years, the national party abandoned our state and left the field to the Republican message.
That is one big reason why Louisiana has appeared to be a Republican state: Democrats have left a message vacuum, which they filled. Energizing the state and local party, fielding strong campaigns for Congress, running a strong re-election campaign for Senator Landrieu, these are the elements that will bring the national party back into Louisiana and Louisiana back into the fold as a Democratic state.
Who Will Lead Us?
The race for chair of the LDP is not solely about Chris Whittington or the Landrieus. It is about the future of the party for which we all proclaim our loyalty and allegiance. Still, since Whittington is the incumbent and appears committed to trying to keep his job, his record in the job is pertinent to the discussion.
Under Whittington’s watch the party lost the following state offices: governor, secretary of state, commissioner of agriculture and forestry, and commissioner of insurance.
The party also lost the leadership of the House of Representatives.
It failed to build up infrastructure at the party level, despite receiving funding and support from the Democratic National Committee for precisely that work.
The party did raise money but it squandered it on ill-conceived advertising that discredited the party in the eyes of many voters.
It stiffed party activists at all levels, in all regions of the state.
There is no other word to characterize this but failure. It can’t be called leadership.
Despite this record, there are people on the current executive committee of the LDP working frantically to make the case that Whittington should retain his post. In my view, they are confusing their personal interests with the well being of the party. They hope that by helping Whittington keep his job, they can keep their positions. That is legitimate only if you are willing to totally discount the fate of the party.
I know some of these people. They are better Democrats than that. They should stop those efforts now. Whittington’s record speaks for itself. It is indefensible.
The selection of the next chair and executive director will send a message to the party faithful and the general public about who we are as a party and where we are headed. The re-election of Chris Whittington will say that Louisiana Democrats are content with being ineffective failures.
If Not Chris Whittington, Then Who?
It should be clear that the next leader should not come out of the Landrieu camp. Tying the party to the campaign of the highest ranking Democrat on the ticket and ignoring party building is how we got in this mess. Besides, the Landrieus have not been able to find a candidate who can defeat Whittington and their opposition to him has had the unfortunate effect of galvanizing support for him.
So, a framework of sort emerges. First, it can’t be Whittington because the party can’t get the fresh start it needs if it is led by the person responsible for the colossal failures of the recent past. Second, it can’t be a Landrieu person. Third, grassroots activists don’t have the numbers to elect one of our own as chair. We can, however, help decide who that next leader will be (which is a big step up from where we’ve been over the past four years!).
Chris Whittington can do the party a great service by not seeking re-election as chair, but identifying someone from the trial lawyers camp as a possible replacement.
Any and all candidates should be required to publicly declare themselves no later than February 15 — one month before the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) meeting where the new leadership will be elected. And, they should be required to provide detailed plans for how they will work to restore the party’s political fortunes.
The Landrieus, who don’t appear to have the votes to defeat Whittington need to quit talking about wanting to help rebuild the party and actually come sit down at the table with the rest of us who have been proclaiming the need for this work for years. You’re either in or you’re out, but come to the table on the same terms as everyone else. Everyone gets a seat and everyone gets a say.
Louisiana Democrats have a real opportunity to jump-start the rebirth of our party right now. But, that can only happen if everyone is willing to put aside their delusions of grandeur, roll up their sleeves, and get to the work at hand.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
This ain't no party . . .
If, as the late great Democratic Speaker of the U.S. House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill once said, "all politics is local," then this graphic explains why the Louisiana Democratic Party is in shambles.
I created this map based on data taken from the Louisiana Secretary of State's website. I went parish-by-parish and compared the number of seats on each Democratic Parish Executive Committee to the number of candidates who are either contesting a seat on those committees, or who won election un-opposed.
Every parish (except Orleans, which has a different model) is awarded five at-large seats. Only 142 of the 315 at-large seats in the 63 parishes that have them will be occupied after the February 9th election.
Every parish also has seats based on the number of seats on the parish governing body, or a multiple of those. In a universe of 671 district-level parish executive committee seats in the state, only 245 of those seats will be filled after the February 9th election.
This is not a political party. This is a club!
This fact alone should justify the dismissal of Chris Whittington as chairperson of the party and Danny Ford as executive director. They have squandered the resources given the state party by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) under chairman Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" program.
I hear Danny Ford has already decided to leave. Chris Whittington is said to be seeking re-election to the post.
In the real world, when a person is in charge of an operation that is an abject failure, that person usually pays for that failure with their job — unless, of course, that person is an official in the Bush administration, in which case the failure is re-spun as a success or the problems are completely denied.
Mr. Whittington should do the honorable thing and stand down from the chairmanship of the party.
The only thing possibly worse than Mr. Whittington keeping his job would be for an operative of Senator Mary Landrieu's to take over the party chairmanship. This is exactly how we got into this mess: the party being viewed only as a tool to foster the election (or re-election) of the highest ranking Democrat on the ticket.
What is needed now is a chairperson who will take a longer view with a focus on party building and an executive director with the energy and commitment to make that vision a reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
