Twitter

Monday, April 16, 2012

SDEC Vice Chair responds to the "Whining Whiners" with "factual information"


It appears some inaccurate information was posted by the Big Cats and other Critters 
on the front page of Left in Alabama regarding the goings on at the  
Saturday's SDEC meeting in Montgomery.
 
Party Vice Chair, Nancy Worley, sets the record straight via PM's List. 

Xxx, you and others remember well what happened four years ago at the SDEC 
Meeting when the President's Alabama campaign "operatives" struck every name 
from the at-large delegate ballot except the few they had handpicked.  Many good 
Democrats were hurt and angered by those actions.  Well, they tried to do it 
again!  Staff from Chicago and Washington, DC, flew in very late Friday night to 
bring a list of a FEW individuals who would be the At-Large Delegates and PLEOs 
(Party Leaders Elected Officials).  Dr. Joe Reed and I (Nancy Worley) stood firm 
AGAINST THEIR STRIKING ANY NAMES of the 191 people who had qualified by the 
deadline with the Party to run for these at-large/PLEO spots.  

While they said they were making sure our delegation met its diversity goals, it 
was apparent when they read out the few selected names on their list, that they 
had not researched the diversity of our elected delegates, nor had they 
consulted with most of the state party's leaders (a requirement in our approved 
plan).  Our Chairman, Executive Director, three of our DNC members, Dr. Reed and 
I met with the campaign visitors until the "wee hours" to make sure EVERY 
person's name remained on the ballot.  

As the Party Vice Chair, I was proud to support real democracy in our Democratic  
Party -- to give every person who qualified for an at-large/PLEO delegate a 
chance to run and be voted on by the SDEC members.

That was the great triumph of Saturday's SDEC Meeting -- ALL 191 candidates 
stayed on the ballot, not a single person was removed.  Unfortunately, the vote 
counting with that large number of candidates (and too few counters at first) 
took a LONG time.

Redeye has mentioned below the "SDEC Meeting Report" by Left in Alabama, of 
which someone sent me a copy this afternoon.   The writer(s) obviously didn't 
understand parts of the meeting, or she/they relied on very bad sources of 
information or outright lies. While I did not speak with the "cats" throughout 
the "marathon" meeting, I need to clarify the following incorrect information or 
misstatements made by them:

1.  The "old guard" digging in its heels to oppose diversity is totally false.  
The delegate plan submitted to the DNC for 2012 was similar to previous plans 
submitted every four years in which the DNC requires diversity goals.  Alabama 
Democrats ELECTED a very diverse group of delegates -- half male, half female, 
old, young, black, white, LGBT, Native American, etc.  We elected diverse At 
Large and PLEO delegates Saturday.  Not every candidate checks every box which 
identifies his/her diversity.

2.  The "new" voting procedures were almost identical to previous years.  
According to the DNC Rules, we have no secret ballot votes in the Democratic 
Party.  Usually we stand up for vote counting, but delegate voting has always 
required paper ballots which are signed by the voter.  Saturday's only change 
was separating each voting category (PLEO, Alternates, At Large Men, At Large 
Women, At Large Alternates, etc.) on a separate colored ballot sheet and 
counting each before the next ballot was distributed.  This was incredibly time 
consuming.

3.  The so-called "innovation" of one member's requesting that the SDEC remain 
seated during ballot distribution and counting has been made in the past, but 
there is no rule mandating this.  Over a five hour period, people moved in and 
out of the room to go to the restroom, make calls, get food, smoke, etc.  At the 
time the request was made, Dr. Reed was returning from the back of the room to 
the platform, and the only other person(s) standing in the center aisle was the 
person making the request -- and two or three people distributing ballots.  

4.  I never heard ANYONE mention bringing in electronic vote scanners or 
counters prior to this meeting.  Jim and I had a discussion on the platform 
during one of the LONG vote-counting waits about possible machine counts.  We 
both agreed that this might speed up the process but would NOT be possible if 
the SDEC continues to change the ballot each time one category is counted.  That 
would require the programming of a new vote counter with each change.  The 
"several people" relied on by LIA for information about my veto of machines 
LIED.

5.  Dr. Reed never made a proposal to the body to "scrap" the paper ballot.  He 
did request additional counters and tables on which to count.  Many individuals 
were making a variety of suggestions to speed up the process in order to attend 
the SOS Rally.  I know the Chairman and I both welcome any suggestions to 
improve this lengthy process in the future.

6.  If the "cats" at Left in Alabama believe the delegate selection process was 
"much improved" over 2008, they should get on their hands and knees to thank Dr. 
Reed and the Party leadership who spent most of Friday night bringing about 
fairness and order for Saturday's meeting.
There are other misstatements by Left in Alabama, but I conclude with my advice 
to readers -- "Don't believe every word you read on a blog, in a paper, etc.  
Personal opinions may cloud the facts."
Nancy


Thank you to the "old guard" for protecting us from the "new guard".
The Blog of Record cares more about Dogs and Cockfighting than human beings.~RedEye


2 comments:

Mary aka Willis said...

As someone who was there, I know which version is more like what I saw with my own eyes.

Redeye said...

Joe Reed isn't the enemy of the democratic party, and those who treat him as such need to stop. We can't stand up for the least and the left out by tearing downs those who do. You're either with us....or you're with them.