If a progressive organization, like one focused on health care, the environment, whatever, has an issue that they would like to bring to the attention of the WSDCC, the WSPC is willing to hear about the issue and consider resolutions presented. That’s all that was meant. Whether the resolution says “presented by organization XXX”, or “presented by individual ABC”, what matters is the issue and the suggested resolution.

Also, many of the issues that were brought up in the debate about the PDCW mailing list were ones that I had not heard articulated before, even on the WSPC Board list. I appreciated the discussion, and in all honesty the discussion is what I was after more than anything else. I wanted to understand why some people might object to uniting the progressive movement in this state, because that’s how I saw it. That Riseup.net might not accept an official party list was new. That the tone of some posts on the PDCW list made people uncomfortable was not, but I had not considered that in the right context. I’m fine with the decision, regardless of how many people were there.

BTW, the progressive caucus was shoved into a room on the other side of the complex, through all the gambling machine rooms, and we were literally in a corner of a lounge. We met at 8:00 am, and the Young Democrats were supposed to be in the same room after us, and they moved their meeting with no notice to anyone, even the Vice Chair of the Party. I wasn’t surprised that only 9 voting members attended. Oh well.

I’m working on a post for this blog that will outline what our next steps will be in followup to the decisions made at the meeting. A conference call will probably be needed.

“Conduit” is described as “a channel through which anything is conveyed”. So now the WSPC is a conduit?

Look, I belong to the WSPC, the PDA, my union and my county’s central committee. When I joined the WSPC I joined it because it was an independent progressive organization recognized by the WSDCC. Is it still independent, or is it a “conduit”?

As a PDA member I will bring (and have brought) resolutions to the WSPC that originated in the PDA. They were not, however, listed as coming from the PDA. They either first came from my county’s central committee or, when time did not allow a central committee meeting to be held prior to a WSPC meeting, they were submitted in my name. I also brought resolutions that originated in my union. Just as with PDA resolutions, they did not say they came from my union. I also brought resolutions that originated in my county’s central committee. The point that I am making is that resolutions come from various sources. In the final analysis, however, the WSPC must not be a “conduit” for any particular organization…be it the PDA, my union, or any other organization.

The WSPC is one thing, and the other organizations are other things.

I have objected to a very undemocratic process wherein some PDA members have included issues that have conflicted with democratically decided WSPC issues. The PDA endorses HR 676. The WSPC endorses HR 676. Some PDA members in the WSPC support HR 676, and something less than HR 676. That in and of itself is reason to be apprehensive. Which program[s] will the WSPC “conduit”?

I see a great big contradiction. Is it ok to be a “conduit” for the PDA, but “we” sure don’t want to include a PDCW mailing list because those poor folks didn’t vote to join the WSPC? What baloney!

Unless I am reading the minutes wrong, I notice that a whole nine (9) people voted on the merger. It failed 6 – 3. That was a dismal showing at the caucus. Folks, nine people are not indicative of anything other than a nine person caucus. The WSPC supposedly has many, many times that number. What’s more, most of the discussion took place on a WSPC Executive Board Google group prior to the caucus. Participation in that discussion was not available to the general membership. Let’s face it…the merger was torpedoed long before it was presented to the caucus. And someone has the gall to fret about “top down” management? What a joke. Some members of the Ex. Bd. are guilty of top down malarkey. Ex. Bd. members had no right to stick their noses into the Chair’s right to appoint a person to fill a vacancy on the Ex. Bd. That didn’t stop them! They did it anyway. “Top down” accusations are only allowed if the finger is pointing at the other guy, eh?

Take the By-Laws, crumple them up, and toss them. They are not being followed except for “faux-official” purposes.

If the WSPC is going to be a “yes man” (i.e. a conduit) for any other group, why pretend it is going to be something other than that?

The WSPC is supposed to be an independent progressive organization within the WSDCC. It sure isn’t feeling that way to me. And neither is it being conducted in a democratic fashion. (And let me make it quite clear…I am not accusing the Chair of utilizing undemocratic procedures.)

Gut check time. I see a lot of hypocrisy. Are we an independent organization within the party, or are we a puppet for other groups over which we have no – or very limited – sway.