Well, as many of you probably know, the resolutions posted yesterday on this website did not reach the floor of last night’s HCRP Executive Meeting. To see a discussion of what happened, and a correct quote by Alan Bernstein, you can go to these links, and to the twitter link embedded in the comments to the second link. http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2009/01/no_rebellion_to_quell_at_local_1.html
http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2009/01/mutiny_in_the_county_1.html
Before I address the reason for the resolutions failing to reach the floor, I first want to acknowledge what did happen.
Ever since we started disseminating the strategic plan posted on this website back in November, 2008, I have publicly challenged the leadership of the HCRP, including Jared Woodfill, to come forward with an effective plan and to implement it. To underline the importance of our concerns, I challenged the Chairman publicly to either take action or step aside.
Over the last two months we have seen incremental movements, cryptic references to a new plan, and reasons why such a plan should not be made public (even though every candidate for the chairmanship of the RNC has made their plan public for Republicans to review and comment), but we’ve seen no plan. I have repeatedly said that if the leadership presented an effective plan, this team would support it.
Last night, though the leadership said that it would not divulge its plan in public, it spent at least two hours presenting the contours of the plan in excruciatingly long increments. Although I have several questions and concerns about whether the model for this plan, and the plan itself (if ever implemented), will be effective, it does try and address many of the objectives and strategies we have proposed over the last two months. If, after the full plan is presented to the precinct chairs in February and March, it truly encompasses an effective strategy that addresses the core of the objectives we have proposed, I, for one, will keep my pledge to the party and support this plan.
The reasons the resolutions did not reach the floor were threefold: 1. more than 3 hours into the meeting, we had lost many of the precinct chairs who we felt should be engaged in the debate; 2. the contours of the new plan need to be digested before we proceed with the concept of creating a Steering Committee; and 3. there were sufficient questions about the resolution to explore the creation of a removal process for party officers, so we decided that we would not present it as the only resolution. You see, this effort has never been about dividing the party or promoting anyone’s ambition, it has been about strengthening the party. If the current elected leadership is truly headed in that direction, there is no reason at this time to present resolutions that would be construed as divisive.
That does not mean we will stop what we are doing—only that we are suspending our efforts to directly challenge the strategy of the leadership until we understand the details of the plan discussed last night. In the meantime, we will continue to present ideas on this website about how to strengthen the party and to implement the objectives we have discussed since November, organizations like the Houston Group of Rebuild the Party will proceed with their technology training efforts, and organizations like Raging Elephants and Conservador will continue implementing their outreach plans.
After 7 years of dawdling, let’s hope the leadership has truly listened to us. Only time will tell.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I really don't understand the complaints about time. There are only 4 meetings a year and as a pct chair, I commit to attend those meetings. Makes no difference if they last until 8, 9, or 10 pm. Maybe we need committed pct chairs, not just more of them, eh? I mean if you can't invest three hours 4x a year, how are you going to put in the time required to do the work of a pct chair?
I go to every one of those meetings too, and I stay to the end, whatever the time.
Unfortunately the bylaws do not set down duties or "requirements" for precinct chairs, and there is no mechanism to remove them short of running against them in a primary. While the Vacancy Committee has some leeway in filling a vacancy, any person can be elected precinct chair with no effort, and no promise to expend any.
It's too important an issue not to be studied. If the chairs aren't doing anything, why should they be retaining the office?
Post a Comment