- When I was gathering signatures, I encountered two members of the platform committee who refused to sign and seemed angry that I didn’t think their handiwork was perfect. Not impressive. I met one who heard me out about the testimony submitted at the 4th Middlesex hearing and our disappointment that it had not been reflected in the draft. He expressed regret that it had been missed and signed the petition. Impressive.
- Lynpb wore her “hope for the best and work for it” shirt to the Convention. I was thinking, as we drove home from Springfield, that I’m more of a “work for the best and expect the worst” kind of person. I fully expected obscure parlimentary shenanigans to keep the amendments out of the platform. Although I initially perceived the interminable reading of the platform draft as stalling tactic to kill the time allotted for amendments – and maybe it was, in a well-intentioned way, to allow Plouffe to speak before starting consideration of the amendments – I’m pleased to report that there was no problem giving each of the amendments due consideration, the process proceeded as communicated, seemed fair and open, and the proceedings concluded on time. Good job by Walsh & co.
- Please, next time, if there isn’t some clock management reason for it, skip the reading of the entire draft platform. Every delegate gets a copy and presumably can read. Putting up the text on the screens was good, though. Maybe that could be done for the text of amendments and resolutions in the future, as well – there’s always some corner of the hall that doesn’t get the paper chits with the revisions and has no clue what everyone is voting on.
- The Governor’s organization provided a personalized lime green button to each delegate with his or her first name printed on it. It seemed smart to me in that it allowed Senate district whips to easily identify the friendly (presumably you wouldn’t wear it if disenchanted with DP) and it also gave the Governor, Diane and any surrogates working the floor the ability to easily greet supporters by name. Many, many people were wearing them – so they could also serve to discourage a primary challenger by showing the Governor’s continued support among party activists, even though his poll numbers overall in the state have been down. Personally, I found it a fun souvenir of the day. Thanks, DP campaign team – good idea. Curious about others’ reactions.
- How do good parlimentarians develop their skills? I was irritated but also admiring of how the AFL/CIO cut in line to get their amendment considered first. Had I known I could make such a motion, I might have done so myself.
Please share widely!
I felt badly for the scholarship recipients and the Emerge graduates at the end. Very few people stayed after the business was done. Seems to me there’s no reason they couldn’t have placed those two items at the beginning, right around the Massachusetts song, so that they could get the recognition they deserve.
<
p>Poor planning, that.
I was glad I stayed – turned out one of the Emerge graduates was someone I know. Apparently she will be running for school committee in her town.
I hope that in the enumerated protections for GLBT students, the way of dealing with bullies is, for lack for lack of a better way of putting it, rehabilitative rather than punitive.
and evolve, no problem there.
<
p>When you had a low opinion of gays, did you express that through bullying? That is a different issue. Most bullies have a lot of anger and resentment to direct, not to people they hate, but people who are acceptable to hate. The thing the victims have in common is their vulnerability.
<
p>Bullying should not be tolerated.
My own son was bullied to the point of several visits to the emergency room due to physical assaults and a diagnosis of PTSD – yes, in Arlington. He had a six year delay in motor skills and some other issues that caused the local bullies to see him as vulnerable and the school had no policy in place, really and even pulled his aid to use as a substitute [that led to the final, horrific assault]. We left public school, period – and the administration said, “sorry, we cannot keep him safe” and for my son, Arlington paid hefty out of district tuition and transportation – with regard to our daughter, we went into a private school.
A lot of this will be developed into more substantive posts coming down the pipe, but here are my initial thoughts from the convention:
<
p>
While I was glad to see most of the pieces that were stripped from the draft platform, the document which ended up being adopted seems to have abandoned education, with the exception of the “safe schools” amendment.
<
p>I personally voted for the amendment to substitute the existing platform for the draft, but boy, was I moore unsure of that when I voted than I was going in. It’s a shame Jarrett Barrios left the Senate. That guy is GOOD.
<
p>I also think there should be some amendment to the rules so that folks who work hard all day to gather signatures for amending the new platform can still have their amendments worked into the existing platform in the event the new one is voted down (assuming, of course, the amendment is still in order– for example, if an amendment woulf restore language from the existing platform to the new platform, it would be unnecessary if the new platform was not adopted; on the other hand, the “safe schools” language, for example, being entirely new, should be able to be inserted into either platform, depending which is adopted). It does make sense, as the point was raised yesterday during debate, that if the new platform is rejected, all those people effectively worked hard and raised signatures for nothing, and there should be some way to make sure that the emandments they put their time and effort to aren’t dismissed unnecessarily.
I tried to get language on the MCAS onto the platform…without any pre-established organization or budget, we got 160 signatures that morning…not quite enough.
<
p>I’ll be back, and organized, next time.
We stopped collecting once the Sergeant at Arms told us we had cleared the bar for Safe Schools. We could have kept going on the MCAS amendment.
The sigs had to be in at 11:15….at 10:40 we had probably 140 good ones. I appreciate it, Bean, (so hard to go back to handles after meeting people in person!), but I think it wasn’t enough. The amendment was too heavy on jargon, I realize as well.
<
p>I’m taking the whole thing as a learning process. However, I would be interested someday to get a sense of where Democrats stand on the MCAS and charters…I know we’re far from unanimous, but how far are we?
I’m never going to be able to beat up on a post of yours here with the same gusto in the future!
It cuts both ways. I find myself calling people by their handle. It is especially hard in some cases where I happen to know both and the poster prefers to post anonymously.
A very good thing…and it often leads to awkwardness! Within five minutes of meeting you, I was thinking “geez, I’ve been really hard on this very nice woman”. If we all met each other, things would be much more civil on this board I bet!
I would happily get the word out and see how many folks I can get to come take the poll – those polls are educational and your poll on the “Draft Platform” written by Sydney Asbury had major impact.
We had one person who worked events leading up to the convention during the week and on Friday night. Starting at 7 on Saturday morning, we had a shifting cast of 10 people who worked both outside and inside the hall collecting signatures until around 10:30.
<
p>We had a bad scare around 10:15 a.m. We had been turning in sheets as we went so that signatures could be qualified. We were told we still had not cleared the bar when we thought that we had turned in over 400 signatures. Fortunately we were able to convince those staffing the Sergeant at Arms table that something was wrong, and they located sheets with approximately 200 signatures that we had turned in early in the morning misplaced in a separate envelope.
makes an effort to anticipate every possible issue. This situation was not anticipated.
<
p>The problem this poses is having an amendment to a plank that no longer exists. As a member of the Rules Committee, I can assume this might be discussed, but I can’t see a solution that would not create additional problems.
<
p>A relatively small group trying their best to write an alternative platform without the benefit of the input received from the platform hearing process is likely to fail for the reasons it did. You might say the current process worked.
Amendments can either be revisions, to wit (for example):
<
p>”I move that we amend Article VIII containing the education plank (you’re welcome, Sabutai!), by striking the entire article (or specific stated parts thereof) and inserting in place thereof the following: (insert proposed language)”
<
p>Amendments can also be additions, to wit (for example):
<
p>”I move that we add to the end of the platform a plank addressing access to justice (you’re welcome, AmberPaw!), to be numbered Article X and which would state the following: (insert proposed language)”
<
p>Thus you can certainly propose amended language to a plank that no longer exists, but it needs to be drafted to stand alone. The chair and the secretary should be authorized to make technical changes to make the structure flow correctly.
Amendments that insert new language that is non-existent in either the old platform or the new platform should be able to be moved regardless which platform is adopted, since they are absolutely capable of standing alone.
<
p>As I look back, this whole process is something of a learning experience. What might have made more sense, and would have been more beneficial to the process as a whole, and everyone who worked hard on their respective issues would probably have been to forget trying to scrap the entire draft platform, and instead move an amendment to strike the draft plank on education and substitute the old language for the individual plank. We could have then preserved both the education language that we wanted to preserve without making a stink over the entire platform (I believe, if I remember correctly, the AFL-CIO moved a similar amendment on the labor plank), most of which was restored by the other amendments anyway, and was also expanded in the areas of veterans’ rights and foreign policy, and energy issues.
<
p>In any case, despite the fact that not every vote went the way I would have liked, I am greatly satisfied (actually, impressed would be a better word) by the process yesterday (I’m something of a process nerd, and the disputes enriched the whole thing, I thought). Kudos to Chairman Walsh for handling things so well.
You may have noticed I’ve made several references to Robert’s Rules this weekend. Memo to John in Abington: If you’re looking for a parliamentarian for the 2010 convention, let me know:)
We’ve got a blogging 101 and that’s great. Let’s keep that, refine it, and so forth.
<
p>I agree with Sab though, and I expressed this to Kate Donaghue yesterday… we need a blogging 201. Everything from technical (how to insert an image) to philosophical (what kind of image to insert or not) to practical (from which URL to insert an image). These are improvements which allow us to use blogs better — allow us to express our ideas more clearly, more correctly, and more conveniently.
<
p>I’d be happy to work on that for next year with any number of folks I saw yesterday — RyePower, sabutai, Kate Donoghue, Cos, JohnT001, etc. I think that we could really raise the quality of our bloggers’ work, while also enticing more experienced techies to participate.
<
p>Thoughts?
I sort of did a blogger’s 201 breakout at last year’s convention, going over all sorts of additional tools to empower blogs, wherein I also discussed a less established Facebook. We decided at the Lynn event I put on that it would be better to focus on social networking tools rather than what I did last time around. But I actually do agree with you that we need to teach more-than-basic tools.
<
p>One thing important to note is the fact that we had some of the blogging quality aspects ready — but they were the parts that were skipped over or rushed through due to time. That was the purpose of the slides that went over the pros and cons of each kind of blogging, as well as the slide on how to do it well, etc. One thing we probably should go back to is employing more people at the intro like we did the first time around.
<
p>We had a few more things that impacted the presentations, including the facility (beautiful, but not really designed to do what we wanted), causing lots of echoes, the lack of a projector screen and the lack of space given the number of breakout groups we had. The biggest difference, in my opinion, was the sheer volume of people — it was two or three times what we had last year. My Social Networking breakout session had more people than the entire work group last year. I would have prepared very differently for it, had I suspected. Next time I do this, I’ll definitely come in with two game plans — for a large crowd or a small one.
<
p>One important — and somewhat sad – thing to note is the fact that, as of now, there won’t be workgroups at all next year, at least insofar as I’m hearing. The feeling is that there apparently shouldn’t be in a nominations hearing, because of how much more involved the entire process is in those years. Perhaps the large participation in workgroups at this year’s convention will convince the party otherwise. Though, the reason why I suspect so many people seemed to join the breakout groups was that they were right there as people were walking out of the auditorium. Last year, in Lowell, people had to walk to find them in the unbearable heat — it was an added process and I suspect people were just that much more likely to make the only walking they do in the heat be walking to their car & the AC. So, I hope the State Party tries to secure somewhere with room for breakout groups in the same building next year, as well, should they decide to do workshops at all.
Gave what I think is easily the best ‘from the floor’ speech at the platform on behalf of a proposed amendment. I caught some of it on my video camera, unfortunately I didn’t know she was going up ahead of time, so didn’t have it out and on for the first 20-30 seconds… and missed what was clearly her best few, very stirring lines.
<
p>I also heard from someone that Sab spoke… missed that one, too! I did a few private interviews outside the auditorium from time to time, so I missed a few minutes of it. Those are my two regrets citizen-journalism wise.
I spoke. I was aiming for “with conviction” and I think I ended up at “strident”. Blech.
I want to thank my friends from the Bay State for inviting the Nutmegger up to observe the convention and talk about Citizen Journalism in the breakout sessions afterwards.
<
p>While people have complained about the delegates only attending the speeches and the parties, I do have to admit that some of the most interesting parts of any conventions are in the parties before and afterwards.
<
p>I had some great discussions at the Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts party after the convention and hope to get a chance to post detailed thoughts later.
<
p>With that, I want to note that we don’t have issues conventions like this in Connecticut, and despite some of the dramas that played out, I wish we had them.
<
p>One thing that I’m interested in is how transparent and open the State Legislature is. I was told that there wasn’t a site that streams the legislative sessions online and on TV, but I found
<
p>http://masslegislature.tv/
<
p>Do people on BMG watch this? Can you capture videos, or buy DVDs from this? Is it broadcast on any cable networks?
<
p>The Connecticut channel, (CT-N)
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/
<
p>is broadcast on my local cable outlet, so I can record from that. They also sell at reasonable prices DVDs of various sessions and committees which people can use in their advocacy.
<
p>Does anyone here grab segments and use them on the blogs? e.g. Check out ctblogger’s post,
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/di…
which includes video captured from CT-N
<
p>Likewise, I would love to hear about how people in Massachusetts track bills. The Connecticut Site provides good bill tracking.
<
p>http://www.cga.ct.gov/
<
p>It includes the text of the bills, of called amendments, of tallies of the votes in committees and on the floor. I couldn’t find something similar in Massachusetts. Is there something similar? If not, what will it take to get something similar?
Robert’s Rules contains various motions to allow the assembly to set the agenda, including such things as sequence and timing, but there need to be delegates who know how to use those motions. One year a longtime activist pointed out that the leadership’s interest is to get the convention over with; it’s up to the delegates to slow it down so things can be debated and voted upon. You can move to waive reading (subject to hearing no objection or taking a majority vote if objected to) or alter the order of business (subject to the same requirements). You can continue to extend debate for as long as the assembly tolerates by appropriate motion subject to a 2/3 vote. As for the keynote, that should be last so that delegates stay to do what they were elected to do and its a good time-killer while any roll calls are being tallied. Can I assume that the platform as adopted will be posted on the party website shortly, or maybe a savvy BMGer can put it in a diary?
My main effort was to ensure all interested Democrats were able to attend and participate in the Convention.
<
p>Did delegates find their information correctly recorded?
Did paid delegates receive their credentials on time?
Did you find the check in process went smoothly?
<
p>Our senate district seating seems to routinely have a fewer seats than delegates. How do other districts fare?
Question: what governs where different districts sit in the hall? Is there a reason or a tradition behind this?
The check box on your delegate certification form, disabled ?, is not meant to be intrusive, but assist in determining what resources to provide. Unfortunately the checkbox doesn’t do enough to provide detailed information on whether hearing equipment or floor space is required and it is left up to individuals to contact the DSC. As there are more districts with disabled delegates than floor space, it goes to those with the most articulated need. John Walsh has recently established a disabilities sub-committee that might offer some suggestions.
Delegates from Ward 7 in Somerville (I’m not one) all had their information Senate district incorrectly listed on their credentials as “Second Middlesex & Norfolk” instead of the correct “Second Middlesex.”
Curious as to how this happened. Each Ward and Town Committee was pulled up separately and the delegates checked off from the dem voters listed in that district. If it happened to one district, it may have occurred in others.
<
p>I will check to see where the process went wrong. Thanks again.
Sue,
<
p>got everything on time. Best seats Bristol and Norfolk ever had (my nose didn’t bleed this year).
<
p>But, being an Industrial Engineer who’s spent a few years designing work systems, the “checkin” system baffles me. We’re always chasing people down to get them checked in and/or waiting for senate districts to report in. How long did we wait Sat for everyone to checkin and verify a quorum existed? 20 minutes?
<
p>Why can’t we checkin outside the hall when we arrive, where all those nice, and not very busy, volunteers were sitting? I can think of a few ways to do that, none of which involve chasing down members of the state committee, or them chasing down me.
<
p>Just askin.
<
p>
As difficult as it was this year, next year will have twice as many delegates. There are new suggestions every year. This forum has some very savvy and technically experienced people. Your ideas are welcome.
<
p>The priority is fairness: to ensure every present delegate gets a vote, and alternates are given the chance to vote for every absent delegate.
<
p>Time, cost….
Volunteers out front with laptops have listings of delegates by district. Delegates check in there as they arrive, up until a cut off time. Lists of the checked-in by district are then printed out and provided to the tellers for each district. Tellers need only validate whether any of those not-yet checked in on the printed lists have arrived and are present at the roll call, and check in alternates, if not; they don’t need to roll call their entire district.