Thursday, May 9, 2013

To the members of the State Central Committee

To the members of the State Central Committee, 2011-2013,

I wish to go on record that I object to the attempt by some to create an emergency or "surprise" State Central Committee meeting prior to the State Convention next week with most of the "outgoing" committee members. I would think we were more grownup that this.

Dozens of you were contacted recently by email or phone to see if you are willing to sign on to requesting a new meeting, apparently because someone didn't like the results of the votes we took in the March and April meetings. I didn't like all the results either, but that is why we vote, to see what we as a committee can agree on and what we don't. That email wasn't sent to everyone. This email is being sent to all the ones listed on the State Party website. I am sorry if it no longer applies to you or I get the email address wrong.

If this "grassroots" called State Central Committee meeting were to be held just prior to the convention, I believe it would disrupt those members that have volunteered to help candidates and the constitutional and bylaw issues being discussed. The delegates are coming as early as 7am and for the SCC members to be in a meeting after than time, that eliminates those that are helping with credentialing, booths, passing out flyers, or just meeting old friends and making new ones.

Many, but not all SCC members are state delegates and should be asking their final questions to candidates during this time period, or help their favorite candidate get elected. 

If there truly was an emergency, that would be one thing, but what would be the limit to the agenda items?
To be further discussed that day at the Convention, they have to be items that we have already voted on, or the C&B committee voted on already, and already be in the call for the convention.

I hope that this email already finds you in agreement and that this "last ditch effort" has already failed.

My likely assumption is that someone wants the SCC to change their vote on the threshold to avoid a primary. While this is a critical vote, we had it in March and again in April. We could not get 2/3 of those voting to agree on changing the 60/40 system we have now. There was no confusion on the vote.

Again, I ask that you reject this apparent "sour grapes" move. If someone is worried about the County My Vote / Buy My Vote group's threats, I say "bring it". We can kick their butt.

Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County

For my opinion on the 60% issue, see:
Disclaimer, I was originally "maybe OK" with a change in percentage until I realized 2 things:

1. Moving from 60% to 2/3 would, based on the last 12 years and the party released stat sheets, increase the number of contested in-party state wide or congressional races going to a primary up by 17%.
2. The Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group in their last letter to us threatened us to raise the threshold high enough so that later they could push to eliminate multiple round or preferential voting, (only have one vote) and have more than 2 candidates go to the primary. At least they were open and honest about their motives. I would hope we would be smart enough to see them.
3. See other reasons at the above link.

[update. At least 50 members of the committee voted to re-vote the 2/3 threshold vote and hold the special meeting apparently because they didn't like the results last time.  They are not proposing an amended proposal, it is the same one]

[update 2: The meeting was held and not only did they not get the 2/3 vote, they lost and didn't get a majority voting for this change. When it went to convention, 55% voted against this change.]