Report On The Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee
by Chris Bowers, Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:31:14 PM EST
What I am about to write could easily lead to me being defeated for re-election in 2010, but quite frankly exposing the sorry state of the Philadelphia delegation to the Pennsylvania Democratic State committee and working to fix it is more important than my re-election.
I just returned from spending the last twenty-four hours in Harrisburg at the January meeting of the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee. While most of my time in Harrisburg was spent meeting new people and "networking," by far the most striking event was the Philadelphia caucus meeting this morning. To put it as bluntly as I can, the caucus is in shambles, and is almost certainly the weakest link within the state party as a whole. In fact, I would argue that it is facing a crisis situation that, if unresolved, will hold seriously negative repercussions for Pennsylvania Demcorats, and thus national Democrats, as a whole.
A lot, lot more in the extended entry.
I just returned from spending the last twenty-four hours in Harrisburg at the January meeting of the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee. While most of my time in Harrisburg was spent meeting new people and "networking," by far the most striking event was the Philadelphia caucus meeting this morning. To put it as bluntly as I can, the caucus is in shambles, and is almost certainly the weakest link within the state party as a whole. In fact, I would argue that it is facing a crisis situation that, if unresolved, will hold seriously negative repercussions for Pennsylvania Demcorats, and thus national Democrats, as a whole.
A lot, lot more in the extended entry.
There are so many problems with the Philadelphia caucus, it is hard to know where to begin:
However, if today's meeting was any indication, the Philadelphia portion of the Democratic state party is facing a major crisis that it can no longer ignore. Mr. Farrinella estimated today that 85% of the people in attendance at the meeting of the Philadelphia caucus were new members as of this year. Given this, a crisis situation is being caused by the increasing inability of the party to control who ends up in the Philadelphia caucus on the state committee, and the resulting cultural chasm between the leadership and the membership of the caucus. Rather than seeing our purpose as acting in a unified, tribal fashion to maximize Philadelphia power within the state party, we would rather vote in a way that we feel best represents our constituents, stay in more regular contact with one another, and engage in party building activities besides just endorsing pre-selected candidates in primaries and for higher party office. The city's party leadership cannot continue to just demand unwavering acquiescence to their previous mode of operation, because from what I could tell today people who wanted change clearly formed a majority of attendees at today's caucus meeting. We want to be consulted with. We want to stay in touch with each other, rather than one-way communication with the party leadership. In other words, we want to have a say in the process. We don't think that giving us that say will hurt the party. We do think that continuing to operate in a forceful, top-down fashion will.
Why is this important? Well, the dynamic between a new generation of Democratic Party office holders and long-term leadership is certainly interesting to watch and important to understand. However, it is also important because Democrats and progressive around the nation need a strong Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, one of the nation's three most important swing states. It won't be possible to have a strong statewide party unless the Philadelphia delegation functions up to par, and if new members to the party are made to feel as unwelcome as possible by existing leadership. In order to want to stay active in the party, or even to become active in the first place, people need to believe that their ideas will be listened to, that they will be joining a community of like-minded individuals working to help build the party, that they will be able to communicate with both the leadership and other members, and that they will be able to make a contribution to the party that recognizes their individual talents. If we are instead instructed on exactly how to act, not informed of important party developments, presented with few opportunities for two way communication and no opportunity for advancement, and if we face threats upon arrival and later on the specter of potential expulsion for failure to act according precisely according to instructions, then our party infrastructure will slowly and inevitably die from a lack of new membership. And if that happens in Pennsylvania, an epicenter of every federal election for decades, then this country will become a lot redder, and fast.
- Poor Philadelphia Attendance. For starters, including proxies, from my count only 23 of the 57 Philadelphia members of the state committee were in attendance. To put this in perspective, overall attendance at the meeting was roughly 70%, with 251 of roughly 320 members credentialed at the meeting. (Note: I don't know exactly how many members of the committee there are. I do know that there are 267 elected positions on the state committee, but there are also a large amount of members of the committee not determined by elections. Philadelphia County, for example, has 48 elected members but 57 total members. Using simple cross-multiplication, I estimate this means 315 to 320 total members on the state committee, but I can't confirm the exact number right now).
No matter what the exact figures for the size of the committee are, if my estimate is in the right ballpark, this means that attendance for the Philadelphia caucus was under 50%, while attendance for members from the rest of the state was over 85%. Not very impressive, to say the least, and certainly not a positive reflection on the Philadelphia portion of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. To give an anecdote, when I was checking in at the credentialing table last night, the women who signed me in commented on how great it was to have so many new Philadelphia members who, and I quote "actually come to the meetings." It is hard to have a strong Pennsylvania state party if its Philadelphia membership doesn't even come to the state party meetings. - Difficult location. Poor attendance among the Philadelphia delegation has many causes, one of which is that these meetings are held in the suburbs of the Harrisburg-Hershey area in central Pennsylvania. Unless you own a car, which I and several other members of the Philadelphia delegation do not, it is very difficult to come to the meeting. There is no way to reach the meeting locations via public transportation. This time around, in order to attend the meeting I had to split a rental car with three friends of mine from Philadelphia who are also on the state committee. It also doesn't help attendance that staying overnight at the hotel where the meetings are held, which is necessary for many people, requires a personal expense of up to $200. This is an amount that a lot of Democrats in Philadelphia simply do not have available to spend. It would be much easier for members of the Philadelphia caucus to attend if the party would charter a bus for us to take us to these meetings, or if the meeting was held in a hotel in downtown Harrisburg that could be accessed via the Amtrak train station in that city. Alas, the meetings are generally held in a very out of the way location in the Harrisburg-Hershey area, and outside of a hotel discount we are given little assistance when it comes to travel.
- Minimal Caucus Leadership. There have been three meetings of the state committee since I was elected back in May. Eveyr meeting includes a regional caucus session for every party of the state. During my tenure, the Philadelphia caucus has been presided over by exactly one person, Lou Ferinella (note: that may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I have never seen it written down anywhere, so I can't be sure). I don't know why Mr. Ferinella presides over the caucus--as far as I know, there was never a vote for caucus chair. If there was a vote, I was not invited to participate. My best guess is that Congressman Bob Brady, chair of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, has delegated authority over the caucus to Mr. Farrinella.
I also don't know why there isn't anyone to help Mr. Ferinella, such as a secretary, in order to take down minutes, welcome new members, facilitate communication among the delegation, etc. For some reason, it is just Mr. Ferinella, and no one else. This means that during our caucus sessions, we have no direct contact with our leader, no one keeping attendance, no one writing down minutes, minimal explanation for why we are led by Mr. Ferinella, and virtually no agenda save the same tired lecture on "loyalty" (more on that below). There needs to be more than one person facilitating caucus operation, and more information given on caucus organizing structure. - Demands for total caucus loyalty in primary nominations. During the three meetings since I have been elected, it has been made clear that only one thing is expected of us as members of the Philadelphia caucus: total obedience to Congressman / Party Chair Bob Brady during the endorsement process for statewide Democratic primaries. In the same speech every meeting, this has repeatedly been phrased as being "loyal" to Bob Brady. The theory, we are told, is that Philadelphia has far more influence over the statewide endorsement process if we vote as a unified block. The more we are loyal, the more power for Philadelphia, and the smoother the endorsement process. Huzzah.
Failure to demonstrate sufficient loyalty results in severe consequences. For example, last year when a friend of mine on the state committee vote for Chuck Pennacchio during the endorsement for US Senator, she was immediately un-endorsed, without warning or consultation, for re-election to the state committee by the local ward leaders in her district. As such, she did not appear on the sample Democratic ballots that are handed out at polls on Election Day, and was easily defeated by the party endorsed candidates candidates. Keep in mind that was the only time she voted against Bob Brady's wishes during her entire four years on the state committee, and that the ward leaders in her area didn't even talk to her about their endorsements after that point. Now, maybe it is just me, but it is hard to imagine that being told exactly how to vote, and facing consequences of electoral defeat if you do not vote how you are told even once, is exactly an incentive toward building a active Democratic or viable, broad coalition of any sort. - Demands for total caucus loyalty in determining higher party office. Beyond the rationale for caucus unity, members of the Philadelphia caucus are also expected to go along with the leadership when it comes to nominating people for higher office within the Democratic Party. For example, back at the first meeting following my election in June, I found out that in Philadelphia the state committee members of each state senatorial district elected one member to the state party's executive board. In order to give that statement a little context, this means that, for example, six state committee members in my senatorial district, the 8th, would each have a vote to elect one member to serve on the state party's executive committee. Now, since only three people from my district had been elected on primary day (one person was on the ballot for six seats, while Kevin Scott and I both successfully ran write-in campaigns), I briefly thought that Kevin and I would be able to choose the executive board member for our district. However, it was made clear to me that I was expected to vote for who the party leadership wanted on the executive board for our district. Since I was not familiar with the party rules, since I had not yet received my official certificate of election at that time (even though it was thirty days after the election), and since I knew the potential consequences for rocking the boat because of what happened to my friend for endorsing Pennacchio, I voted for who I was told to vote. While that was an act of political cowardice, since I had not been officially certified as member of the state committee at that time, I also saw it as a necessary act of survival on the state committee.
Another example of this came today at the general state committee meeting (that is, the meeting for all members rather than individual caucuses), when two of the Pennsylvania members in the state's DNC delegation were re-appointed to their positions in the DNC by unanimous voice vote form the floor. The two members, including a former mayor of Pittsburgh whose name I can't recall and Philadelphia's own proud machine boss, Carol Campbell, had lost their slots due to poor health and a resulting streak of absences at party meetings. However, until the nominations were actually made, we were never informed by the state party of the two the DNC vacancies. In fact, we were not even told at the meeting of the Philadelphia caucus, which took place only half an hour before the general membership meeting, that there would a vote to re-appoint a member of our own caucus to the DNC. In short, we were not even given a chance to discuss alternatives. Our support for the re-appointments was assumed. Our opportunities to nominate someone else were non-existent. Loyalty was expected without question. Our participation in the process was not viewed as relevant, and our opportunities for advancement did not exist. Once again, this secretive, top-down behavior is not exactly the best way to encourage an active, engaged caucus. - No consequences for loyal, but inactive, members. According to committee bylaws, if any member of the state committee misses three consecutive state committee meetings, that person is stripped of his or her position in the state Democratic committee. However, vacancies in state committee positions are filled via appointment from the Democratic county chair in which a vacancy occurs. Thus, if someone fails to attend three consecutive meetings, but that person is still in Congressman Brady's good graces, that person is simply re-appointed to the state committee by Bob Brady the day after s/he loses his or her position. I am not kidding. This really happens on a regular basis. Thus, if you are a Brady loyalist from Philadelphia, and you are not an active member of any of the organizational committees or non-regional caucuses within the state party, then there is basically no reason to attend state committee meetings at all. No wonder attendance is so low.
- Concentration of power away from individual members. As you might have gathered from my description of the Philadelphia caucus so far, state committee power for Philadelphia is overwhelmingly concentrated within the state party chair, Bob Brady. He can fill the numerous vacancies that occur either through low attendance or through having a lack of people on the ballot (which happened in my district in the three positions no one ran for). He seems to play a key role, if not the key role, in determining the Philadelphia members of the state's executive board. He appears to makes endorsements in primaries more or less without any consultation from the caucus membership. He has the ability to punish members who are even a little bit disloyal with defeat in re-election. His proxy leader, Mr. Farrnella, presides over caucus meetings without any assistance from any other members. Basically, in its current form, the average member of the Philadelphia caucus in the Democratic state committee has virtually no power whatsoever. This also does not encourage a particularly active and vibrant caucus.
- Friction between old and new members. As you might expect from the situation I have described, many of the new members of the state committee have started to vocalize some very real angst at the way the caucus is run. This was especially the case at the last two meetings, which were quite fractious. People have begun to complain that they don't understand why they should be loyal to someone who they don't even get to meet, why they can't consult with Congressman Brady on which candidates are chosen, about the difficulty of attending meetings, about the lack of information for new members, about the lack of meetings in Philadelphia itself, about the difficulty of communicating with other members of the caucus, and about the difficulty in understanding how the caucus is run. Basically, every problem I have listed so far was brought up earlier today by multiple members of the Philadelphia delegation.
Interestingly, Mr. Farinella actually expressed some frustration from his point of view as well. In what struck me as a revealing moment, he noted that this year there were dozens of new members in the Philadelphia caucus, whereas after most elections during his tenure there had been only two or three new members. He stated something along the lines of "in the past, the two or three new members would just go along with the system. However, now with so many new members, people are demanding all of these changes." A couple of other long term members voiced their frustration that anyone was complaining at all. I took that as a sign that not only do we new members not know how to interact with the existing leadership, but that the existing leadership does not know how to interact with the many new members. They are not used to the sort of dissent that a large freshman class, poor communication, and ruthlessly top-down leadership tends to breed.
However, if today's meeting was any indication, the Philadelphia portion of the Democratic state party is facing a major crisis that it can no longer ignore. Mr. Farrinella estimated today that 85% of the people in attendance at the meeting of the Philadelphia caucus were new members as of this year. Given this, a crisis situation is being caused by the increasing inability of the party to control who ends up in the Philadelphia caucus on the state committee, and the resulting cultural chasm between the leadership and the membership of the caucus. Rather than seeing our purpose as acting in a unified, tribal fashion to maximize Philadelphia power within the state party, we would rather vote in a way that we feel best represents our constituents, stay in more regular contact with one another, and engage in party building activities besides just endorsing pre-selected candidates in primaries and for higher party office. The city's party leadership cannot continue to just demand unwavering acquiescence to their previous mode of operation, because from what I could tell today people who wanted change clearly formed a majority of attendees at today's caucus meeting. We want to be consulted with. We want to stay in touch with each other, rather than one-way communication with the party leadership. In other words, we want to have a say in the process. We don't think that giving us that say will hurt the party. We do think that continuing to operate in a forceful, top-down fashion will.
Why is this important? Well, the dynamic between a new generation of Democratic Party office holders and long-term leadership is certainly interesting to watch and important to understand. However, it is also important because Democrats and progressive around the nation need a strong Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, one of the nation's three most important swing states. It won't be possible to have a strong statewide party unless the Philadelphia delegation functions up to par, and if new members to the party are made to feel as unwelcome as possible by existing leadership. In order to want to stay active in the party, or even to become active in the first place, people need to believe that their ideas will be listened to, that they will be joining a community of like-minded individuals working to help build the party, that they will be able to communicate with both the leadership and other members, and that they will be able to make a contribution to the party that recognizes their individual talents. If we are instead instructed on exactly how to act, not informed of important party developments, presented with few opportunities for two way communication and no opportunity for advancement, and if we face threats upon arrival and later on the specter of potential expulsion for failure to act according precisely according to instructions, then our party infrastructure will slowly and inevitably die from a lack of new membership. And if that happens in Pennsylvania, an epicenter of every federal election for decades, then this country will become a lot redder, and fast.
Tags: Democrats, Pennsylvania, Silent revolution (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
30 Comments