I was right about the Code of Conduct being a faulty document!

Received an e-mail from Matt Hughes, forwarded by Lorenzo Pedro, NCDP Political Director. 

In that e-mail, Hughes admits that the Code of Conduct he and others pushed on the SEC at our last in-person meeting on February 29, 2020 was flawed.  He puts a bit of a "spin" on that though:

 The changes we are proposing, along with a summary memo, are attached to this email. The changes we are proposing reflect the evolving nature of Codes of Conduct by state parties as well as to remedy deficiencies in the present Code, which are more aspirational than legislative in nature. We are asking for your feedback by no later than January 3^rd so that we may consider any potential changes before an Executive Council meeting on January 10^th. 

The proposed changes were sent to us on December 30th, 2021.  They wanted the feedback by January 3, 2022 - only 4 days over a holiday weekend to respond. 

My problems with the Code of Conduct revisions are basically these:

• Lack of diversity of opinion on the committee appointed by NCDP Chair Dr. Bobbie Richardson
• Lack of adequate timely notice for interested Dems to attend the committee meetings - in-person or virtual
• Obvious failure to examine the better-written Codes of Conduct in other states that were readily available at or before the time the original Code was shoved down our throats
• a Code which was more aspirational than legislative in nature is just another way of saying the Code was and still is too overly-broad & overly-vague and therefore unenforceable
  
• Failure to have protections for whistleblowers or party activists seeking a more open party with more transparency and accountability
• Without an open and transparent party, it's impossible to try and find resolutions to problems short of filing Council of Review petitions - which might not be possible without documents and a paper trail made more difficult or impossible without a paper trail
  
• Still allows for Code of Conduct petitions in retaliation for whistleblowing or to punish dissenting Democrats
  

The Code of Conduct Revision and Memo are located here, but here is my reply sent directly to Matt Hughes and others:

Memorandum

TO: Dr. Bobbie Richardson, Chair

Meredith Cuomo, Executive Director

FROM: Matt Hughes, Co-Chair, Code of Conduct Review Committee

CC: Interested Parties

RE: Code of Conduct Revisions

Background

In the summer of 2021, Dr. Bobbie Richardson appointed a committee for the purpose of reviewing the NCDP’s Code of Conduct (hereafter referred to as “Code”) and proposing changes. The Review Committee was composed of First Vice Chair Floyd McKissick, Second Vice Chair Matt Hughes, Third Vice Chair Shannan Auer, Secretary Melvin Williams, Treasurer Anna Tilghman, State Vice Chair Jeff Rose, DNC Member DD Adams, and Council of Review Chair Sybil Mann. McKissick, Hughes, and Mann were designated as co-chairs. This memorandum documents the history of the Code as well as a summary of proposed changes between the current Code and the proposed rewrite.

Telesca comments: as someone who had serious problems with the Code of Conduct as it was presented and passed on February 29, 2020, I suggested tabling the Code of Conduct and having the Chair (then Wayne Goodwin) appoint a committee consisting of Sybil Mann and a few lawyers who specialize in harassment and employment issues to study other state Codes of Conduct to recommend how we could have a real Code with legal definitions of the type of conduct to be discouraged and regulated, as well as to make sure such a code couldn't be used to punish respectful dissent and efforts to hold party officers/members/staffers accountable and make sure the party operated in a transparent manner and followed our own Plan of Organization, Roberts Rules of Order, as well as state and federal election and campaign finance laws. I also felt with COVID-19 out there, we needed to spend time discussing how to do virtual meetings at what was our last in-person meeting.

In June 2017, NCDP First Vice Chair Aisha Dew, Second Vice Chair Matt Hughes, and DNC Member John Verdejo proposed a Code of Conduct to the State Executive Council. This document was an aspirational document to help combat bullying, particularly cyberbullying, between members of the Democratic Party following the contentious 2016 Democratic Primary. Additionally, the Democratic Women of North Carolina had been documenting episodes of harassment, including sexual harassment, of female-identifying members by male-identifying party leaders. At its meeting the State Executive Council adopted the Code and pledged to support amendments to the Plan of Organization to bring it into force.

Telesca comments: back in 2009, I proposed a Code of Conduct similar to those being used by local governments that regulated the conduct of not only elected public officials, but also employees and citizen-appointees. It was designed to prohibit harassment and cybverbullying – and ironically some of the very same people who pushed the aspirational Code of Conduct in 2020 killed the Code of Conduct I proposed back in 2009 – because they didn't want their conduct to be regulated (they were the Hillary supporters who harassed and bullied Obama supporters and were among the earliest “birthers” claiming that Barack Obama wasn't eligible to run for President because he was not born in the USA).

But I am unsure exactly why the Code of Conduct is the exclusive purview of the elected state party officers and/or the Executive Council? Shouldn't it fall under the responsibility of the Plan of Organization Review Committee?

There is little diversity of opinion on that committee. All have the reputation of being members and/or supporters of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. While I know Sybil Mann had issues with the original Code of Conduct, there is no one else on that committee who represents any kind of diversity on the subject. No one asked me about serving on the committee, and I don't see any of the other people who had issues with the original Code of Conduct on the committee. So why was there no diversity on the committee?

And let's talk about that contentious 2016 Democratic Primary. The candidates themselves (Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb, as well as others) and their supporters felt that the game was rigged, the skids were greased and the “thumb” was on the scale to advantage Hillary Clinton during the 2016. We already know that Hillary supporters became unhinged during the 2008 campaign by Obama's performance and Howard Dean's attempts to have a clean and honest primary contest. Going into 2016, it was plain to see that rules were bent if not ignored for Hillary supporters, and information and party resources provided willingly and joyously to Hillary supporters was denied or made inaccessible to supporters of other candidates. And please don't say it didn't happen – otherwise why did DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resign after the Wikileaks dump?

Donna Brazile even admitted the bias in her 2017 book.

Getting Ready for Hillary in 2016 was a part in the negative attitudes and outright hostility that establishment Democrats exhibited towards admitted progressive Democrat Randy Voller while he was Chair from 2013-2015 because it was felt he wouldn't have helped Hillary get by 2016 what she was denied in 2008.

And it happened right here in NC. In February 2016, I attended the HkonJ March in downtown Raleigh as I had since the very first one. Carrying the banner of the Wake County Progressive Democrats (our banner read “Progressive Democrats of Wake County” - the name we first used in 2004. 

 

 

As a supporter of Bernie Sanders, I felt that his supporters should be able to march in the HkonJ march and show our “colors” - as Bernie himself had marched in solidarity with the national NAACP leaders in DC. But we were told that there could be no such displays of partisan political paraphernalia. So we left our Bernie stuff behind. 

 

But not so with the Hillary Clinton folks – they carried their signs in bags, and wore their Hillary clothing under windbreakers – and they were able to show their colors once the march started. 

 

I even had some of these establishment tools direct the march coordinators (with Raleigh Police officers as backup) to hassle me about the Wake County Progressive Democrats banner we had always carried!  

 

So it's somewhat unbalanced to have all those Hillary people on this committee citing the contentious 2016 primary as the reason for the Code of Conduct while not having any other diversity on the committee that considered replacement language for the defective Code that was passed in 2020.

In February 2020, the State Executive Committee passed a resolution signing off on the Code, gave the State Executive Council the authority to amend the Code, and passed amendments to the Plan of Organization to make violations of the Code eligible for removal from party office. Since then there have been several issues with the present Code that has made it difficult to enforce as it is an aspirational document. Enforcement of the Code, and possible sanctions, lay with the Council of Review. However, as the Code is aspirational, rather than legislative, the present Code does not specify who is subject to the Code, when Democrats are subject to the Code, who may petition the Council for alleged violations, nor offer definitions for what constitutes harassment, bullying, etc.

Telesca comments: once again, I do not understand why the State Executive Council has the exclusive authority to amend the Code of Conduct and why that is not the authority of the Plan of Organization Review Committee? There is a fundamental lack of diversity of thought in the current State Executive Council.

And once again, my main objection to the Code of Conduct as foisted on SEC members in February 2020 was that it was overly-broad and overly-vague and therefore unenforceable – just another way of stating what was stated above: “However, as the Code is aspirational, rather than legislative, the present Code does not specify who is subject to the Code, when Democrats are subject to the Code, who may petition the Council for alleged violations, nor offer definitions for what constitutes harassment, bullying, etc.”.

But that has not kept people from filing COR petitions alleging violations of the Code of Conduct, and from the COR issuing a decision that allowed a third-party to determine punishment and also determine whether or not the “debt” to the party (in the event that a respondent was required to do something in order to retain their officer/committee member position) was properly satisfied. Allowing a third-party to determine and administer such punishment means that a respondent would have to file a COR petition against the third-party instead of appealing the original COR decision to the Executive Council.

In September 2021, the Code of Conduct Review Committee met to consider changes. The co-chairs of the committee – First Vice Chair Floyd McKissick, Second Vice Chair Matt Hughes, and Council of Review Chair Sybil Mann – reviewed a replacement document for presentation to the full Review Committee. At a subsequent meeting of the Review Committee, the document was approved for moving forward. The Review Committee suggested a plan of action that included seeking feedback from county chairs, district chairs, and presidents of affiliated organizations before bringing the revised Code to the State Executive Council for adoption.

Telesca comments: all committee meetings are supposed to be properly noticed to all interested Democrats. I am certainly interested in fixing the problems with the current Code of Conduct and what I see are still many problems with this replacement document for reasons I will describe later on. But while I was made aware of the creation of the committee, I was not noticed of any meetings or invited to attend or make comments on the discussions held during the meetings. In fact, this whole opportunity to comment on the replacement language is also a violation of the Plan of Organization notice requirements. How can anyone take a serious look at this language in the time you have allotted? You dump this on us on Thursday, December 30^th, and tell us we only have 5 days to comment on it – over the New Year's eve/day holiday?

NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CODE OF CONDUCT

Preamble

The North Carolina Democratic Party, to create a culture of respect, inclusiveness, and equity for every Democrat, hereby establishes this Code of Conduct. All registered Democrats should feel welcome and safe within the North Carolina Democratic Party, regardless of their actual or perceived race, color, creed, sex, age, national origin, economic status, religion, ethnic identity, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, physical appearance, disability, or other protected classifications as outlined in our Party Plan of Organization, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics. By setting out this Code of Conduct, the North Carolina Democratic Party condemns harassment, bullying, discrimination based on these protected classifications or creating a hostile environment for members or staff.

Scope

This Code of Conduct shall apply to officers and members of the State Executive Committee, District Officers and District Executive Committee members, County Officers and County Executive Committee members, Precinct Officers and Precinct Executive Committee members, members of any committee authorized by the North Carolina Democratic Party Plan of Organization and elected officers of any chartered affiliated organization or caucus.

This Code of Conduct shall apply to employees of the North Carolina Democratic Party and any independent contractors doing business with the North Carolina Democratic Party.

This Code of Conduct shall apply to elected officials or candidates for elected office if they violate the Code of Conduct while engaging in Democratic Party meetings or activities. This Code of Conduct shall not apply to elected officials acting in the course of their duties as elected officials, since they are subject to discipline or removal pursuant to the North Carolina Constitution and North Carolina General Statutes.

Telesca comments: I do not favor not applying this Code to elected officials or appointees to government committees who are also Democratic Party officers/committee members. If such a person was engaging in harassment, sexual harassment or bullying while being an elected or appointed official, would we really want them to be party officers/committee members? And we all know that electeds have been accused of such misdeeds and they were never investigated or reprimanded for their conduct. They should not get an “out” for being an elected/appointee at the same time they are a party officer/committee member.

This Code of Conduct shall apply when Democrats conduct party business, have contact with each other because of their Democratic Party affiliation, or engage in other party activities. This Code of Conduct shall not apply to allegations concerning a Democrat, which are being reviewed by government agencies and/or the courts.

Telesca comments: why not? Certain actions can be both the subject of criminal and civil actions. If an Democrat is being investigated for campaign finance irregularities and/or voter fraud (the Dowless case comes to mind), why should they not be subject to internal party discipline? It can take YEARS for matters to be investigated and settled by government agencies and/or the courts – in the meantime that party officer/staff/consultant/committee member still reflects badly on the Democratic Party.

This Code of Conduct shall apply to the myriad of ways in which Democrats interact to carry out

Democratic Party business including but not limited to in-person meetings, virtual meetings, email,social media, texts, phone calls and other electronic means of communication. The Code applies to any events sponsored by the North Carolina Democratic Party at all levels.

Telesca comments: how can I provide evidence that I was discriminated against during an virtual meeting or a phone call that I am forbidden to record or make screen shots of?

The petitioner(s) shall be the alleged victim(s) of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

Telesca comments: exactly how does a petition prove they were actually victimized by the alleged violation of the Code of Conduct? What actual damage do they have to prove they suffered (or would have suffered) by the conduct of the alleged violator?

North Carolina Democratic Party Code of Conduct

The North Carolina Democratic Party prohibits discrimination, bullying, or harassment based on the protected categories above, or creating a hostile environment for party members or staff.

Telesca comments: What about party officers and staff can create a hostile environment for party members by failing to properly provide adequate and timely notice of committee meetings - thus preventing interested Democrats from attending meetings and offering up input on the decisions made? Since the party and our committees are supposed to be operating as a deliberate body in a transparent manner and are accountable to our party and committee members who elected us, we can and should be expected to lobby the decision makers who vote on these matters. In fact, 40% of SEC members can call for a meeting independent of the state party Chair. Yet the party officers and staff prevent the distribution of SEC member contact info to interested Democrats. Can you imagine if our elected public officials were kept from being contacted by the very people who elected them?

Code of Conduct Definitions

1. “Discrimination” is the prejudicial treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, color, creed, sex, age, national origin, economic status, religion, ethnic identity, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, physical appearance, disability, or other protected classifications.

2. "Bullying Behavior" is any pattern of gestures or written, electronic, or verbal communications, or any physical act or any threatening communication, that places a person, persons, or group in actual or reasonable fear of harm to their person or property. Bullying behavior includes, but is not limited to, acts reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic,such as race, color, creed, sex, age, national origin, economic status, religion, ethnic identity, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, physical appearance, disability, or other protected classifications, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics.

3. “Harassment” is conduct that is directed at another person, persons, or group that torments them or places them in fear. Harassment can be verbal, (such as hostile phone call and voicemails, slurs, jokes, insults, epithets, gestures, or teasing based on the protected categories listed above), or visual, (such as the posting or distribution of offensive posters, symbols, cartoons, drawings, computer displays, social media posts, text messages, or emails based on the protected categories listed above), or physical, (such as physically threatening another person, blocking someone’s way, or making physical contact in a harmful or offensive manner).

4. “Sexual Harassment” is conduct including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, electronic, or physical contact of a sexual nature. Harassment may include offensive remarks about a person's real or perceived sex, sexual orientation, sexual expression, sexual history, or gender identity.

5. “Hostile environment” results from conduct that is severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would agree that it is bullying or harassing behavior, or the ability of members and staff of the Democratic Party to perform their duties may be adversely impacted. A hostile environment may be created by various actions, including but not limited to communications, including social media, electronic or verbal, such as yelling or screaming; actions that impede movement; or unwanted touching directed at the person.

Retaliation

The North Carolina Democratic Party prohibits retaliation when a Code of Conduct petition is filed. These actions could include but are not limited to exclusion from meetings, filing a retaliatory petition, or other conduct designed to deter or ostracize a Democrat for reporting an alleged violation. Acts of retaliation shall be deemed violations of the Code of Conduct.

Telesca comments: What about protections for whistleblowing? What about protection for respectful dissent? What about trying to hold party officers and staffers accountable for following the Plan of Organization, auxiliary bylaws, Roberts Rules of Order (short of filing formal written petitions to COR or auxiliary judicial boards) well as various state and federal election and campaign finance laws (short of filing official complaints with enforcement agencies)?

Imagine actually submitting a written amendment to the Plan of Organization at our last in-person meeting, and having it seconded, and discussed/debated at the meeting so that our state party Chair and others remember it – but the written amendment was lost and discussion/debate/passage of the amendment was not reflected in the meeting minutes. Could the person who submitted the original amendment that was lost be subject to a Code of Conduct petition because an officer feels “bullied” and “harassed” by that person trying to remedy the situation without going the trouble of filing a formal Council of Review petition?

Imagine a state auxiliary member attending a meeting of an county chapter created in violation of the state bylaws that wasn't following the state or even their own county chapter bylaws? For example, the state caucus approved fake Wake Progressive county chapter bylaws that contained multiple conflicting dates for officer elections, has allowed individuals to hold multiple positions in violation of the bylaws, and stood by while state caucus or chapter officers stole money/dues and other officers hid the thefts and shielded the offending parties. The state caucus also allowed a county chapter to accept non-Democrats as members and elect them as officers in violation of the caucus bylaws and of the Plan of Organization. And in Wake County, the county party knew that non-Democrats were showing up to precinct meetings and counting towards quorum and got elected as precinct officer and/or convention delegates (clearly a violation of the NCDP Plan of Organization) after one particular non-Democrat didn't change their party affiliation to “Democrat” for a month.

Should a concerned member be subject to a Code of Conduct removal petition merely for trying to uphold the POO, auxiliary caucus/chapter bylaws, Roberts Rules, as well as state/federal election/campaign finance rules? In my case, PC-NCDP President David Nelson removed me as a member of the budget committee for asking for an independent audit committee to be formed to look into actual theft of dues and other malfeasance by caucus officers, as well as looking into a county chapter being approved by the state caucus with defective bylaws that should have prevented it from being approved in the first place, as well as allowing that same county chapter to admit non-Democrats as members and elect them as chapter officers in clear violation of the state caucus bylaws and the NCDP Plan of Organization itself. The petition submitted by Nelson against me contained nothing but vile falsehoods provided by parties that didn't file the petition..

Do we want the Code of Conduct to become a weapon of political retaliation with no protection and guarantee of due process for the respondents?

Reporting a Violation

A petition alleging a violation of the Code of Conduct shall be hand delivered or mailed to party headquarters located at 220 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC 27603 and addressed to the Chair of the Council of Review. This petition shall be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation occurring or within 30 days of when the petitioner could have discovered the incident or event giving rise to the grievance, whichever is latest.

Telesca comments: no petition should be considered unless it makes a specific allegation of a violation of the Code of Conduct and includes specific proof of actual damage.

Penalties for Violation

Penalties for violating the Code of Conduct pursuant to Section 9.00 of the Party Plan of Organization a warning, a reprimand, censure, and other affirmative actions short of removal. Penalty for violating the Code of Conduct pursuant to Section 10.00 is removal.

Telesca comments: There needs to be a requirement that any penalties or affirmative actions be determined in full only by the Council of Review, especially if removal is or could be a part of the decision of the Council of Review whether or not a remedial action has been taken or how well or poorly it was taken.

In the petition against Mike Schaul, I find no evidence (e-mail or letter) offering Mike any form of mediation prior to a full COR hearing. From what I understand, petitioners allege Schaul's response to a unsolicited campaign fundraising e-mail where he indicated he was also an SEC member caused them and the party harm. Without actually having to show the harm. Schaul was prevented from supplying written evidence of support of Schaul and failure to cause harm to the COR while nearly all the evidence against Schaul was written evidence. Then once the decision was made for Schaul to attend racial sensitivity training, the COR failed to come up with a “sentence” - fobbing it off to a county chair who came up with a plan that didn't take into account the respondents disabilities, financial status, etc. Furthermore, the COR left it up to the county party chair to determine if the “sentence” had been served in a arbitrary and non-objective way that could not be appealed to the Executive Council but require a separate petition to the COR.