My thoughts on the NCDP officer elections and candidates - and my "Dream Team"!

I have been an active Democrat since 2003. I’ve watched this party go from having majority control of NC state government for 112 years (won through a racist, white supremacist coup in 1898) that ended in 2010 because the party lost it’s “mojo”. We went from being a party chaired by the Governor’s choice prior to 2005 to a party chaired by the “People’s Choice” – which worked to turn NC “blue” for Barack Obama in 2008 with a 50-state and 100-county grassroots on up strategy started in 2006.

Then as soon as we nominated a white female candidate for governor and an African-American male candidate for President, a group (consisting of OFA, the DNC, our gubernatorial nominee and the usual round of “suspect” consultants started dismantling the 50-state/100-county strategy beginning in June 2008. It continued on through 2009 and culminated with a historic ass-kicking in the 2010 general election.

A lot of people have some interesting opinions of what happened in 2010 through now, but most focus exclusively on what I call “electionitis”. It’s been defined as “an abnormal tendency about elections” as in: “politicians are tormented by the obsession of electionitis”. Lots of money has been spent on these elections and all the consultants can brag about the number of “voter contacts” made by them or the campaigns, but that really doesn’t explain what happened from June 2008 that lost us the majority in 2010.

I have talked with two main challengers to Bobbie Richardson (Anderson Clayton and Eric Terashima) and neither of them know how the party worked to turn NC “blue” in 2008, only to get our asses kicked in 2010.

A little history...

The problem since 2009-2011, and from 2015 on was too damned much “electionitis” and not enough realizing that the party functions best when it’s organized from the grassroots on up so that as many people as possible have a voice in the party and a seat at the table. So that we have rules that create an open and transparent NCDP that’s accountable all the way from Goodwin House to the precinct level. So we can pass resolutions at the precinct level - and then incorporate those that are passed at the state level into the party platform. Then elect a majority of Democrats who will work to turn that platform into public policy.

OFA took over and started running the DNC after Hillary conceded to Obama in June 2008, giving the nomination to Obama. That’s when Obama For America took over control of the DNC, and started to dismantle the very 50-state strategy started by Dean that helped Obama overcome the internal advantage that Queen Hillary Clinton had for all those years PRIOR to 2005.

Right here in NC, SEC members who voted for Jerry Meek – a grassroots activist Democratic Party Chair in 2005 - lost their nerve and “mojo” and voted for the Governor’s choice for NCDP Chair in 2009. We went from having 3 staffers working for NCDP paid for by the DNC to 5 former OFA staffers who took their marching orders (but only half their pay) from OFA. They were sent down to Charlotte (along with $750K) to help elect Obama’s buddy Anthony Foxx to be Mayor of Charlotte (build up his resume) where he won by 3K votes. Basically the serious work of the party that enabled us to elect Obama in 2008 and hold onto the majority was thrown out the window for short-term gains.

By 2010, all OFA and the DNC (and most if not all state parties) cares about was whatever would get Obama’s legislative agenda passed - and nothing else mattered. So neither OFA, the DNC nor any state party thought it was important enough to win the majority of state legislative seats in 2010 in a census/redistricting election. But the Republicans knew better, and they targeted with laser precision those seats they’d need to win to take over.

Previous NCDP Chairs never ran for re-election after such disastrous results 

The NCDP Chair who served from 2009-2011 at least had the decency to not run again in 2011. David Parker had some decent plans to reform the NCDP, but those plans were thwarted by greedy consultants who created a false sexual harassment scandal to try and get rid of Parker in May 2012 so they could elect a replacement party chair (current Mayor of Raleigh MaryAnn Baldwin – who never served as a party officer before May 2012) who would let them steal all of the Taxpayer Checkoff money. And those people attacking Parker were vicious bastards who also went after his business and livelihood. So after 2012, he decided not to run again for Chair. Randy Voller ran and won in 2013, but was under attack from the corporate establishment conservaDINOs almost from the beginning.

The People's Party vs the Governor's "Follow the Money" Party

Nobody seems to be aware of the tendency for top-down top-ticket campaigns like Obama, Biden or Cooper (and Stein) to interfere with the NCDP officer elections precisely because these campaigns and their BIG donors want a state party they can control so they can launder money through it and make sure that their favorite consultants, operatives and vendors get paid. In many ways it’s equally (if not more) important than actually winning the race. Because if you can’t control the money laundering, then - God Forbid - someone like Bernie Sanders (or Barack Obama) sneaks in and wins!

Virtual meetings suck!

And I don’t like these virtual meetings - it’s too easy for the people running the meetings to cheat and boot people they don’t like out of a meeting and blame it on stuff like internet access. They can and have cheated at in-person meetings as well.

Not all party staffers are neutral in party officer elections!

At the May 2012 SEC meeting which rejected David Parker’s forced resignation, I told one staffer about the results of the vote and that Parker was headed back to the meeting (he had been so sure he’d get the boot that he was cleaning out his office). That staffer said Parker “can’t do that - it screwed up everything” (meaning the money laundering). The issue that drove Parker to resign was a bullshit “scandal” that later on was proven to have been concocted by the consultants so they could keep nearly $1 million in taxpayer checkoff money for themselves instead of letting it be used by the Congressional District Chairs in their counties.

Less than a year later, that same staffer and two others were out in the hallway calling local DINO Dems to come in and take proxy votes to vote for the establishment candidate and against progressive Randy Voller. The staffers were cheating because by this time quorum had been declared and under Roberts Rules proxies weren’t acceptable. The staff and other establishment conservaDINOs didn’t want Voller (or Parker before him) because both promises party reforms that were desperately needed once we lost the majority so we could get it back again, and the donors and consultants involved in the money laundering didn’t trust that Randy would guarantee the flow of money would go the right way and grease the right palms. They hated Randy so bad that there were death threats made to him during an Exec Council meeting in April 2013 (also while Randy would not cover their asses during the investigation of a campaign finance worker’s murder that might uncover the whole house of cards).

Talk about potential and/or actual election fraud!

There is no reason why party officer elections shouldn’t be conducted with the same openness and transparency as elections for public officials. We don’t conduct those elections on the Internet and deny the public or the candidates the right to watch counting/recounting and audits – yet party elections are conducted via Google Docs and candidates are not allowed to be at Goodwin House to observe the staff and volunteers to make sure that people who support one candidate won’t commit an error or mistake that sways the election. And the rule about members being responsible for their own internet connections is BS as well. Does anyone remember the NCDP convention in June 2020 when hundreds of delegates got tossed out of the Zoom meeting? That was hardly their fault! With such a rule and no non-partisan observer at Goodwin House, how can we be sure that we actually have quorum if lots of people suddenly and mysteriously lose their connection to the SEC meeting?

The real disconnects with the NCDP!

And few of the candidates are willing to discuss the big disconnect in the Democratic Party that accounts for our party hemorrhaging voters. People are tired of being told they must vote for Democrats who once elected sell out those voters and stab them in the back.

Why do you think so many Obama voters in 2008 didn’t vote in 2012 and in 2016 voted for Trump? In 2008, Obama ran on “hope and change”, but once elected the first thing he did was protect the Wall Street bankster scumbags and let lots of people lose their homes and retirement nest eggs. He sold out on the public option to make sure that small business owners like me had health insurance costs rise so much that I’ve been without insurance (because ACA is ridiculously complex for self employed people who might have big income fluctuations) since 2013.

The incumbents have already had their chances and failed!

Since I am not going to be voting for NCDP incumbent candidates for any office (because they have utterly failed to lead the party and I do not believe they have the ability to fulfill their campaign promises recycled and reworded from 2021), I am only voting for the candidates with no previous state party officer experience.

If NCDP were a sports team with this win-LOSS record, the fans would be demanding to replace all the coaching and management staff and burn the playbooks.  

My "Dream Team"

Here is my dream team (no incumbents serving in any other capacity):

Chair: Eric Terashima (second choice would be Anderson Clayton)

1st Vice: Anderson Clayton (second choice Eric Terashima – anyone else but Floyd)

2nd Vice: Nazim Uddin (anyone but Matt Hughes)

3rd Vice: LeVon Barnes (anyone but Chris Hardee)

Secretary: Anyone else but Melvin

What I want to avoid...

I am not really thrilled with the idea of putting anyone with experience or close ties (officers or staffers) to Independent Expenditure groups like Lillian’s List, New NC Project, Carolina Forward, etc. I agree with the former Florida Democratic Party Chair who said that those IE groups have been poaching volunteers and leeching money from the party over the years. And I can’t see that they’ve done a good job of increasing Democratic voter registration or turnout! And while a group like County 2 County is kind of a part of the Orange County Democratic Party, its work overlaps the work that should be done by the Association of County Chairs.

So let’s look at the candidates besides Bobbie...

Anderson has lots of energy and appears to be able to identify with rural voters, but like many of the other candidates fails to understand how we need to add rural voters to what works in the urban/suburban and exurban areas. In fact most of the slate is from rural areas. And even more concerning to me is that hardly any of the other candidates (except Bobbie and other incumbents) are talking about the non election party organization stuff that keeps the party running from the grassroots org perspective. Like the standing committees, or appointments sustaining fund committee, Council of Review, etc. To say nothing of their roles in shaping the makeup and providing oversight of the SBE and 100 CBEs.

Chairs of Committees:

Resolutions and Platform: Nazim Uddin (doing what Matt Hughes has done as Chair of Res & Plat Committee

PORC: Jonah Garson

Legit Concerns for party officers:

Anderson and LeVon are still working and trying to earn a living. And while the Chair might be getting a stipend (??), I am unsure they’ll be able to maintain their standard of living while being Chair. And they could very well be vulnerable to having problems with their jobs due to decisions they make as Chair being unpopular with establishment Dems, donors and consultants.

The only candidate with actual experience leading large multi-level organizations

Only one candidate has any experience with running a large organization from the bottom on up. And has the financial independence to buck the establishment conservaDems is Eric Terashima. He entered USMC as a 2^nd Lt, and rose up through the ranks and retired as a full bird Colonel, earning each rank by successfully doing his duty and completing missions - not getting his badge of rank just because he showed up/as a trophy.

It's not just about electing Democrats - but electing them to turn the platform into public policy!

Being a party officer isn’t about showing that you care by holding “listening tours” or patting their hands. It’s simply being able to tell people that they should register as a Dem to join the party and work to elect Dems that will turn the party platform into public policy. And to hold those miserable corporate establishment conservaDINOS responsible for stabbing voters in the back and then kicking them out by running and voting for progressives who will do what’s expected of them.

Some Dems would rather lose to Republicans than have progressive grassroots Dems in charge!

That’s why I’ve said we have people in the party like donors and consultants who would rather lose races than lose control of the money laundering machine. I know Bobbie doesn’t get it - otherwise why are electeds like Cooper and Stein, and consultants like Morgan Jackson and former NCDP ED Scott Falmlen (who formed top consulting firm Nexxus Strategies after leaving NCDP in 2005) supporting Bobbie?

Sports-team comparison!

Bobbie has been an NCDP officer since 2019. Matt has been 2^nd Vice Chair at least as long. If 2022 was the best Bobbie and the other officers and staff could do, then it’s time to give them all the boot and start fresh.

Follow the money!

But if Anderson, and Levon don’t get it (and I’ve really heard nothing from any of them that indicates that they do know about the money laundering and that they want to reform it), then I’m voting for Eric. Certainly not for Floyd as 1st Vice Chair and not for Matt Hughes as 2nd Vice Chair.

And last but not least...subject of another posting!

As for Chris Hardee as 3^rd Vice Chair. Given his history with the party, I am appalled that he’s running for this position and making the claims he’s making on the candidate’s page.

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.

August 7, 2021 Plan of Organization Amendments at the SEC

 The Plan of Organization Review Committee has released a rather lengthy report making numerous changes to the NCDP Plan of Organization.  Mostly these recommendations are made under the pretext of streamlining the SEC meetings which have gotten bogged down over the years and are made even more unbearable with the advent of virtual meetings.  Yet with everything done with virtual meetings since mid March 2020, much of what the party presents to us is done with even less transparency than ever before.  Now they want to turn the SEC members into rubber-stamps for the state party officers, staff and consultants - all but eliminating our ability to amend what is brought to us from other committee meetings were we have little to no input or other involvement.

PORC Recommendation 1 (Local Alternative Plans of Organization)

Due to the hardship in holding a County Executive Committee with several hundred members; the SEC, in 2019, approved lowering the quorum required for the CEC in Mecklenburg County. We recommend renewing that Alternate Plan of Organization from Mecklenburg County.

PORC Recommendation 2 (Local Alternative Plans of Organization)

Due to the hardship in holding a County Executive Committee with several hundred members; the SEC, in 2019, approved lowering the quorum required for the CEC in Wake County. We recommend approving this Alternate Plan of Organization for Wake County lowering quorum and including Regional Vice Chair roles.

Vote YES with amendments:

I'm not really buying the argument for that it's that much harder to hold a CEC meeting with 40% quorum requirement vs. 35%. With virtual meetings, we have not had a problem making or exceeding quorum – we've had more problems handling the overwhelming number of people who want to participate both as credentialed CEC members as well as non-credentialed attendees.

There are many things that could be done to hold meetings where you make quorum of 40% - like holding the meetings on a weekend during the day instead of a weeknight with people having to commute across the county from work and miss dinner.

My real objection to these two recommendations is the fact there is little if any input or discussion/debate within the county party over the language of the LACPoO for any county. Pretty much only the county party officers or even just the County Chair and a few others write the language up to the last minute with little to no input from knowledgeable members of the county party who deserve to have input into the county party Plan of Organization. Here in Wake County, I might want to have input on including the District Coordinators and Tech committees into the LACPoO, which would also cover minimum qualifications for selection, and limits to how they can interfere with precinct organization. I might also want to formalize the Resolution and Platform Committee process so that it's handled the same way year after year and we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

I favor voting YES on both plans, but submitting language to the PORC to amend the PoO re these Local Alternative County Plans of Organization to require that any county contemplating creating their own LACPOO must create a LACPoO committee to accept amendments from active Democrats and hold meetings to discuss and debate proposed language and then vote on a final document published and distributed to the CEC members at least 14 days before a CEC meeting where that document can be discussed/debated/amended by members of the CEC. Otherwise, these LACPoO documents end up being solely written by the County Chair – which is not very small “d” democratic.

PORC Recommendation 3 (DEC Voting In Districts Wholly In A County)

Current voting on any District Exec Committee is weighted with the various County Chair and 1VC from each county carrying a large number of votes calculated based on population. The remaining District Officers and Exec members have one vote each. In Congressional Districts that are wholly in a single district the two county leaders can always outvote other district leaders on any divided issue. The Leadership from the 2nd and 12th have asked for a way to spread out that weighted vote among more people. Representatives from the 2nd & 12th District and Wake & Mecklenburg counties working with us join the PORC is recommending this amendment.

I favor voting YES on Recommendation #3.

PORC Recommendation 4 (County BOE & Chair Appointments)

Current 2.06 was last amended during the "dark times" (McCrory Administration) when we had a 4 member BOE. It hasn't been updated to reflect the 2019 law that has the Governor appoint the local BOE Chair and the POO does not speak to it. This recommendation codifies what counties did in 2021 and follows the current model of selecting BOE members with confirmation by the County Executive Committee.

I recommend voting YES on recommendation #4.

PORC Recommendation 5 (Appointed Treasurer)

Treasurers have unique statutory requirements unlike any other party office. They are required by law to submit timely reports to the BOE and maintain accounts of the Party. Many counties struggle to find qualified candidates that are willing to stand for election or have folks run who are not qualified to do the job. Currently the State Treasurer is appointed by the State Chair and appears to be a good model. We recommend this amendment.

Lately we've had a lot of problems with Treasurers who aren't doing their jobs in an accurate and/or timely manner. Having an appointed Treasurer means that you don't have to ask an elected Treasurer to resign or file a petition to remove them, which can take time and still result in a problem with the SBE. That being said, once the Treasurer is appointed, it should at least take a meeting of the elected county party level officers to remove the Treasurer for cause, so the appointment process can begin.

I recommend voting YES for #5 with an amendment to require a vote of the elected county part officers to remove the appointed Treasurer for cause. Any Treasurer can resign from office by notifying the County Party Chair and the elected county party officers in writing. 

PORC Recommendation 6 (Immediate Past Chair Ex-Officio Officer)

Party Chairs at every level have a significant amount of knowledge and experience after having served. Frequently that knowledge is lost after their term ends. This allows for the Immediate Past Chair to remain on the board and to share their experience. We recommend this amendment.

There is absolutely no reason why a current Party Chair can't reach out to an immediate past Chair for advise and share their experience. But why should they get a vote? It's bad enough that most Chairs are picked by the Governor and this would give the governor yet another vote on the Executive Council and SEC. And what happens if an incumbent Chair is beaten by a challenger – if the SEC members wanted that person to have a vote, they'd have voted for them to be Chair. And what if a Chair has to resign due to some conflict or scandal – would you want them to have a vote?

I recommend voting NO on #6. 

PORC Recommendation 7a (NCDP Finance Committee)

In an effort to streamline SEC meetings, a Finance Committee is created as a subset of the Executive Council to draft the State Budget and allow more input in it’s creation. We recommend this amendment.

I'm not buying that a Finance Committee report would help streamline SEC meetings. We still have to vote for the budget, and except for the most recent SEC meeting where the budget was provided on-line, the real time-killer is the need to look at the budget for the first time at the SEC meeting. As for the often purported reason that we don't provide advance copies because we don't want the Republicans to see what we spend – so what? We've lost two decennial elections in a row for all the good this secrecy has done us.

I recommend voting NO on 7a unless it is amended to include advance publication of the budget along with all other SEC meeting documents a minimum of 14 days before the SEC meeting.

PORC Recommendation 7b (SEC Candidate Filing Period)

In an effort to streamline SEC meetings, Candidates for NCDP State Office will file in advance. This also allows for more transparency by allowing ample time for due diligence of candidates. We recommend this amendment.

I recommend voting against 7b because it might cause conflict with diversity requirements. Also – it would allow for “rigged elections” - what would happen if all but one person dropped off the slate for each position – and no one else could run? 

It would need to be amended to allow floor nominations to fulfill diversity requirements and to allow for increased communication for SEC members and other interested active Democrats.

PORC Recommendation 7c (Streamline SEC Meetings)

The SEC Streamline select committee suggested changes to SEC agenda’s to more balance SEC meetings.

• (1) Shift the approval of Affiliated Orgs to the odd numbered Summer SEC - YES

• (2) Only hear Resolutions from the P&R once per year (during the summer meeting) - NO

• (3) POO Amendments presented to SEC for an up/down/refer back vote – HELL NO!

• (4) Following DNC model, create a Finance Sub-committee of Exec Council to deliberate and modify draft budget from staff. Council still can amend. Present Summary to SEC for an up/down/refer back vote only. No amendments on the floor.  This is already covered under 7a - I recommend voting No – the DNC is a poor model where consultants & lobbyists who are also DNC members who can rig contracts without other member input or amendments. Too much of what our party does is done by a few people who wear too many hats without enough transparency - why make it worse?

• (5) Create filing period ahead of SEC for officer/DNC elections, prohibit running from the floor. This is already covered under 7b - I recommend voting NO – would cause conflict with diversity requirements. Also – would allow for “rigged elections” - what would happen if all but one person dropped off the slate for each position – and no one else could run?

We recommend these amendments.

I have (numbered) these bulleted items for discussion. I do know lately we've tried to cram too much stuff into any one meeting. I long for the days when we had competent Chairs who could run a meeting smoothly without having to turn around and ask staff for advice. And we would know a year in advance when we'd have SEC meeting and state conventions – in even years those meetings would take place on the same weekend to save on travel and other expenses. And that would give people enough time to make arrangements for childcare, rides, etc. And even give people time to plan for the meetings that would lead up to the conventions and SEC meetings.

I'm not buying the pretext that these items are being proposed to streamline meetings. If we really wanted to streamline meetings, the committee that came up with these ideas would have been much more diverse and taken suggestions from a wide variety of active Democrats. Right now there is little input from SEC members elected from the counties – it seems like the suggestions offered up allow for more top-down control of the party and make the SEC members little more than a rubber-stamp for decisions they have little to no input in.

If we really wanted to streamline the meetings, we'd elect people who really knew how to run meetings effectively. I long for the days when we'd have an effective Chair like Jerry Meek or David Parker who could not only get meetings done on time, but also got an even bigger agenda taken care of during the meetings then we are doing now. Just because the Governor likes a particular person to run the party for them, doesn't mean that person is gifted at running the meetings in a streamlined matter. I for one am not willing to give up my voice in the party because we have officers who can't lead meetings effectively.

Back on February 29, 2020, I urged the SEC to table the discussion of and vote on the Code of Conduct to discuss the virtual meetings we were undoubtedly going to start having in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain people wanted to shove that Code of Conduct down our throats even though it was a piss-poor document with no definitions of the conduct/behavior they sought to prevent/control. So now we have a Code of Conduct that is still too overly-broad and overly-vague (and therefore unenforceable), but even more importantly we failed to use our last chance to meet in person to discuss how we'd hold virtual meetings that would give members the same rights to participate as we have at in-person meetings. And we never considered how to research ways to make sure the meetings take place in a balanced way for both our rights of participation and not running too long and wasting time.

The problem with most of them is that if for some reason the Chair doesn't include these items on the agenda for the specific meeting, the business won't be dealt with. We've had State Party Chairs or Executive Directors forget to schedule resolutions for the second meeting in an odd year (like in 2015), meaning all the work done to handle resolutions at the precinct/county/district level was wasted. And we've even had state party officers and staff fail to schedule SEC meetings at all until virtually the last minute (in 2014, 2016 and 2017) which screws everyone up. So any of these items that pass must have language controlling the state party and committee chairs to make sure they do their jobs to schedule and notice these meetings in a timely manner.

(1) I've long since favored moving the approval of affiliated orgs from first meetings of odd numbered years. There is simply too much to do at the first SEC meeting of an odd year to deal with approving affiliated orgs.

(2) I do not favor only hearing resolutions during the second SEC meeting. The reasons we started hearing resolutions at all SEC meetings was 1) that a previous Chair didn't hear resolutions during the 2^nd meeting of an odd year (in 2015) for reasons that defy rational explanation, and 2) that so much work goes into resolutions during a year that we cannot afford to run out of time to pass those resolutions at the SEC by limiting them to the second meeting of the year.  That will force people to start fresh at the next round of precinct meetings without knowing that the process might fail them again at the state level.  

(3) I do not favor only having POO amendments presented for an up/down/refer back vote.  Over the last few years, active Democrats have had their rights to amend the POO severely curtailed by creation of a committee that was originally created to eliminate conflict and ambiguity in the Plan, but instead has become a creature with a mind of its own, making more work for itself and in one instance created an Auxiliary Organization Council of Review which was later shot down because the Auxiliary groups said they didn't need it.  We need more not less input on the Plan of Organization - so this section is a very bad idea!

I've already covered my reasons for voting NO on items 4 & 5.

PORC Recommendation 7d (Clarify PORC process).

This clarifies the process of POO Amendments and only applies if Recommendation 7c passes. We recommend this amendment.

This amendment turns everyone on the SEC except for elected state officers and members of the Executive Council into nothing more than rubber stamps.  That is not what our county delegates and/or CEC members elected us to be and do.  

I recommend not only voting NO but HELL NO on item 3 under 7c and make 7d unnecessary. 

Wake County Progressive Democrats potluck for January 17, 2018 - plus update on our status with the PCNCDP!

Dear Progressives:
 
Sorry again for the lateness of this message.  But between the cold weather and other weird events, lots of things have been going on.

FIRST:            The original speaker scheduled for our January 17^th potluck was Wake County Board of Education member Dr. Jim Martin to talk about vocational-technical education in our public school system.  Because there are some rather bizarre things going on in the Wake County Progressive Democrats and the statewide progressive caucus (which I will go into later in this e-mail), so Vice President Mike Pierce and I thought we should reschedule Dr. Martin for our February meeting.  We will use our time this coming Wednesday to discuss the current and future issues affecting the Wake County Progressive Democrats.

SECOND:            Due to forecasts of 1 to 3 inches of snow on Wednesday, with a high of only 32 degrees, we might cancel the meeting if either NCDP staff at Goodwin House decide to close down due to weather.  We also know that just because weather in Raleigh might be clear, it doesn’t mean other parts of the county will be.  We will let you know as soon as we do if we can hold the meeting that day by sending out e-mail and posting to Facebook.

Weather-permitting, our meeting will be held on our traditional 3^rd Wednesday of the month - January 17th from 6-8:30PM at NC Democratic Party Headquarters/Goodwin House, 220 Hillsborough Street in Raleigh, NC 27603. This is a potluck, so please bring some food or beverages to share. If you can, please come early at 6 PM and help us set up. We will start eating at 6:30.  To RSVP, please do so on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/events/1454755441303861/ or by e-mail at wakeco.progressivedems@earthlink.net

THIRD:            I’d like to apologize for those people upset by the cancellation of our December holiday party – especially those who were left in the dark by some officers failing to perform their duties.

I prepared an e-mail which was forwarded onto another officer for distribution through our website e-mailer, but some folks tell me they never received it.  Furthermore, while we had our regularly scheduled meetings in September, October and November – the last report on attendance, membership and donations/dues that I received was for August.  They could not have been sent a notice of cancellation even if everyone else got one – but there was no official notice except for the ones I sent out.  I posted a similar message to our FB account, and I called up several long-time members to give them the news.  This is why I am sending in through my old earthlink e-mail address.

At one of our summer board meetings, we scheduled our December holiday party at an officer’s house – exact date and time unspecified.   By late October, this officer had some family issues requiring out of state travel that caused this location to become unavailable.  I asked the other officers – including those responsible for our activities – to find another suitable location for the event (free where we could bring our own food). Throughout the entire month of November, they were not able to find a spot available on the two weekend dates we had in mind, with enough time for the board members to do all the work required to hold the party and make it a successful one.

Since no specific time/date and location had never been agreed upon or even previously announced, it didn’t require a board meeting to cancel this event – it cancelled itself. 

Sorry to all our friends and fellow progressives who wanted to attend – some officers dropped the ball and I intend to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

-->

--> FOURTH:            The Wake County Progressive Democrats have been under continuous attack over the last two years from establishment conservaDems, the usual fauxgressive minions – and now from other ambitious progressives!
 
During a May 2017 PCNCDP interim officer teleconference call, interim PCNCDP officer Wendy Ella May made a motion to grandfather the Wake County Progressive Democrats, as well as their officers, bylaws and existing members, as the organized Wake County Chapter of record.  That motion was properly seconded, and proceeded to discussion and debate where the subject of our bylaws came up.  According to interim officer Wendy Ella May, they discussed the bylaws in effect at the time (passed on June 18, 2015 and available on our FB page) and upon examination they were found to be acceptable.  Discussion and debate was closed, and the interim officers voted unanimously to approve Wendy’s motion.

I was first informed in-person of the results of that vote by interim officers Wendy Ella May, Mike Pierce and Stacey Piesche on Sunday, June 11, 2017 - when they attended my 57th birthday party.  They told me that Wake County was the first organized county and the Wake County Progressive Democrats were the official chapter of record, with everything grandfathered in.  We’ve got screen shots shot on June 12 that were posted on our FB page – along with 24 likes – to prove this.  

 

This is a screenshot I captured at 4:41 PM on June 21, 2017 - a few hours before our June 2017 potluck meeting - showing once again that Wake County is organized - with updated information:

PCNCDP interim President David Nelson came to our June 21, 2017 Wake County Progressive Dems potluck to formally announce this.  I remember this and so do many others.  We’ve got written statements from two candidates for public office and one other Wake Progressives officer to back this up.  Our Treasurer said the same thing at our June meeting as well as subsequent meetings (including our July pool party)  – with this information used to induce people to apply for state caucus membership and pay dues. 

-->
Now the statewide caucus claims we are not organized anymore.  They claim that Wake is contested county – which means a 2^nd group interested in becoming the official county chapter of record.   

Our own Communications Chair and Treasurer Stacey Piesche is the 2^nd organizer (something not allowed under chapter organizing procedures which direct additional organizers to the original organizer - me!) and she has scheduled an organizational meeting for January 28^th, 2018.  And that any current members of the Wake County Progressive Democrats want to vote at the January 28^th meeting, we have to apply for membership and pay dues before the 28th.  But why do they think anyone in Wake County would want to join the statewide caucus just to vote in an election or at any time in the future when they didn’t honor our organized status the interim officers already voted on back in May? 

Now I know that many of the officers in the new caucus at the state level have little to no actual experience in the Democratic Party at the state officer level before, so they may be over their heads.  There are many people who run for party office and find out they are in over their heads.  Another issue is people running for many different offices and not being able to have enough time (or interest) to do all the work for all those positions.   

Part of the problem with not taking membership applications until June 2017 was too many officers wanting to do most everything on the internet.  Why not take those individual member applications on paper and accept cash and checks until county/district chapter procedures were formulated and the website was up?  If we had done this immediately after the September 2016 SEC meeting, imagine how many members we could have signed up at the November 13 meeting in Greensboro - attended by 100 people?  Imagine how many people we could have signed up at the February 2017 SEC meeting?  At county conventions in April 2017, and at the District Conventions in May 2017? 


-->

There have been no grievance petitions filed with the PCNCDP Judicial Board to challenge our status for any grounds, and there haven’t been any mediation hearings, Judicial Board hearings or rulings on the matter.  There have also been no PCNCDP executive committee votes to rescind our organized chapter status. 

So how did we go from being organized as early as May/June 2017 to being declared an unorganized contested county?  I suggest that you ask Stacey Piesche or Mike Pierce if either of them show up on Wednesday, January 17 for our potluck meeting (weather permitting). 

If either David Nelson or Bob Hyman show up, you might want to ask either of them what legal right they have to unilaterally undo the results of an interim state caucus board vote on Wake County’s organized status?  PCNCDP bylaws don’t allow the President or any individual officer to unilaterally rescind a chapter’s organized status.

Then there’s the conflict of interest with Bob Hyman not only being the appointed Chair of the Bylaws committee (that writes the bylaws) and on the Judicial Board members elected in August.  I see nothing in the PCNCDP bylaws that he wrote that give him or anyone else the authority to issue a unilateral ruling to rescind Wake County’s organized status.  While the PCNCDP bylaws do not address conflicts of interest, I would think that anyone would know it’s not a good idea to let the same people that write bylaws serve on a body that hears grievances based on whether or not officers including himself are fairly administering those bylaws.  In the real world, it’s called “Separation of Powers”.

If there is a legitimate problem with the interim officers vote back in May, or something else that has come up, why didn’t the board wait until a grievance was filed and a judicial board order was issued?  How can Dave Nelson drive all the way from Pitt County to Raleigh and tell us we are organized in June, and by December not be able to point to any Judicial Board order or board vote to rescind Wake’s organized status?  

If there is a legitimate problem in Wake County, why not file a grievance and let the Judicial Board do their job (with people who don’t have conflict of interest)?  If they issue a ruling and something is found wanting with Wake County, surely they can treat Wake County as fairly as they have treated other counties – where they grant them probationary status while the chapter works to remedy the situation?  

Why weren’t all those things done for Wake County? Let’s ask Stacey and Mike and whomever else shows up on Wednesday (weather permitting).  

Sincerely,

Chris Telesca

President, Wake County Progressive Democrats - the FIRST organized county chapter of the Progressive Caucus of the NCDP!