Guest Column

By Eric C. Bauman

Chair, LA County Democratic Party

For many months now I have been watching and listening to the debate about the Assembly District reorganization proposal drafted by Garry Shay, Coby King and the members of the CDP Rules Committee.

I have listened, generally quietly (I know, that’s hard to imagine), to the various arguments – for and against. I have offered my opinions and advice, when asked. But I have for the most part been passive in this debate, until now.

The time has come for me to inject my two-cents worth into the debate.

Many years ago Garry taught me that an organization that found itself endlessly debating and discussing its bylaws was an organization that was troubled. That is usually true.

This may be the exception, because this is a preemptive debate. The proposal to revise the CDP bylaws and restructure the AD committees is designed to simultaneously respond to new and ever-changing state and federal laws and regulations and to better position the CDP in preparation for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The proposal is not about usurping power from long-time activists or the newly engaged. It is about repositioning the Party and its various entities in the best way for the future, plain and simple - nothing more, nothing less.

The proposal is about creating structures wherein local activists have greater freedom and control and fewer constraints from on high. Where the local leaders and activists have the autonomy and responsibility to accomplish their work with a minimum of interference.

Change never comes easy, especially for those of us who have been around a while, but that does not mean change is unnecessary. When the ground-rules are changed, organizations must adapt.

Despite all the circular arguments from all sides in this debate, the facts are really quite simple: The CDP now owns and is responsible for everything its entities (AD Committees, caucuses) do. There is absolutely no independence under law for these existing committees.

If the XYZ AD committee raises money, it is charged to the State Party’s limits. If the XYZ AD committee spends money, it is charged to the State Party’s limits. If an AD committee violates campaign finance reporting rules, coordination rules, mass communication rules or any other rules, the State Party is responsible. Period.

Under the BCRA (McCain-Feingold) the State Party and its leadership bear responsibility for all acts of its entities and agents, whether intentional or not. And the penalties are steep, both financially and potentially criminally. The responsibility is personal, not corporate, as some have inferred

If you have any doubt about how seriously these matters are being addressed, look at the penalties that have been assessed against Republican Central Committees in California during the past year. The various authorities are exercising their authority, occasionally with great relish.

Here is the bottom line. Under the current proposal, no one is disenfranchised. Caucuses in each Assembly District will elect State Central Committee members. Each chartered AD group (call them clubs, organizations, whatever) will be independent and responsible for its actions. Rules will be set that are open and clear – and locally owned, unlike the current practice wherein each of the 80 AD Committees sets their own variable rules.

The status quo works for some of us, we know it, we own it, and we can manipulate it. It is comfortable, like an old shoe. However, even an old shoe must occasionally be replaced.

Change and adaptation is key if we are to succeed in the battles ahead. The other side is not hesitating. Neither should we.

______________________________________

Contact Erick C. Bauman at: EricBauman@aol.com

 (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)