FeedsNational PDA Newsletter Misrepresents Local Chapter Meeting; Obfuscation of Endorsement Problems Continues.
Today I was shocked to read the text of a nationally-disseminated Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) newsletter which reports on the events of this Saturday's first meeting of Portland, Oregon's PDA chapter. Why the shock? Because the reportage is inaccurate and a rosy-eyed gloss. How do I know? I was there. The full text of the newsletter is located here and I'm going to offer you a dissection of the evenings events.
As you remember from my last blog, the aforementioned meeting continued the charade that has been this Oregon PDA chapter's endorsement in our U.S. Senate primary. While it has been demonstrated that Oregon PDA Coordinator Liz Kimmerly works for candidate Steve Novick and while she failed to disclose her relationship with the campaign in setting up this shotgun meeting/chapter for a quick endorsement, no one seems to be acknowledging that fact. Not the Novick campaign. Not Kimmerly. No one. Indeed, what was equally troubling in last Saturday's meeting was that this whole endorsement debacle is standing in the way of a new PDA chapter of effectively coming together. Instead of having the chapter focus on its organization, the meeting was almost solely dedicated to the single endorsement discussion.
But the newsletter paints a far different picture, one which I contest and feel misrepresents the evening's events, which are described below. To start:
At Saturday's Portland meeting, in addition to discussing Progressive Challenge 2008 and Oregon's upcoming presidential primary and encouraging chapter participants to join both PDA's Issue Organizing Teams and the training sessions on Congressional lobbying, chapter members reflected upon the opportunities for the PDA Portland chapter to weigh in on the 2008 campaigns, most notably the race for Oregon's Senate seat. Moses Ross apprised members of the process by which a local chapter's endorsement can be referred to the PDA National team for consideration, but the chapter membership was ambivalent about whether an endorsement vote was important. Each major candidate was represented at the meeting, but an endorsement was tabled until next month's meeting. At the February meeting, irrespective of whether the chapter chooses to vote to endorse any candidate, members will be able to engage in a full discussion with each contender about their positions on the PDA issues. That discussion will be facilitated by Moses Ross..
First, let me restate this fact: I was in attendance at the meeting in question and find the descriptions suspect. I remember only minor conversations, based off of an audience question or two, of what role the PDA chapter could play in both making a national endorsement and getting involved in local Democratic politics. People were curious, but the discussion was short. And I don't remember much about Progressive Challenge 2008. Furthermore, while attendees were encouraged to get active, no discussion occurred about how such activism would be harnessed or realized.
That's when the conversation came to the endorsement. In the newsletter, the chapter was described as "ambivalent." Such ambivalence is accurate, but no cause is ever stated (it didn't reference, for example, concerns from Jon Isaacs and others about the process' legitimacy in light of "recent events"). Indeed, like the ethics questions were glossed over or buried at the meeting, so too are the glossed over or buried in the newsletter. Just as Kimmerly did not disclose her relationship to the Novick campaign at the meeting, so too does the relationship not get disclosed in the newsletter. Not once. This is perhaps what frustrates me most. At every stage of this event, people have had the chance to do the right thing. At every stage. And time and time again the unethical nature of this whole endorsement process keeps getting glossed over as people refuse to stand up for what's right.
Let me be clear. I don't find any fault in the National PDA or their people here. All I see is a continued misrepresentation of facts and dishonesty on a local level that has perhaps irrevocably tainted this chapter.
Continuing on, in the newsletter Kimmerly is quoted as follows:
The first step for PDA Oregon is for us to build chapters in congressional districts throughout the state. These chapters, working with PDA Congressional District point people, will begin to develop relationships with representatives' district offices to lobby for the PDA's Progressive Legislative Agenda, as well as to create a presence for progressives within the state Democratic party and to encourage new members from constituencies to join this effort to bring forth a progressive governing majority in U.S. Congress.
The sentiment is excellent, except this didn't happen at Saturday's PDA meeting. Not real discussions about organizational structure. Not talk about the relationships that could be developed or how they would be developed. Not talk of how to enable a progressive agenda or realize a group presence within the state Democratic party. Beyond minor discussions around the presidential race and what were PDA's core issues, the majority of the conversation was dominated by talk of the U.S. Senate primary endorsement. It was the meeting's first business, and the meeting's only business. And not once did anyone publicly discuss the impropriety of the Kimmerly/PDA/Novick relationship. Those progressives in attendance never got a peek behind the curtain to see just what might have been unethical. And in the dissemination of this newsletter, the same honesty is denied to every progressive Oregonian and American who reads it.
And that leads me to what is, perhaps, the most difficult part of all. Here's a quote from the newsletter's end:
What was unequivocal and clear from the meeting was the energy and commitment of PDA members in Portland to work together to build and strengthen the progressive community in Oregon and to work with PDA National to obtain tools, talking points and strategies both to educate and engage Oregonians on the issues and to secure support for progressive change in Congress by incumbents as well as candidates
What is true is that the progressive energy in that room was amazing. There were dedicated progressives in attendance, hoping to use their critical mass and energy to create change. But what wasn't there was an organization or leadership that could allow them to make change. What I saw was a meeting purely about an endorsement, based upon pretense and unspoken designs. Not about obtaining tools. Not about talking points. Not about strategies. And most certainly not about *how* to secure long-lasting progressive change (beyond endorsing progressive candidates either then-and-there or soon). These topics might have been touched on momentarily, but not with any force. Instead, we got a meeting driven purely to the endorsement talk. Hell, some came there solely for it, what with the Novick campaign making turnout calls! But anyone who came to roll up their sleeves and do work with the PDA was out of luck, because something else was driving the agenda.
After seven years of President Bush, a decade of Gordon Smith, and countless other disasters, we're going to play endorsement games and get in the way of progressives effectively establishing themselves without taint or legitimacy issues? We're Americans. We're better than that. And we're progressives. We should know better.
This newsletter is no vindication of anyone involved, and instead serves merely to continue a narrative of deceit, confusion, and the misappropriation of a fantastic, necessary organization. And considering the PDA's commitment to clean and fair elections, these developments are a sad irony for all involved.
Stumble It!We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
Comments
Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.The posting on the PDA website about this begs the question, who wrote it? Was it Liz Kimmerly? If not who?
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Even if she didn't write it, wouldn't the national organization rely heavily on reports from the state coordinator to send out such an email?
After all, this message goes into detail about what the author purports to have happened at Saturday's meeting. And that doesn't sync with Ben's memory of the event. Since Ben is young, I am loathe to cast doubts on his ability to recall events.
I would imagine that if Kimmerly did write this, or reported the happenings of the meeting to the national organization, she would want to reflect well on her work organizing the local chapter.
Problem is, it seems that this message omits key facts such as Kimmerly's day job as one of the Senate candidates' staffers. And when that's not disclosed, it creates the doubt that she's acting impartially and makes it impossible to know the veracity of her claims in this message.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
You put the problem well, Jack. It's just that doubt and the omissions which are problematic and cast shadows over the whole affair. And it's doubly strange considering how well-documented this saga hs become.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
It went out over the signature of Diane Shamis, PDA National Field Coordinator, although it may have been written by a subordinate or by Ms. Kimmerly. To my mind, as a longstanding PDA member, its content is not particularly surprising. Diane's role is to promote grassroots organizing efforts for PDA, not publicly air internal controversies or air dirty linen. Also, PDA is organized intentionally as a grassroots organization with autonomous local chapters, and as little patriarchal top-down mandates as possible. This is usually a strength of the organization, and serves its inclusivity and populism well. In this particular case, it may impede national's awareness of local problems, since they are based on reports by the state coordinator, who is unlikely to criticize her own strategy and implementation.
The real problem here is not the e-mail itself, but how it is being characterized by Novick partisans as some sort of vindication for the obviously flawed process by which the Portland chapter has been formed, and attempts made at pushing through an endorsement of its organizer's candidate.
Sadly, PDA-Portland is still coming off with every appearance of sock puppetry, and any ultimate endorsement is thus tainted.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
As a longstanding PDA member, do you have any ideas on how we can keep this election/endorsement cycle clean so that we can have a strong, active, and unbiased PDA in the future?
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
"sounds like quite the lively night, if you're into that sort of low-stakes drama." Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I think what the PDA statement clearly shows is that they're the organization with the most oversight interest--and they don't see a problem with Kimmerly's dual role.
If PDA does not see a problem with her involvement, that takes a lot of steam out of any conflict of interest argument. What Merkley people are saying is they don't trust Kimmerly do to right by the organization. PDA quite clearly says "we do."
See what happens when you let a rival campaign deliver "news" about a supposed candidate scandal? They get stuff wrong.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
This is all quite simple.
Progressives don't condone the gross violation of another person's right of self-determination via lies of omission. The reason is stunningly simple: Because that's the kind of crap that conservatives pull.
Therefore, your proffered spin that the PDA statement indicates that they don't care fails for lack of support.
You've made the ASSUMPTION that it means they don't care. The far more likely explanation which also doesn't violate a fundamental premise of progressivism (respect for the individual's right to self-determination) is that the statement was intended to generate positive energy and enthusiasm both within and without the PDA. Airing dirty laundry would undercut the very purpose of the statement.
For your reading pleasure - a primer on lies of omission
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
PDA doesn't clearly say anything about Kimmerly's dual role. In the statement at their web site they don't say anything at all about it--much less anything clear. You interpret that omission as evidence that they're OK with the situation. Maybe they are OK with it, but at this point all we have is inference.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Where does this:
"they don't see a problem with Kimmerly's dual role." get said by the PDA?
Even if you are right, by your logic Cheney's secret energy meetings and his conflict of interest with Haliburton were ok because the energy companies and Haliburton didn't object. (not to say that the PDA resembles any of those people but just an extension of the logic). Concealing a conflict of interest is wrong.
Furthermore, your attempt to brush this embarrassing moment for the Novick Campaign under the rug fails to take into account that Kimmerly violated the rules by issuing the notice for an endorsement interview less than thirty days in advance as the bylaws stipulate. Only when outed by a reporter at the Eugene Register Guard (hardly a rival campaign) were the bylaws enforced.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Hello? Bdunn?
There is a slight difference between the public disclosure required of:
1) a private organization (PDA) endorsing a candidate for a leadership role in another private entity (this is how we constitutionally define political parties and their primaries in this country), and
2) Actions of the Vice President of the United States (a public official) forming a governmental task force (another public entity) to recommend energy legislation.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.