AN AMENDMENT

The undersigned offer the following Amendment to the Platform of the Democratic Party.
VOTING RIGHTS
PAGE 50: 29

The Democratic Party will practice its commitment to voting rights within our own

nomination processes.

Caucuses undermine these core Democratic values. Caucuses inherently disenfranchise
the elderly, disabled, shift workers, single parents and others whose circumstance
prohibits participation in caucuses. Further the 2008 primaries illustrated that a caucus
vote is worth more than a primary vote because each delegate elected by caucus
represents fewer voters than each delegate elected by primary. Caucuses allow party
officials, spouses, employers or other aggressive participants to exert undue influence and
coercion over voters. Caucuses are also immune from federal oversight, while primaries
are subject to federal election law.

Therefore, the Democratic Party will forbid caucuses in all future nominating processes
and will require all states to conduct primaries to select their delegates to future national
conventions.

The above is the actual text of Amendment 93 which was ruled "Out of Order" at yesterday's Democratic Platform Committee Meeting.  I personally can see nothing out of order in the damn thing! For crying out loud, the committee entertained many amendments and most passed with NO DEBATE! Our amendment asking for free and fair elections with the elimination of caucuses got no hearing- no debate. Just ruled out of order by the chair with a promise that the "ROOLZ" committee will be looking at the issue of caucuses.

In the draft Section IV "Renewing American Democracy" there is a sub-section on voting rights. There is language stating the party "will work to fully protect and enforce the fundamental Constitutional right of every American to vote...." It seem to me that that language opened the door for Amendment 93. The amendment simply adds language stating that caucuses are a barrier that prevent American citizens from exercising their right to vote.

Wikipedia defines a Platform as

A party platform, also known as a manifesto, is a list of the principles which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party's candidates voted into office. This often takes the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform.

A list of the principles, a list of support for or opposition to- controversial topics. This primary season, (which by the way does not conclude until the party conventions formally nominate a candidate,) has been chock full of controversial topics, and caucuses generated a huge amount of controversy! What the hell is wrong with the DNC and the Obama campaign? Do they really think they can hide the great divide in the party by stifling debate?

Using Robert's Rules of Order to stifle debate is uncalled for and just one more sign of the desperation of Dean and his hacks. A platform is supposed to showcase the principles to which our party is committed. The whole proceeding yesterday was a rubber stamping of the deals, not the IDEALS. The Voting Rights section is vague and ambiguous; much like Dean's selectee. I am saddened, but not surprised. They stomped on Democracy once again.

With the way rules and procedures are being bent and twisted, the Sanggunian is operating like a bunch of clowns trying hard to appear serious as legislators.

Basic parliamentary rules and procedure that have survived centuries of practice, and permanently etched in the Robert's Rules of Order, are simply being ignored or swept aside under the auspices of the presiding officer, Vice Governor Rolex T. Suplico.

For instance, it's a fundamental rule that the presiding officer does not vote in case of a tie. If the presiding officer wants to participate in the deliberations of the Sanggunian, he will temporarily yield his post to a regular member of the board and step down to the floor. But after he has finished taking part in the debate, the presiding officer will have to resume his post.

Not so with Suplico.

Last April 22, the Sanggunian deliberated on the veto exercised by Governor Niel Tupas Sr. over Appropriations Ordinance No. 2008-01-b enacting the 20% IRA Development Fund and Resolution No. 2008-044 approving the modified, revised and overhauled Annual Investment Plan for the province.

Suplico vacated his post as presiding officer to deliver a sponsorship speech to override the veto.

And more.

In parliamentary practice, all motions are made by the floor leader, a position occupied by Board Member Oscar "Richard" Garin, Jr. But this role was wrested away from him by Suplico, who proceeded to present a motion to override the veto.

And there's more.

When the voting was taken, Suplico stayed where he was --- on the floor. And based on the official records of the proceedings, Suplico was among those who cast his vote in favor of the override.

This is reflected in the minutes of the session, whereby Board Member Jesus (JR) Salcedo was reported as the acting presiding officer, while Suplico's name appeared as among the regular members present.

Any student of parliamentary procedure would easily spot this irregularity, but it seems the capacity to detect errors and wrong continue to elude the Suplico-bloc in the Sanggunian. Whatever Suplico says, his allies blindly give their stamp of approval, unmindful of the comedy the nature of their work has taken.

About a couple of months ago, the Sanggunian also committed a grave blunder in enacting an ordinance to manifest its override of the first veto on Appropriation Ordinance No. 2008-01-a. It's elementary knowledge that expressions of sentiment take the form of resolutions, which should have been the proper form for such override.

Suplico insisted that there is no difference between an ordinance and a resolution.

With this new override, the Sanggunian swallowed its pride and correctly adopted a resolution as the proper form to express its 2/3 vote to cancel out the veto of the governor.

At least, the Sanggunian has realized that it made the mistake the first time, or that Suplico misled its members into believing that they were on the right track, and rectified its error. It is also an acknowledgment that in this debate over this issue, Suplico was wrong, and I was right.

Print them out and take them with you. Click here to get a copy...

These poor folks knew the rules, and still were hijacked!

Dont be a victim.

""To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism."

- G. Edward Griffin

Learning something about parliamentary procedure involved reading a few books and making some notes, which [Gen. Robert] carried in his wallet for about four years.

When he moved to San Francisco, he encountered a city where prostitution was rife and Chinese laborers brought in to build the railroad were exploited, even chased by dogs for sport. Robert, a Baptist lay leader, was offended.

He joined the YMCA and several newly formed religious groups dedicated to relieving the plight of exploited souls, but he found that the city's motley population had discordant notions about how to conduct meetings. San Francisco needed rules.

How do we help people, and make collective decisions in which the individual voice is respected while the consensus of the group is enacted? By having fair, orderly rules that everyone follows.

Next time I'm in a faculty meeting, I'll remember that.