The activities in Nashville began Friday. Schaumberg held a press conference blasting the process used to get to this meeting and in particular, I am told (I was not at the press conference), the process used in Tennessee. If Schaumberg was interested in accomplishing something useful in Nashville, the press conference was not a good start. The Schaumberg group has many good ideas but their tactics and “Perot-phobia” alienate the very people they wish to influence. Many conversation took place as party members arrived from the various states. It was good to finally put a face together with a voice or email. Schaumberg held some meetings of their own and prepped their troops. In the days preceding the Nashville Meeting they had made many threats regarding disruption of the meeting and grandstanding for the media.
I was very upset by the abuse some Patriot Party members took due to misinformed individuals equating the Patriot Party with the Schaumberg group. The Patriot Party grew out of the Perot ‘92 effort and since has brought a few other constituencies into the party. Interestingly, many of the individuals trying to create havoc as we organize the Reform Party were the same individuals who created problems in 1993/1994 when we were forming the National Patriot Party. The Patriot Party has been working toward a new inclusive democratically operated national political party within the Perot movement since 1992. And though some members of the Schaumberg group came from the Patriot Party, many came from UWSA. Jim Mangia-CA and Harriett Hoffman - WA should not be held responsible for the actions of Ralph Copeland or Phil Madsen any more than Jim Callis - AZ or Glenn Busbin - SC should be held responsible for the actions of Mr. Torgerson in Illinois.
At 7pm Friday there was a meeting of the federal candidates who ran on the Reform Party ticket in 1996. There were 14 candidates in attendance. I am sorry I do not have all the names at this point. The meeting was called to get the candidates together to discuss the future of the party and what the candidates could do to help the party move forward. That is what the meeting announcement said. As the evening progressed it became clear that one of the meeting’s sponsors, Dean Barkley, was there for the reasons stated in previously posted Schaumberg Meeting Minutes which said the meeting was called to get the federal candidates to sign the paperwork for the FEC filing. Dean had vehemently denied this was his purpose in a phone conversation with me days earlier and having known Dean for a number of years I trusted what he told me. As a result, I had urged many candidates to attend and even defended Dean when his motives were questioned. Regardless of what he may or may not have told others, it was clear to me Friday night that I had been used by Mr. Barkley.
The Candidates meeting however did progress into the meeting it had been announced to be. Discussions and comments on party building and the future direction of the party were discussed. Three resolutions were passed by the Candidates present. (I had posted a copy of those resolutions earlier). These included a resolution to assure the voices of the candidates were heard as we moved forward since these candidates had placed themselves on the line to build this party. It was felt that some candidates should be part of the party leadership as we move forward. Two candidates were selected by vote of the candidates present as potential nominees for leadership positions in the expected votes on Saturday. They were Steve Perry -IL and Nick Sabatine - PA. A second motion was passed (7-4) that the candidates support the withdrawal of the current FEC filing. The final motion was a request that the people present at Saturday’s meeting resolve to move forward as a united party. During Saturday’s proceedings Congressional Candidate Tex Wood - VA read the candidates’ resolutions from the podium. In all it was a productive meeting.
Until nearly midnight Friday, negotiations continued between Verney and Schaumberg with Nick Sabatine trying to mediate solutions. The threat of major disruptions of Saturday’s meeting by the Schaumberg group overshadowed most of the positive changes they requested. The final draft of the agenda was not agreed upon until 8:45am Saturday resulting in the compromise agenda (white paper) being distributed on the floor as a replacement to the agenda (blue paper) which had been handed out during the registration process. By compromising on the agenda the disruptions and floor battles threatened by Schaumberg were prevented. The compromise agenda included the adoption of Robert’s Rules (which I assume was going to be adopted anyway since it had been arranged for a local attorney to be present to act as Parliamentarian), the meeting would open with all present having the right to vote in the meeting with a vote taken of all present as to whether the meeting should proceed with one vote per state as originally intended (Schaumberg lost that vote), the election of a Chair of the Meeting (it was agreed in advance that Jack Essenberg - NY would be that Chair), and that the contested states would be decided by a three person committee (Dale Welch-Barlow - OK, Shawn Newman - WA and Tom McLaughlin - PA none of whom knew minutes before the meeting that they had been chosen for the task). This compromise agenda I was told played a major role in limiting the number of contested states. My notes show AK, GA, HI, NE, NH, ND, WV & WY were not present at the roll call. Most of these states had indicated they wanted to attend but were unable to do so for various personal or financial reasons. Only FL, IL, NJ, NY & TN were contested during the roll call.
That was about as far as the agenda had progressed by the 10am air time for Ross, Pat and the Panel Discussion being broadcast by C-SPAN. I was unable to listen to most of the speeches as I contemplated and prepared for the credentialling process ahead. Prior to the panel discussion the credentialling committee announced it would meet on the second floor to review the credentialling so I missed the entire panel discussion.
Not knowing each other and having had no time to prepare for this process, the credentialling committee members met in a separate room to discuss procedure. We agreed to take the states in alphabetical order, to have one speaker for each side, to allow each speaker five minutes to present their case and one minute for rebuttal followed by questions from the committee. We felt that in order to avoid a circus atmosphere only the committee members and the two speakers from the state being discussed should be present in the room. We also agreed that the decision of the committee would be announced from the podium during the main meeting and not sooner. We then returned to the committee room and explained to those present how we would proceed and restated that our decision was a recommendation to the delegates which the delegates could accept or reject. Immediate claims of hidden agendas and demands for an open meeting arose. It was agreed to open the meeting to observers provided only the committee members and the two representatives from the state being discussed were to speak. It was then brought to the committee’s attention that someone wished to contest California. The Chair of the Meeting, Jack Essenberg, informed the credentialling committee that the delegates agreed to refer the California contest to the credentialling committee. Although we had stated the committee would handle the states in alphabetical order we decided to hear California last to allow their delegation time to prepare for this sudden change in status.
Florida was represented by Carl Owenby and Howard Johnson. Then came Illinois with Dawn Larson and Jim Rayfield. While these two states presented their positions and documentation New Jersey worked out an internal agreement to split their vote - 1/2 to each side in the contest. The New York arguments were presented by Catherine Portman-Laux and Loreen Oliver. They were followed by Kathy Seibel and Linda Witherspoon from Tennessee. We were then informed that the California challenge had been withdrawn.
The three members of the committee then met to discuss the presentations. There was immediate agreement that Carl Owenby’s group in Florida, Dawn Larson’s group in Illinois and Loreen Oliver’s group in New York were clearly the proper representatives of those states. In Tennessee the party does not have ballot status and during the presentation it was stated that both groups had organized, both groups had held state wide meetings, both groups disputed who had been invited to the other group’s meeting but both representatives stated they could work together to build the party in Tennessee. The credentialling committee recommended that the Tennessee vote be split between the two groups. Since this decision would require the two groups to work together we called in both representatives to see if they would agree to this arrangement. Both representatives agreed. Kathy Seibel said she would have to present the arrangement to her group for their approval. Kathy’s group was not happy but my understanding is they eventually agreed. The credentialling committee agreed that the recommendations would be presented to the delegates as the decision of the committee based upon the direction received from the delegates and information provided to the credentialling committee by the state representatives. The credentialling committee then made their recommendation to the delegates. The recommendations were accepted by vote of the delegates and the new delegates were seated. My understanding is that further negotiations took place between the two Tennessee groups and after discussions involving Russ Verney an agreement was reached to have a combined statewide meeting and elect officers at a date sometime within the next few months. Hopefully Tennessee will then be a united state party.
The Credentialling Committee does wish to thank all the observers (the room was full and they were standing in the hall) for their cooperation and good behavior during an intense session.
During the credentialling committee report an individual (not a delegate) from Illinois expressed his opinion that he had not been properly represented by the individual contesting Illinois. The Meeting Chair allowed him to speak briefly then asked whether the delegates wished to consider this individuals concerns. The delegates voted to proceed with the meeting. The individual did not get to present his argument to the delegates. When the same individual had previously made the same argument to the credentialling committee during their discussion of Illinois he was told he had not presented a challenge during the roll call of states. I was informed later that the individual’s argument had been included in the documentation presented to the credentialling committee by Mr. Rayfield.
Rules discussion was in progress. The rules being discussed were a draft set of rules, two pages long, which had been sent to the state representatives, Russ Verney, Ross Perot and Pat Choate by Nick Sabatine and myself about a week prior to the Nashville meeting. Based upon previous discussions I assumed these rules would be generally acceptable. Russ Verney had indicated on previous occasions that he felt the rules should be no more than two pages long. We adjusted the font and made the cut-off. Schaumberg should have found them acceptable as many of them had worked under the same rules three years previous. These were the interim rules of the Federation of Independence Party used between their first organizing meetings and the inaugural convention in 1994 which created the national Patriot Party. The rules had worked well then and since Phil Madsen had been the FIP Rules committee chair I didn’t expect Schaumberg to have any problem using the rules now.
During a break I was approached by a few individuals I knew through UWSA who were concerned about the powers granted to the Chair under the rules being discussed. I agreed to present a motion recommending changes to the rules listing specific situations which would require the chair to obtain the vote of the state representatives. Their main concern was any assessments which could be imposed upon a state based upon cost and location of the national convention. After a few tries, I was able to make the motion. I prefaced the motion with the statement that I had been asked to present this by some other individuals. In hindsight I should have stated the individuals were from UWSA. I think the outcome of the vote would have been different. And for the record, earlier in the day some individuals from the Schaumberg group had similar concerns and had approached me about making similar changes. Great minds think alike.
I did not support the motion to have a board instead of the traditional officers. I found out later that Schaumberg wanted the board in order to limit the power of the chair. I was told that at one point Verney agreed to have the motion reconsidered and to tell his people to support it. Schaumberg folks claimed they were betrayed by Verney when the motion was reconsidered and failed for the third time. Having practiced democracy by manipulation for most of the weekend, apparently Schaumberg thought everyone operated that way and they were convinced Verney had all the delegates on a string that he could pull at will. As the weekend progressed I became more and more convinced that this was not the case. Whether you blame it on political naiveté of the delegates or their chronic independent spirit, Verney was unable to deliver. It was clear that he asked for someone to call for reconsideration of the board motion but if he called for people to support it, and I believe he did or the motion never would have been made, people didn’t hear or didn’t listen. Most people in Nashville did not come to watch backroom politics as usual. They came to build a new type of party. I heard as many "Dallas backers" complain about Verney making deals as I heard Schaumbergers complain about the deal making.
The 100 members per Congressional District to seat a convention delegate was an organized state vs. unorganized state debate, not necessarily a Schaumberg issue. The motion was made by Jim Mangia of California. He had/has a valid concern. California has well over 100,000 members and will now get 55 delegates to the convention. Hawaii claims to have three members. Under the rules adopted Hawaii needs to recruit 2 more members since they are entitled to 5 convention delegates. It doesn’t seem fair to those states that have done the hard work of party building. Yet in spite of this argument and my being from a large, fairly organized state I support the rules we adopted. As this will be a first convention I see the need to have as many delegates participate as possible overriding any minimum membership requirement. I think that the residency requirement for Congressional District delegates forces the states to organize statewide and places as much burden on the states as is realistically achievable in the time period remaining until the convention. But make no mistake, I will support and fight for a minimum registration requirement for future conventions because if we can’t organize our own state parties how can we ever hope to organize our federal government.
By the time we finally adopted the rules it was clear to me that Nick was as tired of discussing rules as anyone else in the room.
During the supper break and subsequent breakout sessions a lot of discussion took place regarding election of officers. While Schaumberg huddled in room 1409, as many patriot party members as we could round-up met in room 1425. We discussed what had occurred and what remained to be done. Having been through this phase of party building once before it was clear to most of us what would happen during the remainder of the evening. A decision was made not to nominate Nick Sabatine for Chair. We had accomplished what we had come to Nashville for. We had adopted a set of rules to get us to the Convention which we felt were both democratic and functional and we would have the national convention in 1997 which we felt was necessary to unite the party and prepare for the Congressional elections.
When the meeting reconvened, Tex Wood reported the resolutions passed at Friday night’s federal candidates meeting. He was followed by the reports from the break-out sessions. When we reached the point of electing committee officers the delegates voted to allow each committee to elect its own chair. As not everyone knew everybody, and this was just to get us to the convention I really didn’t have a problem with that. I do look forward to seeing how the issues committee functions with four or six chairs? In the future I believe the Committee Chairs should be elected by the convention body in recognition of their accountability to that body.
This is where/when Schaumberg chose to grandstand. Dean Barkley - MN addressed the Chair of the meeting and announced he was turning in his credentials. He said based upon all that had happened he needed to get further instructions from his state committee. Ron Barthel-OR then made a similar statement. Loreen Oliver - NY made a statement about the size of the group and questioned our understanding of what we were doing or had done but to the best of my recollection did not turn in her credentials. A woman, Ms. Summerhays?, from Oregon stood up and announced she was a delegate from Oregon and she was assuming the seat vacated by Ron Barthel. When I spoke earlier with Bill Bonville - Secretary of the Reform Party of Oregon , he had stated that Oregon had sent seven delegates to Nashville with authorization to vote. Of course at that time his argument was that Oregon wanted seven votes. If Ms. Summerhays was one of these seven members authorized by her state party to vote in Nashville, then, in my opinion, she had as much right to take that seat as either of the two guys from Iowa who shared their seat. There was no need for a delegate vote to seat her. The Meeting Chair called for a vote and the delegates did vote to seat her. For the record, someone from Oregon did protest the seating.
When it came time to nominate the other officers, to no one’s surprise Russ Verney was nominated as chair. To my surprise Nick Sabatine was also nominated. Nick was out of the room, not expecting to be nominated. He had given me the “green card” to vote for Pennsylvania. I didn’t know who nominated Nick but out of courtesy to whomever it was I seconded the nomination. Apparently the decision not to nominate Nick had not gotten to everyone. Surprise!Surprise! Nick got two votes. I figured since I seconded the nomination I should probably vote for him. I now assume Ted Weill -AL nominated Nick since he was the other vote.
Nick Sabatine - PA and Steve Perry - IL were nominated for Vice Chair along with Dale Welch-Barlow - OK. I think their nominations were the result of the resolution adopted at the federal candidates meeting. It was not until later that I realized I had met Dale previously. She was at our Pennsylvania Congressional Candidates fund raising breakfast at Valley Forge. Jim Mangia I have known for about three years now and know he will do an excellent job as Secretary. I met Carl Owenby for the first time in Nashville although I had a telephone conversation with him days earlier. In all, I feel we elected a very capable set of officers to carry us through to the Convention.
In the Rules we adopted, one of the items listed for the Convention agenda was the adoption of rules. We did not establish a rules committee in Nashville. This is something I think we must do so we can have a draft set of rules in circulation by late June and get most comments out of the way prior to the convention. Rules debates are fun - for the first five minutes after that they are boring and tedious. We need to take care of most of those discussions before the convention. I had left a number of copies of the Pennsylvania state rules, the Patriot Party national rules and some other draft rules on the tables outside the meeting room Sunday morning. I hope those interested grabbed a copy. I hope no one misinterpreted this as an effort to force a set of rules on the party. I just feel that having already reviewed rules from the RNC, the DNC, other parties and other organizations there was no real sense in starting from scratch. We could take the Patriot Party rules and cut and paste for the next few month but at least we have a place to start.
For anyone who is not happy with the outcome of the Nashville meeting, they have another chance to effect changes at the National Convention in October. And as Kathy Seibel said, “it is better to be inside the tent.” Inside the tent you can try to influence the process. Outside the tent you can only throw stones. Hopefully each and every state will develop some type of inclusive democratic process to elect their three statewide delegates and their congressional district delegates. Then in October maybe we can get through the credentialling process without challenges.
Thomas J McLaughlin
Vice Chair - Reform Party of PA
The Reform Party National Caucus, New York Chapter
http://www.pipeline.com/~criggs
From: mclau@postoffice.ptd.net (Thomas J. McLaughlin) These comments are my opinions and perspective on the events which occurred in Nashville on January 24, 25 & 26, 1997. </P>
Item 1:
I did not support the motion to have a board instead of the traditional officers. I found out later that Schaumberg wanted the board in order to limit the power of the chair. I was told that at one point Verney agreed to have the motion reconsidered and to tell his people to support it. Schaumberg folks claimed they were betrayed by Verney when the motion was reconsidered and failed for the third time. Having practiced democracy by manipulation for most of the weekend, apparently Schaumberg thought everyone operated that way and they were convinced Verney had all the delegates on a string that he could pull at will. As the weekend progressed I became more and more convinced that this was not the case. Whether you blame it on political naiveté of the delegates or their chronic independent spirit, Verney was unable to deliver. It was clear that he asked for someone to call for reconsideration of the board motion but if he called for people to support it, and I believe he did or the motion never would have been made, people didn’t hear or didn’t listen.
I don't think it is fair or accurate to say that Schaumberg thought "Verney had all the delegates on a string that he could pull at will." That was not the nature of what we thought was our understanding with respect to this matter. Our understanding, as I receive it, was that we expected Mr. Verney to make clear to the meeting in public through an address from the dais that he, Mr. Verney, supported the seven-member board, and believed it a good faith attempt on all sides to create a leadership where all factions would have an equal fair shot at having their voices heard. Such a public address, by way of putting Mr. Verney publicly on record as supporting the seven-member board concept, would have gone a long way, we felt, toward allaying the concerns some might feel, particularly Perot loyalists, but also Fulani supporters, Sabatine/Patriots, and Schaumbergers, that the arrangement somehow was skewed to give one or the other faction an unfair advantage.
One should understand that while those of us who support Schaumberg have a rather unfortunate history with Mr. Verney, and do not give him the wholehearted benefit of the doubt, nevertheless he is still held in high esteem with several of the Perot loyalists, and his word still carries not inconsiderable weight with several of them. It is for that reason that his assurances to us with respect to this matter that his support would be given publicly counted a lot in persuading us to go along with a concept which, after all, would probably have still resulted in a seven-member board heavily weighted with Perot loyalists, inasmuch as 23 of the 42 state delegates there were either present or former Perot staffers or Perot appointees. In the event, however, Mr. Verney made no attempt, either during the initial tabling vote killing the board idea or the subsequent vote to reconsider the tabling of the board amendment, to give any public open indication of his privately given assurances of support for this concept. This strikes me personally as less than a forthright way of dealing with affairs, and, I think, accounts for the way some, like myself, felt concerning this matter.
Our concern was not that Mr. Verney was unable to 'pull the strings of the delegates.' Our concern was not with the delegates but with Mr. Verney himself, and his failure to follow through publicly on privately-given committments. Indeed, if Mr. Verney had publicly committed to supporting the board, and it had still failed on a straight up-and-down vote on the amendment itself, I personally would have found the decision much easier to swallow.
As it was, my personal reaction is that Mr. Verney 'took a dive,' scarcely the reasonable path to unifying the party. Indeed, I am firmly convinced that the only reason Mr. Verney flirted with us was because he was unsure that he had the votes to ram through a Perot-dominated leadership; but then, having ascertained that his Perot 23 were prepared to perform such a task, he simply reneged on his committment. That's no way to run an airline. Trust is an important ingredient in political leadership, particularly when it comes to party-organizing, and Mr. Verney appears to have betrayed that trust.
Item 2:
(If Ms. Summerhays [of Oregon was] one of these seven members authorized by her state party to vote in Nashville, then, in my opinion, she had as much right to take that seat as either of the two guys from Iowa who shared their seat. There was no need for a delegate vote to seat her. The Meeting Chair called for a vote and the delegates did vote to seat her. For the record, someone from Oregon did protest the seating.)
As a matter of fact, the rules, which the Nashville meeting itself had adopted earlier, stated specifically that delegates could only be replaced and appointed by actions stemming from decisions taking by the given state party itself. It was not the purview of the national meeting in Nashville to be engaged in the business of appointing or selecting the delegate that would represent a sovereign state party.
I'll give Mr. McLaughlin the benefit of the doubt for having temporarily forgotten this aspect of the previously adopted rules. After all, they had just been adopted hours earlier, and I feel one can be forgiven for not having had the chance to memorize all such nuances.
Additionally, Jack Essenberg, acting as chair for the day's proceedings, also made the same mistake, allowing the illegal seating to take place. The "someone from Oregon" who protested the seating on the grounds I have stated above was in fact quite correct that the seating was illegal and should not take place.
The technical grounds on which Mr. Essenberg ruled his point of order, out of order, as I recollect, was that he, the "someone from Oregon," had made his point of order at a point too late in the proceedings with respect to the matter of Ms. Summerhays.
As I understand it, Mr. Essenberg's position was that since he had already called the question and the body had assented, points of order were out of order. Since seating Ms. Summerhays was illegal, and points of order are ALWAYS in order, Mr. Essenberg erred, as does Mr. McLaughlin. But I believe this is an honest oversight on both their parts, and I do not impute either with dishonest motives in this connection.
Item 3:
In Tennessee the party does not have ballot status and during the presentation it was stated that both groups had organized, both groups had held state wide meetings, both groups disputed who had been invited to the other group’s meeting but both representatives stated they could work together to build the party in Tennessee. The credentialling committee recommended that the Tennessee vote be split between the two groups. Since this decision would require the two groups to work together we called in both representatives to see if they would agree to this arrangement. Both representatives agreed. Kathy Seibel said she would have to present the arrangement to her group for their approval. Kathy’s group was not happy but my understanding is they eventually agreed. The credentialling committee agreed that the recommendations would be presented to the delegates as the decision of the committee based upon the direction received from the delegates and information provided to the credentialling committee by the state representatives. The credentialling committee then made their recommendation to the delegates. The recommendations were accepted by vote of the delegates and the new delegates were seated. My understanding is that further negotiations took place between the two Tennessee groups and after discussions involving Russ Verney an agreement was reached to have a combined statewide meeting and elect officers at a date sometime within the next few months. Hopefully Tennessee will then be a united state party.
Here, Mr. McLaughlin has omitted an important part of the story, and I find the nature of this omission very disturbing. I'm sure it is absolutely correct that the credentials committee explored the possibility of the two Tennessee contestants sharing their vote. After all, Mr. McLaughlin served on the credentials committee; I did not; he should know; I would not.
However, Ms. Seibel AT FIRST REFUSED COMPLETELY TO ASSENT TO SUCH SHARING.
In the wake of this reaction, the credentials committee awarded the seat to the other contestant, Dr. Linda Witherspoon.
(The Tennessee situation, by the way, represented another example of what has emerged as a disturbing trend with respect to the relationship between grassroots members of the Reform Party and Perot staffers and/or appointees. A grassroots movement develops, shows dramatic signs of being successful, and then Perot-crats appear and either attempt to take the organization over, or create a rival one to muscle out the grassroots movement. In this case, the grassroots movement was led by Dr. Witherspoon, and the rival Perot-crat organization quickly subverted the Tennessee Reform Party movement into a petition drive for Perot AS AN INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY. It is to the credentials committee's credit that they initially awarded the seat to Dr. Witherspoon, the leader of the true Tennessee Reform Party grassroots movement, in the wake of Ms. Seibel's initial refusal to share the Tennessee vote with Dr. Witherspoon.)
The credentials committee's decision to award the seat to Dr. Witherspoon was publicly announced at the full meeting, in conjunction with all the other decisions announced by the committee.
The initial Tennessee decision even survived a challenge from the floor. This is not a question of my word against Mr. McLaughlin's. I have the audio tape of the full meeting at this juncture. There is no doubt on this matter. It was only much later, after Dr. Witherspoon's magnanimous efforts to work out a split of the delegate vote with Ms. Seibel succeeded, that the credentials committee recommendation was changed and the Tennesse vote was officially split.
In conclusion, let me say that I give Mr. McLaughlin credit for
what is
in general a fairly comprehensive detailed report. I also would like to
reiterate that with the possible exception of the Tennessee matter,
which still causes me some concern, I believe that Mr. McLaughlin has
not deliberately distorted or misrepresented the events which he
describes. He obviously does not support the Schaumberg group, and
there are moments where his rhetorical emphasis is obviously biased (for
example, "Schaumberg chose to grandstand"), sins of which I am sure I
have also been guilty as a result of my support of that same group.
But, with the exception of those matters outlined above, Mr.
McLaughlin's report is essentially accurate as regards the facts. My
primary purpose therefore in posting what I call my addendum here is to
in good faith correct the record in those instances where Mr. McLaughlin
has erred, however unintentionally. It is my hope that it will be
accepted in the spirit of good faith in which it has been given.
Signed:Charles H. Riggs, III
The Reform Party National Caucus, New York Chapter
http://www.pipeline.com/~criggs
d.wiesner@genie.com wrote: > > If the > petition from Dallas to the FEC is approved, then the independent > parties who joined Reform will likely pull out and form their own > independent party. Dallas will then go back and organize its own > Reform Party in all of those states. > > If the Democracy Caucus wins, then Perot's employees will be > relegated officially to running Perot '96. However, as we in UWSA > know, Perot's employees rarely stick to their official roles. Their > real role will be to spend the next four years making sure that no > Reform Party ever exists that is not under Perot's direct control. > This will be the equivalent of the battle in Vietnam where the U.S. > command said, "We had to destroy [the city] to save it." > > Earlier, I predicted that, if the nascent Democracy Caucus succeeded > in its challenge, Perot would wipe out the Reform Party rather than > have an independent third party. I still stand by this prediction. > > Dave
Dear Dave, and fellow list subscribers,
In general, a lot of what you say makes good sense, from a journalistic point of view. However, you have made a critical technical error. DALLAS HAS FILED NO PETITION WITH THE FEC WHATSOEVER!!! Their only action has been in reaction to the National Steering Committee's filing, which came about as a result of the direct instructions that the Steering Committee received from the National Caucus (not Democracy Caucus) Chicago meeting which invited all the states to come together to form such a committee in the first place. And those actions on the part of Dallas have been
1) to hold the equivalent of a closed-door, smoke-filled backroom telephone call where a secret committee was created for the purpose of creating the illusion that there is another national committee with equal validity to that of the National Steering Committee when in fact no such legitimate committee exists, and
2) to orchestrate a campaign of letters to the FEC, mostly on the part of Perot staffers, or those exclusively loyal to Perot 96, to discredit and vilify the ONLY legitimate national committee that exists of the Reform Party.
In other words, the Dallas forces, meaning Ross Perot, have made no attempt to place an alternate filing with the FEC for their consideration because, frankly, they don't have a leg to stand on. Currently, there are a plethora of state Reform Party affiliates in the process of formation around the country. Five of those affiliates are sufficiently formed and established to the point that they have full-fledged ballot access in 5 states as state parties, and have had since 1994! In other words, these are full-fledged grassroots democratically organized entities, which owe their existence not just to a presidential campaign by Ross Perot, but to a spontaneous outpouring of reformist fervor that had the effect of lifting them to complete political party status. For that we do not have Ross Perot to thank as much as we are grateful to ourselves, the people, thank you very much. Four of those states, Minnesota, Virginia, Oregon, and New York, along with several others, who are pursuing the same track, and will shortly be in a position similar to the four listed, came together to form this National Steering Committee. The legitimacy of these state parties, and the legitimacy of their decision to come together to form a national committee, CANNOT BE LEGALLY QUESTIONED. And Ross Perot knows they cannot be legally questioned. That is why THERE IS NO RIVAL FILING CURRENTLY SITTING IN THE FEC OFFICE inspired by Perot.
Reality is that these state parties which came together to form the National Steering Committee are not fly-by-night agitators. They are not Johnny-come-lately opportunists out to make a quick buck, or out to hijack political power. They are well-established legitimate political forces which found strength in the growing movement in this country toward political and fiscal reform. Their right to come together to form this national committee is on very firm ground legally, and Perot knows this. He knows that he cannot challenge them on legal grounds, or in front of the FEC, with much hope of success; he is therefore trying a political smear campaign as an alternate tactic instead. It is a desperation move, and will probably not work. The written and vocal statements, loud and obstreperous, made by Perot staffers and loyalists, conspicuous as they may be, are in fact just so much gorilla dust, as Perot would say, -- fulminations and eruptions of great volume and racket but in fact of no essential consequence. When the dust settles, Perot will still have to face the fact that real state parties currently exist, that they have come together to form a real national party, and that there is really not much Perot can do about that in the legal arena. His one forlorn hope is that by engaging in a POLITICAL effort, rather than a LEGAL effort, he can somehow, in a manner not at all clear, derail the legitimate growth of the national Reform Party.
Because of the fact that Perot doesn't have the legal basis, or the gall, to trump up some sort of FEC filing of his own, there is therefore little or no likelihood of the FEC somehow recognizing Perot, or a Perot-controlled group, as the true Reform Party, and therefore virtually no possibility that "the independent
> parties who joined Reform will likely pull out and form their own
> independent party."
In fact, if the FEC, absent a rival filing by Perot, still chooses not to recognize the National Steering Committee at this time, it will far more likely be as a result of technical errors in the filing rather than any recognition on the FEC's part of the legitimacy of any spear-shaking on the part of diehard and paid Perotistas. It may be perfectly true that Perot will somehow try to organize a legitimate grassroots Reform Party organization for the purpose of then creating a national committee to function as a legal rival to the National Steering Committee, but with no organized fully functioning state party under his belt, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania, and with more partially organized states climbing aboard the National Steering Committee every week, that looks more and more like a hopeless cause.
I couldn't agree more that if the FEC, as I believe it inevitably will, eventually recognizes the current National Steering Committee as the legitimate national committee of the Reform Party, Perot will try "to spend the next four years making sure that no > Reform Party ever exists that is not under Perot's direct control," and will try to "wipe out the Reform Party rather than > have an independent third party." Indeed, early on I had strong concerns over the following: Perot, in spite of his public rhetoric concerning a third party, nevertheless insisted throughout the campaign on portraying himself to the FEC, in his technical, legal paperwork, as an independent presidential candidate rather than the candidate of a third party; and in fact early in this campaign I expressed my fear that Perot would turn around after the campaign and say "Reform Party? What Reform Party? That was a field of dreams. It didn't exist yet, and it still doesn't. I was an independent candidate." But of course he can't say that now; why? Well, don't forget that those state Reform Parties, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia, and New York, along with representatives of other state parties in earlier stages of development, came together to form a legitimate national committee of the National Reform Party, and they officially ran Ross Perot as their THIRD-PARTY, NOT INDEPENDENT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. In other words, Perot and his henchmen can try their damnedest, but the fact remains that he will be on very shaky legal ground. The fact remains that a firmly established party with full-fledged FEC recognition, and with federal matching funds coming to it as a result of the showing of THEIR presidential candidate, will be tough to destroy in the legal arena. And with this party showing every sign of filing full slates of local, congressional, and gubernatorial candidates in the 98 election it appears an attempt by Perot to derail such a movement even in the political arena will be fraught with difficulty at best. What is he going to do? Organize a rival third party? Where will be the political raison d'etre, the political appeal? Perot's negatives are sky-high, in a league with Gingrich's; why would people vote for yet another third party associated with Perot when there exists a strong viable nationwide party, the Reform Party, already qualified for matching funds, a party that will possibly by that time be associated with distinguished public figures like Dick Lamm, Ed Zschau, Lowell Weicker, John Anderson, Bill Bradley, Paul Tsongas, Tim Penny, and David Boren?
My parting words: Beware irrelevancy; avoid distractions. A group of new parties together chose Ross Perot as their presidential candidate, as well as running hundreds of candidates in local elections around the country. Prior to the election, that group came together in Schaumburg, Illinois, on September 28, to form out of those state parties a national party, the Reform Party. That national party's presidential candidate received 8% of the national vote, and also received votes for their local candidates around the nation, including a remarkably strong showing for their Senate candidate in Minnesota. Since 8% is well above the 5% required to qualify for federal funding, the Reform party is now eligible for matching funds in the 2000 election. The fact that one candidate of that party (who never bothered to show much interest in or support of the local candidates running in this new party, and who has a gift for generating publicity for himself) is making irrelevant noises about taking control of this new party is not only regrettable but, fortunately, quite immaterial. I would urge my fellow members of the Reform Party, and in particular our new leadership on the National Steering Committee, to keep their eye on the ball, and avoid blind alleys, dead ends, and wild goose chases. And if we're not careful Ross Perot will lead us on the wildest goose chase of all if we let him. We must not.
To a majority Reform Party,
Charles H. Riggs, III