.
.
.
Endorsements in local races are one of the main events of every political cycle. Helping one’s favored candidates get into a position to win is one of the big reasons that people get involved in party politics at all. We’ll get to the results below the photo, but first I have a bone to pick.
To my mind, and that of many others who actually give a damn about the process rather than mildly deferring to those in power, the big story of the night was less the results than the outrageous and repellant manipulation of the procedural rules — whether parliamentary, bylaws, or just made up for the occasion — to allow the Chair to do pretty much whatever he wanted. It’s as if the party’s new motto could be “Welcome to Orange County’s Democratic Party! Come waste your time with us!”
Let’s get specific: the Democratic Party of Orange County (“DPOC”), like most endorsing organizations, has an Endorsement Committee to do the initial threshing of the political wheat — separating the grains of desirable candidates from the (supposed) chaff. But few of them ever get as powerful, within a heterogeneous and often contentious county party, as the DPOC’s Endorsement Committee — composed of Chair Henry Vandermeir, California Democratic Party Regional Director Florice Hoffman, and two lesser DPOC officers and one Regional Director who aren’t likely to cross either of them — proved to be this year.
In all but ten races countywide, the committee’s proposed endorsements proposed were passed on a consent calendar — partly due to one of the most outrageous and repellant manipulations of parliamentary procedure in memory, courtesy of Vandermeir. (You think I’m joking. Read on.) Central Committee members were not told at that point who else had applied for a DPOC endorsement and been turned down! (Asked to distribute that information, Vandermeir said that the information had been available and chided members for essentially not being industrious enough to go look them up individually. And that’s not even the outrageous and repellant part!)
In those ten races, a total a twelve individuals were removed from the consent calendar for individual votes. Each of the ten individuals proposed for endorsement in eight of those races was later endorsed on an individual vote. Only in the two races — both for Anaheim Council seats — did the Endorsement Committee recommend “no endorsement”; only in those two races was their recommendation rejected by the full body.
In one of them, the Committee reported that it just didn’t know the applicant — who happened to be Donna Acevedo-Nelson, recent bride of Vern Nelson, Owner, Publisher, and Editor of this often querulous and critical blog — very well. This was an almost comically lousy reason not to endorse the sole Democrat running against three Republicans in Anaheim’s District 5. So: Donna got up and gave quite a good short speech; no one rose to speak against her endorsement; Bill Honigman and Jeff LeTourneau gave powerful testimonials on her behalf; I twisted Donna’s arm to let me be her final speaker so that I could eloquently hector the audience not to be dip-wads; and Donna won endorsement with 92% of the vote — the highest percentage of the evening off of the Consent Calendar. (Mission Accomplished!) She joins District 3’s Robert as Nelsons who might make it onto the City Council thanks to candidates from the other major party splitting of the vote.
The other one was the headline story of the night. After Jordan Brandman sent out an email hours before the meeting saying that he had decided that asking for the endorsement would be divisive and that he would therefore ask people to support “No Recommendation” between him and his opponent Dr. Jose Moreno, the Endorsement Committee’s “No Recommendation” recommendation was rejected on a 29-17 vote. (It needed 60% to prevail; it got 37%.) This then led to speeches by and for both candidates — and then to the most nerve-wracking vote (using written ballots) of the evening. Moreno got 31 votes, Brandman got 5, and “No Endorsement” got 14. With 31 of 50 votes, Moreno had gotten 62% of the vote, just over the 60% threshold. Without that, it would have been much harder for him to fend off Robert Nelson in the fight — a prospect that Vandermeir dismissed, when I raised it as a downside of “No Endorsement,” on the grounds that it was absurd to think that a Republican could win the race. (I think that he took that hubristic position, which was popular in the room where few people knew stink-all about Anaheim politics, because he was more or less tasked with preventing a Moreno endorsement. But it could be that, when it comes to actual electoral politics, he’s just a moron.)
More results below the stolen photo featuring at left Fullerton’s Jesus Silva and Dr. Moreno.
On a vote of 7 to 4, “looking down” prevailed over “looking straight ahead.” Seated, from left: Jesus Silva, Dr. Jose Moreno, Al Jabbar, Iyad Afalqa, Dean Inada, Greg Diamond, Art Hoffman, Monika Broome, Molly Muro, Gary Kephart; standing in back, newly endorsed Ed Lopez. (Photo stolen from Oscar Rodriguez as part of my usual hazing of new Facebook friends.)
Two other races stood out as interesting. In the District 1 race, reportedly sane but somehow pro-Disney Leonard Lahtinen had his proposed endorsement confirmed with 66% of the vote. How, you may wonder, did they Committee Members react to Lahtinen’s pro-corporate subsidy position?
They didn’t — and that brings us to the truly reprehensible, abhorrent, unprincipled, idiotic, outrageous, and repellant mechanism cooked up by or for this year’s Harry S Truman Award-winner Henry Vandermeir. I was plenty steamed about it, but some people were even more steamed than I was — ranting about it after the meeting to a degree that, while easily justified, unsettled even me.
First — as you may have gathered if you read closely, once an Endorsement Committee recommendation was taken off the Consent Calendar, the Central Committee had to vote on it again. But — and here’s the atrocity — that vote would come prior to any debate on the race or even speeches by candidates at all!
Only if the committee recommendation did not receive 60% of the vote would the candidates come out and give speeches and have others give speeches as well. This meant that the Consent Calendar — again, pretty much the work of two people, Vandermeir and Florice Hoffman — did not have a “1 person” or “2 person” requirement to lead to debate on an issue, but an “over 40% requirement”!
This allowed the actual powers-that-be behind the County Democratic party — roughly speaker the business-friendly big donors of the Democratic Foundation and the labor unions comprising the Building Trades (sometimes accompanied by, sometimes opposed to, other labor unions) — to control the outcome of the endorsement process with almost total perfection. Of the 42 individuals at issue, the Endorsement Committee got its way on 40 of them — without any debate on any of them — losing only when they had taken a pointlessly stupid position (opposing Acevedo-Nelson) or when they had gone against a popular hero of the county party (Dr. Moreno).
(WHY don’t everyday citizens get involved in Democratic party politics here? Maybe THAT could be one reason why!)
Putting up barriers to debate may seem like a brilliant machination to the party’s institutional leaders — and I can’t say that it didn’t work for them this year! (After all, the Moreno race was a squeaker.) But it is deeply and overwhelmingly alienating. I won’t support any candidate for DPOC Chair next year who won’t commit to not allowing this sort of travesty to recur.
OK, back to the results.
Someone pulled the race of Rickk Montoya, the hero of Garden Grove redistricting, who is running against young Lou Correa follower Kim Nguyen. The Committee recommendation was sustained on a 43-4 vote.
Irvine’s City Council race was among the most contentious in the room. The Committee favored Melissa Fox and Farrah Khan. Supporters of (so far as I could tell) another good candidate, Shiva Faravar, pulled both of their names. No debate ensued. The recommendation for Fox was upheld 38-4; that for Khan (who I think suffered by having her vote come second) was upheld 31-11.
Jose Solorio got the nod for Santa Ana City Council, 33-8. No debate.
Jeff LeTourneau tried to hold up the vote for Lorraine Prinsky on the Coastline Community College District Board, so that Oak View Community’s Victor Valladares (who had apparently not known that he could seek a hardship exemption rather than paying the fee to be considered for endorsement), could participate. Rejected without debate — well, Jeff did sneak some in — 31-3.
Ed Lopez retained his endorsement over Art Montez in the North Orange County Community College District race, 28-5. But Montez’s political partner retained his endorsement for the Rancho Santiago Community College District seat, 32-6.
Finally, in the Santa Ana Unified School District race, proposed endorsements for Mark McLoughlin and Rigo Rodriguez were both challenged — and upheld respectively on votes of 32-5 and 32-4.
The Orange County Labor Fed endorsements are expected to come out this week. Candidates who win both of the DPOC and OCLF nods become pretty substantial favorites on the Democratic side of the aisle — which, of course, is not necessarily enough.
Of that entire rant, it is THIS line that makes my blood boil most;
“Oak View Community’s Victor Valladares (who had apparently not known that he could seek a hardship exemption rather than paying the fee to be considered for endorsement), could participate.”
Seriously, if ANYTHING defines the DPOC for me, this is it. You make your own candidates pay a freaking FEE to be considered for endorsement? It seems to be a substantial fee if someone has to seek a “hardship exemption” to get around it.
How does this not say, “pay to play” LITERALLY to the rank and file of your party? Your party is really something of a wonder. That word is NOT used in a good way.
It’s not just DPOC; it’s true at the state level as well. When I ran for State Senate in 2012, as the sole Democrat in the race, I had to pay $500 for the privilege of being endorsed while running as what everyone presumed would be my party’s sacrificial lamb, in the race to “show its flag.”
In part, it funds the party. But it’s also a screening mechanism to see who can raise money. The exemption is critical — but I doubt that candidates taking it have a decent shot at getting endorsed over those that don’t need it.
I could post a challenge to you regarding why the GOP has plenty of money, so that they have no need to do this — but maybe another time. I’m all partisaned out for the day….
Just as an FYI the fee was $50 to apply, and unfortunately its common practice for groups to charge a fee.
I wonder if SOAR knows that every time they announce backing of a candidate they lose that candidate votes (or chances for endorsement by other groups.) SOAR keeps operating on the premise they are as popular as they were in 2010. They forget that 2010 was before almost a billion dollars in public gifts either approved or attempted or made public after years of operating in silence. The public is watching the giveaways and it hurts the SOAR candidates, who have no clue that their world has changed. The arrogance of Brandman and company is indicative of that. This is what happens when you surround yourself with sycophants and only take info from your own closed circle; you get, “it’s OK, we ran some polling, you are a LOCK for this seat, go on up to the 7th floor to watch the construction of office space and pick out the one you want.” All while they scramble to get paid campaign people to push glossy walk pieces and find doors slammed in their faces where walk sheets tell them long-time supporters are supposed to be living. Gee, did Mrs. Jones MOVE or DIE? Nope that was Mrs. Jones at the door, who just launched a slew of expletives while shouting NOBODY she knows will ever vote a SOAR slate again, and get the HELL off her PORCH. Don’t believe me? I have watched it on my own street repeatedly in the last month. SOAR has hit our neighborhood AT LEAST 4 times, both before the hotel incentive deal to sell it, and after to excuse it, and now on behalf of Brandman. They are meeting resistance and outright hostility where friends used to be. Meanwhile VOLUNTEERS for the anti-SOAR candidates are being INVITED IN to talk about the giveaways and offered cold beverages. (For the record I offer cold beverages to all walkers at my door, it is simply humane) but the contrast is dramatic.
Now maybe my street is an anomaly. But I hear this from others in District 1 and 4 and 5. And all we have to do is look at the BEHAVIOR of those in power. The smash and grab routine of marauders who are stuffing everything possible into burlap sacks as they evacuate the city they have been holding is not indicative of those hunkering down for a long siege. From now to November we will see a steady stream of crony capitalism deals approved one after the other by those convinced the special interest money will cover their deeds for them at the ballot box. But if the special interests thought for a second their campaign mail would work this time they would WAIT for their deals until after their candidates were safely re elected. Either Brandman and Kring are gullible enough to believe their misdeeds will be papered over, or they know their overlords are throwing them in as sacrificial lambs, and have been offered some spiff when out of office.
Sit it out from 2016 to 2018 and we will run you for Mayor when Tait, the usurper of Pringle’s rightful lifelong claim to power, leaves office. Or how about a nice consulting gig? Just watch the upcoming agendas to see how desperate the Kleptocracy is going to be to get “their money” out of OUR pockets before November.
What is left in the City Treasury? Angels baseball back in the news, don’t think that is an accident, look for the SAME land deal disguised as a ball club negotiation to come back, with equally outrageous deal points by people who don’t learn.
How long do the Ducks have on their current Contract? Any excuse for THEM to make a grab for something?
Disney is building a parking garage and bridge at their own expense, don’t expect that checkbook to stay out long if they can get that expense shifted to OUR shoulders (as they attempted to do in the STREETCAR funding of those projects before realizing they really would have to pay for their own infrastructure.)
How about another bond for something stupid that fails to benefit the General Fund that will pay for it? God knows what they are up to, (with array demanding a changed meeting for August 30 for NO REASON, we may have answers sooner rather than later) but the upcoming Council Agendas will tell us what their polling tells THEM. Those confident of a win will hold off on the spending. Those taking last minute grabs of the public purse are showing their desperation to get off the ship that is sinking FOR THEM. Sadly they will scuttle it on the way over the side.
Excuse me, but I’m afraid that you may have accidentally published this excellent story of yours as a mere comment. Should I come up with an illustration for you to use with it?
Solario?
Seriously?
If there had only been opportunity for debate…. David DeLeon, a good alternative candidate who had sought the endorsement, was RIGHT THERE IN ATTENDANCE!
The procedure was, I believe, set up primarily to avoid letting people like me — though not me alone — tell the Central Committee the hard truths about the likes of Jose Solorio. It would disturb the Force, or something.
What office is Victor running for?
Coastline Community College Trustee.
Oh and congratulations to those endorsed. Or most of them anyway. I especially want to send a shout out to Dr Moreno and Donna Acevedo.
I feel slighted by all this real political information and comments. “Mrs. M.” an anonymous teacher at San Marino school hasn’t attacked me on the blog in over a month. Then again, she might be one of the people busy stealing yard signs to the tune of me losing more than half of the 110 we put out so far. What does one do with 60 stolen bright yellow yard signs with someone else’s name on them? FYI: Our uphill battle continues despite the opposition being endorsed by the OC Dem endorsement party without even meeting her, same thing with the outside labor unions that are funding her campaign, outside politicos who have no clue who or what she is and of course, the Centralia Teachers’ Union managers who had their sham interviews before endorsing this other person who gives flowers and cookies to the teachers. Hardly a strong recommendation for making decisions for the future of a school district. Wish the OC Dems had endorsed Art Montez for NOCCCD Board as he would be welcomed to leave the Centralia Board at any time. Thanks to the OJB for not endorsing my opponent and to Mrs. Ward for a strong recommendation to consider me. I have suggested that we take a bit of time to educate appropriate folks at the OJB on Centralia’s Measure N. The district is in desperate need of passing this bond and there is no frill. If someone from the district does not respond to your request, I certainly will provide more information on Measure N. So the election is over in the next week or so and then what do we do for the next 18 or 42 months while waiting to do it again?