.
.
.
Kimberly Ellis and Eric Bauman: can you guess which one was the “insider” candidate?
We here can print press releases too when the time is right! And today it is:
Kimberly Ellis Offers Arbitration to End Dispute
For Immediate Release
Contact: ___________
OAKLAND, Calif. (August 8, 2017): The Kimberly Ellis campaign has submitted its appeal to the Compliance Review Commission’s (CRC) July 26th ruling and offers binding arbitration as a mechanism to resolve the contested California Democratic Party (CDP) Chair’s election.
While the Ellis campaign’s previous requests for an independent forensic audit or review commission comprised of an equal balance of Bauman and Ellis voters were both rejected, the campaign remains hopeful that an alternative method to resolving the matter can be found without the need for legal action.
“Between the public statements and back channel messages, we’re told the Party doesn’t want a lengthy and expensive legal battle. We agree – so here’s another approach,” said Ellis.
In its appeal, the Ellis campaign notes that binding arbitration is typically agreed to in contracts before a dispute occurs, as the prescribed process to resolve contested matters; however, the Ellis campaign believes its application to this circumstance would provide a concrete and final conclusion to the challenge, while affording fairness and due process – values the Ellis campaign believes have not been present thus far.
“If what they’re really saying is ‘give it up’ and ‘go away’ – then we are truly at an impasse. In the past, we’ve offered to pay for an independent forensic audit and were rebuffed. We asked for an impartial or balanced review commission and were told no. If their goal is to avoid a legal battle, here it is. The ball is in their court.”
Prediction: Eric Bauman calls the shots, and he will accept no proposal that leaves more than a negligible probability that he would be (1) removed from the position of DPOC Chair, (2) factually found to have committed acts that might bar him from other party office.
I’m glad that Kimberly Ellis is going out of her way to publicly be reasonable, though.
More on this whole mishegas, which has been taking up time that I’d normally be devoting to blogging, as time permits.
I wonder if we’ll hear about lawyers for the party meeting behind closed doors with the arbiter.
Seems to be all the rage with Democrats these days in California.
Well, that’s sort of what binding arbitration IS, Ryan.
I don’t know what you’re referring to there at the end. Are you really just anti-arbitration?
Ex-parte communications with the arbiter is part of binding arbitration? Oh, I dunno about that.
Since you asked, the Democrats got caught with their pants down this week. Secret meetings with the head of the FPPC concerning recall election fundraising.
The head political watch dog rules in favor of the controlling party after a secret meeting with the controlling party. Shocker.
Binding arbitration can have whatever characteristics participants agree to. Even regular courtroom trials sometimes have a heavy dose of mediation-like activity to push parties towards settlement — although if ex parte this would generally be communicated through a clerk. (Communications with clerks can be ex parte.)
Apparently, it’s not against the rules. (And Newman had nothing personally to do with it even if it were.) Personally, I’d have avoided an ex parte discussion like that — but frankly, where YOUR side is trying to get the ability to receive unlimited contributions while the candidate facing recall still has access to only limited ones, it’s hard to muster much sympathy for you.
You’re trying to choose the smaller electorate that favors you more in order to get the candidate you prefer, thus overriding the expressed preference of the larger electorate. Under such circumstances that threaten to undermine our voting system — where Republican votes are considered permanent but Democratic votes only temporary — there’s a good argument that any act that isn’t formally against the rules is fair game. It’s not how I like to play, but sometimes I can’t condemn it.
Sorry, but you brought this “total war” stance upon yourselves.
That’s a lot of personal accusations concerning what I do and do not want.
For the moment, let’s focus:
An independent non-partisan watchdog should be just that.
Having closed door meetings with the party in power does not an independent watch dog make.
Just the latest unethical move to protect a Supermajority. At some point, two wrongs apparently make a right in Sacramento.
Most be that new common core math.
That was intended as a plural “you,” Ryan.
From what I’ve read, they were soliciting testimony. Testimony for the record can be ex parte. #Theywould prresumably have solicited it from oboth sides. But whatever they did, it was the FPPC’a call, and they are in this business after all. so I presume that they know how to conduct themselvelves properly. That’s only a presumption, not an assumption, so it could be wrong — but i’d want to know their explanation before condermning them.
What evidence?
Like their attorney going on record that this is clearly illegal and the FPPC Board, who met in secret to discuss with the party in charge, doing it anyway?
That kind of evidence?
I thought this was over. I wish it was.