Phil Plummer — His Endorsement — The Elephant In The Room

At the conclusion of our MCDP meeting last night — after the proposed MCDP Constitution was approved with almost zero change — Casey Whitten-Amadon was given the microphone and after a slow and conciliatory-sounding beginning, launched an angry denunciation of the elephant in the room.

Earlier in evening, before the start of the meeting, I was in conversations with members who expressed shock and dismay that the recently elected vice-chair of the MCDP, Diane Walsh, and MCDP kingpin, Tom Ritchie — both officers in the AFL-CIO — had supported the AFL-CIO endorsement of REPUBLICAN incumbent Phil Plummer for re-election to the Ohio House.

Plummer is the notorious former Montgomery County Sheriff whose incompetence and arrogance has brought over $11 million dollars of law-suits against the county. He voted for the heart-beat bill and is so popular with the Republican radicals in the Ohio House that he has made known that he is seeking to become the next Speaker of the House. In 2018, when he was first elected he was serving as Chairperson of the Montgomery County Republican Party. According to the DDN article at that time, Plummer intended on remaining Chairperson. Interestingly, the MCRP web-site fails to list the MCRP officers, so I couldn’t determine if Plummer is still the MCRP Chair, or not. 

Loranda Jackson is the Democrat challenging incumbent Phil Plummer to represent OHD-40

After Casey’s impassioned denunciation of the actions of Walsh and Ritchie, the meeting ended and as Casey walked towards the exist he was accosted with a lot of F-words and one man declaring to Casey that he wanted to “beat his ass” — lunging at Casey and being held back. I asked one loud woman, a MCDP member, whose name I don’t know, why she was supporting Plummer. She said that in fact she was not supporting Plummer, but she was damn mad that someone would attack Tom Ritchie.

I asked Ritchie as he was walking away why the union had endorsed Plummer and he gave a non-answer that the union made the endorsement because the vote on the AFL-CIO Executive Committee was very lopsided — 32-2 in favor. (I’m not sure I heard those numbers correctly.) I persisted, and he said such an endorsement is not unusual. I persisted, “But why?” And he started walking faster. 

I later talked with another member of the AFL-CIO Executive Committee and she said that she had attended every AFL-CIO Executive Committee meeting and that there had never been a vote taken. Also, I heard that the usual procedure for rank-and-file input on AFL-CIO endorsements was not followed and that the endorsement seemed underhanded.

Somehow, for reasons that I’ve not discovered, Walsh and Ritchie believe it is in their self-interest or the self-interest of the AFL-CIO to support Plummer. These same leaders last night were in the majority opposing any changes to the proposed MCDP Constitution — their focus on self-interest evidently over-riding any hope of bringing harmony and agreement in the group. It is self-interest, not the interest of the good of the party, that makes leaders like Ritchie want to have the authority in the Constitution for pushing early endorsements and for determining which Democrats should compete in Democratic Party Primaries.

These Plummer supporters wanted the proposed Constitution. It not only empowers the outrageous practice of early endorsements in a Democratic Primary, it copies the corrupt and anti-democratic structure of the Ohio Democratic Party, empowering the influx of as many as 140, or more, new voting members — friends, family, county workers, etc. The approval of these new members will be by guess who? Yes, the majority group in charge last night who brooks no compromise.

Marty Gehres was a leader on the Constitution Committee and presented the Constitution to the group last night. Marty, through his association with the MCDP, has risen to become elected Clerk of Courts. I was amused how he tried to make the case that the new Constitution was, in fact, a compromise on endorsements. He highlighted such provisions as, “The Chairperson, at his or her sole discretion, may endeavor to hold a pre-screening candidates forum and / or furnish a voters’ guide.”  

We should have all burst out laughing. It is nice that the new Constitution empowers the Chairperson to endeavor — endeavor, that is, if he or she chooses to endeavor.

It is silly to put vague promises in a Constitution. According to the actions of last night, all signs point to a future where the MCDP — regardless of the perfidy that was revealed — will continue to do the bidding of Ritchie and Walsh and the old guard they lead.

The self-interest that would motivate Democratic Party leaders to endorse REPUBLICAN Phil Plummer, of all people, was on display last night — the elephant in the room. Casey did the organization a favor by clearly denouncing a Democratic leadership that would have such gall.

See:

• At Tonight’s MCDP Central Committee Meeting, A Proposal To Make Radical Changes In The MCDP Constitution Will Be Discussed And Voted On

• The Proposed MCDP Constitution Needs Revision — So The Anti-democratic Practice Of Early Endorsement In Democratic Primaries Is Prohibited

The agenda for this evening’s MCDP Central Committee meeting is the approval of a new MCDP Constitution. The focus of this meeting will be a proposed MCDP Constitution developed by a Constitution Committee chaired by Brandon McClain.

This proposed Constitution calls for a radical change in the structure of the organization. It calls for the newly elected MCDP Central Committee to transfer the power and authority granted by Ohio law to the Central Committee to a greatly expanded MCDP Executive Committee. The elected members of the Central Committee will be members of the new Executive Committee. What is radical is that in addition to these elected members, the proposed Constitution allows for a huge number of Democrats to be appointed to the Executive Committee — up to a 75% increase!

This big increase is radical because it changes the character of the organization. In the traditional structure, when the party makes an endorsement it was by vote of a representative legislative body. The proposed change will mean that the group making endorsements can contain a huge number of appointed unelected members with no obligation of representing grass-roots Democrats.

I’m OK with a new structure merging the Central Committee to the Executive — except for the matter of endorsements. I believe the Central Committee should have one function — debating and voting on endorsements — and the Executive Committee can make other less important decisions.  I think it is a big mistake to undermine the legitimacy of the endorsement process, because it is endorsements that the public is most keenly interested in.

Below is a copy of the document that I am distributing at the meeting this evening — asking support for the four motions that are outlined.

Dear Fellow Member of the MCDP Central Committee:

I appreciate the work of the Constitution Committee, however, I disagree with the radical change outlined in the proposed new MCDP Constitution.

The current 2018 Constitution — in ARTICLE V — empowers the Central Committee as the sole authority to endorse candidates.

 

ARTICLE V. ENDORSEMENT. (Current Constitution)

The Central Committee shall be the sole authority to endorse candidates for public office and issues which will appear on the ballot. Any candidate or issue brought before the Central Committee for endorsement must receive two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of those present and voting. The endorsement of the candidates and issues may follow the procedures outlined in the Bylaws of this Constitution.

 

The proposed Constitution makes a radical change by empowering the Executive Committee with the sole authority to endorse candidates.

 

ARTICLE VII. ENDORSEMENT (Proposed Constitution)

The Executive Committee shall be the sole authority to endorse candidates for public office and issues which will appear on the ballot.…

 

According to state law, the Central Committee is meant to be the “Controlling Committee” with each of its members representing the Democrats in the precinct in which the member lives.187 of us were elected in the May Primary to represent our precincts.

 

It is clearly the intent of state law that the “controlling committee” should be a group democratically chosen, representing the rank-and-file — not a group appointed as insiders, family members, and money contributors, etc. Our Democratic Party is facing a crisis of legitimacy. Our democracy is in deep trouble and most voters and many Democrats see the “Democratic Party” as an organization that is a big part of the problem — part of a rigged system controlled by money and “insiders.”

 

It is of key importance that the MCDP Constitution establish the rules and guardrails that will give us legitimacy and will build confidence in rank-and-file Democrats and in the general public.

 

The proposed Constitution creates an Executive Committee where 75% of its members are appointed and this proposed Constitution indicates no obligation of these appointees to represent rank-and-file Democrats. This means the Executive Committee voting on endorsements will consist of the 187 of us elected in the Democratic Primary, plus as many as 140, or more, new members who are appointed.

 

I appreciate the motive to meaningfully engage 140, or more, Democrats in the work of our organization. But we must guard our legitimacy — particularly concerning endorsements. Imagine the outrage if the Ohio Assembly proposed an Ohio Constitution that called for increasing the voting membership of the Assembly by 75%— by unelected appointees! I believe the expiring Constitution has it right — the Central Committee should have the sole authority to endorse candidates.Please consider the following motions.

 

Thank you. Mike Bock

—————————————————————————————————————

 

MOTION #1:

• In the proposed Constitution, Section 2-4, add the words,“With the exception of the authority to make endorsements, the Central Committee shall confer upon the Executive Committee all power and authority …”
• In ARTICLE VI change every use of the term “Executive Committee” to the term, “Central Committee” to read, “The Central Committee shall be the sole authority to endorse candidates …, etc “
• In paragraph 13, 16, 20, 22 of the BY-Laws change the term “Executive Committee” to the term, “Central Committee”

MOTION #2:

Strike paragraph 15 in the proposed BY-LAWS and replace with:

 

Vote on endorsement by shall be by roll-call that records each member’s vote. This roll-call may be by ballot with the member’s signature. This record of vote will sent to every Executive Committee member and will be available to county Democrats upon request.

 

MOTION #3:

Strike paragraph two and three of the proposed BY-LAWS and replace with

 

“The MCDP will make no endorsements for candidates in a Democratic Primary until after the deadline for filing candidacy with the Board of Elections has passed and after the Board of Elections has certified who the Democratic candidates are.”

 

MOTION #4:

Add this to the BY-LAWS:

 

All Executive Committee members will receive notice of Selection Committee endorsement recommendations at least one week prior to the Central Committee meeting where these recommendations will be voted on. Along with this notice of endorsements, all Executive Committee members will also receive a copy of all written material supplied to the Selection Committee from candidates.

At Thursday’s (July 28) meeting of the MCDP Central Committee, a new MCDP Constitution will be decided by majority vote of those in attendance. I’m disappointed that the Constitution Committee is recommending a MCDP Constitution that continues a practice that I see as anti-democratic and unfair — the MCDP making early endorsements of Democrats in Democratic Primaries at dates well in advance of the deadlines for Democratic candidates to turn in petitions and declare candidacy. 

The MCDP has been embarrassed by recent endorsements. At last November’s election, the MCDP ended up apologizing for mailers to county Democrats attacking fellow Democrats Darryl Fairchild and Shenise Turner-Sloss seeking election to the Dayton Commission. Fairchild and Turner-Sloss won the election beating the endorsed Democrats Stacey Benson-Taylor and Scott Sliver. 

In 2018, the MCDP endorsed Rev Daryl Ward over Rev. Darryl Fairchild for the Dayton Commission. This endorsement seemed crazy because both were good men and great candidates. The only explanation I could understand was that Rev. Ward evidently had a lot of friends on the Screening Committee.

I see endorsements that choose one qualified Democrat over another in a Democratic Primary as a practice very detrimental to the party. It sends an anti-democratic message. I don’t think there is much hope that the group on Thursday will approve a Constitution that prohibits all Primary endorsements, but I am hopeful that a majority will agree with me that the practice of early endorsements is particularly harmful and will approve a Constitution that prohibits the practice of early endorsements.  

The goal of early endorsements — plainly stated by its advocates — is to suppress Democratic Primary participation. The reason? To save money. The argument is that the money devoted to winning a primary contest would be better spent defeating Republicans in the general election, so a Primary where there is only one Democratic candidate saves money. The second reason given by supporters of Primary endorsements is that a lot of Democratic voters want the party to tell them which Democrat to vote for. The party obliges by spending money to mail voter cards to Democrats instructing them who the party is endorsing in a Democratic Primary.

Endorsements in a Democratic Primary are prohibited by some Democratic Party county organizations. The point of a Primary, after all, is to give voters a choice.  But Primary endorsements is a long established practice in Montgomery County. 

Disappointingly, the Constitution Committee chaired by Brandon McClain, not only empowers Democratic Primary endorsements, it also spells out that a Democratic Primary endorsements can be made very early — long before the deadline for submitting petitions to the Board of Elections. For a May Primary, the deadline to file is in early February.  The proposed Constitution empowers the Executive Committee to endorse a Democratic candidate in December. In December! This is from the proposed Constitution:

 The Screening Committee recommendation shall go to the Executive Committee. The question on the floor shall be “Shall the Executive Committee concur with the Screening Committee’s recommendation.” This shall be a privileged motion; no other action relative to endorsement for a specific office shall be in order until the Executive Committee has acted on this question. In accordance with the Constitution, in order to concur with the Screening Committee recommendation to endorse requires a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the Executive Committee present and voting.

Early endorsements are effective in suppressing competition in Democratic Primaries. This deliberate suppression of primary participation smells of favoritism and is contrary to what rank-and-file Democrats want. I’m sort of flabbergasted that here in 2022, early endorsement is part of a MCDP Constitution proposal.

A two-thirds vote required for endorsements sounds like a high bar. But, as we know, the result of a vote depends on who shows up to cast a ballot and depends on how informed the voters are. In the past, Central Committee meetings concerning endorsements have been poorly attended. The established practice is that the Selection Committee’s recommendations are not announced prior to the meeting. The explanations for endorsements, given at the last minute, have been insufficient. Members have not had enough information nor have had sufficient time to make thoughtful decisions.

The proposed Constitution empowers a big increase in the number of members who will be enfranchised to vote on MCDP endorsements. The proposed Constitution follows the model of the Ohio Democratic Party Constitution. The ODP Executive Committee has 148 voting members. Only 66 of these voting members are elected in a Democratic Primary — a man and a woman from each of Ohio’s 33 senate districts. The other 82 members of the ODP Executive Committee are appointed. The appointed members are insiders of long-standing. The ODP is an insider’s group — not a representative group. It is easy to understand why many in the rank-and-file are increasingly discouraged with a Democratic Party that is organized in its very structure to greatly advantage a clique of insiders.  

The proposed MCDP Constitution copies the ODP Constitution. It calls for the elected Central Committees to be transformed into the Executive Committee. The advantage is that where the Ohio Revised C     ode requires Central Committee members to live in the precinct they represent, Executive Committee members can live anywhere in the county. Ten Executive Committee members could live in the same precinct. The proposed Constitution says:

The appointed members of the Executive Committee, including automatic appointments, shall not exceed the seventy-five percentage (75%) of the membership of the Central Committee. Further, if any appointed member of the Executive Committee could serve as a Central Committee member then their appointment to the Executive Committee shall be considered as an appointment to the Central Committee.

There are 200 precincts that failed to elect a Central Committee member in the May Democratic Primary. Following the ODP example, any county Democrat can be appointed to “represent” these 200 precincts — and then the total membership of this group can balloon to an increase of 75% more voting members. Friends and spouses and all connected county Democrats are eligible to be invited to be a voting member of the Executive Committee. 

I’m sympathetic with the rationale for creating this Executive Committee structure. The goal, I understand, is to encourage and empower more rank-and-file Democrats to become meaningfully engaged in the party organization. Offering Democrats a voice on the Executive Committee is a strategy to increase participation. Yes, it is crucial for the party to find a way to meaningfully engage and empower rank-and-file Democrats, but this big expansion of the voting membership to insiders and friends means that the endorsement process is even more likely to be seen as illegitimate.

This change in the Constitution allowing a big increase in the membership of the Executive Committee means that it is even more important to establish rules and guardrails for endorsements that will build confidence in the rank-and-file that the process is fair. 

I believe the MCDP Constitution should prohibit all endorsements in a Democratic Primary. But I don’t expect this view to prevail at the Thursday meeting. I hope there will be support in the Thursday meeting for prohibiting early endorsements and for slowing the endorsement process down so that voting members can have the information and the time needed to consult with others and to make thoughtful decisions. 

I am looking for support for two motions at Thursday’s meeting:

1. The Executive Committee will make no endorsements for candidates in a Democratic Primary until after the deadline for filing candidacy with the Board of Elections has passed and after the Board of Elections has certified who the Democratic candidates are.
2. All Executive Committee members will receive notice of Selection Committee endorsement recommendations at least one week prior to the Executive Committee meeting where these recommendations will be voted on. Along with this notice of endorsements, Executive Committee members will also receive a copy of all written material supplied to the Selection Committee from candidates.