Mohamed Al-Hamdani — MCDP Chairperson — allowed a train wreck of revenge at the MCDP meeting last night.

Very disappointing meeting last night of the Montgomery County Democratic Party Executive Meeting. The party leadership extracted revenge on David Esrati, refusing to endorse Esrati as the Democratic Party candidate for the US Congress to represent this district (OH-10) and to defeat the incumbent Republican — Mike Turner.

The focus of the meeting was to act on the recommendations of the Screening Committee concerning endorsements. Last May, Esrati won the Democratic Primary with over 11,000 votes — defeating three other Democratic candidates — but, regardless of the will of Democratic Primary voters, incredibly, the decision of the MCDP Screening Committee was to not endorse Esrati. This decision was discussed at the meeting. The subsequent vote failed to reverse that non-endorsement.

Now, because of this lack of endorsement, Esrati will not be permitted to have access to the ODP data base and his name will be omitted from the 60,000 “slate cards” that the party will mail in October. And, because of this lack of endorsement, Esrati will have more difficulty in raising the funds every campaign needs.  

There were four of us who spoke in favor of endorsement.  I emphasized three points: 1) If the Screening Committee had such strong opposition to Esrati, the time to torpedo Esrati was before the May Primary — not after over 11,000 Democrats had made their choice. 2) The big task now is for the party to become united. I emphasized that everyone knows that without unity, the party has no chance of success. 3) David Esrati, if elected, would be a good and conscientious representative who would advance Democratic ideals.  

I said that yes, David Esrati has been outspoken and combative and severely critical of MCDP leadership and has said harsh words he shouldn’t have said, or said in a less contentious way — but, regardless, it is absurd and it hurts the party to reject the will of the Democratic Primary voters. I said Esrati would be much much better than Republican Turner and that non-endorsement of an elected Democratic Primary candidate would make sense only for a compelling reason — such as the candidate being indicted for a criminal offense, etc. — but in this case, the reasons being given for non-endorsement to me seemed petty and personal. 

Also speaking passionately in favor of endorsement was Amanda Davis, Dalma Grandjean, and Tony Curington.

Speaking against endorsement was Mark Owens — the long-time MCDP Chairperson who stepped down from that position at the June Reorganization Meeting. Mark urged non-endorsement and hammered on examples of statements he claimed that Esrati has made that were so offensive as to disqualify him from endorsement.  After the meeting, I talked with Esrati and he said that he would consider suing Owens for making enflamed and untrue accusations.

David Esrati, Democratic candidate to represent OH-10 — to replace incumbent Mike Turner

The way I saw it, Owens and the MCDP insiders were getting their revenge on Esrati for his unrelenting criticism, over the years, of the practices of the MCDP leadership.

I am disappointed in the MCDP — At this September meeting I was flabbergasted by the absurd and unjustified rejection of the Democratic Primary voters. In our previous meeting, in July, I was dismayed and shocked that at the end of the meeting a fistfight almost broke out after Casey Amadon denounced the actions of MCDP Vice-Chair, Diane Walsh, and MCDP Screening Committee member, Thomas Ritchie. These prominent members of the MCDP also are officers in the AFL-CIO and were instrumental in approving the union’s endorsement of Phil Plummer, the Republican incumbent representing Ohio House District 40. (See Esrati’s post: The Montgomery County Un-Democratic Party/Brawl/Embarrassment.)

A two-thirds vote is required for endorsement and the motion to endorse failed by a lot. I knew the fix was in because of the small size of the group in attendance — many of whom were old-timers, like Owens, who over the years have accumulated a lot of animosity towards Esrati. Only 52 MCDP members participated last night. Missing from the group was Jocelyn Rhynard and many of her supporters, including Amadon. Rhynard sought election as MCDP Chairperson at the June Reorganization and came in second to Mohamed Al-Hamdani.

At the May Democratic Primary, less that one-half of the precincts in the county — 187 out of 381 — had a candidate for election to the MCDP Central Committee (Renamed the Executive Committee at the June Reorganization Meeting.) Of that 187 elected members, only 52 attended the meeting last night. This small attendance, especially remarkable because ZOOM participation was permitted, indicates how weak the organization is. 

When he was elected MCDP Chairperson, I had great hopes that Mohamed Al-Hamdani — a bright and likable man with a great personal history — would have the vision and leadership needed to build an effective 21st century Democratic party county organization.

But, after last night, my conclusion is that Al-Hamdani is off to a bad start. After the meeting last night I told Al-Hamdani that I was very disappointed in his lack of leadership in that meeting. I told him that the party must have unity and one of the big tasks of leadership is to bring members together and in this meeting, he had made no effort. Instead of leadership, he indulged the absurd call for revenge by simply acting as the Master of Ceremonies — allowing a train wreck that an effective leader should have done everything possible to avert. 

See: Angry Words And Accusations At The Elephant In The Room Conclude Local Democratic Party Meeting

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.