[Mpls] To Caucus, Or Not To Caucus

[David Brauer]

On Mar 4, 2004, at 2:12 PM, David Weinlick wrote:

> 	If we were to return to biennial caucuses, we should at least 
> distinguish between delegates to the city and senate district.  That 
> is, if our attendance can be maintained.  I know that people in many 
> precincts would have liked to be delegates to at least one of the two 
> conventions, and I don't want to shut people out, especially when it 
> may be to make room for someone who doesn't choose to attend the other 
> convention anyway.

I, too, respect Earl's views. He grounded them well in a cogent 
philosophy of what a delegate should represent. I disagree with what 
being a delegate means, but I appreciate his logic (and long 
involvement).

I would respectfully ask one thing of those who might propose repealing 
the new city-year caucus at this year's city DFL convention: please 
don't do it until after 2005.

Obviously, I'd like the system to have a test-drive. But my plea to 
wait is grounded in fundamental fairness.

At Tuesday's meeting, the rule was you didn't have to be a delegate 
this year to be a delegate next year. Some people I know didn't run, 
knowing they'd have a chance next year.

However, if the 2004 city DFL convention abolishes the 2005 city 
caucuses, it would change the rules mid-game - shutting out those 
people who thought they could wait according to the rules as of 
Tuesday.

THAT would truly be bad process, something we all want to avoid.

(Note: I hope anyone who IS a delegate this year would support not 
changing next year's caucus requirement. If you have questions about my 
point above, please e-mail the list, or me directly. Thanks, too, to 
David and Fred and Loki for their support.)

David Brauer
Kingfield