At the moment, one of the most popular A2Politico blog postings is: “The Politics of Opera: Conan di Lammermore Smith & the AADem Web site.”
For those who may not have read it, it’s an tragic (or comic) political opera in three acts that attempts to make sense of a personality conflict between three members on the Executive Board of the Ann Arbor City Democratic Party that was made very public when the following resolution was sent out to the group’s 600-member mailing list, and presented at the group’s October 11th meeting:
Whereas, the Secretary is empowered by the Executive Committee with arranging for correspondence and communication in concert with the Vice Chair for Communication as requested by the Chair; and
Whereas, LuAnne Bullington, current Vice Chair for Organizing and formerly Vice Chair for Communication, has been repeatedly asked since March 2009 by the Chair to provide control over the web domain aadems.org to officers of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party currently responsible for internal and external communications; and
Whereas, the Vice Chair for Organizing has refused to relinquish the username and passwords that would allow the current Vice Chair for Communications, Barbara Petersen, the full control over the internal and external communications tools of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party, including the web domain aadems.org;
Therefore Be It Resolved that the Vice Chair for Organizing, LuAnne Bullington, is hereby directed by the membership of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party to provide to the Vice Chair for Communications, Barbara Petersen, full access to and control over the domain aadems.org and any other communications tools of the Party within the next seven calendar days; and
Be It Further Resolved that if the Vice Chair for Organizing does not comply with this resolution that the Executive Committee of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party is hereby empowered to enact further sanctions against her, including ultimately her removal from office.
You’ll note, of course, that the resolution mentions only one person by name (LuAnne Bullington). You’ll also note that the author of the resolution is not indicated. Finally, you may also pick up that without an author it would appear that the resolution came from the group’s entire Executive Board.
As in all good drama, there was a plot twist revealed at the October 10th meeting. The resolution concerning Bullington’s refusal to cough up the password to the group’s domain account was not, in fact, from the entire Executive Board, but rather from the Chair, Conan Smith. Mid-meeting, a member of the group’s Board stood and confessed that he had never seen the resolution prior to the gathering. David Cahill (husband of First Ward Council member Sabra Briere), self-appointed parliamentarian, had more bad news. Robert’s Rules of Order required a formal hearing, as opposed to a kangaroo court.
We have, however, moved from opera to modern drama. The Finale of “Conan di Lammermore Smith and the AADems Web site” gets a new title:
The Ann Arbor Crucible, or Which Witches Should Be On Trial?”
ACT I—Salem, Mass., 1692
Scene opens with an email from AADem Chair Conan Smith to the AADem Executive Board.
From: Conan Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 11:29 PM
To: 33 members of the Executive Board (including Mayor and all City Council members)
Subject: Invitee link for: A2DP Executive Committee
Executive Board Members:
First, allow me apologize—especially to LuAnne [Bullington, Vice Chair for Organization] and Barbara [Petersen, Vice Chair for Communication]—for having felt, erroneously, that the issue regarding our web domain needed to be dealt with by the membership. Had I known the clause in Roberts Rules that David Cahill pointed out today, I would have brought this to you all originally. While that is unfortunate, the issue still needs to be resolved, and now the membership has made it clear that this is the duty of the Executive Board.
Below you will find a link to ScheduleOnce, an online tool for scheduling meetings. I have cleared my calendar for several time blocks over the next two weeks as the starting point for organizing this meeting. I believe that two hours should be sufficient to take care of the limited business we currently have before us.
Currently, our agenda includes the following items. Please contact me if you would like to add something to the list.
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes
2. Approval of the Treasurer’s Report
Anne has provided the treasurer’s report via email this past week; please refer to that document.
3. Governance Resolution Regarding aadems.org [This is the Main Event]
Per today’s instructions [from the membership at the October 10th AADems meeting], we will take up the resolution regarding control of our web domain. I will ask an individual who is not part of the Executive Board to chair this portion of the meeting. If there are particular items you would like to have for this discussion, please let me know.
4. Determinations of Officers and Roles for 2010
Per the by-laws, the Executive Committee is charged with determining the roles for the vice chairs. This is critical information that the Nominating Committee needs to complete its work before December.
5. New Business
6. Adjournment
ACT II—The Proscribed Outcome:
According to Robert’s Rules it is, in fact, the membership of a society that must decide the fate of its members, in this case, LuAnne Bullington. Conan Smith and his 32 colleagues on the Executive Board may want to play judge, jury and executioner, but that’s not parliamentary justice; that’s despotic mania at the worst, and simple ignorance of parliamentary procedure at best. The charges against Bullington, parliamentary rules require, should be referred to a Committee. According to Robert’s Rules, “Some societies have standing committees whose duty it is to report cases for discipline whenever any are known to them.” Alas, not the AADems.
The Committee hears witnesses and gathers evidence. Then, the Committee presents its findings to the membership. Finally, it is the entire membership that votes on whether to punish the member.
ACT III—The Operatic Irony:
Robert’s Rules say, “When the charge is against the member’s character, it is usually referred to a committee of investigation or discipline, or to some standing committee, to report upon. Some societies have standing committees whose duty it is to report cases for discipline whenever any are known to them.”
So, one wonders, where were the charges and the committee to investigate the characters of the members of the AADems Executive Board whom the Ann Arbor News blasted in June and July 2009 for engaging in thoroughly disreputable, dishonest and possibly illegal use of email during open City Council meetings? These members of the AADem Executive Board were caught rigging votes, scripting debates, deliberating in secret. They were caught pandering to constituents and laughing at them behind their backs. They were caught treating their elected offices with disdain and disrespect—all acts condemned in an editorial in the local newspaper, and skewered with a damning political cartoon.
As of yet, I haven’t read any newspaper editorial condemning Bullington’s actions, or questioning her character.
The Hieftje Eight, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Carsten Hohnke, Stephen Rapundalo, Tony Derezinski, Sandi Smith and Christopher Taylor are all members of the AADem Executive Board, and have all been summoned by Chair Conan Smith to sit in judgement of the character of Vice Chair for Organization, LuAnne Bullington.
To be sure, County Commissioner and AADem Chair Conan Smith must be cast in the role of Cotton Mather. Witch trials in Ann Arbor.
May I suggest this AADem farce be put on at the Arthur Miller Theater on North Campus?
Popularity: 15% [?]
feed://www.a2politico.com/?feed=rss2
Mr Smith has a nice disingenuous smile, from both sides of his purty mouth.
He’s getting a Tom Delay reputation. Can he dance like “The Hammer”?
Comment by glücklich — October 14, 2009 @ 11:54 am
One imagines the only thing standing in the way of a “trial” for the Hieftje Eight is a member of the AADems lodging a complaint? What followed would be, as A2Politico seems fond of saying, some “political drama.” The membership of the A2Dems would, eventually, vote on whether to punish—perhaps even expel—virtually the entire city council and mayor.
Comment by Yale89 — October 14, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Who’s running this group? Moe Howard? A2Politico brings up a valid point. Why nothing from the group when the Dems on Council did their dirty deeds? How come Greden didn’t get hauled before the AADems, or Higgins and Teall? What a waste of everyone’s time. Selective enforcement of the rules is for Republicans.
Comment by DGB — October 14, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Far be it from me to engage in a quibblefest, but a few corrections/clarifications might be helpful.
The City Party meeting was October 10, not October 11.
I am not the “self-appointed parliamentarian.” I sensed trouble, and so I brought my Robert’s Rules to the meeting. There were a blizzard of points of order raised during the meeting by many folks. There was certainly no lack of controversy.
The Party bylaws require that the “latest edition” of Robert’s is to be used. This is the 10th edition, copyright 2000, the so-called “Gold Book”. The link in the article is to an obsolete edition.
This is important because the current language does not refer to a member’s “character”. Rather, on page 30, Robert’s says: “If *improper conduct* by a member of a society occurs elsewhere than at a meeting, the members generally have no first-hand knowledge of the case. Therefore, if disciplinary action is to be taken, charges must be preferred and a formal trial held before the assembly of the society, or before a committee–standing or special–which should be required to report its findings and recommendations to the assembly for action.” (My emphasis.)
So one possibility is that the Executive Board will hold such a trial. Robert’s includes 12 pages of procedures.
However, the Executive Board has broad powers. It “shall carry on the business of the Party between general meetings.” It is my hope that the Executive Board will be able to work out a solution to this difficulty, rather than be forced to have a trial.
I must admit the the idea of a trial about the e-mail scandal does have some appeal. A good bit of appeal, actually….
Comment by David Cahill — October 14, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Well, David? What are you waiting for? Having the A2Dems hold a formal hearing concerning the improper conduct of the Hieftje Eight would hold a great deal of appeal for a lot of people in town. If any disciplinary action should be taken against any Dems in town it would be against those eight nitwits who thought we were all “dim lights.” Do you think there is a ray of hope that something like this could actually be brought about?
Comment by A2Dem — October 15, 2009 @ 9:03 pm