Burnt Orange Report

For the record, I never intended to include Ms. Hubener's remarks in my post on the topic. I emailed Vince stating my disappointment that he chose to include the activities of Ms. Hubener in his remarks on the events of the evening. I didn't think publicizing such comments of one of our party's promising young leaders was of benefit for our party's future.

Ms. Hubener's activities near the end of the meeting were in the context of extreme anger and frustration with the stalling tactics and ignorance of points of order by the chair - a position held by many in the room including myself. As someone known and respected by most of the activists in the room, Ms. Hubener was in a unique position to sway the opinion of the room into taking action against the heavy-handed tactics of the chair. Ms. Hubener did her best to do such before the chair abdicated her duty to run the meeting.

Vince:

What specifically was said by Chair Hays about Ms. Hubener or her family? Why would you take Ms. Hubener's word for it without hearing it yourself when it supposedly happened, and why won't she say publicly what what supposedly was said? I didn't hear a damn thing directed at the Hubeners from the podium. It looked to me like she simply lost it, and she's simply trying to rewrite history because she embarrassed herself.

Bryon:

As I mentioned in another posting, there were plenty of people who didn't want Hays to run the meeting, and either to tried to shout her down or hijack the podium, including David Wilkins. Too many people were there as witnesses to deny that.

I want to clear something up.

A number of us wanted to simply not show up for the Monday night meeting on the expectation that there would not be a quorum and no business would be conducted.

Susan objected to this and asked that we come to the meeting.

When I saw the tone of the meeting and that approximately 15 people were needed to break the quorum, I took it upon myself to recruit as many people as I could to leave - with one person remaining to ask for the quorum call.

This was not authorized by Susan. In fact, I have good reason to believe that if I had asked her, she would have asked me not to do it.

Look at the divisiveness that is going on right now. Susan has been under attack since the day she was elected. Her detractors have chased away two executive directors and are now complaining about the third.

Russell Langley and I had plans to invite precinct chairs and anyone else in to discuss what the party could do to support the election. I was to implement as much of this as could be done with computers and databases in time to support the election. Russell was to handle the rest with his staff and volunteers.

But, Russell left in frustration over the attacks and backbiting. So, the work sessions with the precinct chairs and grassroots to plan for the election were dropped by the wayside.

If anyone is at fault here, it is the people, who through their constant attacks, made it a living hell to work for the party. Given the circumstances, the success we had in the last election is practically a miracle.

Unlike some of the people leading the mutiny, I did not support Susan for election as county chair. I supported Bill Howell. When Susan won the election, I immediately told her that I would do everything to help her and the party win elections.

I was threatened with physical assault at the election night party by one of the leaders of the mutiny - who had to be physically restrained by several people while screaming and threatening me. I left the area so that this person would calm down. Another member of your group followed me outside and threatened to "break my back".

And, then, of course, another leader of the mutiny threatened to destroy my business.

Another leader of the mutiny suggested that I support Susan Hays election as county chair even though they were not going to come out publicly in support of Susan. There's a whole lot of integrity goin' on there.

So, sorry, folks, I'm not buying the "Susan is evil and we're going to rescue the party garbage." This is a blatant power grab by people who have been duped into following those who have been working to undermine Susan since the day she was sworn in.

We'll spend the next two years fighting each other instead of organizing to win in November 2006.

I predict that if Susan resigns or is forced out, whoever replaces her will be ruthlessly attacked and every opportunity will be taken to keep the new chair from succeeding.

The idea that a group of people who can't even allow our Sheriff - the highest Democratic elected official in Dallas County - to speak at Monday night's meeting simply shows that the instigators have sewn division and discontent no less effectively than George Bush terrorized the country into voting for him in the 2004 election.

The majority of precinct chairs had the good sense to stay away from the meeting on Monday. I'm sorry I attended due to Susan's request and for my stupidity in holding out a hope that the muniteers would allow anything constructive to take place.

Nothing good will come of this. Keeping this up will do nothing more than cause us to lose the ground we have all worked so hard to gain.

I already know that a number of people who have been my friends for years will jump on me for making these comments. It remains to be seen whether the damage being done to the party and to long held and cherished friendships and alliances can be healed any time soon.

Geoff Staples
Democratic Precinct Chair
Precinct 1234
Dallas County, Texas

Byron,

I must have missed your email, or it's somewhere among the million zillion messages in my inbox I haven't read yet. Sorry.

Also, I don't think Susan "abdicated" the chair. The parlimentarian ended the meeting and the union asked them to leave.

Vince,
What did Ms. Hubener say to you? I haven't seen anyone move backwards that fast since I used to fish for crawfish as a kid. Did she threaten you, offer you something, or just make you feel really guilty?

Did the Chair say these things to which you refer publicly or privately directly to Ms. Hubener? If they were public, no one else apparently heard them. Does this change your opinion of the Chair also? You were going out of your way to defend her the other day.

David Wilkins had an audio recorder on for the whole meeting and a simple playback should clear up this "She Said / She Said" mystery. Anyone care to wager what David will say when asked to produce the audio record for public review? Maybe the batteries died? Maybe it was not turned on? Maybe it ran out of storage capacity right before Katy took the mic? Or Maybe he'll simply take the 5th?

The truth shall set you free, David. Make that step the first on your road to recovery.

Byron,

With all due respect, your inflamatory language gives away your position that Heubner's offenses are somehow pardonable because you are on her side.

For example: "I didn't think publicizing such comments of one of our party's promising young leaders was of benefit for our party's future."

Yet, you don't seem to mind besmirching Susan Hays who is another of the "Party's young leaders" shortly thereafter with the phrases "stalling tactics", "heavy-handed tactics of the chair" and "abdicated her duty".

Robert's Rules of Order exist to keep parliamentary discipline in situations just like this one. This was a most important vote and establishing for the record that an actual quorum exists was necessary so as to keep the vote from being questioned. The rules are there to protect both sides. I see nothing wrong with verifying that. If a quorum is required and not present then you can't vote. It is very simple and not an abdication of duty or a heavy handed tactic.

Furthermore, why in the world would she use a list created by the executioner himself. She isn't required to and frankly I wouldn't either. If I was going to the gallows I would want to know it was at the very least a fair ballot conducted by the rules, no matter how long it took.

Furthermore, where is your outrage that Lupe Valdez was not allowed to speak. Isn't she a rising star of the party and wouldn't her opinions be valid too? Surely her word should count for something as she actually won her post and doesn't seem to be prone to emotional outbursts. Perhaps it is because she doesn't agree with your agenda?

I would argue that besmirching Susan's name is even more detrimental since she is actually an elected official and not just a former candidate.

Whatever context those things were said in does not excuse or justify them. Is this the way you would raise your children? If you want to be taken seriously, you should really consider trying to be even handed.

As for my position (just so there isn't any confusion): I beleive this whole effort has been nothing but destructive to the party and wish it would simply go away. If anyone is naive enough to think it will be settled in time for us to regroup before the Spring 06 Primaries, they are just kidding themselves. I barely know Susan, I have never so much as shaken her hand. I have hear the complaints and seen people like David Wilkins and now Katy Huebner making fools of themselves. If she is worried that the report could hurt her chances, she is right. She no longer could get my vote, which wasn't the case the night before this event. That doesn't stop it from being news. I've also lost respect for several people I worked closely with in the Martin Frost Campaign.

My heartfelt desire is that we can stop this petty mutiny and move forward instead of playing this game of Celebrity Death Match that serves no one but the Republicans.

I'm not on anyone's "side". Katy Hubener is a friend of mine, and I did what I could to help her campaign including running a blogad on this site for her for free. I was disappointed that Vince chose to write something negative of someone who I consider a friend and someone who gave up a year of her life to give an entrenched Republican the fight of his life. However, I'm not one to censor content here, so I simply emailed him stating my disappointment. As for Susan Hays - I think that the manner in which she conducted the meeting was absolutely outrageous, and I have stated my opinion of that.

If Susan Hays didn't waste and hour and one half of the committee's time at the start of the meeting, I'm sure that there would have been plenty of time for Sheriff Valdez to speak.

It would be a reasonable arguement to defend the chair for using her list as opposed to the petitioner's list to determine a quorum if the chair's list were accurate. There was a DEAD PERSON listed as an active precinct chair on the chair's list.

I also believe that this entire episode has been harmful to the party. It's particularly shameful that things had to get to this. I would characterize the issues that activists have with the chair as relatively small. Unfortunately, a lot of small problems have festered and manifested themselves due to inaction by the chair. Had she called an executive committee meeting (better yet, several) during the election season, perhaps the issues could have been worked out. I thought that the ideal situation would have been some sort of mediation between the chair and her opponents. Unfortunately, I am of the understanding that such mediation was turned down by the chair.

At this point there are entire segments of the party that simply do not trust the chair. I find that highly unfortunate, but something must be done. Ignoring the situation, such as the chair has done, will not solve any of the problems. I am very distressed that things have come to this, but I bring it up now, because now is the time to settle this dispute - not next year when we have to come together to beat Republicans in November 2006.

Byron, After reading post after post of yours that is slanted toward the petitioners in the DCDP civil war I can't remain silent. In order to protect your integrity, you should place a disclaimer on all your posts to disclose your friendship with individuals in the petitioners camp, specifically, David Wilkins, the individual at the center of this storm.

Although this is an opinion blog and your posts are just that-your opinion, you do have a responsibility to be as truthful as possible.

For example, you are keeping alive an untruth concerning the beginning of Monday night's meeting. You keep characterizing that the Chair was using stall tactics at the beginning of the meeting in order to advance her own agenda. The Chair claimed that she was waiting for verification of a quorum so the assembly could be called to order and lawfully conduct business.

That was a true assertion from the Chair. Since you were in the meeting room live blogging the event, you didn't see that in the lobby of the building, there was indeed a hurried but orderly attempt to determine that a quorum was present.

Now Byron, you know who she was waiting on for that information--the person who was crunching numbers to see if a quorum was present? Well, it was none other than KATIE HUBNER. That's right Byron, Katie Hubner was helping the Chair's executive director of the DCDP check and recheck the "lists" to make sure that had an accurate count and they were doing it in a diligent, friendly and cooperative manner.

So unless Katie Hubner was in a conspiracy with the Chair, which I doubt, there is no conspiracy by the Chair. The Chair TRUTHFULLY explain the nature of the delay to the assembly.

So Byron, are you going to correct your reporting from the meeting in light of these facts. There were over a dozen witnesses in the lobby observing the count to determine quorum. If Vince has the integrity to FAIRLY balance his opinion, do you have the integrity to do the same?

As for two lists of Precinct Chairs, they had to both be generated from the same database. When did the petitioners establish their list? How did they validate their list? Was the party secretary, David Wilkins, maintaining the petitioners list separate from the Party's list? If he was, is he derelict in his duties he owes to the Party? Why is his loyalty to the petitioners greater than his loyalty to the party?

You state "I am of the understanding that such mediation was turned down by the chair." Really? How did you come to that understanding? Are you repeating a rumor? Did you ask the Chair yourself if that is a true statement?

You state "I would characterize the issues that activists have with the chair as relatively small." You couldn't be more right. Because the Chair exercised her right to hire and fire (for cause) the staff of her choosing, she is being maligned to settle personal scores for your friends and you have willfully and shamefully participated in the public execution.

You are right, this civil war is a disaster for our local party and unfortunately Byron, you have blood on your hands. You are certainly entitled to report about events, but your posts are mostly propaganda for the petitioners which have fueled the witch hunt. The inaccuracies in your reports are feeding the hysteria.

Byron, appeal to the better angels of your nature and be fair and accurate. I'm sure you are a bright young man with a promising future but you are not only hurting our Party you are also hurting yourself and damaging your reputation.

Oh, puhleeeze you people. :Blood on your hands:? :damaging your reputation:? Can we not be so dramatic?

I don't really feel that as bloggers we have much a 'reputation' to fulfill, certainly not some standard of the Washington Post or such. If you don't like reading opinion driven commentary, then don't read it, and certainly don't bitch about it. Pick up a newspaper then. But if you don't feel that the newspapers are covering your little shindig right (or at all) then start up your own little press shop instead of attacking other writers.

I don't pretend to believe that everything I'm reading on blogs about meetings and events isn't slanted in some way. We try our best but by no means are there any requirements in place.

So get over yourselves and get on with it.

Karl, what an astonishing post and abdication of credibility. Wow. How sad.

Oh I guess I'm just being melodramatic again.

Geoff Staples characterizes the persons who called Monday night's meeting as "mutineers." My dictionary says a "mutiny" is "open rebellion against constituted authority." But so far as I know, no one has questioned the legality of the called meeting. Isn't "mutineers" a bit strong a term?

The facts are these Pete:

Susan Hays called the police an hour before the event to have the Precinct Chairs setting up the credentials table evicted from the CWA hall on the specious grounds of a "disturbance". Imagine that, a "leader" who is so desperate to avoid meeting her constituents face-to-face that she calls the cops on them.

Each one of those precinct chairs process thousands of voters on election day but Susan and her staff are so ridiculously incompetent that it took them an hour and a half to sign in 145 precinct chairs.

And since when does it take submission of original sign in sheets to the chair and verifcation at the podium to establish a quorum? How about just having the precinct chairs in attendance raise their hands so they could be counted? If you really wanted to have a meeting that's what you'd do.

And since when does a "leader" who doesn't want to stall a meeting drone on with some self-serving apologia for the first 90 minutes all the while claiming she won't recognize any motions because she had "not yet called the meeting to order"?

I've noticed all the invective directed at David Wilkins. The thing that's got to be most irritating to Ms. Hays - that a mere substitute teacher has actually had the guts to say "the emperor has no clothes." If you're reading David, Keep on Truckin'!

Pete - well first, I would be interested in knowing who you are, since obviously you know me considering you claim to know who my friends are in Dallas County Democratic politics. Will you disclose that?

I've never claimed to be unbiased. If I am being paid in a political position, that affects my bloging, I will disclose that. But suggesting that I disclose who all of my friends in Dallas County Democratic politics are is just silly.

If I were being paid by anyone related to the controversy, I would disclose that - I would disclose if I were receiving any money from any politician that I write about, period. I am not, so there is nothing that needs to be disclosed in my view.

And to suggests that all of my friendships are with the petitioners, or that I wholely endorse their point of view is silly. For example, Russell Langley, one of the former executive directors of the Dallas County Democratic Party under Susan Hays is also a good friend of mine. Some of the petitioners listed the "excessively high" salaries ($5000/month) paid the e.d.'s under Susan's chairmanship as one of their grievences against the chair. I disagree. Dallas County is bigger in population than many states. Being the E.D. of the county party is a big job, and if the e.d. is well-qualified, and doing their job, then $5000/month is certainly a reasonable salary.

I actually took some heat from my "friends" that opposed Chair Hays over the Judge Schneider issue. When some of my "friends" were circulating petitions in Dallas County opposing Judge Schneider, I wrote this on Schneider, "Sounds like a decent guy to me. Based on that information, I'd probably vote to approve the guy if I were on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and hold my fire for the true wing-nuts". In effect, I agreed with Susan Hays's position. I've since changed my opinion of the matter slightly regarding my knowledge of the "Thurmond rule", and the fact that the letter was written on a party letterhead.

As for the debate over the "stall tactics" - I was in the room most of the time, but I went to the lobby several times to inspect the situation between the listed start time (6:30 PM) and the actual start of the meeting (7:34 PM). I stand by my characterization of the events between those times with confidence.

Regarding "mediation", I received that information from several sources which I trust. If you can prove that such information was incorrect, I will issue a correction, but otherwise I stand by my post on the matter with confidence as well.

"Blood on my hands"? "Hysteria"? You sound like the one with an agenda... who are your friends? Are you getting paid by anyone?

Tom Stevens;
Could you please submit some form of proof of your assertion that Susan Hays called the police one hour before the meeting began. It is my understanding that the CWA steward called the police. I would like to see the police report you have apparently seen.

So far, most of what I have seen in this process smacks of the post 2000 election spin and I for one have had enough of it. If you are going to make an outrageous claim, expect to back it up.

I'll ask again, which part of this was settled by Monday's meeting? Nothing was settled. No one was healed. Nothing of value was accomplished for the Democratic Party. This issue cannot and will not heal by itself for many months or years. If the people who seek Susan's removal loose, they will keep on destroying the party until there is nothing left....and to what end? If they prevail and Susan steps down, the replacement will most likely not be able to bring the other half of the party back into the fold. So no matter what happens, we will be staring at two fractionalized parties moving forward indefinitely. Not to mention the countless people who will simply walk away forever because of this fiasco.

The phrase, "united we stand, divided we fall" comes to mind.

Vince,
I wanted to personally thank you for your fair reporting of the events as you understood them. Your reports are by far the best and most comprehensive coverage of this event that I have seen. The world needs more bloggers like you.

Byron:

I've known you since you were in high school. I swear, you were more mature as a high school student then you are now as a college graduate.

What the hell did they do to you at UT?

These attacks on Susan have been going on since the moment she was elected party chair. I suspect that if you had been subjected to the treatment she has received, you would be extremely careful who you took into your confidence and you would trust very few people.

What I object to is the obnoxious, vicious, and downright hateful conduct I've seen from the people on your side. Many of these folks are people who have wanted Susan to fail from the beginning. So, instead of helping her to do a better job, they attacked and undermined her at every opportunity.

Sadly, many of my long held and cherished relationships are now on the rocks with little hope of recovery due to the lack of trust I now have for the people making these attacks. If they'd do what they've done to Susan, why would I ever think I won't get the same treatment when they perceive it is to their advantage to do it to me?

If I were you, I'd watch my back.

This is the same kind of garbage that went on with Molly Beth Malcolm. I was a member of the Progressive Populist Caucus when certain inviduals in the group used treachery and manipulation to get a resolution passed demanding Molly Beth's resignation. Then, they used more treachery to force out those who disagreed with them - even though the majority disagreed with their divisive tactics.

I tried to negotiate a meeting where Molly Beth could meet with the PPC. But, they made it clear that any meeting between Molly Beth and the PPC would be used to take out the baseball bats and work her over instead of making a good faith effort to get things worked out to the benefit of all concerned and to the party.

It is the same thing here. Susan is being beaten up and then being attacked because she didn't let them win.

As I said in an earlier post: If a good faith effort had been made to work with Susan and she had refused to support things that a solid majority of the precinct chairs and elected officials wanted done, I would support asking for her resignation.

But, this crowd you are hanging out with is more interested in disruption and vindictiveness than in the success of the party.

You were not at the meeting last year when plans for having all of the Dallas area senatorial conventions in seperate meetings at a downtown hotel so that the entire group could get together for an informal caucus featuring a national speaker. Russell and Susan had figured out how to get corporate sponsorships and turn the senatorial conventions into a fund raiser for the party instead of a major cost.

Since you say that Russell is your friend, ask him about it.

The people who are out to get Susan sabotaged the whole thing because they hated Susan and Susan had suggested it. They are the cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face crowd.

The reason that there aren't many executive committee meetings held is because at every meeting, your friends have disrupted the meeting and treated Susan shamefully. At every meeting, they show up with their shotguns loaded and do everything they can to make the meetings as unpleasant and unproductive as possible. Susan never knows from where the next attack will come. But, she knows one thing for sure: your friends will come up with someting to make her look bad and lose control of the meeting.

At one meeting, this group came in, already pissed off and tried to disrupt the meeting so that they could get something done they wanted. I did some shuttle diplomacy between them and Susan so that I could calm them down and we could conduct the meeting. They only grudgingly agreed to hold their agenda until the new business portion of the meeting - at which point Susan recognized them, they made their proposal, and got it passed.

What they wanted was to elect David Wilkins party secretary. Susan didn't obstruct the election. But she didn't want David to be elected party secretary either. David was elected because most of the people in the room didn't understand that your friends wanted David elected party secretary so that he could more effectively undermine Susan.

This whole thing stinks and it is ripping the county party apart. And, for one simple reason: your friends don't understand a simple reality: It is our job to help the chair and the party staff be as successful as possible. When there are problems - and there have been some - it is our job to effect a solution, not to use the issue to undermine and attack.

So watch your back. With friends like yours, who needs enemies?

Geoff

Gee Geoff, I had no idea - poor, poor, poor little Susan. She's so terribly misunderstood - why all those precinct chairs she's told to "just shut up" over the last three years just didn't understand that those were really words of love and support.

I hear Mel Gibson is coming to Dallas to film his new feature flick "The Passion of the County Chair."

By the way - Russell our "Super E.D." never claimed he had lined up coporate sponsorship for the county-wide SusanFest - he was asked point blank at the CDEC meeting whether he had and he answered "no." Russell and Susan seem to think the DCDP wouldn't be complete without a corporate logo.

How bout' "The American Airlines Dallas County Democratic Party" or maybe "The Cracker Barrel Restaurants Dallas County Democratic Party."

Wake up and smell the coffee Geoff - I know from personal experience how emotionally satisfying it is to play the hapless misunderstood victim - but 80% of the Chair's Executive can't be wrong.

I have always advocated beating the Republicans first and settling our differences within the party later. Beating the Republicans is hard enough even for a united Democratic Party. I had some concerns, but I went to the meeting Monday leaning towards supporting our County Chair. I did not leave with the same feeling.

Obviously some mistakes have been made. Poor decisions, poor planning and poor implementation. These are problems that plague many organizations and businesses. These problems, if openly addressed, can be solved. But we need leadership to solve them, and Monday night the Chair showed an inability to lead, or even, as they say, to "work and play well with others." These are serious deficiencies in the person we need to lead our county party and I was extremely disappointed.

What I see as our need now is that our County Party work more efficiently and effectively in the future regardless of who is our Chair and that the Executive Committee be given the opportunity to exercise it's legitimate role in the operation of the County Party. I hope this will be the focus of the Advisory Committee and that our Chair will be able and willing to work with us towards that goal.

Susan Culp
Precinct #4503

Byron, it isn't hard to figure out who your friends are when you are with them each time I've seen you at a political event. Perhaps because I'm a rather unattractive middle-aged man explains why you don't recall meeting me in the past, that's who I am.

Is is a coincidence that a picture of you with David Wilkins and Teresa Daniels was published in the Dallas Voice last year? No big deal, but these two individuals are central figures in the witch hunt.

As for you and Tom maligning the Chair for stalling the meeting, the FACT is she was waiting on Katie Hubner to count the sign in sheets to determine quorum. Any claim to the contrary is a LIE.

Also, the Chair didn't call the police. A pending precinct chair called the police. That is a FACT.

You may be entitled to your own opinion but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The truth can be terribly inconvenient they don't support your assertions.

And yes Byron, I do have an agenda--to save the party from attack and destruction. This is my duty as a member of the executive committee. You see, The Rules of the Texas Democratic Party, Article 1, Section A, Paragraph 6 states, "That all Democrats are bound to defend, to protect and to honor our nation, our state and our Party, and that when they are right, it is our privilege to sustain them, but when they err, it is our duty to correct them;"

Since I'm bound by oath to uphold these rules, when self-serving members or our Party err, it is my duty to correct them.

My friends Byron are any Democrat who is committed to what is best for the Party, we are the members who put the Party's interests above our own, who believe in civility and mutual respect, who believe in the democratic process, and who believe that criticism is best served with a solution and a commitment to resolution.

Pete: I don't know who you are. But, I'll bet you are not one of the people who was already campaigning for Susan's job in October instead of working to get Democrats elected in November.

Geoff

Geoff. Interesting response from my post. How did you arrive at that opinion from my comments?

The job of Chair is a burden I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy nor want for myself. I think Vince's characterization of the job in another post describes what a thankless and no-win job it can be. Trust me, I don't possess the skills, patience or temperament for the job.

I have stated previously in other posts that while I think some of the petitioners concerns are valid, their tactics are unconscionable.

While the Chair has made her share of mistakes, as anyone would, I felt that she had taken sufficient steps to correct the mistakes and move the party forward. I believe in second chances and giving people the benefit of a doubt. She was elected democratically and it is our duty to offer our support to her and do everything we can to make her, the Party and our candidates successful.

Instead of opposing the Chair at the next election, I felt the petitioners made the unfortunate choice of planning a coordinated attack on the Chair to force her resignation.

If the petitioners had the best interest of the Party at heart, they would never have chosen this path of destructive confrontation.

I feel it was their duty to civilly take their grievances to her along with suggestions, not demands, for solutions.

The only way to avoid conflict is to have dialogue. When beliefs become fixed with resolute certitude, conflict is inevitable. It is my belief that the petitioners are so confident in their self-righteous indignation toward the Chair, they have lost all sense of reason and have become blinded by their bitterness.

Geoff, my apologies. I'm tired and didn't read your post correctly. I missed the word "not". :-)

Hmm... if there was a picture of myself, David Wilkins and Teresa Daniel in the Dallas Voice last year, I'd like to see it. I don't recall such a picture, but then again I don't read the Voice weekly when I'm not in Dallas.

I'm really not interested in responding to your character attacks on myself. Pete, you've obviously made up your mind about me, and it's just not worth continuing dialouge with someone who engages in hysterical hyperbole.

Byron - Neither one them are worth the keystrokes: sounds to me like they're hacked at you because they have some kind of "thing" for you and apparently you haven't paid enough attention to them.

Sorry Tom, I'm straight.

And Byron, when did telling the truth equal hysterical hyperbole?

Pete: "As for you and Tom maligning the Chair for stalling the meeting, the FACT is she was waiting on Katie Hubner to count the sign in sheets to determine quorum. Any claim to the contrary is a LIE."

I'm sorry, Pete, but although I didn't witness the quorum tally taking place outside the main hall, I do remember that about 15 minutes after Ms. Hays started speaking without having called the meeting to order, Ann Hubener came in from the outer hall and announced that quorum had been reached. Ms. Hays dismissed Mrs. Hubener's announcement and restated that she was waiting on an 'official' count. My impression was that there were two groups of people tallying and that Ms. Hays would only accept numbers from her 'own' people - which obviously did not include any member of the Hubener family. Another 50 minutes passed before
she called the meeting to order. It should have been apparent to anyone sitting in the Hall that night that Katy Hubener and her brother, who I believe is a precinct chair, wanted to see the meeting proceed in a timely manner.

All of you can spin it all you want, but the FACT is that Katy was in the lobby helping the Executive Director tally the "lists". Over a dozen individuals who remained in the lobby the entire time observed the count.

It is unfortunate for you that the facts don't support your story, but too bad. Facts are facts.

Believe what you like, Pete. I was there, I know what I saw with my own eyes and what I heard with my own ears and I personally talked with Katy Hubener after the meeting.

I think most of the people in attendance are more than capable of making an accurate assessment of what happened.

Susan, in your own words you said, "I didn't witness the quorum tally taking place outside the main hall...Ann Hubener came in from the outer hall and announced that quorum had been reached."

Well, Susan, I did witness the quorum count in the lobby and whatever ANN Hubner announced is irrelevant. KATY Hubner was conducting the count and that is who Susan was waiting for. Let me reiterate for you again--over a dozen people were in the lobby and witnessed the count. Since you admit you weren't in the lobby to witness the count, you didn't see it with your own eyes. You are entitled to your opinion, but the FACTS are the FACTS. If the facts are inconvenient for supporting your opinion, too bad.

Sorry Pete but Susan is right. We were waiting for Susan Hay's folks to verify quorum with their list.

As you know the petitioners were working the sign in table and Susan's folks were there too but they seemed to miss many of the people who signed in which stalled quorum.

The petitioners knew that quorum was made just because of the number of signatures but that wasn't enough for Barry and Susan. Barry spent the next hour cross referencing lists. I worked with him because I was trying to expidite the process.

I was trying to be helpful. The reality is that if there had been an accurate list on the website with the pending precinct chairs properly noted we wouldn't have had to go through the wait.

Katy, thanks for posting and giving your perspective and confirming that you were indeed in the lobby helping count to determine quorum. As I stated in my previous post, you and the Executive Director were cooperating to work quickly to determine quorum.

Because there were dueling sign in tables, it is understandable why there was so much confusion and the need to cross reference both lists.

I also think it is important for everyone to calm down and put themselves in the Chair's shoes. Since the Chair has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the meeting is conducted lawfully, then if there are two lists, it makes it even more important that some effort was made to cross reference the lists due to the possibility the battle could end up in court.

Anyway, Katy, you are to be commended for working with the Executive Director to get the process completed as quickly as possible and I overhead him say he appreciated your assistance and cooperation.

By the way, the list of Precinct Chairs on the website is intended to give people who may stumble across it a contact into precinct-level Democratic politics, not to serve as a legal guide to "who's a precinct chair". Presumably the County Party HQ maintains the actual list of PC's, both sworn and pending, and can make that list available upon request (it is, after all, public record). I don't see why the rebels would need to rely upon a website for the information, particularly given that their ranks include the Party Secretary, who certainly had access to the information (or at least the computers at HQ). One would think that they used that information in order to gather the signatures necessary to call the meeting in the first place.

Dear Paul aka Precinct 1233,

You’re right. The Party Secretary did have access to an accurate list. We did not rely on the list that was on the website. In fact, our list was more accurate than the one the Chair’s employees brought with them, at least in as much as it did not include deceased precinct chairs. Of course, I realize that you were out of state during last Monday night’s meeting, so you’re no doubt receiving conflicting versions of the events. If you would like to hear from me, feel free to give me a call. You’ve got my number on a little yellow card.

Sincerely,
David Wilkins
Secretary

Nice to see David Wilkins is reading this but sorry to see he chose not to volunteer a transcript or even an appointment time to listen to his recorded proceedings of the meeting so that we could all know exactly what it was that Katy said which brought the meeting to a screeching halt.

David? You're still the Party Secretary, can you make the recording available?

And on another note, I've been amused at people claiming they know a fact and then what they post is 100% wrong. Further disappointed that people on the "other side" who I know also know the true facts but they don't bother to correct the misimpression because it wouldn't help their case.

Ask Anne Brabham who called the police. Ask Shannon Bailey. Ask Bruce Rothstein. Ask Theresa Daniels. Ken Molberg. Katy Hubener. They all know who called the police. I suspect that even Byron knows who called the police since he's such good friends. But, look here. He's let the completely false misimpression that someone earlier posted here that Susan called the police to lay unchallenged.

Who can we believe anymore in this mess? Even the people trying to step forward as amateur commentators on this deliberately withold the truth when they see it could hurt their friends' case.

Unbelievable.

By the way, check out the new web site: www.DallasDemocrats.org