In a further sign that the DCCC is firmly in the hands of progressives,
a motion by Senator Dianne Feinstein via proxy to deny
the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club eligibility for charter renewal, failed yesterday.
File photo by Luke Thomas
By Hope Johnson
February 19, 2009
A motion by Senator Dianne Feinstein proxy George Broder to deny the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club eligibility for charter renewal failed yesterday during a meeting of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC).
The DCCC membership voted overwhelmingly to oppose the motion.
Joining Broder in support of Feinstein’s motion included proxies for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former DCCC Chair Scott Weiner.
Broder, a Senior Advisor for the Bay Area Council, objected to Milk Club by-laws that allow for endorsements of non-Democratic Party candidates.
“These three clubs should be subject to separate intellectual public policy,” Broder opined, “and political discussion given that their by-laws deviate substantially from the Democratic club commitment to support the Democratic Party, regardless of whether or not the office being contested is partisan or non-partisan.”
Broder’s motion included the removal of two additional clubs, the Bernal Heights Democratic Club and the San Francisco Democratic Club (formerly District 5 Progressive Democrats).
At issue is the interpretation of DCCC by-laws defining charter eligibility. The by-laws prohibit chartered clubs from endorsing non-Democratic party candidates for partisan offices but do not address endorsements in non-partisan races. Chartered Democratic clubs are allowed use of the Democrat Party name and the Presidents of those clubs become Associate Members of the DCCC.
Feinstein’s objection was previously explored after the Milk Club endorsed Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez for mayor in 2003.
“One of the things we’ve talked about here on these races are the fact that they are non-partisan,” said DCCC Treasurer Debra Walker. “The state party by-laws as well as our own by-laws are silent on this issue so there is no factual ground for this severance.”
“It becomes a sticky issue because we’ve had elected Democratic officials endorse Republicans and we don’t do anything about that,” added DCCC Corresponding Secretary Joe Julian. “It seems to me we are being inconsistent. We’re going to punish clubs but not apply the same standards to elected officials?”
Feinstein endorsed Republican candidate James Fang for Bart Director in 2006 and played a role in influencing Mayor Gavin Newsom’s appointment of Republican and former US Attorney Kevin Ryan to head the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.
Senator Dianne Feinstein and Kevin Ryan.
Committee members favoring charter of the three clubs expressed concern that removal would violate the spirit of the DCCC by-laws. Deliberations focused on adopting inclusive strategies that facilitate cooperation between the DCCC and members of the San Francisco political community who embrace Democratic issues but are not Democrats.
“We would be less effective if there were not strong clubs out there like Bernal Heights, like the Harvey Milk Club, that will consistently stick their necks out there on Democratic issues, granted progressive Democratic issues, and bring in a bigger tent,” said DCCC Fourth Vice Chair Michael Goldstein who worked with the clubs applying for charter. “I think we are not being very far-sighted at all in limiting our ability to work with folks.”
“The thing that makes me continue to be a Democrat are people like Obama,” said DCCC member Robert Haaland. “They inspire me. They don’t use a stick to keep me a Democrat; they inspire me to be a Democrat. If the candidates are not inspiring and they don’t get endorsed by the Democratic clubs, well, that says it all.”
Luke Thomas contributed to this report.
The Hunger Site
February 5, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Not really that interesting, Ann, since Feinstein definitely does not have a record warranting anyone categorize her politics, votes, support, or statements as progressive or, for that matter, Democratic.
The real question now is why do average voters continue to support Feinstein and the elected officials who support her?
February 5, 2011 at 2:06 am
Interesting that she endorsed Republican James Fang for District #8 BART Board last year, against progressive Democrat Bert HIll.
February 24, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I think that Feinstein should have had a bigger role in Milk and the actress that should have played her is that old biddie from Throw Momma From the Train.
February 21, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Feinstein’s proxy on the DCCC does this same thing every year, and every year it has been shot down by the DCCC before the recent election of the more progressive group.
While de-chartering the Milk Club may be their ultimate goal, that is not what the vote on Wednesday was about. It was about separating the Milk Club, Bernal and one other club that I don’t remember now from the list of clubs to be rechartered to be voted on separately, and it failed.
This is not our biggest worry at this time. Our biggest worry is that we may all have to learn to say “Governor Feinstein.” Help!!!!
February 20, 2009 at 7:29 pm
As someone who attended the meeting, i can attest that this article is an accurate description of what happened. Great job Hope!
February 20, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Dear Mr. Weiner:
I respectfully disagree with your characterization of this article and my responsibility to contact you regarding the vote of your proxy, Luke Klipp.
“The article inaccurately states that I voted at the DCCC to de-charter the Milk Club. I did no such thing and have always supported chartering the Milk Club.â€
On the contrary, the article accurately reflects you were represented by a proxy. This is not an article about you or your history of support for the Milk Club; therefore, it is appropriate no mention was made of that historical information. The article correctly states your proxy voted in the affirmative at this meeting.
“Unfortunately, Ms. Johnson did not contact me before issuing her story.â€
This article reports events as they occurred during the meeting and some verifiable past endorsements. No members of the DCCC called into question your proxy or his actions, and none of the events indicated to me or other members of the public that the actions of your proxy should be questioned. No other members of the DCCC were contacted regarding this article prior to publication.
“As an initial matter, the procedural vote at the DCCC was not to de-charter any club. Rather, it was a motion by one member to vote separately on certain clubs instead of voting on them as a group. It is unclear why Ms. Johnson chose to report that motion as a motion to de-charter the Milk Club.â€
The motion made by Mr. Broder was to remove three democratic clubs from a vote to renew DCCC charters. Discussion of this motion was solely related to charter eligibility requirements of these groups and grounds for severance. Had the motion passed, the Milk Club would not have been included in the renewal vote, purposefully not renewing its charter. An attempt to intentionally deny renewal may be interpreted as an attempt to de-charter.
“I sent a proxy to the meeting, and my proxy mistakenly voted for the procedural motion.â€
No members of the DCCC called into question the vote of your proxy. It is customary to assume a proxy is acting appropriately on behalf of the person that proxy represents, and the responsibility of the party in error to inform others of the error.
“Had I been at the meeting, I would have voted against the motion.â€
You did not attend the meeting and it would have been inappropriate for me to speculate on what you may or may not have done had you been present. The proxy chosen by you voted for the motion.
“I sent a correction to the entire DCCC promptly after the meeting and before FCJ’s story was published. Unfortunately, FCJ did not mention this correct and has not issued a clarification.â€
FCJ was not served notice you were changing your proxy’s vote until after the article was published.
February 20, 2009 at 8:20 am
To the editor:
I write regarding Hope Johnson’s “Feinstein Motion to De-Charter Harvey Milk Club Fails.” The article inaccurately states that I voted at the DCCC to de-charter the Milk Club. I did no such thing and have always supported chartering the Milk Club. Unfortunately, Ms. Johnson did not contact me before issuing her story. Had she done so, I would have explained the following to her.
As an initial matter, the procedural vote at the DCCC was not to de-charter any club. Rather, it was a motion by one member to vote separately on certain clubs instead of voting on them as a group. It is unclear why Ms. Johnson chose to report that motion as a motion to de-charter the Milk Club.
Moreover, I was not present at the meeting since I was (and continue to be) out of town. I sent a proxy to the meeting, and my proxy mistakenly voted for the procedural motion. Had I been at the meeting, I would have voted against the motion. I sent a correction to the entire DCCC promptly after the meeting and before FCJ’s story was published. Unfortunately, FCJ did not mention this correct and has not issued a clarification.
Finally, anyone who has followed the DCCC club chartering battles of the last five years will know that I have been steadfast in supporting the chartering of clubs, including the Milk Club, despite my disagreements with the club. My view is that the Democratic Party must be broad-based and diverse. I thus took a lead role in chartering the Milk Club several years ago.
Scott Wiener
Member, Democratic County Central Committee
February 19, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Oops! This is a typo: “by this time, the number of supervisors had been reduced to 18.” I meant to type “11”, not “18.”
February 19, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I thought that Obama indicated that we do not have the luxury to exclude constructive partners based on their political party, but apparently the Clintonian Democrats are still fighting the old fight.
The problem, of course, is that the Hope Slate run a stealth campaign and probably cannot count on the element of surprise in 2010.
In general, 16 months is a political eternity. In the current state of flux, there is sufficient uncertainty that we have no clue what the political and economic realities will be in June 2010.
My wager is that the corporate interests that often supply the political juice will have been bled dry and that a successful contest for DCCC against the progs will be an uphill battle.
-marc
February 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Thanks for writing this Hope! This move by Feinstein raises strong questions about the strategies of certain elected officials and what how they expect to influence the progressive agenda.
February 19, 2009 at 10:53 am
Historical precedent for the endorsement of non-Democrats by the San Francisco Democratic Party exists. In 1936, the SF DCCC endorsed Progressive Party member Franck Havenner for the congressional seat now more-or-less occupied by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (the lines and numbers were different then). Havenner had been a Republican and protege of Hiram Johnson, having followed him to Washington, DC when he was elected to the US Senate.
Havenner soon returned to San Francisco, however, and ran for supervisor in the mid-1920s when there were 18 members on the Board of Supervisors. In about 1934, for reasons of political strategy, he switched to the Progressive Party. In mid-1935, he was elected president of the Board of Supervisors despite his third-party membership (by this time, the number of supervisors had been reduced to 18), and in 1936 he made his first run for Congress.
He was running against Republican Congresswoman Florence Kahn, the widow of Julius Kahn who had preceded her in Congress. He based his race on a platform in support of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, and despite the fact that there was a Democratic candidate running for Congress, James Brennan, Havenner got the endorsement of the DCCC. Havenner won, and switched to the Democratic Party in 1939. However, he was defeated in 1940, was out of Congress for four years, and then was re-elected again continuously from 1944 through the early 1950s when he retired from elected office.