I’ve had a chance to review the redistricting maps and I’m going to spend some time going through them. Once I’ve done that, I’m going to put up a post about what this mean for our numbers in the House & Senate.
Until then I want to talk about a small, intraparty matter that is flying under the radar.
Sources tell me that this Saturday, the TNDP Executive Committee will vote on a resolution to amend the party bylaws. This proposed amendment would change the term of TNDP Chairman from the current 2-years to a new 4-year term.
I am not a fan.....at least not yet. While it seems innocuous on the surface, I can’t help but feel there's something else going on here. Why else is this being rushed & hushed through the EC (Executive Committee) meeting without any public input? I may be wrong, there may be no ulterior motives here, but no one I’ve spoken with on the EC can articulate for me why this change is needed.
Is it change for change sake? Is it financial? Is it to promote staff continuity? Is it part of the plan from “Big Change Strategies” that we shelled out tens of thousands of dollars for? Any of these could, in and of themselves, be a good reason for changing the term. However, sans an explanation from the TNDP, we just don't know.
And isn’t this just a little ironic? For weeks, the TNDP has railed about a lack of transparency in the General Assembly. Yet here we are three days from a vote that would restructure our party and no one outside the I-440 loop has any clue what the hell is happening. Serioulsy, we expect this from the GOP, but not our own party.
I encourage you to call your EC member and ask for an explanation. Find out why this is being rushed & hushed through without any input from the public. I'm not saying it's a bad proposal, but we need some sunlight to disinfect this process.
Side Note: I'm being told that the resolution would not be retroactive, so the next Chairman would be the first to serve the new 4-year term. In other words it would not extend the term of the current Chair, Chip Forrester.
My suspicion is that it's an attempt to lessen frequency of mass turnovers in the state party jobs and administrative functions. Or, that might not be the intent, but I think it's a good idea. There is a significant loss of knowledge and skill with these mass turnovers, so hopefully having longer periods where people can work with each other to understand the processes that are in place and create a larger pool of people who are able to perform these functions.
ReplyDelete