Confrontation at the Resolutions Committee Meeting
| By Julia Rosen, Online Political Director - Nov 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pm PST |
Things took a pretty nasty turn, unfortunately.
I entered the California Democratic Party Resolutions Committee meeting room with Eden James, Courage Campaign's Managing Director, bearing our sign and easel. We found a free space at the front of the room and set up the sign.
Almost immediately, Resolutions Chair John Hanna approached us, demanding that we remove the sign. Eden politely asked if there "was a rule" against signs in the meeting rooms. Hanna replied "yes."
Kathy Bowler, CDP Executive Director, then calmly approached me, stating that the sign should be removed because the room was getting full and she had staff she needed to get into the room.
John then grabbed ahold of one side of the sign, attempting to remove it from Eden's hands. Eden, maintaining his hold on to the other side, repeated the question to John about whether a rule existed against signs inside the meeting room. John said "yes"again and Eden asked to see the rule, saying that if there was an actual rule against signs inside the room -- he would respect it.
Increasingly angry, John threatened to call security. Eden, surprised, calmly responded that John "should go ahead if that's what you want to do."
Suddenly, Hanna then shoved his side of the sign and Eden at the same time, forcibly pushing Eden backwards. Eden held on. John shoved again, then pushed Eden's shoulder back with the palm of his hand.
Stunned, Eden let go of the sign as John ripped it from his hands and threw it to the floor. An unknown person then picked up the sign and sprinted it out of the room, taking it to the staff room (according to Kathy Bowler).
More below.
This is the Last thing that we wanted to happen. And Eden is one of the most peaceful, non-aggressive people that I have ever met. It was shocking to see his calm, determined words met by violence.
The goal of bringing the sign into the room was to provide a visual representation of the large number of people, clubs and groups supporting the resolution to censure the Senator.
Our purpose in continuing to discuss moving the sign was to get a clear reason and clarification of the rules surrounding bringing in signs. If a rule was presented against posting signs, we would have respected it without question. And indeed, we would have entertained a discussion about its removal due to space issues.
We are shocked and shaken by this turn of events and so are many others. It is extremely disappointing that something as simple as trying to bring a sign into a room (that lists organizations supporting a resolution) can escalate into physical violence.
Eden and I want to commend Kathy Bowler for her professionalism throughout this incident. John Hanna's conduct, on the other hand is shocking, upsetting, and completely inappropriate.
This resolution should be addressed on its merits. No matter what side you are on, this discussion does not deserve to be marred by physical violence.
I entered the California Democratic Party Resolutions Committee meeting room with Eden James, Courage Campaign's Managing Director, bearing our sign and easel. We found a free space at the front of the room and set up the sign.
Almost immediately, Resolutions Chair John Hanna approached us, demanding that we remove the sign. Eden politely asked if there "was a rule" against signs in the meeting rooms. Hanna replied "yes."
Kathy Bowler, CDP Executive Director, then calmly approached me, stating that the sign should be removed because the room was getting full and she had staff she needed to get into the room.
John then grabbed ahold of one side of the sign, attempting to remove it from Eden's hands. Eden, maintaining his hold on to the other side, repeated the question to John about whether a rule existed against signs inside the meeting room. John said "yes"again and Eden asked to see the rule, saying that if there was an actual rule against signs inside the room -- he would respect it.
Increasingly angry, John threatened to call security. Eden, surprised, calmly responded that John "should go ahead if that's what you want to do."
Suddenly, Hanna then shoved his side of the sign and Eden at the same time, forcibly pushing Eden backwards. Eden held on. John shoved again, then pushed Eden's shoulder back with the palm of his hand.
Stunned, Eden let go of the sign as John ripped it from his hands and threw it to the floor. An unknown person then picked up the sign and sprinted it out of the room, taking it to the staff room (according to Kathy Bowler).
More below.
This is the Last thing that we wanted to happen. And Eden is one of the most peaceful, non-aggressive people that I have ever met. It was shocking to see his calm, determined words met by violence. The goal of bringing the sign into the room was to provide a visual representation of the large number of people, clubs and groups supporting the resolution to censure the Senator.
Our purpose in continuing to discuss moving the sign was to get a clear reason and clarification of the rules surrounding bringing in signs. If a rule was presented against posting signs, we would have respected it without question. And indeed, we would have entertained a discussion about its removal due to space issues.
We are shocked and shaken by this turn of events and so are many others. It is extremely disappointing that something as simple as trying to bring a sign into a room (that lists organizations supporting a resolution) can escalate into physical violence.
Eden and I want to commend Kathy Bowler for her professionalism throughout this incident. John Hanna's conduct, on the other hand is shocking, upsetting, and completely inappropriate.
This resolution should be addressed on its merits. No matter what side you are on, this discussion does not deserve to be marred by physical violence.
Comments are closed for this post.
VA Protection Not Considered By Democrats
Terence Lyons, Mirror News Editor
A resolution that would have called for protection of the West Los Angeles VA property from any uses by “a non-veterans organization or for any non-veterans-related purpose” was barred from consideration at the California Democratic Party Executive Board Meeting in Anaheim on Saturday, November 15.
Because of recent rule changes advancing the deadline for submitting such resolutions, the VA property resolution was filed two days late, explained Bob Handy, who chairs the California Democratic Party Veterans Caucus and who was one of the resolution’s authors. The Resolutions Committee agreed to entertain the resolution nevertheless, said Handy, with the proviso that any one member of the Committee could veto its consideration, and that is what happened.
Julie Dad, a Santa Monica delegate at the gathering, said that John Hanna, a Resolutions Committee member from Orange County, objected to the consideration of the resolution, and so it never made it to the General Session. The next time the resolution can be considered by the statewide party will be at the party’s state convention in Sacramento April 24-26, 2009, Dad said.
Handy said that he personally had not been pressured to abandon the resolution, but that he had been told by other supporters that considerable political pressure was being brought to bear against the resolution.
The resolution grew out of concerns by Handy and others who object to an August 2007 “Sharing Agreement” between the VA and an organization known as the Veterans Park Conservancy whereby approximately 16 acres of the VA property at the northeast corner of Wilshire and San Vicente Boulevards is to be used as a park “for the benefit of veterans and the general public.” The 20-year agreement provides for no rent to the VA, but provides that the Conservancy shall undertake certain capital improvements “as resources become available.”
In a statement in support of the resolution, Robert L. Rosebrock, Co-Director of We the Veterans and Director of The Veterans Revolution, said, “This land is under the stewardship of the 30th U.S. Congressional District, Henry Waxman’s District, which he has represented over the past 35 years. It is imperative that Congressman Waxman decides if he is looking out for Veterans ‘needs’ at the largest VA healthcare in the nation, or the ‘wants’ of one of the wealthiest Zip Codes in the nation.”
The resolution stated that “a public park, despite its value to the whole community, is inconsistent with the exclusive use for veterans envisioned by the donors [of the property in 1888], and the trust conveyed in their deed to the United States.” Handy said the resolution had been signed by over a hundred persons from across the United States and across party lines, including Sen. Art Torres (Ret.), Chairman of the California
I am not such a peaceful fellow, If Hanna wants to throw an authoritarian temper tantrum in front of me, he's going to find his angry abdication of his responsibilities shoved right back down his throat.
If there is anything I hold in more contempt than a Republican, it's these "Democrats" whose stewardship has done nothing but enable the enemies of our democracy. And then they have the unmitigated gall to presume they know better than we do.
Umm, I don't think so. . .
Y'all think Feinstein is worth your jobs? Hope so, because I think we need to go after these clown-hacks and remove them from the offices they so clearly have abused.
Starting right now.
As far as I am concerned Senator Feinstein, a woman who I have canvassed and phone-banked for in the past should not only be censured, she should be recalled. It recently has come to my attention that she has been so supportive of the war because her family has been making millions of dollars as war profiteers.
SFGATE ARTICLE
Link
BOHEMIAN ARTICLE
Link
In the mean-time we just need to keep working for progressive values. It is a marathon, not a sprint.
Keep working as hard as you can, but don’t forget to have some fun as well!
Hanna probably hasn't read a newspaper or magazine in many years and certainly seems to have a sense of the internet close to that of George Bush and the "internets".
This is his opening diplomatic welcome to the obvious representatives of the known 30,000 plus who've responded and who are being watched on line by millions of people.
Let's welcome him appropriately to the onrushing political changes being brought by the web and being exacerbated by stupid political pros who haven't figured out and acknowledged that they are being watched, observed, blogged very closely by citizen who are aware we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis and don't want to put up with Diane Feinstein's perfidy.
This Resolution followed the failed effort of Levine to pass AB #1634 with this MANDATE, dubbed "Healthy Pets," and which would have made them veritably extinct. Levine withdrew his effort in July with the volume of public outrage and organized opposition, and with a revival now underway statewide, he appeared personally to oppose this opposition to his efforts which had been placed by the committee on the consent calendar.
This effort is being revived statewide joined by a new "coalition" apparently of PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS [job slots for animal control dysfunctional and incompetent statewide] and PETA that poses as a champion of "animal rights," allegedly in association with those considered terrorists groups ...
To its credit, The City Council of Huntington Beach has moved to withdraw their proposed MANDATE of the same nature due to overwhelming opposition and introduction of scientific veterinary data as to the gravity of these major surgeries, complications, risks of potential adverse health impacts and deaths varying with breed, gender, age, weight, cumulatively indicatinng an inherent right and responsibility of pet owners and veterinarians to make such determinations.
Slots for "Canvassers" alone at $70K each were to be added to go "door to door" in HB for virility checks. Pending however is a proposal to ENACT a fee to "opt out." Prominent proponents of this proposed MANDATE in HB were those identifying themselves as "rescue" people who argued that MANDATED SPAY/NEUTER of family pets that are licensed, provided veterinary care and even that insurance coverage, pampered and secured by responsible owners would resolve issues of "strays."
60% of American families have pets; 64% of those surveyed by an MSNBC poll opposed AB #1634; 64% of dwelling units in HB averaging $1 Million are owner occupied; pet supplies are a $43 Billion industry.
ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL OVERALL HAS A "KILL" RATIO OF 58% [mostly cats!] and those statistics employed were not applicable to HB; one (1) HB dog was euthanized due to "space," others due to behavioral or health issues. Upon inquiry of OCAC as to qualifications of "RESCUERS" to whom they released pets as those who testified in SUPPORT of MANDATED S/N in HB as to their "tired hearts" and "empty wallets," none! A 501c3 certificate of a non-profit organization suffices for release of family pets after legal requirements for hold over business days, four (4)for those without a license [lost, removed?], seven (7) for those with a license. And owners searching for pets? A business license suffices for ownership and kennel operations. The CA Veterinary Assoc does not regularly inspect those veterinary facilities nor does it release findings. [Yo! Levine!]
A diligent HB resident found that only 14.9% of licensed dogs in that city are intact and those surcharges on those licenses [$90 for males] represent 30% of revenues to OCAC which contracts with the city. Ca ching! HB is the third largest city in Orange County and pays the highest fees to OCAC; go figure!
Fines for having an unaltered animal(s) were to start at $150, compound at $50/mo, and max at $500. Such MANDATES are known to reduce licensing and in turn vaccinations, and these procedures would also REDUCE LICENSING REVENUES. No mention has been made of failure to enforce existing regulations as to "strays."
Levine is termed out; his prior efforts to outlaw light bulbs went down to defeat. One wonders at his avowed concerns for cost of animal services as a legitimate return on licensing fees that go into the General Fund compared to the more egregious issue as the $48 Billion shortfall statewide in funding of benefits for PUBLIC EMPLOYEES and Millions in liability for conduct of PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, as opposed to say, the public welfare, health and safety?
These are all issues that should be addressed by representatives of our diverse Democratic constituencies. Issues brought before the Resolutions Committee are that representation.
Why not include his light bulb bill while your peddling falsehoods? Whole nations have adopted it as a needed path to fight global warming but for you no need.