Local Politics? - At an IVI-IPO Endorsement Session.

I went also (0.00 / 0)

and saw both my state rep and her challenger.  In that case, the challenger won the vote, although there weren't enough votes to make it a binding endorsement, so it will go to the Board for ratification.

In the other session I sat in on, John Fritchey was unanimously endorsed for County Board -- his opponent had not bothered to show up.  While it felt weird voting in a block with the 47th Ward Party regulars, in this case we were definitely agreed. I think Fritchey will make a pretty decent county commissioner.

In your report, Jeff, I wondered why you chose not to use the  names of your State Senator and her challenger?  I followed suit for my state rep race, though it would not have been my normal instinct.  

---

by: maven @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 16:45:48 PM CST

I don't think that (0.00 / 0)

Senator Heather Steans needs the publicity although it would help Jim Madigan, at least in the future. I'm not expecting this to be a "hot" race so I chose to make my focus IVI-IPO rather than the candidates. If there were a lot of diaries, each focusing on a different endorsement session, then yes I would feel comfortable with listing the names. I would have likely changed the tone to be more reportorial.

It would be nice to have a bunch of diaries on all the sessions, even if only for the back page. But that would be a different PSB at some other time, perhaps. And not just IVI-IPO but even say Randall Sherman's (not "his" but the one he so strongly supports) organization's sessions as well and NDFA too perhaps.

It would be as if PSB were the blog of record for these progressive groups. Again that's not where the blog is at, at the moment. It would presume sufficient readership on the one hand and a mindset within the organizations that here's a job that needs to have folks assigned to carry out, namely writing something up about what happened, even of the simplist reporting style, say minutes of a meeting style, on the other.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 17:25:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I write (0.00 / 0)

"minutes" for NDFA and its not a quick job.  It takes me a while to do them, and its usually not done in a blog-timely fashion.

Might be easier to get someone else to do a synopsis.  As I think about it, I guess I've always felt leary of using PSB as a vehicle to consistently promote NDFA -- that's not its purpose.  But I don't know: would doing monthly write-ups on the meetings seem like an act of shameless self-promotion to the detriment of the rest of the community?  

---

by: maven @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 21:39:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I used the word simple meaning (0.00 / 0)

style-wise. Of course minute writing is not easy nor quick nor even simple in terms of complexity and structure. As I said in a previous post, when someone is good at what they do they make it look easy or simple. So my bad here. I tossed off minute writing with the word simple without thinking.

We have two areas to post stuff here. The front page and the back page. The back page is great for stuff that someone might think inappropriate for this particular community at this particular moment. One difficulty with monthly writeups is that they are one more job for a volunteer organization that doesn't need more jobs that might not necessarily contribute to the functioning of the organization. However if one were already writing necessary minutes and they wrote then with an eye to publishing parts of them, then there might not be much additional work for that volunteer person.

Hopefully a monthly write-up would be an act of shameless self-promotion. Of course, a major function of the blog is self-promotion. So self-promotion is actually a responsibility rather than a freedom here. Especially as concerns progressive institutions. The detriment is in the not doing it rather than the doing it. It's a detriment to the community that groups like IVI-IPO and NDFA and ICHG don't self-promote here more often.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 00:29:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Great write up! (0.00 / 0)

That was a wonderfully candid, interesting and fun write-up about the session. I am thrilled you attended and I was also very happy to see the good turnout for the session.  

And of course I find it very flattering and humbling that you would want to pattern your vote after me! Though I have to admit I often go into endorsement sessions (for both NDFA and IVI-IPO) undecided about who I will support, and end up making my decision based on points and arguments made by other members. I feel for people who don't have that kind of group process to help them consider multiple viewpoints and angles -- and I am thinking specifically of some of the Democratic Committeemen that seem to make their decisions completely on their own.  You really do learn so much by hearing the perspectives of others.

I also really like the rule changes, in particular the straw poll (this was not done in our session because we only had two candidates) and the nominating speeches.  And I think that the candidate speech time was shortened and the question time lengthened, which is great.  Most of the time candidate speeches are like hearing a talking brochure; they really don't get down to the meat of what you will be making your decision on.

Anyway, great write up!

Basic stuff: The common wealth should be used for the common good, not to enrich the well-connected few.  

---

by: Sandra_Verthein @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 06:46:38 AM CST

A Cadidate's View of Endorsement (0.00 / 0)

As the male State Rep Candidate that was mentioned above, I have found the endorsement process both fascinating and helpful. I am one of those grass-root politicians who is brand new to being a politician, unless you count three campaigns where I didn't even make a blip on the charts in Indiana more than 25 years ago.

In this, my almost-virgin campaign, I have been part of four endorsement processes: Northside Democracy for America, IVI-IPO, the PACs and Unions, and the Regular Democrats. It has been an advanced lesson in Chicago politics, one that more voters ought to experience.

The most clamorous process is NDFA, where progressive, ethical, and fiscally-responsible candidates are asked to present themselves. OK, it is exclusionary since you have to have those qualities AND be a Democrat. It also differs from IVI-IPO and the PAC/Union process because it is without questionnaire. That leaves the decision to be based on the literature the candidate presents, the reporting done by Steve, who does a write-up after talking with the candidate, and the candidate's actual presentation. There is then a month's wait to vote. The free-form works well and offers a real challenge because the questions are often very pointed and the rivalry between supporters is both friendly and serious.

For me, just listening has been a learning experience since it gives one the opportunity to hear real answers to the concerns of specific voters. Likewise it gives a chance to hear the fluff, when the candidate delivers it.

IVI-IPO, on the other hand, is long on the questionnaire. Unfortunately they are also very slow in making the completed ones available, so much so that my opponent's answers were only available on the website at 10 pm the night before (when mine was up there too). The difficulty here is understandable since volunteers have too much to do. My questionnaire had sat with them for a long time. I heard that my opponent's had only been received the night before, in spite of stern warnings that if you missed the deadline (she had) there was no forgiveness.

Since there were only three voters from my district (myself, my partner, and another resident/activist) the chair appointed a few others to vote as well, a process that could be fraught with the smell of machine politics, but since I won the vote, I won't complain.

I liked the short intro and short after-word, since I enjoy answering questions. For my part, I found the questions really well thought and a bit challenging, which I think is important. Unlike at NDFA I wasn't allowed to hear my opponent. That speechifying was followed by discussion without the presence of the candidates and I hear it was lively and interesting, though it turns out one-sided since the non-binding vote was 5 to 1. I am now awaiting the certification by the State Board, since less than 15 votes were cast. The nearly two-week wait is way too long, but again you are relying on the "kindness of volunteers" to paraphrase Blanche DuBois.

I had always wondered how the IVI-IPO endorsements were made and to finally find out was a good thing. It is unfortunate, though, that it doesn't include hundreds more voters, such being the sad state of (non) participatory democracy in America today.

The third group, PACs and Unions, to which I might add Editors, seems mostly to be about paper. It is also a process that begins too late in the primary election cycle to make much difference, as they say they are waiting for the petitions to be certified. Really, then why were the candidates for governor and other high-ranking officials endorsed so much sooner? It's also obvious that PAC and Union money is saved for the perceived-to-be winners. Disclosure here: that became clear when I read the book "Reforming State Legislative Elections" by William M. Salka.

I know, I know. It's called betting on a sure thing. I see that merely as a great way to preserve's one's ability to influence AND to preserve the status quo. That, I think, is the big difference, as NDFA and IVI-IPO seem to care less about the status quo and more about good government or at least their brand of it. And yes, I am prejudiced here, since even the unions that would seem to have been naturals to endorse me decided (so far at least) to endorse no one.

And then there are the regular Democrats. Twice I tried to meet my Ward 39 committeeman and twice I was unable to get an appointment. The third time I went and sat in the reception area of his office for two-and-a-half hours, having been told my name was on the list and he would see me. Closing time for the office is posted for 9 pm. At 8:30, when my turn came, I was told that Mr. Committeeman was leaving and couldn't see me. The party looks out for its own, especially when its own are in-laws, children, cousins, or big contributors.

Now I will give up my rant if someone tells me that the Committeeman has no responsibility to see that his/her Ward elects the best candidate as determined by open debate among competing and competent candidates. Never mind, I'll win the really old-fashioned way, by knocking on doors and gaining support of the voters one hand-shake at a time.

As my friend Chuck me told at the very beginning of this run "You cannot fail." This education has been priceless and even if I don't win, has prepared me well for the next time when I just might run against the Committeeman.

Democratic Candidate for State Rep, Dist 40

---

by: Joe Laiacona @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 10:41:49 AM CST

This would be a great diary post (0.00 / 0)

And even were it not from a candidate it would get front paged.

Please re-post this as a diary-post. If you are of a mind.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 12:42:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for writing it

Joe Laiacona
Progressive Democrat for State Rep, Dist 40

Democratic Candidate for State Rep, Dist 40

---

by: Joe Laiacona @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 08:35:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]