Arizona Democrats: Assert your legal rights, demand answers

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

As a general rule, I do not write about internal Democratic Party disputes. What goes on in the family stays in the family. But there are rare exceptions to this rule, and it pains me to admit that this is one of those rare exceptions. David Safier and Tedski at R-Cubed have also weighed in.

I was inundated with a series of e-mails over the weekend from concerned Democratic Party activists and party leaders who are furious over a recent decision of the Arizona Democratic Party. Since there is a state committee meeting occurring on Saturday, March 7, 2009 in Phoenix to elect a state chair, this is the appropriate time to address this issue.

First, To understand the nature of this dispute, it helps to know the players. On one side there is a group collectively referred to as the "stakeholders," loosely defined as comprising our Democratic elected officials at the federal and state level, and also including major fund raisers and contributors. These "stakeholders" are nowhere described or assigned any party duties or powers under Arizona statutory law or in the Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) Bylaws.

On the other side is the formally elected party leadership of the Arizona Democratic Party. Political parties are creatures of statute. In Arizona, precinct committeemen (PCs) are elected at the precinct level at the September primary. After the general election, these PCs elect district and county party officers. They also elect state committeemen, who comprise the State Committee. In January following a general election, state committeemen elect state party officers who comprise the Executive Board.

There is also the Executive Committee which consists of "the County Chairperson and the first and second County Vice-Chairpersons from each county; the State Committee-elected National Committeemen, the State Committee-elected National Committeewomen; three (3) members-at-large from each Congressional District; the President or a representative of the President of the Young Democrats of Arizona; the President or representative of the President of the Arizona Federation of Democratic Women’s Clubs; and the other State Officers as listed" in the ADP Bylaws.

It also helps to know some of the background to this dispute. Following the disastrous results (in state legislative races) of the 2008 campaign, party chair Don Bivens went on a "listening tour" around the state to hear from party leadership. Their answer was to elect Paul Eckerstrom the new party chair at their January organizing meeting (Eckerstrom subsequently resigned under pressure from some members of the Stakeholders group, although he will swear that his decision was entirely personal).

Don Bivens then went on a "Mea Culpa tour" around the state to again hear from party leadership. One of my sources relates that at a meeting in Tucson, Don Bivens commented that "we are in the process of interviewing for a new executive director (Maria Weeg had recently submitted her resignation) and we hope to have someone in a week or so." Bivens also talked about how "the party is considering hiring an independent consultant to analyze the coordinated campaign and to make recommendations for improvement." My source further reports that Bivens discussed the financial condition of the party. My source posed a question that I also am curious about: Don Bivens lost his race for chair, he is not an officer of the party, so what authority does he have to interview candidates for executive director as he appeared to suggest? That seems a bit presumptuous.

Which brings me by circuitous route to the present dispute. An e-mail notice dated Friday, February 27, 2009 purportedly was sent to all state committeemen under the signature of acting chair Harriet Young. (At least one source says that he is a state committeeman and he did not receive this notice and wondered who else did not receive it). The e-mail notice states that "The Executive Board of the Arizona Democratic Party has approved the use of a search firm for filling the position of Executive Director of the party." The e-mail attaches a letter from the search firm, DHR International, signed by David Bruno, Vice Chairman and Managing Director.

Some enterprising members of the party's Progressive Caucus discovered that Mr. Bruno is a registered Republican and asked to meet with Don Bivens to raise their concerns about a Republican consultant being hired to advise the Arizona Democratic Party. Bivens reportedly expressed some reservations as well, but later e-mails indicate that Bivens now supports the consultant contract.

I received e-mails from individuals who either are or who have spoken directly with members of the Executive Board of the party and these Executive Board members state in no uncertain terms that the Executive Board did not approve this consultant contract, but learned about it only after the fact. The assertion that "The Executive Board of the Arizona Democratic Party… approved the use of a search firm" is patently false.

According to my sources, it was the Stakeholders group who pressed for this contract, and Harriet Young, as acting chair, would have had to sign on behalf of the party. I will give Harriet Young the benefit of the doubt and assume that she was under some duress from the Stakeholders group to sign off on this consultant contract.

As noted previously, the Stakeholders group has no official status under Arizona statutory law or the ADP Bylaws. They wield influence simply by virtue of being elected officeholders or a major fund raiser or contributor.

Roger White and Bob Schwartz, both lawyers and state committeemen (and Bob Schwartz is the chairman of the ADP Bylaws Committee) pointed to Article III, Section 8 of the ADP Bylaws which provides, in relevant part, that:

No contracts for capital expenditures, employment, consultants or contracts in excess of $10,000 signed by the Chair or on behalf of the Party shall extend beyond the term of the Chair without approval of the Executive Committee.

Read it again: No contract for consultants, which is what DHR International is, signed by the Chair on behalf of the Party, which appears to be the case, shall extend beyond the term of the Chair without approval of the Executive Committee.

In other words, this contract will expire upon the election of a new Chair at the state committee meeting on Saturday. The Executive Committee would have to ratify this contract in order to give it effect (since it was not initially approved by the Executive Committee). A resolution adopted by the State Committee may direct the Executive Committee and Executive Board to terminate this contract, and such resolution is binding upon the Executive Committee and Executive Board. It is within the lawful power of the State Committee to direct the termination of this contract if they deem it appropriate.

Which raises the question of why was this contract rushed into during a transitional period? It is not time sensitive. David Safier and Tedski at R-Cubed report that a single contributor offered to pay for this contract. So why pretend that the Executive Board approved this when it was the decision of a single contributor? This is dishonest. What is the interest of this unidentified contributor? And why does this individual wield so much influence?

It also raises a much broader concern for me. Who exactly runs the Arizona Democratic Party? Is it the Stakeholders group who have no official status under statutory law or the ADP Bylaws? Or is it the elected leadership of the Arizona Democratic Party recognized by statutory law and the ADP Bylaws? There is only one legally correct answer.

As one source opined in an e-mail: "This complete disregard for the duly elected leadership of this party disenfranchises the entire elected leadership. Why do we bother holding elections or even have a party organization if all decisions of consequence are made by an unelected "shadow party" of… [Stakeholders] who treat the party as an extension of themselves?"

State Committee members: assert your legal rights, and demand answers to these questions.