Angela Ramirez-Holmes

Alameda Democratic Leader Disses smart-growth Democrat, Endorses pro-development Republican Mayoral Candidate?

Alameda Democratic Leader Disses smart-growth Democrat, Endorses pro-development Republican Mayoral Candidate? ACDCC, Politics No Responses »

Sep 182016

Update: Ramirez Holmes has contacted me to say that she had not endorsed Jerry Thorne. That would mean that Jerry Thorne lied by listing her as an endorser.

Angela Ramirez Holmes, the Vice Chair for AD 16 of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee and a member of the Executive Committee, is listed as an endorser *of incumbent Pleasanton Mayoral candidate Jerry Thorne, a Republican. Ramirez Holmes, who also serves in the Zone 7 Water District Board, owns Alliance Campaign Strategies, a campaign consultancy business, which represents developers and developer-backed candidates.

At the Democratic Party’s endorsement interviews which took place on Saturday, September 17th, Angela argued that the Democratic candidate for Mayor, Julie Testa, should not be given the Democratic endorsement because in the past she had endorsed Republican candidates for office. Angela did not disclose that she had endorsed Thorne and was therefore backing a Republican against a Democratic candidate at that very moment.

At the same meeting Angela’s allies in the Committee also attacked ACDCC member and Fremont City Council member/candidate Vinnie Bacon for supporting Mayoral candidate Lily Mei, who is registered as no party preference, against Democratic candidate Bill Harrison. Bacon is running in a “clean money” platform, rejecting contributions from developers, as is Lily Mei. Bill Harrison is also backed by housing developers.

Ramirez Holmes’ support of pro-developer candidates is not surprising, given that she is paid to lobby for developers’ interests. However, Democratic party leaders are discouraged from openly embracing Republican candidates.

* After publication of this article, Ramirez Holmes’ name was removed from the list of Thorne’s endorsements. Link goes to the cached version.

Former Council Member Uses “N” word; Cutter writes him off, Cox does not

Former Council Member Uses “N” word; Cutter writes him off, Cox does not Community, People, Politics No Responses »

Jan 052015

Laython “Judge” Landis

Update 2: Campaign finance reports show that Pauline Cutter returned Judge Landis’ contribution. Deborah Cox did not. Landis died in November 2015.

Update: Deborah Cox has given in to public pressure, this afternoon she spoke with Brian Copeland and said she’d return the contribution.

San Leandro has a long and tortuous history of racial segregation and discrimination. The city was almost exclusively white well into the 1990s and stories of police cars guarding the border with Oakland still linger in the memory of many African Americans. Writer and comedian Brian Copeland, who moved to San Leandro as a young child, turned his experiences growing up here into a powerful one-man show, which became the longest running solo play in San Francisco. The book based on his play, Not a Genuine Black Man: Or, How I Claimed My Piece of Ground in the Lily-White Suburbs, has earned 5 stars on Amazon.com.

While San Leandro has changed greatly since then, and we are now one of the most diverse cities in California, too many of the long-term residents who remain have kept their racist and xenophobic attitudes which they express unchallenged. It was thus not in the least surprising to hear that Laython “Judge” Landis, a former San Leandro City Council and current director of the Oro Loma Sanitary District Board, made an outright racist remark during a board meeting (which he later repeated thrice during a TV interview). What was surprising is that someone actually called him on it and tried to hold him accountable for it.

Lands is well known in town for his racist and sexist commentaries; he once described President Obama as “just a monkey with ears” and has made indecent propositions to local female politicians. But he has been an elected official for over four decades, his name carries weight with the older and white San Leandro population and he can be generous with his financial contributions. This means that politicos keep inviting him to their events, using their names and taking his checks.

In the last election alone, Landis gave a $1,000 contribution to now Mayor Pauline Cutter and a $2,000 contribution to now Councilmember Deborah Cox. On his radio show and on Facebook, Brian Copeland called on Cutter and Cox to return such contributions. Cutter committed to doing so and has already taken Laython Landis off the list of the endorsers for her Mayoral run. Deborah Cox has not personally addressed Copeland’s request, but the response of Angela Ramirez-Holmes‘s, Cox’ campaign manager, response is telling: “I have no idea why giving him the money back is helpful. I don’t understand this call to action.”

San Leandro deserves better.

Pleasanton: Morrison for Mayor, Sanwong for Council, Miller for School Board

Pleasanton: Morrison for Mayor, Sanwong for Council, Miller for School Board Politics No Responses »

Nov 012014

Matt Morrison

This is a quick write-up of my recommendations for Pleasanton offices. The are based on my knowledge of the candidates

Matt Morrison is a Democrat. He is an environmentalist. He stands against development in the Pleasanton area. Developers don’t like him. Developers, including James Tong and the Lim family, have an undue level of influence in the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (ACDCC) , mostly through campaign manager and Executive Committee member Angela Ramirez-Holmes. So, in one of those ironies of politics, Matt Morrison was unable to get the Democratic endorsement because he is too environmentally conscious, too anti-development, too anti-making a few people rich.

Those are exactly the reasons why I support him. He is fighting the good fight against very wealthy, very powerful interests who are willing to sell out the people of Pleasanton for money. He has no money, he is unlikely to win the race, but I can only hope that the citizens of Pleasanton, of all political inclinations, will vote for him.

Olivia Sanwong

Olivia Sanwong serves with me in the ACDCC. She had no problems getting the Democratic endorsement, and she does deserve it. She is intelligent, well educated, committed to Pleasanton, and will bring to the City the perspective of a young professional.

I’ve spoken with Olivia about civil liberties issues, and she is concerned about the overreached of surveillance technologies used against private citizens. As this becomes a larger issue, I think her perspective will be useful in the Council.

Mark Miller

The Pleasanton School Board is in disarray. Parents are not being heard, at least once, not even allowed to speak. Changes are made without adequate consultation with the community. District staff has been leaving in droves. Parents are not happy. A change is needed.

Mark Miller is a dad. Two of his kids have graduated from Pleasanton schools. One is still in middle school. He is a smart guy, an IT professional, with an extensive history of being involved with youth. The Pleasanton School Board needs change, Miller has stepped up to the plate and has my endorsement.

I pull, I nominate

I pull, I nominate ACDCC No Responses »

Sep 092014

List of Candidates I’ve Pulled and Nominated for the Alameda Democratic party endorsement

(Updated with Results)

As a member of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee, I have the privilege of voting for the party’s endorsement in local, non-partisan races. All registered Democrats running for office in Alameda county are eligible for the party endorsement. Those who apply are interviewed by the Executive Committee, which can put candidates in the consent calendar. Two members acting together can pull a candidate from the consent calendar and/or nominate a candidate for the endorsement. All candidates nominated and pulled are then interviewed by the whole Committee (or whichever members show up to the endorsement meeting). All members then vote on which candidate they want to get the endorsement. The endorsement meeting for 2014 will be on Saturday, Sept. 13th.

The Committee has 49 members who are eligible to vote, including 16 ex-officio members. These are Democrats who either represent a part of Alameda county in Congress or the Legislature, owho hold statewide office and live in Alameda county, or who serve as regional directors for the party and represent parts of Alameda county.

To get the endorsement a candidate needs to get 60% of the cast votes. Not all members vote, and most members don’t vote in most races. So while my single vote may seem paltry, in some races it can really make a difference.

I take the whole nominating and voting process very seriously. I was elected to the ACDCC by the people, and I feel I’m accountable to them. Moreover, I believe that every right, and in particular those rights that are not universal, carries with it the responsibility of exercising it conscientiously.

For this reason, I make a solid effort to learn about all the Democratic candidates for office in Alameda county and nominate those whom I think hold the liberal principles I want the Democratic party to stand for. As nominating a candidate often necessitates pulling others, I also pull perfectly acceptable candidates.

Now, this screening of candidates should be the job of the Executive Committee. Unfortunately, the decisions of the Executive Committee are not always based on who is the best candidate. Politics, petty rivalries and even profit (some members of the Executive Committee are paid campaign consultants/treasurers for candidates up for the endorsement) come into play. So I feel it’s my responsibility to look at all candidates independently.

To judge which candidates I want to nominate and/or pull, I look at candidates’ websites, search for news about them and, in the case of Mayor/Council and School Board candidates, I send them a questionnaire. I meet and speak on the phone with any candidate that is interested in doing so. I won’t necessarily vote for the candidates that I nominate, in some cases where all candidates are equally good or bad I may vote “no endorsement”, but in all cases I think they are good Democrats that deserve to appear before the whole Committee. That said, there are many Committee members who would be happier if they had to listen to fewer candidates, either because they trust the Executive Committee, they don’t believe they should vote in races outside their district, or vote for a candidate for reasons other than merit.

For this election, I pulled 9 candidates in 5 races, nominated 10 and would have pulled/nominated a number of others if I could have found someone to seconded me.

Candidates that I pulled and nominated

Berkeley City Council District 1: Pulled Linda Maio, nominated Alejandro Soto-Vigil

Reason: Alejandro’s political views and social justice values are very aligned with mine. He is smart, committed and I think he has the passion to become a progressive leader at a time when we are in desperate need of them. I had a great conversation with him. I was unable to find a non-city address for incumbent Linda Maio. Result: Linda Maio got the endorsement. She won re-election

Berkeley City Council District 8: Pulled Lori Droste, nominated Jacquelyn McCormick and George Beier

Reason: I met with Lori and was extremely impressed with her. I pulled her, however, because Angela Ramirez-Holmes is her campaign manager. That made me doubt the integrity of Lori’s placement in the consent calendar. Lori had been unaware of Angela’s influence in the Committee and had the integrity to agree to being pulled. I nominated Jacquelyn and George because both of them responded to the questionnaire I sent and their political views also seem to reflect mine. Result: Lori Droste got the endorsement. She won the election.

Berkeley School Board: Pulled Joshua Daniels, Karen Hemphill and Julie Sinai and nominated Ty Alper.

Reason: A father of kids who attend BUSD, Alper has an impressive resume as a social justice lawyer and now director of the death penalty clinic at Boalt. He has been endorsed by liberal hero Robert Reich. I think that he deserves a chance to make his case. To nominate him I had to pull at least one person from consent, and it seemed most fair to pull them all. Result: the incumbents got the endorsement. Ty Alper was elected to the School Board, along with incumbents Daniels and Hemphill.

Oakland City Council District 6: nominated Desley Brooks

Reason: There were no candidates on consent for this race. Brooks was the main voice at the Oakland City Council advocating that the Domain Awareness Center – a facility that would integrate mass surveillance throughout Oakland – be restricted to operating in the Port of Oakland. She took the comments from the ACLU seriously. Without her incisive questioning of staff, I think the vote would have been different and the DAC would include all of Oakland. Result: no endorsement was made on this race. Brooks won re-election.

Oakland School Board District 2: nominated Aimee Eng

Reason: Neither candidate had been nominated for the endorsement. Eng responded to me when I reached out to her with my questionnaire, while her opponent didn’t. I’d like to hear her make a case for the endorsement. Result: Eng got the endorsement and won the election.

Oakland School Board District 4: nominated Karl Debro

Reason: Debro was a teacher at San Leandro High and co-founded a gay-straight alliance on campus. When a lesbian student couple was harassed, Debro and other teachers spoke about it to their classes. While the white teachers weren’t disciplined for this, Debro, an African American, was. He sued the district, settled for $1M, and as a result of his suit the district implemented a pretty successful pro-diversity/anti-bullying curriculum. I respect his experience and his stands. Result: Debro got the endorsement. Debro lost the election.

Pleasanton Mayor: nominated Matt Morrison

Reason: I was impressed with Matt Morrison when we interviewed him last June, and I was also impressed by his answers to my questionnaire. He is the only Democrat running in that race against a Republican incumbent. Result: no endorsement was made on this race. Morrison lost the election.

Pleasanton School Board: pulled Jeff Bowser and Joan Laursen, nominated Mark Miller

Reason: Miller reached out to me. I was impressed by his qualifications, platform and commitment to transparency. This contrasts with Jeff Bowser whom, as Board president, prevented parents to speak at a School Board meeting, in violation of the Brown act. I don’t know Laursen well, but it seemed fair to pull both of them. Result: the incumbents got the endorsement. Miller won the election along with Laursen.

San Leandro City Council District 1: pulled Deborah Cox

Reason: Deborah Cox, who is running against my husband Mike Katz-Lacabe, does not hold the progressive values that the Democratic party should spouse (e.g. she is a vocal opponent of marijuana dispensaries). Cox is represented by Ramirez-Holmes and her candidacy has been pushed forward by ACDCC chair Robin Torello Result: no endorsement was made on this race. Cox won the election.

San Lorenzo School Board: nominated Steve Kirk

Reason: This district includes part of San Leandro. There are two spots on this race and only one candidate, Janet Zamudio, was put on consent. Kirk and Zamudio are running together. They have both received the endorsement of the teacher’s union. The current incumbents have been there for many years and do not reflect the diversity of the district. If elected, Kirk will be the first openly LGBT official in San Leandro. Result: Kirk got the endorsement. Kirk lost the election.

Peralta CCD Trustee District 5: pulled William Riley, nominated David Ralston

Reason: I looked at this race after a colleague suggested it. The Democratic party has a tendency to endorse incumbents automatically which concerns me. Ralston has been in office for 16 years now and I think it’s important for him to explain what he has to give the district that he hasn’t already given, and for the challenger to make a case as to what he wants to do differently. That said, this is the only race for which I didn’t actually reach out to the candidates. Result: Riley got the endorsement and was re-elected.

Wanted to pull / nominate but couldn’t find a second

Alameda City Council: pull Stewart Chen.

Reason: Chen has shown a great insensitivity towards victims of human rights violations in China and Tibet by advocating the flying of the flag of the People’s Republic of Chinaat City Hall. In addition, Chen’s unwillingness to own up to the insurance fraud charges to which he plead guilty years ago and his advocating in favor of California Waste Solutions in front of the Alameda City Council call into question his integrity. He also didn’t respond to my questionnaire. Stewart lost re-election.

Albany School Board: nominate Charles Blanchard

Blanchard responded to my questionnaire and I very much liked his answers. I also researched him and he seems to have been very much liked when he was in the School Board before. He had not been previously interviewed by the screening committee, as he had not seen the invitation to apply for the nomination. No other candidate has been nominated in this race. Blanchard was elected.

Castro Valley School Board: pull Janice Friesen and/or Gary Howard, nominate Dorothy Theodore

Reason: I spoke at length with Theodore and she impressed me. She has young children in the district and thus has an inside view to what is working and what is not. The Castro Valley School Board messed up big time last year when they tried to move a preschool into the grounds of an existing school, eliminating needed open space. They did this without appropriate communication and buy-in from parents. Theodore was recruited from the group of parents who organized to oppose it. In our conversation, Theodore showed herself to be intelligent, concerned about issues of social inclusion and diversity, and aware of how the schools are working. In order to nominate her, however, I would have to pull at least one incumbent. I was able to get a second to nominate Theodore but not to pull the incumbents. Dorothy Theodore was elected.

San Leandro School Board Area 4: nominate Latrina Dumas

Reason: This race is for the School Board seat my husband will be vacating. I would have let this race go, but someone else nominated Latrina’s opponent, Leo Sheridan. Sheridan doesn’t have a platform to speak of, doesn’t understand how the district works, did not reach out to Mike – the current officeholder – and would not meet with me to speak about his candidacy. I was predisposed to dislike Latrina because she ran against Mike in 2010 and because during the period where the School Board was considering firing Chris Lim, Latrina spoke out often and in very harsh terms to School Board members. However, I met with her and found her to be intelligent, very committed to education, a fighter, and someone who respects and cherishes each child for what they have to offer. All in all she is a very positive person, but also one that spouses very progressive values. I think she’d be a good addition to the School Board. Dumas ended up not campaigning and Sheridan won the election.

Would have pulled / nominated if someone else asked me to:

Alameda Mayor pull Marie Gilmore to nominate Trish Spencer.

Reason: My main issue with Gilmore is that she has not shown much interest in curtailing the militarization of police in Alameda (e.g. she voted in favor of having the police department acquire an armored vehicle). I spoke at length with Spencer when she was up for the Democratic endorsement in her race for School Board and again now, and her commitment to both social justice and civil liberties matches mine. Spencer was elected Mayor.

Oakland School Board Dist. 4: nominate Nina Senn

Reason: This was a race in which no candidate had been nominated. Senn reached out to me after I contacted her, and I would have seconded her nomination if another member who knew her well had asked me to. However, she is running against Karl Debro, so I won’t be voting for her. Senn won the election.

Candidates on Consent

These are the candidates who remained in the consent calendar and who will automatically receive the Democratic endorsement on Saturday:

Karen Monroe, Alameda County Superintendent (won)
Mary Gilmore, Alameda Mayor (lost)
Jim Oddie and Stewart Chen, Alameda City Council (won)
Jesse Arreguin, Berkeley City Council Dist 4* (won)
Ann-Marie Hoggan, Berkeley Auditor* (won)
James Chang and Paola Laverde-Levand, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board* (both won)
Kasie Hidenbrand, Dublin Mayor* (lost)
Don Biddle, Abe Gupta, Dublin City Council* (both won)
Scott Donahue, Diane Martinez, Emeryville City Council (both won)
Raj Salwan, Fremont City Council (lost)
John Marchand, Livermore Mayor* (won)
Alan Nagy, Newark Mayor (won)
Mike Bucci and Francisco Preciado, Newark City Council (won and lost)
Olivia Sanwong, Pleasanton City Council* (lost)
Victor Aguilar, San Leandro City Council District 3 (lost)
Corina Lopez, San Leandro City Council District 5 (won)
Emily Duncan, Pat Gacoscos and Kashmir Singh Shahi, Union City City Council* (won, won and lost)
Isabel Dvorsky, Chabot/Las Positas Community College District* (won)
Vivien Larsen, Ohlone CCD Area 1 (not on ballot)
Janet Giovannini-Hill, Ohlone CCD Area 2
Ishan Shah, Ohlone CCD Area 2 short term, *(not on ballot)
Linda Handy, Peralta CCD Dist. 3* (not on ballot)
Solana Henneberry, Alameda School Board (lost)
Janice Friesen and Gary Howard, Castro Valley School Board (lost and won)
John Affeldt, Miguel Dwin and Christian Patz, Emeryville School Board (won, lost and won)
Moina Shaq and Dax Choqsi, Fremont School Board (both lost)
Lisa Brunner, Hayward School Board (won)
Sarabjit Kaur Cheema and Lance Nishihira, New Haven School Board (won and lost)
Nancy Thomas and Christopher Wecks, Newark School Board (won and lost)
Shanthi Gonzales, Oakland School Board Dist 6 (won)
Lance James, San Leandro School Board Area 2 * (not on ballot)
Evelyn Gonzales, San Leandro School Board At-large (won)
Janet Zamudio, San Lorenzo School Board (won)
Elsa Ortiz, ACT Ward 3 * (not on ballot)
Mark Williams, ACT Ward 4* (won)
Kewal Singh, ACT Ward 5* (lost)
Paul Sethy, Alameda County Water District* (won)
Lena Tam, BART Dist 4 (lost)
John Maher, Castro Valley Sanitary District (lost)
Tracy Jensen and Jim Meyers, Alameda Healthcare District* (won and lost)
Andy Katz, EBMUD Dist 4* (not on ballot)
Ayn Wieskamp, EBRP dist 5* (won)
Paul Hodges, Hayward Parks (not on ballot)
Shelia Young, Oro Loma Sanitary district* (won)

Alameda County Democratic Central Committee to Vote to Censure Me

Alameda County Democratic Central Committee to Vote to Censure Me ACDCC 6 Responses »

Aug 122014

I May Be Responsible for the FPPC Investigating the Committee

Update (January, 2017): A Democratic Party organ laundered $60K in contributions for the Fremont Mayor race. Read more about it.

The leadership of the Committee has been working to expel me, though perhaps they were thwarted on that idea by the fact that they don’t have any legal grounds to do so.

Update (October, 2016): They ACDCC never censured me. Instead, they recruited a candidate to run for City Council against my husband in Nov. 2014. Then in 2016, the incumbents in my district ran for re-election on a slate that excluded me. I won re-election anyway.

Update (Aug 12, 2014)

The FPPC has cleared the ACDCC of wrongdoing, saying they have found “insufficient evidence” that the Committee is involved in an “earmarking scheme”. I’m not particularly surprised given that when an FPPC investigator contacted me about this matter, she stated that earmarking was very difficult to prove. For that reason, I had been surprised when I later learned the FPPC was still pursuing the investigation.

What I think the FPPC’s investigation does make clear is that earmarking is not only wrong, but illegal. I can only hope that, armed with this knowledge, the Committee will cease the practice and use funds received for member-to-member communications to promote all endorsed candidates in a given ballot, rather than those whose supporters ponied up the money for the mailer. Alternatively, I hope the Committee will disclose in the mailers themselves who has given the Committee the funds to send a mailer in support of a given candidate.

Original Post (Marh 21, 2014):

I recognize that writing this article has the potential of hurting me – and even my husband – politically. However, I believe that I have a responsibility to keep my constituents informed about what’s going on in the ACDCC, even when the subject is discomfiting to myself.

At the last Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (ACDCC) meeting earlier this month, Robin Torello, the Committee’s Chair, announced that the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was investigating the Committee for campaign finance law violations. The ACDCC’s Executive Committee had hired lawyers, but needed a vote of the whole Committee to authorize payment for their services. At $300 an hour, the legal bill was likely to be hefty. FPPC fines, someone chimed in, might be assessed against the Chair or even the Members.

According to Torello, the investigation had come about because “a member of the Committee” had repeatedly called the FPPC and had written “a blog” that had drawn the FPPC’s interest. When another member asked who that member was, I spoke out.

I hadn’t, actually, called the FPPC, but last December, I was contacted by an FPPC investigator. She wanted me to expand on a comment I had written on a story about how Democratic Senators were seeking to strengthen campaign finance laws:

The Democratic Party needs to start by cleaning up our own house. It’s disingenuous for anyone in this party to talk about disclosure of financial contributors, while the party itself takes advantage of any loopholes in the disclosure laws.

I’m a member of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (ACDCC) and I was appalled to find out that current policy and practice is for the ACDCC to take financial contributions from PACs and others earmarked to help a specific candidate that has been endorsed by the ACDCC. The party uses that money to send out a mailer on behalf of the candidate in question. The mailer will say “paid for the ACDCC”, and there will be no mention of who is actually funding it.

The point, of course, is for a person or PAC to be able to support a candidate without having to be seen as doing so. Let’s say you are the PAC of a union representing City Hall employees. Your union is in the middle of contract negotiations with the City. Mayor John Smith is running for re-election. You want to give him a big, big check to make him look kindly at you – but if you do that, or if you send out a mailer on his behalf, his opponents will pounce at him with allegations of bribery. What do you do? Well, you give the money to the ACDCC. Mayor Smith will find out where the money came from, of course, but it can’t be traced back to you, at least quickly enough for anyone to use it.

I find this extremely unethical, but I brought this up at our last Committee meeting and apparently I’m alone on having those feelings. :-(“

(Note: comments on the Political Blotter that were left before the blog started using the Disqus commenting service are no longer visible in a browser, but they can be seen by viewing the page source).

The members of the Committee had heard my complaints about the unethical nature of these practices before. I had first found out about then during the 2012 general election, when I received a mailer ostensibly paid by the Alameda County Democratic party asking me to vote for Jim Prola for San Leandro City Council. Prola was the Party’s endorsed candidate, but he was the popular incumbent in an easy race running against a candidate that had very little money. His re-election was pretty much assured, and I questioned why we would spend scant party resources on him, rather than on endorsed candidates that were in much more tenuous positions.

The explanation I got was that candidates or their supporters raise the money for the Party to send a mailer on their behalf. The Party does it and takes a cut. When I raised concerns about how this practice deceived voters by not letting them know who was actually behind the mailers, I was summarily banned by the Chair from posting on the Committee’s mailing list. I also brought up the ethical issues surrounding this practice at the Committee meeting following the 2012 general election, but nobody echoed my concerns.

I didn’t contact the FPPC about these issues, however. Partly, this was because I saw it an an ethical rather than a legal issue – even in my comment, I spoke about “loopholes” in the law. A larger part, however, is that going to the “cops” is just not my style. The way I saw it, the problem with this practice is that voters are misled as to who is really paying for a particular mailer. The solution is to inform voters and the press that whenever they see the “paid by the Democratic Party” phrase, they need to dig deeper as to the real financial source behind the publication.

I made the decision, however, to not write about this practice during the 2012 campaign season. Honestly, I was concerned that anything I wrote that painted the Democratic party in a negative light could be use by Republicans against Obama and other Democratic candidates. Perhaps the risk of Fox News noticing and running amok with the story was low, but I wasn’t willing to take it. I still don’t know if it was the right answer ethically. After the campaign, I made that comment in the Political Blotter blog and hoped to revisit the issue closer to next election.

***

After the Committee members voted to approve hiring lawyers, a member of the ACDCC’s Executive Committee, Angela Ramirez Holmes, moved to have me censured. While Torello had accused me of calling the FPPC repeatedly, she couldn’t actually back up the accusation so Ramirez Holmes’ used the comment I copied above as the rationale for the censure. She said that I should have used internal mechanisms to air my complaint and spoke about an alleged subcommittee on member-to-member communications. I had never heard of such subcommittee before and neither had many of my colleagues.

Ramirez Holmes also complained about my other writings. While she did not specify what writings she was referring to, I have a fairly good idea about one particular piece that she is unlikely to have taken kindly. Last year, after I started my second term in the Committee, I wrote a blog posting about my decision to vote against Royce Kelley for Committee Vice-Chair. At the time, Kelley was still listed as Ramirez Holmes partner in Alliance Campaign Strategies, a campaign management company. The company represents candidates for local office, including those seeking the Democratic endorsement, and also handled the member-to-member communications for the ACDCC. Both Ramirez Holmes and Kelley served on the Executive Committee, which proposes which candidates should receive the Democratic endorsement. I had heard from multiple former clients of theirs, as well as other people involved in the local political scene, that candidates felt they had to hire Alliance Campaign Strategies if they wanted to receive the Democratic endorsement, or at least block it from going to their opponent. While I took pains to point out in my article that I was not accusing them of wrongdoing, the mere perception that a candidate got an unfair advantage by hiring the firm is harmful to the democratic process and the Democratic party. While Royce Kelley is no longer associated with the firm, Ramirez Holmes is still in business and apparently representing candidates seeking the party’s endorsement for the June 2014 election.

While Ramirez Holmes wants me censured, she requested that the Committee not vote on it until the FPPC investigation is over – which the Chair assured the Committee would not take long. This reinforces the notion that the original rationale for the censure was the investigation, rather than my writings. While I didn’t call the FPPC myself, I don’t believe there is anything ethically wrong for a member of a Central Committee who has doubts about the legality of what its leadership is doing, to voice those concerns to the agency charged with overseeing campaign finance law. It worries me greatly that the censure is meant to discourage members of other County Central Committees from whistle blowing. Those are exactly the type of undemocratic practices that I feel compelled to challenge.

I will admit that I don’t particularly enjoy the idea of being censured by colleagues. However, I cannot attach credibility to a censure unless it’s based on an ethical lapse on my part or on my failure to keep the commitments I made to voters when I ran for ACDCC. For instance, if the consensus among Democrats was that I should not have put the Party above the voters and I that should have exposed the unethical member-to-member communication program back in October 2012, I would take that rebuke to heart. But a censure that is based on bringing light to a problematic practice by the Party, only brings shame to the Party. It is time the Democratic Party start living by the principles it espouses, not just expect others to do so. We must fight Citizens United and other decisions that equate money with speech, but we must not enter into the temptation of playing similar games. We need public funding for elections, but until we get that, at the very least voters deserve to know who is spending money to get a candidate elected. The Democratic Party should not be helping to hide it.

Note: When I ran for re-election to the ACDCC in 2012, I joined a slate of incumbent candidates. The slate put out a mailer which was produced by Alliance Campaign Strategies.

Marga Lacabe is an elected member of the ACDCC representing AD 18. These articles are meant to update her constituents on what’s going on at the party.

Older Entries