In an email to the State Executive Council of the NCDP, Chairman Voller claims that the authors of a complaint to the Council of Review leaked their petition online:
"A member of this council and three members of the State Executive Committee (SEC) filed a complaint for the Council of Review and instead of allowing due process to operate they have posted it on BlueNC and leaked it to the media."
-from Voller email
This is absolutely untrue.
I was asked to be a signatory to this petition but declined since I am no longer a member of the SEC. However I did agree with the grounds of the complaint, which details an abuse of power in the attempt to circumvent review of grievances against the Chairman at a Council meeting on April 28th.
I kept my digital copy of the complaint and after it was filed, shared it with several people, including the administrator of BlueNC. I did so without the knowledge or permission of the authors of the petition. They are without fault in this matter. As this is a public document and will be heard in a public forum, so am I.
This case addresses an uncommon abuse of power by a Chairman with the capacity in his double role as Executive Director to exercise undue influence on the process. Therefore I believe that this complaint and its petitioners require the added protection that full transparency and public attention bring. Hopefully, more eyes on this matter will ensure that all dealings are above board, and that our party remains a model of free and open governance.
Frank Eaton
Comments
Well, at least I am somewhat
Well, at least I am somewhat happy to see that someone had the balls to at least say " Yeah, I fucked up for sure on this one"
I'm sorry...
Did that read like an apology? Allow me to clarify:
It wasn't.
Thanks for posting this, Frank
I appreciate you stepping up to clarify this.
No one should ever share public information with BlueNC if they don't want it published. I believe in transparency, and couldn't care less what Republicans think about what we're doing. This is our democracy, with all its bumps and warts.
If those originating the complaint didn't want the discussion to happen in the public sphere, they should have approached things differently. I am glad to see the grievance aired.
As I said on another thread, I tend to support Voller ... in part because of the rough edges and impatience he has shown. I believe he should have the opportunity to do his job without constant second-guessing. If he has overstepped the bounds of his role, he should fix things, apologize and move on. If it's more of a judgment call, I say give him the benefit of the doubt and support him all the way. If it turns out that he can't deliver the unity or impact we need, he should quit or be fired.
Does Frank want a seat at the adults table?
I appreciate his clarification. I have had to dig to find out about the arcane workings of the NCDP, since I am not an officer nor an SEC member or anything that highfalutin' or special. But I have been around the Movement with my family for over 40 years and I care about the people and the truth.
From what I have learned the main assertion by Mr. Eaton is wrong: Voller not only met with folks the day before the meeting, but the meeting on the 28th was recessed after many hours due to the poor behavior of some members and unwillingness to abide by democratic results. In addition, to what I now understand Voller already had an agenda that allowed for the airing of any "issues"--at the end of the meeting in "new business".
So are the children upset because they threw a tantrum and made the meeting so long and annoying that they failed to get past the treasurer's report? Who knows? But life should not reward those who manipulate the people with falsehoods and refuse to cooperate even as olive branches are offered---if the kids would act like adults then the people will see results. Unite an prosper. Divide and wither. Simple as that.
Well EJ! That sums it up in
Well EJ! That sums it up in a nutshell!
pitiful
Your comments, including your obvious disdain for young people, do Mr Voller no favors.
Clarification
Thank you E J Smith for your post which by the way is on point. I think before fingers are pointed, tantrums thrown, and accusations made - the ENTIRE truth needs to be known. I am unabashed Voller supporter. I have spoken with him, heard his side and also heard from other people. From all of this a picture emerges of a man who is trying very hard to get to the truth - the bottom of the nonsense but there are those who will not have any of this.
Look - let's face it. Our NCDP is broken. We can either continue with the madness of doing business as usual OR we can change it - dramatically. It needs this change.
Hey - Gene Messick writes in support of the old ways - that alone should give us ALL pause.
The Truth shall set us free.
Thank you, docgracie, I truly appreciate your sentiments, and agree with your conclusion.
The truth is buried beneath a whole lot of nonsense but the process is now underway. We shall soon see exactly what is hidden, and will now be revealed, as the nonsense is pulled aside and examined in the daylight as we search for the truth beneath it.
As for respecting young people, I most certainly do. My disdain is reserved for people of all ages who cannot accept the results of the democratic process, not once, but twice. Their candidate lost. It has happened to all of us, many times in life. This group of people is behaving in a manner that begs the question, is this response normal? Or does it reek of desperation that goes beyond the normal response to the setback of a democratic loss, which is to accept the process, and wage another campaign on another day?
These particular young people have refused to accept the election of Feb 2, and have resorted to an unceasing campaign of dirty tricks and personal attacks on Mayor Voller that begs the question, why?
"It needs this change"??
It needs *what* change?? The complaints aren't proposing changes!
They are alleging that what has happened is already wrong somehow,
is already violating the rules in the plan of organization, the rules defining
"business as usual"!
More to the point, change was *already* scheduled.
The *very* next meeting of the SEC was *already*
scheduled to be devoted to major amendments to the
plan of organization. So anyone saying that "it's broken
and drastic change is needed" is redundant and late --
the committee that is rewriting the plan of organization
was chartered all the way back in 2011! That major change
is not only needed, but *immediately* forthcoming,
is not and should not be *news*!!
Obviously one of the immediate changes is going to be an actual
number of sustaining fund co-chairs. But it should be equally obvious
that there was no stated number prior.