A supporter of the snap election gets me in touch with Norberg, who provides this guest column on what’s afoot and why her contingent (I’m pretty sure her “we” is not editorial) wants to replace current SDDP chair Ann Tornberg:
Rachelle Norberg
Thanks to the Dakota Free Press for hosting our editorial input here! We really appreciate the opportunity to explain and expand a bit on the proposed amendments to the SD Democratic Party’s Constitution.
The amendments as proposed make a number of grammatical changes, and clean up a few areas, but the heart of the proposed amendment would change the term and election date of the State Party Chair. Currently that election is held in the same year as a Gubernatorial election, a point, which we feel, does not serve the interest of having a strong Chairperson in place to layout a plan and lead us through an election. Moving the election prior to May 1 of each odd numbered year allows the chair to be elected at the same time as other party leaders across the state. And, more importantly, gives the incoming chair time to take the reins and build momentum through the next election cycle.
Secondly, we believe that the move to a four-year term for Chairperson has not served the party well and we should return to a 2-year term. Any person who finds success in the office would be able to run for unlimited terms of re-election but it would give us an opportunity to make changes in leadership when needed.
If these amendments pass, we intend to hold an immediate election.
According to the SDDP constitution, there is no requirement to give notice of an election, but in an attempt to be transparent and give adequate notice, we included a notice of this intended election in the cover letter that was submitted to all SDDP State Central Committee members more than 10 days ahead of the coming meeting as required by the Constitution. Anyone interested in running for the Chair or other position has had time to make that intention known and to work for or against the proposed changes. We encourage anyone interested in seeking these offices to make their intentions known.
As for the optics and the “politics” of it, we know this isn’t pleasant and it’s not fun. But, can we really be worried that the SDDP is going to get worse press than this? Do we really think the status quo is worth protecting?
We don’t hold Ann Tornberg responsible for all that ails the SDDP. She has tried her best, and for that we thank her. What we do hold her responsible for is a severe lack of management ability that has led to low fundraising, dropping voter registration numbers, a nearly invisible message, and at the center, zero of anything resembling a strategic action plan for the State Party. The Executive Board has made numerous attempts to initiate strategic planning processes and set goals, which were either ignored, or misguided into “listening sessions” that fell on deaf ears. Many of your Democratic Party participating readers will likely share their own frustrations and experiences of Tornberg’s inability to lay out clear pathways to success despite her two years of trying.
So, without any attempt to conceal our intentions, we ask SDDP Central Committee members to stand with us for bold, decisive action that can unite our party behind new leadership.
Sincerely,
Rachelle Norberg
Vermillion, South Dakota [submitted to Dakota Free Press, 2017.04.24
I’ll second at least one of Norberg’s motions: Democrats, if you want to be chair, let Dakota Free Press know! Let’s discuss your qualifications here on the blog and, if the snap election takes place, get an idea of who’s best for the job!
*p.s.: Norberg sits on the SDDP Executive Board and Central Committee by dint of her presiding over the South Dakota Young Democrats; however, the proposed SDDP constitutional amendments are not sponsored by the Young Dems, and Norberg is promoting these amendments and the snap election as an individual activist, not in her leadership role.
When you stage a coup, you better succeed. If this young woman doesn’t, she can kiss goodbye any chance she has in the state party. I like her approach of just ripping the bandaid off and suffering some pain now rather than the low level but ever worsening pain we’re going through now as SD Democrats.
Todd, isn’t another rule of staging a coup that you don’t signal that you’re about to stage a coup? Either this isn’t a coup, or the coupsters are so sure they’re going to win that they figure they lose no necessary advantage by signaling their approach.
Or, phrased differently, either the sitting chair has indicated she will not resist the changes, or the coupsters have counted heads and know that the sitting chair cannot rally enough defenders to prevail in the coming votes.
jerry
I like the new way of thinking. A two year term means that you are constantly working to achieve results. Makes sense also to have the election to an odd numbered year also gives the chair or the new chair time to get a sense of direction. These young folks make a lot of sense, there is no coup, there is only business.
Porter Lansing
Good one, Jerry. From what I’ve seen of the young Republicans our team is profoundly superior.
The first time in decades there might be hope for the party. The ground game must be built and who better to do it than people with energy to it. The last time the party had any real influence was the 1970 election. It was an election driven by the young. Most of the leaders and faithful were 40 years old or less who were driven to make a difference.
The “listening” meetings were excuse sessions. Tornberg and party employees tried to use the sessions as excuse and justify meetings. Watch my videos posted and see if the body language of the officials spoke acceptance of the audience comments.
I went to a recent Minnehaha County Democratic Party meeting to observe. As an activist it was disgusting. To waste time hearing about picket signs and other pathetic nonsense when most people were there to learn how win elections. The party is wasting the energy of volunteers who want to win. This is a reason many of us have moved on from party games, we won’t live long enough to see a winning party with Robert’s Rules fights.
Our current leaderless ship has never won an election, been part of a winning team or seem to have the drive to win an election. How is this a winning solution?
jerry
Robert’s Rules fight, in a political battle is exactly what we have been seeing. Thanks man. Politics is a contact game, either get in all the way or get the hell out of the way.
Sheldon Osborn
Cory
I think Article I, Section 5 of the SDDP Constiution requires notice of officer elections beyond the provisional notice Ms. Norberg provided in her letter summarizing her suggested changes to the SDDP constitution.
ARTICLE I, Section 5: The party shall publicize fully, and in such manner as to assure notice to all nterested parties, a complete description of the legal and practical qualifications and duties for all officers and representatives of the party. Such publication shall be done in a timely manner so that all prospective candidates for elected or appointed positions within the party will have full and adequate opportunity to compete for office.
I don”t see how you can give full and timely notice of an event that is only a possibility. One could argue otherwise I suppose but, if an officer election proceeds under the current providional notice, any new officers would operate under a cloud of illegitimacy at best, not to mention the actual resentment some would feel.
I am not a fan of Ann Tornberg and the Constitution does need omprovement but, if things are as bad as Ms. Norberg says and if the E-board feels a change in leadership is needed, I am sure more diplomatic ways to proceed exist without this very public blood-letting.
Sheldon, does the party constitution elsewhere define “publicize”, “fully”, and “timely”?
The article you cite appears to require describing the quals and duties of party officers. Is that requirement satisfied by the publication of the party constitution online?
The article you cite does not appear to require public notice of a possible election. Does some other provision of the party constitution require public notice of election of state executive board members?
And Sheldon, I find it interesting that, after your DWC-worthy blog posts, you are complaining about undiplomatic public bloodletting. Would you care to distinguish your very public calls for Tornberg’s ouster from Norberg’s plan of action for realizing that ouster?
You received your letter from Norberg last week. The general public received this notice of a possible election on Monday. Most of the parties keenly interested in this possible election (and let’s be honest, how many dozen such interested parties are there, really?) were probably already planning to be in Sioux Falls for McGovern Day for this vote. There is now far more attention on this constitutional vote than there has been for past party constitutional amendments. Is there really any ground for claims of illegitimacy?
Whatever happens, whichever side prevails in whatever votes happen this weekend, all parties had better get their resentment out of their system and agree to work together to win in 2018. Nursing our petty resentments on inflated claims of illegitimacy will not move us closer to reclaiming the Governor’s chair, our seat in the U.S. House, or the White House.
Porter Lansing
blah blah blah, Osborn. Get out of the way. Ms. Norberg is a born leader. I can see it in her eyes.
– Hear, hear Mr. Bruce. I was in that movement of 1970. Vermillion was intense with activism and political participation and now could certainly be a redux. The winning solution is to rebuild the party and rebuild the voter registration participation among the millennials (under 35’s).
Charlene Lund
A sudden act to depose Ann will create instant new interest and support for the State Party. I applaud this move and feel strongly the Ann needs to be replaced. In order for this to succeed, there needs to be a replacement candidate that is well known, well loved and has exceptional skills at organizing and fundraising. I know those people are out there.
Or Cory, this could be another stupid, pointless act on someone’s part that we’ve seen far too often. Let’s hope the Night of Long Knives works.
Roger Elgersma
I think Ann is a very hard worker for the party. I think the constitution revision was done so secretly that we did not know what the issues were because the meetings were set up so there would be no discussion of the issues and just a few at the top even knew what problems were brought up. We were told to just email in our complaints rather than discuss them. That takes all the zeal out of the outcome. This is all so secret that I do not even know what the problems are that are being brought up. That is a problem, because Democrats win when there is a problem to be solved. Republicans win when status quo looks good. That is why the governor and Senate leader were so outraged when the people wanted an ethics commission. They were outraged that the people even would think there might be a problem. Making the status quo look totally acceptable is a Republican win. So why are you afraid of a blood letting. It will be perfect experience to qualify people to do the blood letting that is necessary to win in November. Without some blood letting we will never prove to the electorate that there is a problem big enough to elect a Democrat. Sure I do not want the party to get split up, but when coverups is the main problem in Pierre, we need to prove we are not into coverups to be credible to change the corrupt system. Sheldon was right when he was disgusted with the coverup in the Constitution changes so he probably is right now as well. He was previously a real nice guy that would seldom complain. When that type complains, you just know there is a problem. So if you want unity, it better be to unify to be activists that will actually be honest enough to point out the problems in government. Being nice and positive sounds good, but it does not get the infection lanced to start the healing of our corrupt government. We need people honest enough to point out just how bad the problems are, or we will politely lose again. Dare to risk a little blood letting, because experience is what we need in a new leader. True, we do not need a bully like Janklow or Trump, but enough of an honest person to face the problems squarely enough to make the public open their eyes and face the problems enough to vote in those who will face the reality of the problems. Some who will make TV adds showing the corruption and the governor and senate leader fuming that there are those who actually want to fix the problems with an ethics commission. All this nice name recognition tactics do not win for us. With as much dishonesty as there is in the coverups, we need blatantly honest candidates all the way up and down the ballot.
John Kennedy Claussen, Sr.
For years, we as Democrats in South Dakota had a dual track form of leadership from our party leaders. This dual track consisted of a congressional party and a state party, but the state party, with all due respect, has not been relevant or effective for years, however. The congressional party existed until January of 2015.
In the absence of a congressional party, the state party has become exposed. The state party has really not been successful to any degree since the early 1990s, when under the leadership of the co-Executive Directors of Steve Hildebrand and Steve Erpenbach the Democrats in this state took control of the State Senate in 1992, while the Republicans still controlled the governorship; and that was the first and only time a minority party has ever taken control of a legislative body in this state, while the majority party still controlled the governor’s office.
Since 1992, the illusion of an effective state party apparatus has been promoted through the political successes of our once established congressional candidates and their past incumbencies. But this illusion gave the impression to the average South Dakota Democratic voter or concerned Democrat, that the dual parties were equal or even one. But now we know that not to be true.
Whether you support the current coup of the state party, and it is a coup, but in slow motion I might add, or not, the question must be asked as to what side has more to offer in understanding and knowing how to institute an effective GOTV in 2018 for Democrats in this state and a targeted voter registration drive as well. So I guess, it is fair to stay that Cory’s initial call for the two plans from the two sides is definitely warranted, but I question if either side has the capability or understanding to truly implement on their own or through their leadership an effective GOTV plan and targeted voter registration drives. And that is because, in my opinion, there has a brain drain in South Dakota Democratic politics, that has unfolded ever since the collapse of the congressional party within the greater South Dakota Democratic universe.
Now, I am not suggesting that those who left and now running or trying to run the state party are stupid, rather I think there has been a break in the continuum of knowledge in how to win elections instead – a knowledge which is understood by those who were once involved in the congressional wing of our party, but are now for many different reasons sitting on the sidelines of current South Dakota Democratic politics; and if those self imposed “sideliners” are not willing or are not drafted back into the overall state party and its potential greater apparatus, then all of this debate about this coup, whether it is a coup, and who has the best plan is merely academic at best.
There are monks amongst us in this dark age of South Dakota Democratic politics, that have the knowledge of how to fight, be relevant, and win as Democrats in South Dakota, and they need to be giving of this knowledge and their leadership, in order for us to win again. And absent their involvement, “listening sessions” from one faction of the state party, or claims of laying out a “clear path” by the other faction are merely words with no track record to support them, while the past congressional party or wing of the state party apparatus with past victories in hand are the only answer, in my opinion, to this current party malaise….. And these congressional leaders know who they are and they must step forward and save the South Dakota Democratic Party…. Tom, Tim, Stephanie, Steve(s), Drey, and Pete, are you listening?
Thinking about JKC’s observation, if there is a new chair in waiting, and if the current chair is going to resist replacement, that aspiring chair should be sending out emails to every Central Committee member saying, “This is my plan. I can do it. If the current leadership is willing to do it, I will stand down and help. If the current leadership is not willing to do it, I will seek the chair and do it myself.”
Mary Perpich
Cory, I agree with you about any potential chair making her/himself known before the vote. We cannot and should not elect anyone unless we know their plan. And I believe that if we change the constitution at Saturday’s meeting, we should not rush to elect new officers at the same meeting, especially if we do not know in advance who is running for these offices.
OK, there’s the case for change. The alternative is to stay the course. Should make for an interesting weekend in Soo Foo.
When you stage a coup, you better succeed. If this young woman doesn’t, she can kiss goodbye any chance she has in the state party. I like her approach of just ripping the bandaid off and suffering some pain now rather than the low level but ever worsening pain we’re going through now as SD Democrats.
Todd, isn’t another rule of staging a coup that you don’t signal that you’re about to stage a coup? Either this isn’t a coup, or the coupsters are so sure they’re going to win that they figure they lose no necessary advantage by signaling their approach.
Or, phrased differently, either the sitting chair has indicated she will not resist the changes, or the coupsters have counted heads and know that the sitting chair cannot rally enough defenders to prevail in the coming votes.
I like the new way of thinking. A two year term means that you are constantly working to achieve results. Makes sense also to have the election to an odd numbered year also gives the chair or the new chair time to get a sense of direction. These young folks make a lot of sense, there is no coup, there is only business.
Good one, Jerry. From what I’ve seen of the young Republicans our team is profoundly superior.
The first time in decades there might be hope for the party. The ground game must be built and who better to do it than people with energy to it. The last time the party had any real influence was the 1970 election. It was an election driven by the young. Most of the leaders and faithful were 40 years old or less who were driven to make a difference.
The “listening” meetings were excuse sessions. Tornberg and party employees tried to use the sessions as excuse and justify meetings. Watch my videos posted and see if the body language of the officials spoke acceptance of the audience comments.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBkcje2tWnPW05AbnfKDEFD0iJhDRbffC
I went to a recent Minnehaha County Democratic Party meeting to observe. As an activist it was disgusting. To waste time hearing about picket signs and other pathetic nonsense when most people were there to learn how win elections. The party is wasting the energy of volunteers who want to win. This is a reason many of us have moved on from party games, we won’t live long enough to see a winning party with Robert’s Rules fights.
Our current leaderless ship has never won an election, been part of a winning team or seem to have the drive to win an election. How is this a winning solution?
Robert’s Rules fight, in a political battle is exactly what we have been seeing. Thanks man. Politics is a contact game, either get in all the way or get the hell out of the way.
Cory
I think Article I, Section 5 of the SDDP Constiution requires notice of officer elections beyond the provisional notice Ms. Norberg provided in her letter summarizing her suggested changes to the SDDP constitution.
ARTICLE I, Section 5: The party shall publicize fully, and in such manner as to assure notice to all nterested parties, a complete description of the legal and practical qualifications and duties for all officers and representatives of the party. Such publication shall be done in a timely manner so that all prospective candidates for elected or appointed positions within the party will have full and adequate opportunity to compete for office.
I don”t see how you can give full and timely notice of an event that is only a possibility. One could argue otherwise I suppose but, if an officer election proceeds under the current providional notice, any new officers would operate under a cloud of illegitimacy at best, not to mention the actual resentment some would feel.
I am not a fan of Ann Tornberg and the Constitution does need omprovement but, if things are as bad as Ms. Norberg says and if the E-board feels a change in leadership is needed, I am sure more diplomatic ways to proceed exist without this very public blood-letting.
Sheldon, does the party constitution elsewhere define “publicize”, “fully”, and “timely”?
The article you cite appears to require describing the quals and duties of party officers. Is that requirement satisfied by the publication of the party constitution online?
The article you cite does not appear to require public notice of a possible election. Does some other provision of the party constitution require public notice of election of state executive board members?
And Sheldon, I find it interesting that, after your DWC-worthy blog posts, you are complaining about undiplomatic public bloodletting. Would you care to distinguish your very public calls for Tornberg’s ouster from Norberg’s plan of action for realizing that ouster?
You received your letter from Norberg last week. The general public received this notice of a possible election on Monday. Most of the parties keenly interested in this possible election (and let’s be honest, how many dozen such interested parties are there, really?) were probably already planning to be in Sioux Falls for McGovern Day for this vote. There is now far more attention on this constitutional vote than there has been for past party constitutional amendments. Is there really any ground for claims of illegitimacy?
Whatever happens, whichever side prevails in whatever votes happen this weekend, all parties had better get their resentment out of their system and agree to work together to win in 2018. Nursing our petty resentments on inflated claims of illegitimacy will not move us closer to reclaiming the Governor’s chair, our seat in the U.S. House, or the White House.
blah blah blah, Osborn. Get out of the way. Ms. Norberg is a born leader. I can see it in her eyes.
– Hear, hear Mr. Bruce. I was in that movement of 1970. Vermillion was intense with activism and political participation and now could certainly be a redux. The winning solution is to rebuild the party and rebuild the voter registration participation among the millennials (under 35’s).
A sudden act to depose Ann will create instant new interest and support for the State Party. I applaud this move and feel strongly the Ann needs to be replaced. In order for this to succeed, there needs to be a replacement candidate that is well known, well loved and has exceptional skills at organizing and fundraising. I know those people are out there.
Or Cory, this could be another stupid, pointless act on someone’s part that we’ve seen far too often. Let’s hope the Night of Long Knives works.
I think Ann is a very hard worker for the party. I think the constitution revision was done so secretly that we did not know what the issues were because the meetings were set up so there would be no discussion of the issues and just a few at the top even knew what problems were brought up. We were told to just email in our complaints rather than discuss them. That takes all the zeal out of the outcome. This is all so secret that I do not even know what the problems are that are being brought up. That is a problem, because Democrats win when there is a problem to be solved. Republicans win when status quo looks good. That is why the governor and Senate leader were so outraged when the people wanted an ethics commission. They were outraged that the people even would think there might be a problem. Making the status quo look totally acceptable is a Republican win. So why are you afraid of a blood letting. It will be perfect experience to qualify people to do the blood letting that is necessary to win in November. Without some blood letting we will never prove to the electorate that there is a problem big enough to elect a Democrat. Sure I do not want the party to get split up, but when coverups is the main problem in Pierre, we need to prove we are not into coverups to be credible to change the corrupt system. Sheldon was right when he was disgusted with the coverup in the Constitution changes so he probably is right now as well. He was previously a real nice guy that would seldom complain. When that type complains, you just know there is a problem. So if you want unity, it better be to unify to be activists that will actually be honest enough to point out the problems in government. Being nice and positive sounds good, but it does not get the infection lanced to start the healing of our corrupt government. We need people honest enough to point out just how bad the problems are, or we will politely lose again. Dare to risk a little blood letting, because experience is what we need in a new leader. True, we do not need a bully like Janklow or Trump, but enough of an honest person to face the problems squarely enough to make the public open their eyes and face the problems enough to vote in those who will face the reality of the problems. Some who will make TV adds showing the corruption and the governor and senate leader fuming that there are those who actually want to fix the problems with an ethics commission. All this nice name recognition tactics do not win for us. With as much dishonesty as there is in the coverups, we need blatantly honest candidates all the way up and down the ballot.
For years, we as Democrats in South Dakota had a dual track form of leadership from our party leaders. This dual track consisted of a congressional party and a state party, but the state party, with all due respect, has not been relevant or effective for years, however. The congressional party existed until January of 2015.
In the absence of a congressional party, the state party has become exposed. The state party has really not been successful to any degree since the early 1990s, when under the leadership of the co-Executive Directors of Steve Hildebrand and Steve Erpenbach the Democrats in this state took control of the State Senate in 1992, while the Republicans still controlled the governorship; and that was the first and only time a minority party has ever taken control of a legislative body in this state, while the majority party still controlled the governor’s office.
Since 1992, the illusion of an effective state party apparatus has been promoted through the political successes of our once established congressional candidates and their past incumbencies. But this illusion gave the impression to the average South Dakota Democratic voter or concerned Democrat, that the dual parties were equal or even one. But now we know that not to be true.
Whether you support the current coup of the state party, and it is a coup, but in slow motion I might add, or not, the question must be asked as to what side has more to offer in understanding and knowing how to institute an effective GOTV in 2018 for Democrats in this state and a targeted voter registration drive as well. So I guess, it is fair to stay that Cory’s initial call for the two plans from the two sides is definitely warranted, but I question if either side has the capability or understanding to truly implement on their own or through their leadership an effective GOTV plan and targeted voter registration drives. And that is because, in my opinion, there has a brain drain in South Dakota Democratic politics, that has unfolded ever since the collapse of the congressional party within the greater South Dakota Democratic universe.
Now, I am not suggesting that those who left and now running or trying to run the state party are stupid, rather I think there has been a break in the continuum of knowledge in how to win elections instead – a knowledge which is understood by those who were once involved in the congressional wing of our party, but are now for many different reasons sitting on the sidelines of current South Dakota Democratic politics; and if those self imposed “sideliners” are not willing or are not drafted back into the overall state party and its potential greater apparatus, then all of this debate about this coup, whether it is a coup, and who has the best plan is merely academic at best.
There are monks amongst us in this dark age of South Dakota Democratic politics, that have the knowledge of how to fight, be relevant, and win as Democrats in South Dakota, and they need to be giving of this knowledge and their leadership, in order for us to win again. And absent their involvement, “listening sessions” from one faction of the state party, or claims of laying out a “clear path” by the other faction are merely words with no track record to support them, while the past congressional party or wing of the state party apparatus with past victories in hand are the only answer, in my opinion, to this current party malaise….. And these congressional leaders know who they are and they must step forward and save the South Dakota Democratic Party…. Tom, Tim, Stephanie, Steve(s), Drey, and Pete, are you listening?
Thinking about JKC’s observation, if there is a new chair in waiting, and if the current chair is going to resist replacement, that aspiring chair should be sending out emails to every Central Committee member saying, “This is my plan. I can do it. If the current leadership is willing to do it, I will stand down and help. If the current leadership is not willing to do it, I will seek the chair and do it myself.”
Cory, I agree with you about any potential chair making her/himself known before the vote. We cannot and should not elect anyone unless we know their plan. And I believe that if we change the constitution at Saturday’s meeting, we should not rush to elect new officers at the same meeting, especially if we do not know in advance who is running for these offices.
Mary, have you gotten any calls yet? Chair hopefuls, come out, come out, wherever you are!
Like we could do any worse?
Todd, I think you and I could do worse… but we’d do worse with style and brio!