The Observation Deck

Reasonable people will argue as to whether Defendant Summers is a Democrat or a Republican. I think the confusion stems from Summers following the Republican Corporatist playbook of privatizing public assets, and doing so using sketchy undemocratic and non-transparent tactics. Based on that behavior, I would tend to label Summers as a Republican. But I digress.

What is clear is that many Democrats find it wrong for Summers to conveniently claim the Democratic label, that his actions belie that for which progressive Democrats stand, and they don't believe that Summers is on their team, or should not be. Yet at least some Republicans strongly object to any connection with Summers and want nothing to do with him and his actions, either.

Yay! We agree!

I have a question for those who attended. It sounds to me like the "Chaos" and the "police being called" are two separate issues. Correct? Who called the police?

Patrick Wadden wrote:I have a question for those who attended. It sounds to me like the "Chaos" and the "police being called" are two separate issues. Correct? Who called the police?

I think it was all of a piece, the meeting did not go smoothly, to understate it. But the police presence was a very small part of the chaos. See the video from the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus.
https://www.facebook.com/CuyCPC/
It captures the essence of the meeting very well. You can even see the police action - don't blink or you'll miss it.

Someone else will have to report on who called the police and why. I didn't see it.

That is how it seemed to me, yes. I'm not sure how police were involved, though.

It's in the call log, I find:

"Checking on a disturbance at the Womans Pavillion meeting of lakewood democrats at the pavilion. they were discussing the closing of lakewood hospital. argument became heated and both parties were advised to stay away from each other for the duration of the meeting"
http://www.onelakewood.com/PublicSafety ... s_0825.pdf

Not a lot more detail, but some record beyond my not-very-informative report anyway. Advice given, and police off to answer other calls.

I'm curious about what happened to the box of votes that were collected last night. Did anyone deal with that in a public way?

After the endorsements were tabled and dysfunction reigned, someone did yell out, "What should we do with the box of votes?"

A woman behind me answered, "Burn it!".

Thanks for the comic relief!

No formal fate was prescribed for the partly-filled ballot box. (Explanation: the motion to table the endorsement vote was only recognized, following some delay, after an officer of the club had begun collecting ballots.)

I thought "burn it" was a trenchant suggestion, though the box is after all perfectly reusable.

The fate of the ballots inside it, however, was the subject of yet another disagreement. I concluded that the assertion that ballots for a September vote will be printed on a different color of paper—apparently a customary practice—was entirely sufficient for the time being. If new ballots on identical lilac paper appear in September, I feel safe in presuming that a motion objecting to this (and perhaps proceeding by open hand count, e.g.) will follow. (The bylaws require that elections for officers be conducted by ballot, but not endorsement votes.)

I also heard them talk about their procedure to use a different colored ballot, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But as they used to say in the Reagan days, "Trust, but verify."

As one of the founders of the Lakewood Democratic Club let me state that way back when (1976) we were all contentious and competitive. However, that was all conducted within recognized rules which were pretty simple.
Over the years, the rules and procedures have become increasingly more complex, difficult, and UN Democratic.
For those of you who remember-- this resembles 43 Man Squamish.

Here's a suggestion--- ALL OF YOU---cut this crap out and get out and get our ticket elected.

Stan Austin

Dan Alaimo wrote:

Patrick Wadden wrote:I have a question for those who attended. It sounds to me like the "Chaos" and the "police being called" are two separate issues. Correct? Who called the police?

I think it was all of a piece, the meeting did not go smoothly, to understate it. But the police presence was a very small part of the chaos. See the video from the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus.
https://www.facebook.com/CuyCPC/
It captures the essence of the meeting very well. You can even see the police action - don't blink or you'll miss it.

Someone else will have to report on who called the police and why. I didn't see it.

It was a Summers/O'Leary supporter who caused the problem.

Stan Austin wrote:s one of the founders of the Lakewood Democratic Club let me state that way back when (1976)

You were a "founding father" of the club in '76? Do you still have your powdered wig?

Brian Essi wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote:

Patrick Wadden wrote:I have a question for those who attended. It sounds to me like the "Chaos" and the "police being called" are two separate issues. Correct? Who called the police?

I think it was all of a piece, the meeting did not go smoothly, to understate it. But the police presence was a very small part of the chaos. See the video from the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus.
https://www.facebook.com/CuyCPC/
It captures the essence of the meeting very well. You can even see the police action - don't blink or you'll miss it.

Someone else will have to report on who called the police and why. I didn't see it.

It was a Summers/O'Leary supporter who caused the problem.[/quo

Define "problem"..... I wasn't there and the video suggests that it wasn't "Chaos". The Chaos seemed to be procedural. And really wasn't police worthy.

Patrick Wadden wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote:

Patrick Wadden wrote:I have a question for those who attended. It sounds to me like the "Chaos" and the "police being called" are two separate issues. Correct? Who called the police?

I think it was all of a piece, the meeting did not go smoothly, to understate it. But the police presence was a very small part of the chaos. See the video from the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus.
https://www.facebook.com/CuyCPC/
It captures the essence of the meeting very well. You can even see the police action - don't blink or you'll miss it.

Someone else will have to report on who called the police and why. I didn't see it.

It was a Summers/O'Leary supporter who caused the problem.[/quo

Define "problem"..... I wasn't there and the video suggests that it wasn't "Chaos". The Chaos seemed to be procedural. And really wasn't police worthy.

I would define "problem" as matter that was unwelcome and needing to be dealt with etc.

The Police deal with two kinds of problems: 1. law enforcement and 2. Peacekeeping.

Apparently the Police came on a peacekeeping mission. The problem was dealt.

I suppose we can debate whether the problem needed to be dealt with by Police, but it seems clear that it was dealt with by them.

I did not use the term chaos.

The headline of the thread is misleading. Shocker!
Sounds like the police were already there and a couple of people got into a elevated (heated) conversation in the hallway leading into the pavilion. Sooooooo the police officer that was already there said, paraphrasing "hey you two, let's take this outside" no?

Who called the police?

So the chaos was procedural and there was no crazy, elevated, bar room brawl that happen as a result of the vote.

Was Milsap involved?

Ummm, you mean Milsaps?

Not that I know of. He certainly had is hands full that night.

Patrick Wadden wrote:the police officer that was already there said, paraphrasing "hey you two, let's take this outside" no?

Can you show the video audio of that?

So if Team Summers lost every vote 39-21, is the faux mandate now toast?