At last night’s Harvey Milk Club meeting, State Senator Carole Migden’s campaign stacked the club with East Bay attorneys, and then rammed through an early endorsement schedule that disenfranchised 39 regular club members. Basic appeals to reason about having a fair process that everyone can agree on were ignored – as the Migden camp knew they had the votes in the room as long as their motions got speeded through. After passing a flawed endorsement process, Migden supporters tried to adjourn the meeting – but Club member Paul Melbostad (who supports Mark Leno) made a motion to reconsider the vote at the next meeting because the current attendance was an unrepresentative sample of the club. His motion prevailed, at which point the Club President adjourned the meeting – but Migden supporter Rafael Mandelman insisted he was now in charge, and moved to undo Melbostad’s motion. It was a truly ugly moment for the club – one that can only make people more cynical about politics. If Carole Migden thinks she can get away with a club endorsement through this process, she is sorely mistaken.

I have been a member of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club for three years – and it is not uncommon to have people who never attend a regular meeting show up when a major endorsement is at stake. But that usually happens at actual endorsement meetings – where members can cast a secret ballot and leave. Last night’s meeting was merely to set the procedures on whether to schedule an early endorsement in the State Senate race, and to make decisions on who is eligible to vote. I have never heard of "stacking" at a procedural meeting.

Since Mark Leno announced his intent to challenge Senator Migden this year, everyone knew that it could be a divisive race in the LGBT community. Active Milk Club members have taken opposite sides, but over the past few months we have managed to keep things civil. The Club is even planning to sponsor a debate next month with the two candidates, with the hope to have a productive dialogue.

But a recent move by Migden supporters to push through an early endorsement process has created the tension, especially with the attitude that the Club must endorse Migden because she was its President back in the 1980's. And Club member Rafael Mandelman set the tone at the start of the last night’s meeting by brazenly announcing “this is Carole Migden’s club.”

Because last night’s meeting was not even about who the Club will endorse, one would think that the goal in preparing to endorse would be to create a fair, inclusive and transparent process. Instead, it was about the Migden campaign bringing people who have never been to a Club meeting – but who paid their dues earlier this year – many of whom are colleagues of Migden’s wife, criminal defense attorney Cris Arguedas. They were clearly there just to vote the party line, regardless of any discussion about who can or cannot vote.


Migden supporters -- many East Bay attorneys connected with Cris Arguedas -- pack the meeting to ram through a flawed endorsement process. Photo by Brian Leubitz.

But some regular Club members were there to object about the proposed early endorsement schedule, which will disenfranchise some people whose dues have lapsed. Due to a strange semantic in the by-laws, whether or not the proposed vote in December is called a “special meeting” – rather than a “general meeting” – would make a difference if the Club would allow about 39 members to vote.

Club member John Newsome began by offering an amendment to make the December vote a “general meeting” in order to have a more inclusive process. But Migden supporter Debra Walker objected – and tried to argue that the membership couldn’t even vote on whether it is a “special meeting” or a “general meeting.” When President Brian Basinger ruled the amendment in order, it was brought to a vote and the Migden supporters simply voted it down without much debate.

Then there was time for more discussion – but the Migden supporters were eager to just call the question. Regular Club members like Esperanza Macias, Howard Grayson, Denise D’Anne and others spoke out against an early endorsement – citing the fact that it has been a tough process. Why the rush to do an early endorsement, especially since the Club is genuinely divided on the question? With Migden supporters having stacked the club, going full speed on an early endorsement reeks of machine politics.

One member – Jeff Sheehy – argued for the proposal, and attacked Mark Leno for even entering the race. But the irony here, however is that while Migden supporter Chris Daly had urged progressives at the meeting to “block Newsom apologists,” Jeff Sheehy supported Gavin Newsom in the last election – and later took a job in the Mayor’s Office. Apparently, not all “Newsom apologists” are created equal when it comes to the Leno-Migden race.

None of this mattered, of course, because the Migden people had the votes in the room. After their motion passed to set the endorsement schedule, Supervisor Chris Daly, Debra Walker and others began yelling out to adjourn the meeting. But despite the shouts and pressure to just shut things down, Club member and Leno supporter Paul Melbostad raised an objection under Robert’s Rules of Order.

Citing a “Motion to Reconsider and Commit to the Minutes,” Melbostad – who is also a lawyer – explained that a vote cast at a meeting where an unrepresentative sample of the club was present can be reconsidered at the following meeting. The idea behind this rule is that you don’t want one vote taken at a clearly stacked meeting to be binding on the club – and so it can then be postponed.

The Migden supporters were apoplectic and continued to shout out demands to adjourn the meeting. But Melbostad was right, and the only way they could revoke his objection was by a two-thirds vote. The Club then voted 120-80 to override Melbostad’s motion, which did not meet the threshold. Therefore, the early endorsement schedule was revoked -- to be continued at the next meeting.

While Melbostad’s motion struck some as a sneaky parliamentary move, Migden backers have used the same tactic before at the Democratic County Central Committee. In June 2006, Migden supporter Bill Barnes moved to reconsider a vote against Proposition C (Transbay Terminal reform) because of attendance concerns at a DCCC meeting – which created the same effect: the vote was nullified and then postponed to another meeting.

Now here’s where the Milk Club meeting descended into chaos. After the failure to override Melbostad’s motion, Club President Brian Basinger announced the meeting adjourned – citing the fact that the room was no longer available.

It is unclear, however, whether a motion to adjourn was made. But even if the meeting was not properly adjourned, it is hypocritical for the Migden supporters to cry foul since they had yelled out for adjournment earlier when the meeting was going their way.

In response to this article, I got a phone call from Brian Basinger -- who advised me that a motion was made to adjourn, which was recognized by the Chair. I should also note that at no Milk Club meeting that I have ever attended was there ever a need to make a motion to adjourn. Nor has there ever been a requirement that a formal vote to adjourn be taken.

At this point, Migden supporter Rafael Mandelman announced that, because the President had not properly adjourned the meeting, the Vice President was not available and that he was a member of the Executive Board, he was now running the rest of the meeting. It harkened back to Secretary of State Alexander Haig’s infamous statement in 1981 that he was “in control” after President Ronald Reagan had been shot. Somehow, lines of succession at the Milk Club can be hazy.

With the meeting in chaos, Mandelman entertained a motion to again repeal Melbostad’s objection – in other words, to do a “re-vote” of the two-thirds attempt that the Migden supporters had just failed to achieve. With a second bite at the apple (aided by the fact that many Leno supporters had left the room), it got a super-majority. But even if the meeting had not adjourned, Robert’s Rules of Order do not allow a “re-vote” of the same motion at the same meeting.

It doesn’t matter which candidate you support in the race – Leno, Migden or neither – to agree that last night’s Milk Club meeting was a train wreck and a disaster. “What I saw tonight was deeply troubling,” said one Club member. “If this was the defining moment of a destructive, divisive and non-productive campaign that will tear apart my beloved community, my family, I am very disappointed and saddened.”

And it didn’t have to be that way.

Everyone knew a Milk Club endorsement in the Senate race would be contentious, but a mature club should have agreed on a fair and reasonable process. Instead, the Migden camp channeled the anger of even being challenged for re-election into rigging the process for an early endorsement.

As a Milk Club member, I feel that a Club I belong to has been hijacked to serve a particular politician’s agenda. If Carole Migden thinks that she can get away with a Milk Club endorsement by stacking the turnout, ramming through a process that disenfranchises regular Club members and shouting down parliamentary objections, she is sorely mistaken.

Because anyone unaffiliated with either faction who attended last night’s meeting would have been appalled at her campaign’s tactics.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As a private citizen, Paul Hogarth is a member of the Milk Club and has endorsed Mark Leno for State Senate. He does not play an advisory role for the Leno campaign. Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org