"Since 2009, CincyPAC has always offered a weighted endorsement process, with membership receiving the largest percentage of the determination. The organization does not allow membership to be the sole deciding factor in the endorsement process as a safeguard to ensure the process cannot be manipulated by an organized effort. We operate as a PAC with established core values, and endorse candidates who represent the YP voice and interest."
CincyPACk's 2009 Endosement:
"The candidates for Cincinnati Mayor, City Council and School Board have met with us, have given us information related to their platforms and have interviewed and answered our questions. Now it is time for you to weigh in and tell us what you think. The board of directors has voted and created a slate of suggested endorsements based upon interviews and questionnaire responses, but the final endorsement decision is yours. We ask that you vote by 5pm on Thursday, August 20th. Feel free to review all of the candidates' responses to our CincyPAC questionnaire (read their responses) before making your decision....
Remember, the final word is yours. Please vote today (only one vote per person)."
OK, so was Candace Klein lying then or is the entire CincyPAC Board lying now. Either way, someone's a liar. Aja was right.
ReplyDeleteWell, OK, it's not exactly transparent, but that could also just have been a way of expressing that the final component of the endorsement process was up to the membership. Worded poorly, for sure. Could also be that there's lying going on, but that was 2009. Why was nothing said in 2009? I think that everyone would be much more interested in *evidence* that there was misleading/lying going on this year.
ReplyDeleteThose aren't the only two options Duke. Its quite possible that the members' vote was worth less than half back in 2009 as well, and the Board was actively hiding that fact from them. Any way you look at it though, it stinks to high hell.
ReplyDeleteSherm -
ReplyDeleteAll the current CincyPAC Board has to do is provide one sent email, just one, where they told their members that their vote would count for less than 100% of the process. That would pretty much blow Aja's entire argument out of the water. But, they haven't provided that email, because it doesn't exist. Ask yourself, if Aja hadn't blown the whistle, would ANY of us know about the weighted vote process???
So, in 2009 the vote was 100% members-- whether you were a candidate, campaign manager, Board member, or just a citizen of Cincinnati who joined the Facebook Group... And it seems things changed in 2011 due to a different definition of what a 'member' is. Can someone show me an email or meeting minutes where CincyPAC states that the endorsement process is 100% left up to the members? 2009? 2011?? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that maybe CincyPAC wasn't trying to rig the endorsements to the LEFT, but maybe find a process that kept the Core Values as the main point of the PAC?? I'm not so sure I like that anyone who paid $25 suddenly represents the YPs in our City. Either way, perhaps some mistakes were made and will be improved upon in following elections. CincyPAC has explained to the candidates and public how and why the process was created and the endorsements have been made. Let's move on, focus your efforts on the candidates you wish to be elected. Volunteer.
But if you support having a collective voice for young professionals, working together to be a conduit to the City, and perhaps disagree with the way CincyPAC endorsed candidates, then apply to be on the Board in 2012, show up to meetings, stay active and help educate other YPs in Cincy to DO SOMETHING COLLECTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE FOR CINCINNATI. It is simply stated on their website and response letter.
Or, yes, donate money directly to the politician of your choice, trust the politician spends it wisely and understands the details and direction you see Cincinnati heading in the next 50 years, and go back to your lives. Please.
Nice try "What if I said". You're insane if you think CincyPAC comes back from this. They're done. Toast. Finished. They lied, got caught in it, and now only respond with childish name-calling against the whistleblower. Don't bother rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for a group that lies to its members, has a tiny, miniscule memership roster, and gives out practically no money to the candidates it endorses.
ReplyDeletePoor little Aja, it was a bad day for you and your pac of wingnuts, wasn't it? BOO-HOO-HOO
ReplyDeleteCame across this old piece that I had completely forgotten about. Hard to argue that Aja wasn't right, and ultimately successful. CincyPAC never recovered from being outed, and effectively ceased to exist shortly after this all went down.
ReplyDeleteGame. Set. Match