Two excellent comments disputed the recent account by “Donald from Hawaii” of infighting over the scheduling of the Democratic Party’s precinct caucuses (see the initial post, “Change in party caucus creates rift in Hawaii Democratic Party“).

These replies both point to errors of fact in Donald’s description of events, so I think it is useful to repost them here, so that they are available to those who don’t regularly read the comments section. Thanks to both for their comments.

The first reply came from someone writing as “Hawaii Democrat.”

Thanks for this post, Ian. However, there are at least a couple of points where “Donald from Hawaii” gets it wrong.

1) The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s State Central Committee (SCC) is a relatively large body made up of party members from across the state, of which I am one. Rarely, if ever, does the State Chair make decisions “unilaterally.” In particular, Chair Ohigashi has done an exemplary job working with members of the SCC and the County Chairs in a way that I haven’t seen previously.

2) Specifically to the decision to move the date of the Party’s Precinct Meetings and Presidential Preference Poll, it was approved, overwhelmingly, by the SCC. I was only one of a handful that believed the gift of a few additional delegates wasn’t worth the trade-off of moving and, arguably, upending our process here, but given the overwhelming support, no one objected to the change.

3) The deal, as I understand it, was for an additional 15% of Hawaii delegates to the National Convention was/is contingent on Hawaii joining other states in moving their caucus/primary. Not 10 additional delegates, but 15%, which works out to about three (which he refers to). If all the State Parties involved agreed, each will then be awarded additional delegates. If not, then none are bound by the agreement. The DNC hasn’t reneged on anything.

4) “Donald from Hawaii’s” comments about conversations between the Chair and SCC members are just not accurate. The decision to change the date and time of the precinct meetings was part of a broader conversation on the Party’s Delegate Selection Plan, which needed to be approved by a vote of the SCC BEFORE it was sent to the DNC for review and final approval.

I understand there are people who don’t like that the precinct meetings will take place on the Saturday afternoon of a holiday weekend, I’m not thrilled about it, but the decision was a collective one.

Progressive Democratic activist Bart Dame followed with a long, thoughtful comment. No one has ever accused Bart of being an apologist for anyone, so I would put a lot of trust in his account.

It’s long, but well worth reading if you want a better sense of what’s going on within the party.

Ian, I call “bullpucky” on “Donald’s account. Too many of his fact are wrong. “Hawaii Democrat’s” account is much closer to the truth. The decision to move the date of the caucus was made with the full participation of the SCC. The procedures governing our caucuses are part of a “Delegate Selection Plan” the party develops based upon a template sent from the DNC, but tweaked to fit the particular circumstances of the Hawaii system.

The DNC was provided to members for feedback fro a period of several weeks. And the DSP included the proposal to move the date to Saturday. Some concerns were expressed about it being inconvenient for Jewish members who might not feel free to participate on the Sabbath. Ironically, as far as I remember, nobody brought up that it was smack between Good Friday and Easter.

The DNC has had an incentive plan in place for the last couple of primary seasons, whereby they would offer extra delegates to a state in exchange for an agreement to “bundle” our caucus with those of other “nearby” states. For Hawaii, this would mean shifting our date to coincide with the Alaska and Washington state votes. We were offered an increase of 15% more delegates. #1 delegates X 15% = 4.65 delegates. So most of us were assuming this meant 5 more delegates.

Let me share a shameful secret. A lot of SCC members get thrilled by the possibility of being elected to a national convention. I have seen some cutthroat tactics employed to grab one of those slots. So when we were told we could get 5 more slots to share amongst ourselves, a lot of people lost the ability to think clearly.

I will confess that I had misgivings about shifting to a Saturday vote. But because it was obvious many others were salivating at the dangle of the extra seats, I held back from pushing the point.

But there was no “secret deal” between Stephanie Ohigashi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Nonsense. And I say that as someone who has been very vocal with my anger at the way DWS has rigged the nominating process, not just the debate schedule, but also the primary schedule, to favor Hillary Clinton, her favored candidate. But in the Hawaii party, Chair Ohigashi has been very explicit that the party shall treat the campaigns equally and remain neutral. That is a pleasant change from the way the previous leadership saw the party as an extension of Governor Abercrombie’s campaign.

I am a diehard Sanders guy, so I am watching to see if there is any favoritism between the campaigns. And I have not seen it. A lot of us have been through this before and know our relationships need to continue beyond the storms of passion aroused during a presidential primary campaign.

“Donald” is free to contact me directly. I assume we know each other. While I appreciate his inclination towards skepticism, I do not think the facts support his theory. And I have a pretty close seat from which to watch the action up close.