I responded:They [MORE] want democracy, but told New Action that only MORE can choose the presidential candidate. Now that's democracy. ... Francesco Portelos, comment on a blog
New Action proposed to MORE that the presidential candidate come from MORE subject to approval by New Action. New Action was invited to all meetings to discuss that choice.Portelos sent me an email still claiming that MORE had dictated to New Action and mocking MORE's democracy.
Most intelligent people have learned to ignore emails from Portelos since any response may be parsed, edited and made public but I had been drinking too much wine, so I responded.
When Portelos engages in mistruths, distortions and outright lies they have been dubbed as a "Pulling a Porty." Most of the people in MORE and ICE ignore these misthruths, distortions and outright lies, which are bought wholesale by his supporters who feel he has no reason to tell lies. Until they get to know him better.
[Full disclosure: I was one of these people for years who believed what he was telling me. Until I saw the cracks and began to examine things in more detail.]
So, I finished my glass of wine and I sent the whining Porty an email informing him of the truth. I pointed out that New Action had been the ones to state that due to the higher MORE vote totals compared to New Action in the 2013 election that was a factor in their decision to give MORE the priority choice for president and would also decide that MORE gets to break any ties when there are odd numbers of candidates.
Portelos responded by disparaging the higher vote totals MORE received in the election as a factor and somehow raising that was not being democratic. In his world of democracy, if one caucus gets double or triple the number of votes it makes no difference. But hey, it was New Action that brought that factor up. If you polled people in ICE, MORE, New Action, TJC, etc, they would probably agree with New Action that MORE's significantly higher vote totals should be a factor. Watch the tune change if Solidarity should outpoll MORE in the election. Suddenly vote totals would matter. [I could write his press release now].
When faced with the truth that New Action had initiated the suggestion that the presidential candidate come from MORE's ranks, Portleos delved into his fiction library: "That's not what New Action says."
At that point I didn't even bother to respond.
Portelos makes up fictional people when facing the truth.
Will the fictional New Action person stands up publicly and affirm what Portelos assert "That's not what New Action says?"If there is such a person, I say "no guts, no glory."
Jonathan Halabi, a leader of New Action actually did affirm that my response was correct.
After all, he's just an excitable boy.
*Message to Solidarity members:
Remind us once again why MORE, ICE, New Action, NYCORE, etc. should support this guy for President of the UFT.
We suggested that the slate be split evenly, but that the presidential candidate come from MORE's ranks, subject to approval by New Action's executive board, which is exactly what happened.
In fact, the first meeting didn't feel very much like a negotiation at all. We came to quick agreement on all major issues, and spent the remaining time chatting and discussing strategy, details, etc.
Here's the actual language on the composition of the slate:
3. Allocation of Slots
• The allocation of slots, in general should reflect both the relative strength of the caucuses, and the history and significance of the caucuses.
• The number of delegate slots is sufficient that both groups may supply as many delegate candidates as they wish; we are unlikely to run out of space.
• The number of officer, divisional and at-large slots should be divided evenly, except where there is an odd number (eg, 7 high school slots) the extra seat will be filled by MORE.
• The presidential candidate will come from MORE’s ranks, and be agreed to by both groups.
• In the case of other officer candidates, and the divisional executive board candidates, the groups will review each other’s choices and agree to the specific candidates. If there are specific objections, the groups will discuss. In all other cases the individual group may choose its candidates without consulting the other group.
Jonathan