Dear George:

I was interested to read John McCutcheon's letter, which you just posted recently. In particular, I applaud his thought -- which I hope might be accepted by the group as a whole -- that the place for Democrats for Change is within the Democratic Party.

I think that the experience of the campaign should teach a number of lessons, to both the DFC folks and the non-DFC folks.

1. There are many more things that unite members of our party than that divide them. When we got down to trying to run a campaign that included all of the candidates -- Meredith, Maurice and Kevin -- we found that issues of civil rights, commitment to quality education, commitment to a healthy downtown, and so on could make up a meaningful platform on which most Democrats could and did agree.

2. The Democratic Party in Charlottesville is not, and never has been, a closed circle. The Party is open to those who can bring supporters to a mass meeting, and the campaign is open to those who show up to work. What some DFC folks thought of as a coup was in fact the very common experience of an infusion of new blood into the party. It has happened before, it happened again, and it will happen in the future.

3. Electoral success in Charlottesville City Council is a product of responsible, non-threatening progressive campaigns. Charlottesville voters -- the majority of whom are progressive Democrats -- decided that they could trust our candidates to be intelligent, honest, and responsible progressives.

4. Based on the voting patterns, I would suggest that Democrats for Change may be less revolutionary than they want to think they are. True, both Maurice and Kevin beat Meredith, but the results, precinct by precinct, are remarkable for the way in which the city's Democratic voters perceived the three candidates as equally acceptable.

The Democratic Party -- both in the state and locally -- has tried to avoid having a platform, because a platform has historically been more divisive than uniting. We have allowed our candidates to state our "platform", election by election. That, I think, is still the wiser course of action.

John wrote, in his letter, "What came out of the discussion was a move to invite the Democratic Party, officially, to meet w/DFC for the purposes of encouraging the Party to embrace and adopt our Platform." I am concerned about this language, for three reasons.

First, it continues the notion that the DFC and the Democratic Party are adversaries, or even distinct entities. In particular, it continues the notion that there is a monolithic Democratic Party with which DFC would negotiate.

Second, it suggests that the Platform is non-negotiable, and that the only question is whether "The Party" will sign on.

Third, while there are some portions of the DFC platform with which I agree and that are not already City policy (there are many that are already City policy), there are many that I think pose problems.

Of the various DFC Platform planks, at least one violates the City Charter (direct election of the Mayor), some violate Virginia state law (requiring that there be a City resident on the County Planning Commission), and some are politically unacceptable to other political bodies over which we have no control or even influence (encourage the University to build more student housing). Many more are platitudes with no specifics, about which very few people could quibble, but for which no one can objectively determine whether we comply ("Ensure an unbiased and just criminal justice system."). That just covers the planks that probably don't belong in a platform (they certainly wouldn't belong in any kind of plan of action). And that doesn't even get to the planks that I think are ill-advised.

My understanding of the genesis of the DFC platform is that it was developed by folks with relatively little direct experience in City government. For example, if someone who had been on the Planning Commission, I can't help but think that the provisions that deal with city planning would have reflected the reality that neighborhood associations are told at a very early point -- before a preliminary conference on the project -- when something is planned for their area. Or someone with some experience in municipal law could have warned them of the provisions that are illegal.

Platforms are relevant, if at all, during campaigns. They serve two purposes. The first purpose is to let the Party make a statement on a matter of principle. Often it has the effect of alienating those who disagree, while making the proponents feel that they have "made a statement." The second -- purely theoretical, because it is virtually never done -- is that the Party might withhold support from a candidate who fails to support the platform. Aside from David Duke in Louisiana, I can't think of it happening too often. And, as we saw in May, we don't really want to do it anyway.

DFC and the Democratic Party are not adversaries. DFC and the City Councilors are not adversaries -- they are friends. And the "Party" does not exist between elections. Whether the "Party" agrees with the DFC Platform is irrelevant. The question is whether the City Councilors, or the School Board, or the Planning Commission, or any of the other entities that would need to implement the recommendations of the Platform agree.

I would suggest that DFC members go to the next School Board meeting and ask that the School Board give thought as to how to consider the requests that deal with the School Board. Stay after a meeting and talk to the members of the School Board about the particular problems that concern you. Most of them are very open and accessible.

If you are concerned about the Comprehensive Planning process, go talk to the Chair of the Planning Commission. Or to the City Planner. Or to Satyendra Huja, Director of Long-Range Planning. The City Democratic Party is irrelevant to how they do their jobs.

David RePass said last December (Daily Progress, Dec. 10, 1999) that "The government system has become closed and secretive, [and] the voices of ordinary citizens are often being ignored." I disagreed then, and I think that the campaign that was run this past spring proves that he was wrong.

My experience in dealing with our city government is that it has been open and accessible. It does not become more open and more accessible if two segments of a political party meet to work things out; it becomes more open and accessible when individuals take their concerns to public meetings and force public servants to discuss them. It becomes more open and accessible when individuals collar a public servant and ask them in person how they feel about a particular problem.

As John McCutcheon recognized, with the May election, DFC members became part of the decision-making process in this City. DFC members have been heard, and will continue to be heard. If it was ever appropriate to talk about DFC members as being outsiders, it surely is not know. Its members are insiders now.

Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, July 13, 2000).