Facebook erupted late yesterday afternoon with intermittent outrage after some delegates to the DPW convention received a letter from the Jeff Smith campaign, a letter titled ” A Winning Coalition “, telling folks that if he’s elected he’ll offer Martha Laning the position of Executive Director of the DPW.
The main points of his argument are that Laning is too inexperienced in politics to lead the DPW, that she has valuable skills that would be better suited to the exec director position, and that it will be crucial for a candidate to receive at least 50% of the vote in order to unify the DPW post convention. Smith notes that the idea is the result of emails he’s received from party members, and comments on social media from folks who desire some sort of partnership between he and Laning.
The Laning camp responded immediately clarifying that Laning was not a party to any agreement, that she feels it’s not up to Smith to unilaterally decide what’s best for the DPW, Wisconsin, or her, that the hiring process for staff positions within the DPW should remain open and fair, and then she accuses Smith of being underhanded, misleading, misguided and sexist.
In the interest of being as objective as possible in this matter I’ll save my opinions for the comment section and invite you all to read both letters and then weigh in too. See you all in Milwaukee next weekend!
The idea that Jeff Smith would do something like that is super sleazy.
Not the best move by Jeff Smith. I think any of the candidates running should want the other candidates to be involved in an active capacity after they win. For executive director, I am not sure any of the candidates would be best suited for that particular role. An executive director is a director of operations, they are not a spokesman of the party.
Is this even important? Looks to me like a super-awkward attempt by Smith to make a sort of decent point. He’s not the most smooth candidate in the bunch but he is the most pro-change and anti-status quo.
What the DPW needs is more adults in the room, not more “change” for change sake.
That’s what the chair is supposed to be. Tate was a staffer in chief.
It’s why I’m not super hot on Jason Rae.
However, being a legislator doesn’t really make you equipped to be a CEO of an organization, and behavior like this doesn’t really seem like being “the adult in the room.”
If only change was needed for the sake of change in thr DPW. I think Laning has great experience for elected office, depending how you feel about neo-liberals. I hope she runs again with her new found name recognition. I have no doubt she’d quickly move into leadership.
This DJ,
You gotta be a mighty dainty individual to consider Jeff’s letter super sleazy. Campaigns are about winning over voters. This was an honest appeal to delegates ( voters ) about how to form a winning coalition to prevent Nation Consulting from putting their guy in the front DPW office.
If faux outrage was a precious ore we could mine opinions like yours to great profit.
No mining ore in Wisconsin!
Actually, Steve, insinuating that you’ve cracked a deal with another of the candidates when you don’t have said deal is a lie.
Sure this is a “Campaign” but it’s a campaign to be an actual leader. That’s not a leadership move, and if you think it is, you should look deep deep within your heart and ignore your deep seeded hatred of Nation Consulting (Who I think are just not very good consultants) and think about it again.
Jeff’s letter insinuated nothing of the sort. And I don’t have a deep seeded hatred of Nation Consulting, as you so magnificently put it, it’s more a deep seated disgust.
Don’t be naive Steve. This was a sleezy and calculated attempt to convince delegates that Jeff is the front runner and if Martha’s supporters cross over and vote for Jeff he will “graceously” offer her the ED position. I am not even sure it is his to offer..
And more importantly most insiders are saying Martha may actually be the front runner right now. Jeff is lucky if he is 3rd and may even be 4th.
John Smith. It was an honest attempt to appeal to delegates in order to unify the party and defeat the consultant class when it didn’t seem Laning had any interest in such things, but thanks for your erroneous and bullshit interpretation.
Here’s an suggestion: Let’s discuss ideas on their merits, rather than impugning the character/motives of those suggest those ideas.
It’ll make the next year a lot more productive, whoever wins.
The problem here is that Jeff is being WAY too specific in who he would want involved in the party after the election, and to make the offer for a specific position just seem patronizing, really. This comes across to me like good intentions but horrible execution.
Also I would rather have the focus be on who is going to try to appeal to renters/some college people by earning their vote and getting them involved in the voting process. I am tired of being active when as an activist we are told to follow the list because everyone else must be a republican. I know Steve would like the focus to change and I think Jeff Smith should emphasis that aspect because the other candidates really are not going to make a major reform like that.