Friday, February 13, 2009
Politics / Woods Democratic Party Insiders Feuding over Forrester's Pay
Posted by Jeff Woods on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:30 AM
Forrester's predecessor as chairman, Gray Sasser, made $115,000 a year. Cheek is trying to cut Forrester's pay to $75,000. Cheek thinks Forrester doesn't deserve $115,000 because the party expects to raise only about $500,000 this year--and that's if Democrats are lucky. That's about half as much as the party raised and spent each year under Sasser. We're told Forrester tried to oust Cheek but couldn't because Cheek's term doesn't end for another year. Forrester apparently didn't know that. Now he does.
The party is beset by troubles under Forrester. Four Democratic congressmen and Gov. Phil Bredesen backed Bone. The party's executive committee defied them by electing Forrester in January. Since then, the elected officials have been pouting and refusing to meet with Forrester, sources say. They see Forrester as a little weird, and they have decided they don't need the party anyway.
"Chip is kind of squirrelly," one source says. "He's not a dumb guy, but his thought processes are not good and he ends up doing stupid things."
It's not all Forrester's fault. Other factors are hurting fundraising as well. The economy sucks for one thing. Also, Republicans took the legislature in the last election (remember that?), and that cost Democrats the constitutional offices and the state Building Commission, which help with fundraising because they are powerful and they can extract contributions in exchange for state contracts.
Update: In a comment below, Forrester confirms our smug anonymous insiders are telling the truth as usual. But he's upset that we didn't obtain his permission for this post.
Comments (42)
Showing 1-42 of 42
Maybe Chip can oust Cheek in favor of his number one fan on the Executive Committee Fred Hobbs, who called Obama a terrorist.
like
dislike
Next up: Heatseeker and his conspiracy theory about how Forrester has the job reserved for his favorite local brie merchant.
It's almost like these posts are written to conjure Thing 1 and Thing 2.
Just curious, does the Nashville Scene have a written policy on when to allow anonymous sources? I understand many newspapers do it based on the need to protect their jobs, but given the TNDP's apparent lack of strength, I can't imagine this applies to your deep bench of high-ranking politicos.
Sean, I use anonymous sources when it's necessary to tell what's happening. I'm sorry if this causes you angst. If you don't want the inner turmoil of your party to become public, then you guys need to stop yapping about it to reporters.
does the Nashville Scene have a written policy on when to allow anonymous sources?
Yes, Sean, one has to wonder these things especially in light of past fabricated, unverified Scene anecdotes regarding mayoral candidates and homeless shelters. Someone remind me which reporter slandered Howard Gentry for the purposes of emotional effect.
But we're supposed to trust in the "rigors of the newsroom," simply because "Mr. Pink" says we can. So, just stop questioning Jeffrey's sources. Have unexamined faith in them. They bring the flies. Thats enough.
The Chipinista obssession with identities is nothing but a dodge. Their party is collapsing and they whine about who's blowing the whistle. It's ridiculous.
Isn't it possible that their lack of accountability leads to more sensationalistic anecdotes and stories?
If you don't want the inner turmoil of your party to become public, then you guys need to stop yapping about it to reporters.
I'm guessing the folk[s] you are talking with don't give a damn about the party, only themselves.
So you're for openness and free debate and all that except when it applies to your party, which you think should operate secretly.
Woods,
There isn't anything open about it...we have no way to verify the words of your sources. Its all hearsay and gossip, with nothing to back it up.
I'm for openness, but also accountability.
Jeffrey throws around the term "open and free debate" as if authenticity and honesty are not are part of the mix.
The debate requires those habits precisely to be open and free. Let's not get the cart before the horse.
When journalists jettison authenticity and honesty, they are prone to be lead around by the nose by the politicians whom they believe they have in their pocket.
The fear and defensiveness in Sean and Mike's attacks are hard to miss. Forrester's pointed silence is also hard to miss. One would assume that he would squelch these stories if they aren't true.
Guys, face the facts: Your constant drum-beat rebuke of anonymous sources isn't working. If anything, it's only fueling the comments and criticism. And it's not doing anything to address the very real questions that are being raised in these forums as it relates to Chip's competency and financial wherewithall. You can keep whining all you want but it's not going to change the fact that Heatseeker's reporting is spot-on and that others in these forums (including me) will continue calling it like we see it.
How pathetic is the Tennessee Democratic Party? No legislative agenda. No money. And the sorry new chairman is spending all of his time fighting to keep his salary from being cut.
Meanwhile, the Tennessee Republican Party is doing its best to implode. They're a national laughingstock for kicking their own speaker out of their party and now their members of the state legislature are joining a lawsuit calling for the government to release the little green men from Area 51 or some similar such silliness.
And the response from the Democrats? The best the sorry Democratic Party chairman can do is put out a video each week about how great his meetings with volunteers have been. It's absolutely pathetic.
Outside of Bredesen, Alexander, and some of our congressmen, I don't think we have any adults in Tennessee politics.
This is gossip. It's not news. It's not journalism. What would make this a piece of journalism (not gossip) is if:
1. Forrester was quoted, or there was a report that "Forrester had no comment."
2. Will Cheek himself confirmed that he was voting for a pay cut.
3. Someone called Jerry Maynard and got a statement from him.
4. The "source" went on record.
I'm not sure why it is that Jeff Woods is on payroll at the Scene. This is all very interesting and intriguing and all that, but it's not journalism.
It would have been nice to have the courtesy of a chance to respond to all of this prior to publishing this piece but since I did not have that opportunity, let me take a moment to help clarify this situation.
Since becoming chair, I have tried my best to be open and accessible about the Party and my actions at the Party. Since I was not given the courtesy of a phone call, let me address this specific situation.
It is customary for the new Chair of the Party to appoint new members to the Standing Committees once elected.
Will Cheek has served as Finance Committee chair for a number of years in addition to serving on the executive committee and as member of the Democratic National Committee. It has been my long held belief that leadership opportunities for members of the state executive committee should be spread among the committee. When elected Chair, I felt that naming a new Chair of that particular committee would allow me to offer an additional leadership opportunity to a member of the executive committee.
Prior to making that decision, I reached out to Metro Councilman Jerry Maynard who serves on the state executive committee and was a previous Deputy Chair under Chairman Bob Tuke’s administration, to discuss the idea of him chairing that committee. I felt that it was important to continue to elevate African-American leaders to key positions on the executive committee and since Jerry was already a member of Finance Committee that he would be an excellent chair.
Unfortunately, I had been given an outdated set of TNDP by-laws, which prior to 2006 gave the chair this authority. In 2006 they had been amended to have the Finance Committee chair serve until January of the next year. The thought behind the 2006 by-law amendment was that the new chair would benefit from the financial continuity of the current Finance Committee chair.
As chair of the Finance Committee in 2007, Will Cheek had negotiated Gray Sasser’s contract and salary and he and I entered into similar negotiations as he had done under the previous chair. In his fiduciary role as Finance Committee chair, it is his duty to husband the Party’s financial resources.
After discussions over the past week or so, he and I have agreed on a recommendation to the Finance Committee of a compensation package that has an annual salary of $95,000. This will be brought to the full Finance Committee in the near future and he and I are confident that the committee will unanimously accept this recommendation.
I hope this clarifies the specifics of this issue.
It would have been nice to have the courtesy of a chance to respond to all of this prior to publishing this piece
It would have been nice, but it doesn't seem to be the modus operandi. Ask Howard Gentry re: Urban Plunge.
Way to go Jeff. How do you like your anonymous sources now? And you didn't even bother to call the chair to verify? Are you serious? Gotta do better than that.
It looks to me like Chip confirmed most of Woods story, and failed to deny the rest. Yes, he wants to replace Cheek, yes he wants Jerry Maynard to be the replacement, yes they've been in "negotiations" on salary, and yes Chip will make less than Sasser.
Woods has his usual snark and such, but looks like the facts are right. Did I miss something?
And, yes, Woods ought to call Chip (or whomever) before writing such stuff. Fair point.
I agree with Everyman. Vibinc is way off base. Chipper confirmed everything in the story. It's a fair enough point that maybe Chipper should have gotten a call before the story ran, but Chipper doesn't have any staff. Maybe if he had a press secretary, the press could get in touch with him. Do we know if there was an attempt to contact him?
So you're for openness and free debate and all that except when it applies to your party, which you think should operate secretly.
Huh. The guy who won't tell us his sources is now extolling the virtues of openness. Isn't that kind of like getting hairstyling tips from Jason Mumpower?
I'm happy to see that Forrester and Cheek supposedly have reached an agreement on Forrester's pay. But don't you guys think $95,000 is too much? I mean, c'mon. He's going to make a fifth of what the entire organization is hoping to raise this year? At this point, what the party needs is a volunteer chair and an executive director making around $75,000.
UPDATE ... he's upset that we didn't obtain his permission
Since when did a prime directive of professional journalism, verification by the subject, become obtaining permission?
I'm happy to see that Forrester and Cheek supposedly have reached an agreement on Forrester's pay. But don't you guys think $95,000 is too much? I mean, c'mon. He's going to make a fifth of what the entire organization is hoping to raise this year?
Forrester has barely been in the office long enough to get his ass warm in the chair yet. Isn't it premature to talk about what he's worth? And is it really your place as a journalist to make that speculation?
Simple solution. Forrester should release his fundraising totals. He has had a month. The party can make judgments based on what he has done so far. I agree that paying a chairman 20% of the total amount raised smacks of corporate irresponsibility. It reminds me of these CEO's taking millions and millions in compensation while their companies are going down the drain. If a party chair is truly committed to the good of his/her party, should they take a salary at all? Shouldn't that money go to elect candidates?
I'm blown away by the levels of nuclear meltdown occurring in the TNDP. I've never seen this kind of back-biting and in-fighting in my life. Unfortunately, Chip is only reaping what he sowed. If you run for office with a negative campaign by pointing fingers at senior Democratic leaders and attacking them and everyone else for the problems then you better be prepared to suffer the consequences of your negativity. Strap it on, Chip. It's going to be a broke, embattled tenure for you.
This is a political party. Fundraising is nice, but if it was all there is to the game, your obviously preferred candidate would have won. A political party measures its worth in seats won and lost. I'd rather have a poorly funded party that can actually build a movement rather than the dearth of leadership shown by the corporate Democrats in terms of building a movement. When the national Dems, under the leadership of Terry McAuliffe, played the "Let's raise money but give the voters no discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans" game, we posted record losses. When we got back to actual leadership and making that (D) next to the candidate's name mean something, we started winning. The TN Democratic Party Executive Committee learned this lesson.
Having a volunteer chair (w/ expenses paid) and paid finance, exec and field directors is not a bad idea at all. But you gotta have someone with phat pockets willing to do it. You attract better talent at key positions.
I'm not sure why everyone is all sweaty about anonymous sources. How do you think Watergate story broke? Oh yeah, it was Nixon who came forward all on his own. Of course anon sources are often pushing their own agenda these days. But there's nothing wrong with it if their facts as offered can be checked out.
I'm blown away by the levels of nuclear meltdown occurring in the TNDP. I've never seen this kind of back-biting and in-fighting in my life.
No? Were you paying attention when the TNGOP actually kicked out the speaker, reducing themselves to 49 seats in a 99 seat assembly?
In 2006 they had been amended to have the Finance Committee chair serve until January of the next year. The thought behind the 2006 by-law amendment was that the new chair would benefit from the financial continuity of the current Finance Committee chair.
The above comes from Forrester's comment on this post. Actually, I think the bylaws were amended so that new party chairmen can't set their own pay by picking their own finance committee chair. That's what Forrester wants to do, pick his own chairman so he can pay himself more than Cheek wants to pay him.
Woods and Virtual Reality are right. Let Chipper prove his worth before he gets paid. 20% percent of the take???? Bullshit. That highway robbery. If he can raise a mil, give him his $95K. Otherwise, he can forget it.
What entitles Forrester to $8,000 a month when he has raised no money for the party? If you want to get paid, Mr. Chairman, raise the money. Otherwise, throw the bum out on the street.
Twenty percent certainly seems like high overhead. I've worked around nonprofit organizations for a number of years and the overhead for payroll and other expenses usually shouldn't exceed 10% of total revenues. Sounds like a very irresponsible fiscal situation going on at the Party.
Are there recall provisions in the state party bylaws? Let's throw this crook out!
Since when did a prime directive of professional journalism, verification by the subject, become obtaining permission?
About the same time not letting Lincoln Davis and Bredesen hand pick the party chair amounts to "kicking them out of the party."
I just saw Forrester on "Inside Politics." He said that ethics don't apply in politics and that the only thing that matters is advancing the interests of the Democratic Party.
That's right. PUMA! We need a new party. I am not going to give my time and my money to an organization that pays its chairman 20 cents out of every dollar. That is simply indefensible. What is Forrester giving the executive committee to get this type of sweetheart deal? Yes, he's one of them and has been for years, but, I tell you, something is rotten in Denmark.
Please, let's start a new party before it's too late.
Union Street, I believe that Williams could still caucus w/ Republicans in the House, he's only prevented from getting on the ballot as a Republican. As a practical matter, though, he has not been caucusing w/ Republicans since becoming speaker.
First of all let me say I am a registered democrat. That said; let me tell you how I have been disappointed with the Democratic Party in TN. On numerous occasions I have sought the help of the Democratic Party for speaking engagements at my school. Not once did they show up or even have the courtesy to respond. The Republican Party showed up every time and did an excellent job, much to me chagrin. This is just one symptom of the lack of priorities and mismanagement of the Democratic Party in TN. This article appears to explain another.
Well, to "Educator" First there is no party registration in Tennessee, but maybe you were saying that as a cliche'
I have worked for, and with, many Democratic members of Congress, and the General Assembly. EDUCATOR, I can certainly arrange for a Democrat to speak at your school. No, I am not associated with the Tennessee Democratic Party organization. I am a Tennessee Democrat.
On compensation -in either the public OR private sectors (including non-profits)- the "base" salary, if you will, should be determined by what the market bears for a similar position. And, that can include other states, in the comp review.
For example, in being President/CEO for an economic development organization in a city of about 50,000 in population, my "base" salary was $92,000/year. However, additional "perks" brought my total taxable "compensation package" to $120,000/year. There is a HUGE difference between salary and compensation. Plus, that does NOT include bonuses based on performance.
Yes, I know Chip, Gray, Will and maybe a few of you, and you may know me.
First, do not give up and assume that the Party cannot raise money. There are many assumptions that Chip's salary is "20%" of the projected funds the Party will raise. It's February in a new election cycle. How do you KNOW that?
Yes, I am greatly disappointed, too, that the GOP now controls the General Assembly. However, do NOT forget that the Democrats control the executive and legislative branches for the entire country. Despite the fact that Tennessean's continue to vote GOP for President, I personally believe that Obama and the DNC would love to have TN as a Democratic state.
As Democrats, have some of you already given up on OUR President in correcting the economy and repairing 8 years of failed GOP economic policies? By the tone of some, it sounds as if we are in an eternal depression, and as such, no one will give a cent to the Party.
I am not here to argue:
Was Gray worth more than Chip?
Is Chip trying to remove Will to obtain a higher salary?
Here is what I do know. That position organizes and operates a 95 county organization. It is a very important position for the advancement of the Party's agenda and our candidates.
I think a better argument would have been over who would have been the "best" choice to lead the Party. That decision has been made. I do find it a bit trite arguing over what Chip is earning.
I also wonder how many bloggers give to the Party at all, or for that matter, even vote Democratic. Just a thought.
As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we are joining together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.
Many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Nonetheless, this is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for the current Democratic Party leadership is tainted by corruption and being taken over by Socialists. These Socialists are clearly a threat to everything we hold sacred in America, and they are gaining evermore control over our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people.
Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to patriotic and honorable Democratic Party candidates that are not corrupt and/or Socialist.
So please help spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats. Also, don't forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans.
Thank you, and God Bless America.
Website: http://www.democraticreformparty.com
As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we are joining together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.
Many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Nonetheless, this is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for the current Democratic Party leadership is tainted by corruption and being taken over by Socialists. These Socialists are clearly a threat to everything we hold sacred in America, and they are gaining evermore control over our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people.
Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to patriotic and honorable Democratic Party candidates that are not corrupt and/or Socialist.
So please help spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats. Also, don't forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans.
Thank you, and God Bless America.
Website: http://www.democraticreformparty.com
