Press "Enter" to skip to content

Monika Broome nominated for DPOC North County Vice Chair

monika broome

Monika Broome, a recipient of the Richard J. O’Neil Lifetime Achievement Award from the Democratic Party of Orange County last year, has been nominated to replace Greg Diamond as the North Vice Chair for the DPOC at last night’s special meeting of the Party rescheduled because of the Memorial Day Holiday. Broome is a longtime Party activist and has been involved with Democratic causes and candidates in OC since the 1970s.

In short, she’s an ideal pick. Someone with deep roots in the party, someone who is well-respected, someone who turns activism into actual activity, and someone who builds bridges instead of burning them down.

But you didn’t expect the previous Vice Chair to go down graciously.

Now the definition of last night’s meeting came under fire from ousted DPOC vice chair Greg Diamond who noted that DPOC bylaws state that an election to replace a vacant or vacated seat could only be done at the next regularly scheduled meeting, which to most people would recognize the Tuesday after a Monday holiday as being the regular, but rescheduled meeting.  Diamond was under the weather and unable to attend the meeting, but, in typical Diamond fashion, he sent a Facebook post to the party members insulting them on their knowledge of the Party bylaws, asked to have his name placed in nomination to replace himself, and then said if nominated, he’d consider resuming the position he was just ousted from.

The post was forwarded to us; from Diamond’s Facebook post:

Fellow DPOC Central Committee members (and others can ignore this):

I would like to have e-mailed you all at once, but that ability seems to have been reserved now entirely for the Chair and those he designates (as well as, for at least limited purposes, the Secretary.)

I’m home sick today with a nasty sinus/respiratory infection, so I do not plan to attend today’s Special Meeting. But I do want to call your attention to something.

Please refer to Article IV, Section 5 of your Bylaws. (The Bylaws, by the way, say that you have to read the Bylaws. If you don’t have them, they’re on the DPOC site.) It reads (at lines 229-232):

“Section 5. Appointment of Vacant Office

“If the office of any officer becomes or is declared vacant, his/her successor shall be elected from elected, appointed or ex-officio members at the next REGULARLY SCHEDULED meeting.” [CAPS are my emphasis.]

The Agenda for today’s meeting contains the following note at the top:

“Please note: On May 12, the Executive Board agreed to CANCEL the REGULARLY SCHEDULED meeting for Monday, May 26th due to the Memorial Day holiday and schedule this SPECIAL Central Committee meeting for the purpose of making up the canceled meeting.” [CAPS are again my emphasis.]

Agenda Item X.A addresses “Declaration of Vacancy and Nominations for Northern Vice Chair.”

While I renew my objections to the violations of the DPOC Bylaws (as well as campaign finance laws) related to my removal as Vice Chair at our April meeting, I recognize that if the DPOC again chooses to ignore that lawlessness it is permitted by the Bylaws to declare the North Vice Chair position vacant. However, it should be completely clear from the above that it cannot fill the office of Vice Chair at today’s SPECIAL meeting.

If the plan for today is to simply take nominations, and not have an election, I ask that my name be placed in nomination for the position. I will decide between now and the next REGULARLY SCHEDULED meeting whether I will withdraw from consideration. If, on the other hand, an election takes place NOTWITHSTANDING the clear requirements of the Bylaws, I will assess a proper response to this compounded lawlessness.

Thank you for your consideration and have a good meeting — within the bounds of the Bylaws — tonight.

We’re told Diamond’s name was placed into nomination and seconded, and was then ruled out of order.  An attempt to override the chair’s ruling failed miserably.  So to review, Diamond insults the Central Committee with a comment about bylaws, quibbles over a common sense notion on the status of a meeting moving to the next business day, asks to be nominated to a position he was kicked out of by 70% of the present voting members and, if nominated, will decide whether or not to accept if nominated and/or elected.  Honestly, Republicans don’t have to worry about doing the harm to our Party that some of our own members do.
We wish Ms. Broome much luck in the pending election and hope she’ll be a unifying force for the Party.




  1. Sherree Geyer Sherree Geyer May 28, 2014

    Talk about hubris! File in the category of “you can’t make this stuff up!”

  2. junior junior May 29, 2014

    What a dick Diamond is ….

    He is so oblivious … he doesn’t even know when he is damaging his rep with his own people beyond salvation.

  3. Greg Diamond Greg Diamond May 29, 2014

    I don’t believe that I’ve made your acquaintance, Sherree. Have you been involved in Democratic Party events?

    I note from LinkedIn that you are in the business of “Public Relations and Communications”: Strategic public relations, marketing communications, social media — so I guess that I don’t have to guess how you know Dan.

    I was going to delve into a close reading of your website — “an agency of experienced professionals driven by a love for the industries we represent” — but unlike Dan I’m not one to punch downward.

    By the way: you seem to have no idea what you’re talking about regarding the DPOC Bylaws. A word of advice: don’t rely on Dan for explanations.

    • Greg Diamond Greg Diamond May 29, 2014

      And you, skallywag, aside from being completely ignorant of the issues at hand, are (like Dan’s great friend and Public Relations professional Matt Cunningham) are an inveterate opponent of the Democratic Party in Orange County — so your puffing up Dan here is no surprise.

      Any actual Democrats here capable of discussing the Bylaws? “We’re told Diamond’s name was placed into nomination and seconded, and was then ruled out of order” — that right there is good for a nice long discussion. Let me know.

      I’ll take the precaution of copying the comments, Dan, “just in case.” Thanks for being such a uniter!

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | May 30, 2014

      Greg — first off, wow. Going after someone who has chimed in under their own name and try to drag them through the mud all the while you participate in protecting the identities of anonymous cowards on the blog you write for…stay classy.

      I don’t know Sherree; the agency he works for is based in Chicago. But of course, if she’s in PR, she’s part of my *vast* network.

      You’re not one to punch downward. Read your comment again. That is exactly what you did.

  4. Greg Diamond Greg Diamond May 29, 2014

    One last thing, Dan — if you read the Bylaws (as, like much of the Central Committee, you apparently haven’t), you would know that they specify that regular meetings have to be held on Mondays. (This is a good idea, given that so many City Council meetings are on Tuesdays — and us actual activists often attend them.) Ask whoever feeds you your DPOC info to give you the citation.

    So, it’s not a “common-sense notion” that the meeting date can be shifted like this — it’s a violation of a plain stark rule in the Bylaws, one that I can’t recall occurring before this.

    But let’s say that you’re right! If that was so, and if I was lawfully removed from office in April (as your allies on DPOC assert), and if this was a regular meeting, then the requirement was that the election itself should have taken place on Tuesday.

    But it didn’t. Do you know why? Because your understanding was wrong.

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | May 30, 2014

      Greg — they only took nominations Tuesday; there was no plan for an actual nomination and election. So if a Monday regular meeting were to fall on Christmas Day, it would make sense to move it to Boxing Day.

      For what its worth, it was also against the bylaws for the offer to be made to have you resign your Vice Chair Post but take someone’s place on the executive committee. Do you decide which laws to follow and which to ignore?

  5. annymous annymous May 30, 2014

    Greg’s skin seems to be getting thinner by the day.
    On his own blog he’s constantly chastising people for their anonymous comments, call anyone a “yahoo” and he gets the vapors.
    Not surprising that any discussion of his removal from the DPOC gets him hot under the collar. After all, he’s got his reputation to preserve, he’s running for office don’t cha know.

  6. Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski June 1, 2014

    I should thank Greg, I really should. Sherrer and I are now connected on LinkedIn and will be talking shop. First order of business: the clueless and spiteful nature of this self appointed guardian of what’s corrupt and not corrupt.

  7. JavaJoe JavaJoe June 4, 2014

    Dan Pedrozalueski strikes again. Dan, have you ever been informed, or ever not been a d***?

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | June 4, 2014

      why don’t you settle on a single handle and could you be more specific about what I might not be informed about?

Comments are closed.