of ever seeking a state LULAC position or that duly elected delegates to the StateConvention did not have a right to grant her the right to be nominated to serve ourorganization in an elected position. This makes it clear that the legal counsel for TexasLULAC misinterpreted the court order during our business meeting today in San Antonio
when he “ruled” that Linda Chavez was disqualified from being nominated.
The intent of the judge was not to deny us the right to exercise our vote insupport of, or in opposition to, Linda Chavez as our state director; and he surely did notintend for our legal counsel to dismiss her nomination in the first place. We should alsoremember that our voting rights as delegates to the state convention have enoughmoral weight to have warranted a more careful reading of the court order anddeliberate consultations with fellow members of LULAC--the practice of allowing oneperson to make quick and fast rulings in the heat of the moment constitutes a rush to judgment and contradicts our historic efforts to extend constitutionally guaranteedvoting rights to everyone in the United States.
I also agree with others that the legal counsel committed a second error when
he “ruled” that the three letters from LULAC Councils in sup
port of the nomination of Rene Martinez for State LULAC Director were insufficient. The LULAC constitutionclearly states that nominations from the floor only require three letters, a point that thelegal counsel later admitted when a number of persons pointed out the relevantconstitutional clause. Tragically, however, his recognition of this mistake came toolate
—after LULAC’s presiding state officers succumbed to the spirited protests of the
pro-Linda Chavez supporters by exiting the convention and bringing the entire meetingto an abrupt halt.
Additionally, the presiding officer dismissed the protests by a significant numberof experienced and respected elders in our organization. He refused to hear their well-founded arguments and accepted, in unb
elievable haste, the “ruling” by the legal
counsel. The lesson here is that a presiding officer should be reasonable and flexiblewhen duly elected delegates are making constitutionally-based arguments. Thepresiding officer should also balance his sense
of Robert’s Rules of Order with the
obvious fact that an overwhelming number of delegates, including many presidents of LULAC Councils, supported the nomination of Rene Martinez and, if given more time,would have generated many more letters of support. The presiding officer, in otherwords, added insult to injury by disregarding the constitution and the will of what Ibelieve to have been the majority of the delegates in the convention.
One last point. The organizers of the conference and the presiding officercommitted yet another mistake when they used police officers to discipline us duringregistration and threatening to eject and even arrest us. Regardless of the intent, mostof us did not see the police as peace officers but rather as instruments of force that inother times and places in our history others have used to squash legitimate grievancesand dissent originating in our communities.
Now, more than ever, we need honest and intelligent leadership to both setthings right and focus the attention of Texas LULAC on the serious issues that our