ONWARD: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life Without Losing Its Soul

I attend his book signing today. There was a hour long discussion about how he restarted Starbucks and a Q&A.

In his new book, "ONWARD: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life Without Losing Its Soul" Schultz recounts those dark days and how he and his team found their way back.

On February 26 2008 Schultz ordered 7,100 Starbucks stores to shut their doors for the day so that he could, despite the enormous financial and PR hits, retrain the company's barristers on the art and technique of espresso making.

In "ONWARD" he writes, “There are moments in our lives when we summon the courage to make choices that go against reason, against common sense and the wise counsel of people we trust. But we lean forward nonetheless because, despite all risks and rational argument, we believe that the path we are choosing is the right and best thing to do. We refuse to be bystanders, even if we do not know exactly where our actions will lead.”

This is Schultz's second book about his life at Starbucks. His first "POUR YOUR HEART INTO IT" (1997) was the story of the then young company's founding, in "ONWARD" Schultz takes a look at a more mature company, a company very much like a teenager in need of constant oversight, nurturing and yes, a dose of some tough love.

For me his concept of spending the early days of all new hires, no matter their position, with "getting their hands dirty", working in and running a store, I always used in my 40 years in business. The other was getting my employees to understand the concept that their spending the companies money should be like taking it out of their pockets.

Howard and I lived in the same federal sponsored project in Brooklyn but I graduated high school in 1962 and he in 1971. I meet him a couple of times when I worked in Seattle from 1996 to 1999.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

SC Republican Primary Stays Open

Thanks to Ballot Access News and Harry Kresky for this post.

Maybe my phone bank work made a difference.

On March 30, U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs turned aside the Republican Party lawsuit against South Carolina’s open primary as applied to the Republican Party. Similar to another 4th circuit ruling earlier in a Virginia case that if a party choices to nominate by primary, it must follow the state election law on who can participate, which in these cases, includes independents. Like Virginia, South Carolina lets all parties decide whether to nominate by primary or convention.

The Republican Party had also argued that it isn’t truly free to choose to nominate by primary, because another state law says the party can’t nominate by convention unless 3/4ths of the delegates agree. However, the judge upheld the 3/4ths law as well. The name of the case is The Greenville County Republican Party v State of South Carolina, 6:10-cv-1407.

Use the above link to read the 25 page decision.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY Civic: Behind the Bylines

New York Civic frames and brings media attention to important issues using the Internet, press events, commentaries, public fora, and public testimonies. They also, on request, advise elected and appointed officials on legislation, budget allocation, and management practices.

New York Civic draws on the skills, experience and unique talent of Henry J. Stern, who served government and the people of New York City for over 40 years, including 15 years as Commissioner of Parks & Recreation, nine years as City Council member at-large from Manhattan, four years as First Deputy Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, and four years as President of the Citizens Union.

Use the above link to view the website.




















































I attended this event and there was standing room but I got there early and had a front seat. The back and forth was really interesting about how they covered NY Politics.

The two women were registered independents and the men registered Democratic and Republican. They all spoke on how they work hard not to bring their personnel feelings into their work.

There were questions on how they filter all the blog stories, how they each handled dealing with politicians when it was a negative story, how hard it was to maintain stories like corruption over a long period with their reduced staffs, and issues in the city and state. We all laughed when they asks if there was any interns in the audience.

The one issue they all agreed was important for the state was changing the primary date. It is hard enough to get New York voters to the polls for any September primary. But the new Move Act which would give those serving overseas in the military more time, 45 days, to receive their absentee ballots for the general election.

Douglas A. Kellner, a co-chairman of the State Board of Elections.

“My belief is that it is literally impossible to comply with the new federal law if the primary date is any later than Aug. 31, 2010, and even Aug. 31 puts a lot of pressure on the county boards of election, But there’s an issue with August, because August is a month when people are traditionally on vacation, then you have to see whether you have the primary in August, or whether you have the primary in June.”

It looks like some time in June is where this could go.

We will follows this issue closely.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The NEO-INDEPENDENT Magazine Re-Launch

Omar H. Ali, Executive Editor

Jackie Salit, Publisher

Contributing Editors:
Phyllis Goldberg,
Harry Kresky,
Fred Newman,
Jackie Salit






The current issue of the The Neo-Independent magazine, now on-line, features an edited version of Salit's analysis--food for thought for anyone interested in better understanding the emerging national independent political movement. Salit's edited presentation is followed by an interview with CNN contributor and political analyst John P. Avlon, a participant at the national conference of independents and a longtime advocate for non-partisan reform.

Welcome!
We're re-launching The Neo-Independent ... this time online, with new features and interactivity. Over the coming months we'll be publishing cutting-edge news and political analysis on the emerging independent movement.

Stay tuned!

Omar H. Ali, Editor

Use the above link to view the new on-line magazine.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

SC Open Primary Fight

Wayne Griffin, chair of the South Carolina Independence Party and Greer City Councilman, delivered a report on the SC open primary fight at the recent National Conference of Independents.

South Carolina currently allows all voters to vote in party primaries and do not have to designate a party preference during the registration process. This is called an open primary and it has become an increasingly controversial issue.

The Republican Party is suing the state to close the primaries. They want to force people to register into their party, and lock independents out. The suit asks U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs to either grant injunctive relief or deem open primaries unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional right to free association. The Election Commission will allow a party to select its nominees in a convention format that bypasses primaries, but the state requires that the convention must agree by a three-fourths majority. The state’s requirements, which are protected by the federal Voting Rights Act, help avoid voter disenfranchisement and a proliferation of fraudulent candidates.

A very diverse coalition has come together to keep the primaries open. To support the effort, we are asking SC voters willing to support keeping the primaries open to add their name to the following Letter to the Editor that we will send to local newspapers.

Letter to the Editor

We, the undersigned, are among the 38% of South Carolinians' who consider ourselves independent-minded voters. We support the continuation of South Carolina’s open primary system. For the last 46 years, since the end of Jim Crow laws, open primaries have allowed for all voters to participate equally in the process. Yet, the Republican Party has sued the state to lock independents out by closing the primaries. A broad coalition of forces including IndependentVoting.org, the SC Independence Party, the Progressive Network, the Columbia Tea Party, and 13 Democratic Party members of the State Legislative Black Caucus have come together to support the voting rights of independents and have intervened in the lawsuit. We call on all elected officials to speak out in support of SC’s current open primary system. All voters should have the opportunity to participate fully in every phase of our election process.

Independentvoting.org and the SC Independence Party are part of a national network of independents that are fighting for needed political reforms that put the concerns of voters above the partisan interests of the parties.

Last night, I was part of a phone bank asking SC voters to sign the letter.

If you are a SC voter, contact Nancy Ross to request to add your name to the letter.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Appeal of Idaho Open Primary Decision

March 23, 2011 - Attorney Gary Allen (left), Mitch Campbell, chair the American Independent Movement of Idaho (center), and Attorney Harry Kresky (right) outside the Federal Court in Boise, Idaho.

New York, NY — Independents have taken an appeal from the decision of U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruling Idaho’s open primary system unconstitutional.

In August of 2008, a group of 11 independent Idaho voters and two organizations representing independents—the American Independent Movement of Idaho founded by Mitch Campbell of Twin Falls and the New York-based CUIP (d/b/a IndependentVoting.org)—a national association of independents—were granted the right to participate in the case as intervenors-defendants. As such, the independents have standing to appeal.

“A third of Idaho voters have lost their right to vote in the state’s primaries as a result of this decision,” said Harry Kresky, general counsel for CUIP and co-counsel for the intervenors. “As a result of our intervention in the litigation, independents are able to take the necessary legal steps to protect their interests, regardless of what the State of Idaho decides to do in the courts or in the legislature in response to the decision.”

The notice of appeal was filed by attorney Gary Allen of Boise, who stated:

"I look forward to representing independent voters' interests on the appeal. It is important for independents to have a voice in this matter. In Idaho, the Republican primary is often the only election that counts, and independents who wish to affiliate with the Republican Party for purposes of that primary should be able to do so. Partisan interests should not take precedence when it comes to participation in the democratic process.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

CA GOP to Run their Primary

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

I have been posting about the parties should run their own candidate selection process before an Open Primary that all voters would vote in. If a candidate gets 50% + 1, they would be elected. If not, the Top Two would go to a General Election. I feel the State's should not be paying tax payers' dollars to run private parties elections.

Maybe this is a start.

The California Republican Party's rules committee approved by a 10-8 vote late last night an ambitious endorsement plan that would have the party send out ballots to all registered Republican voters in the state to determine the party's officially endorsed candidates. The plan comes as a response to Proposition 14, passed in 2010, which created a top-two runoff system, regardless of party affiliation.

If approved by the entire General Session, The GOP's new system would take effect in 2014 so that the party would have the time to raise money and organize the mammoth effort to mail out ballots to all of the state's Republicans. The state currently has 5.3 million registered Republicans.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Citizen United Update

My Citizen Union case posts about "Corporations are not People" have been challenged with the "Free Speech" brush. I finally agreed, as long as there were safeguards against direct money transfers or coordination between corporations and candidates or parties. But the following indicates my concerns are real and growing.

Now that the 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates to corporate-sponsored election ads, conservative opponents of campaign finance regulations have opened up a series of new legal fronts in their effort to eliminate the remaining laws restricting the flow of money into politics. They have taken to Congress, State Legislatures, and the lower courts to target almost every type of regulation on the books: disclosure requirements, bans on foreign and corporate contributions and, in a pair of cases the Supreme Court will consider this month, party spending limits and public financing of campaigns.

These types of lawsuits against campaign finance measures have been flooding the courts for years, but now they’re finding more success on the Supreme Court taking very anti-campaign finance reform stands or more appropriately, pro-corporate stances and so the cases are reaching further than they ever did before. Perhaps more significantly, Citizens United emboldened increasingly well-funded conservative small-government groups to pursue more aggressive attacks on other regulations that were previously considered beyond reach.

Groups are now pursuing federal lawsuits seeking to overturn other political money restrictions, including a closely watched case challenging a rule barring political action committees from giving to candidates if they raise unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals for ads.

The outcome of a case challenging Arizona’s public financing system, which is scheduled for a March 28 argument before the Supreme Court, will be the first big play on this. It could set the tone on whether the Supreme Court is still moving in the deregulatory direction and it could indicate new targets to go after. Brought by a pair of small government groups, the Washington-based Institute for Justice and the Phoenix based Goldwater Institute, on behalf of an Arizona state lawmaker who rejected public funds. The case, McComish v. Bennett, only challenges a specific provision in the Arizona system. But it could have wide-ranging implications, particularly since it comes as advocates for reducing the flow of money into politics have been placing their hopes for dialing back the impact of Citizens United on proposals to publicly fund political races, including a bill that would set up such a system for congressional campaigns. An adverse ruling from the high court could undermine public financing systems across the country and increase still further the grossly disproportionate voice given to corporations and unions in our elections.

Opponents of campaign rules argue that removing restrictions allows more voices to compete in the political marketplace. And they have a slew of other suits pending that could dramatically alter the political money landscape, including one challenging a rule that limited how much the Republican National Committee could spend supporting the unsuccessful 2010 reelection campaign of former Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), direct corporate contributions to state candidates.

A pair of others dispute whether non-profit groups called the Committee for Truth in Politics and The Real Truth About Obama that aired ads critical of then candidate Barack Obama had to disclose their donors or activity. While liberals have framed the assault on campaign spending restrictions as part of a vast corporate conspiracy, funded by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, to elect Republicans, it’s not just conservative groups challenging the campaign laws.

A Democratic donor is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a law prohibiting people from reimbursing others for donations. The donor, prominent Los Angeles lawyer Pierce O’Donnell, was charged with violating that law by reimbursing 13 employees of his firm and other associates who combined to contribute $26,000 to the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

And a suit challenging the foreign contribution ban is being brought on behalf of a Canadian who wants to support President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and a dual Israeli-Canadian citizen who wants to contribute to Obama’s opponent and also to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), to help prevent a “government takeover of the health-care system in the United States,” according to the suit. It says both plaintiffs are legally authorized to live and work in the United States, but are not permanent residents.

Then there’s the ACLU, often a leading champion of liberal causes which nonetheless over the years has been among the most effective and best funded opponents of many campaign finance restrictions, deeming them unconstitutional infringements on free speech. The group filed a brief supporting the Citizens United challenge and has suits pending challenging a provision in Connecticut’s public financing law, as well as a Maine law used to fine a blogger who failed to disclose his identity after spending $92 on a blog opposing a gubernatorial candidate. But less than three months after the Citizens United decision, the ACLU hosted a vigorous debate on its campaign finance stances, ultimately voting to continue its support for the ruling, but to relax its opposition to certain types of public financing programs and to drop its opposition to contribution limits.

So my concerns seems to be real. We need to stay focused and determine case by case where the true fights are.

Corporations are not People!









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY Independent Redistricting Update

The New York Legislature is on track to approve funding for the same partisan, lawmaker driven redistricting task force it has been using for years.

The Senate and the Assembly included funding for the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), in their respective budget resolutions passed Tuesday. The Senate also passed a bill that would call for a constitutional amendment to address redistricting reform, which would push the issue off until at least 2017. A bill to establish an independent redistricting commission has been introduced in the Assembly, but has yet to come up for a vote.

Former Mayor Ed Koch called on Gov. Andrew Cuomo to veto the budget for LATFOR, arguing it sends the wrong signal at a time when independent redistricting is close to fruition. “Any effort to frustrate independent commission redistricting should be met by a veto on the part of the governor, who has pledged to do that,” Koch said. “He said he would.” Koch insisted that the real obstacle to reform was not funding for LATFOR, but the Senate Republicans. “I believe we will win ultimately,” Koch said. “But it’s very disappointing when people elected to office do not keep their word, which is this the case here with Majority Leader Dean Skelos and the Republicans.”

Excluding funds for LATFOR could potentially derail the entire redistricting process, warned Assembly Member Jack McEneny, a redistricting expert and one of the chairs of the legislative panel. “The alternative is you let it all die on the 31st of March. Then you have nothing,” McEneny said. “That could be a disaster, because you might not meet deadlines.” McEneny is a co-sponsor on the Assembly redistricting reform bill, and said he supports State Sen. Mike Gianaris’s bill to create a non-partisan redistricting process.

But if Governor Cuomo veto's any partisan redistricting bills it will go to the courts any the voters will get their independent redistricting.

It is time for stopping legislators picking their constituents and instead have constituents pick their legislators.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us