According to The Free-Lance Star, Fredericksburg Democrats want 1st Congressional District candidate Dr. Keith Hummel, who suspended his campaign two weeks ago, to withdraw:
Wednesday night, the Fredericksburg Democratic committee unanimously passed a resolution asking chairwoman Amy La Marca to “immediately write Dr. Keith Hummel demanding his immediate withdrawal as the nominee.”
The committee also unanimously passed a resolution calling for the resignation of [1st District Democratic chairwoman Suzette] Matthews due to her “failure to properly review” Hummel’s background as well as “her refusal to promptly react” when Hummel’s background surfaced.
Time is getting short for the 1st District to have a candidate in place. This is a tough district for Democrats so a quick resolution is important.
UPDATE: The text of the resolutions appear below the fold.
RESOLUTION #1 of July 16, 2008
That the chairperson of this committee is to immediately write Dr. Keith Hummel demanding his immediate withdrawal as the nominee from the First Congressional District for the United States House of Representatives; and that a copy of this Resolution be provided to every member of the First Congressional District Democratic Committee, every chairperson of every local Democratic committee in the First Congressional District, the Chairperson of the State Central Democratic Committee, and each delegate to the First District Congressional District Democratic Convention.
(Unanimously passed.)RESOLUTION #2 of July 16, 2008
That the Fredericksburg Democratic Committee chairperson is to write the chairperson of the First Congressional District Democratic Committee requesting her immediate resignation as Chairperson based upon:
1. Her failure to properly review the background of the current nominee of
this district for the United States House of Representatives; and,2. Her refusal to promptly react to the information provided to her
regarding the background of our current nominee; and,3. Her apparent continuing personal support of this district’s nominee for
the United States House of Representatives despite the information presented to her; and,That she be requested to immediately obtain the withdrawal of this district’s nominee with a copy of this resolution to be provided to each member of the First Congressional District Committee, each chairperson of each local Democratic committee in this district, the Chairperson of the Virginia State Democratic Central Committee, and each delegate who attended the First Congressional District convention. (Unanimously passed.)
26 Comments
Wow… Its interesting how far people will go to get away from the blame… Suzette had nothing to do with recruiting Hummel- but Amy La Marca was wholly responsible for recruiting Hummel and then was an early advisory for the campaign (before she backed off for obvious reasans).
So I guess Amy thinks by rewriting history- she can save herself some blame. Sad.
James,
If you bothered reading the whole story from The Free Lance–Star, you would see that Amy had nothing to do with the call for Hummel’s withdrawal or the call for Matthews’s resignation.
“If you bothered reading”… Thanks
Don’t believe everything you read… Which was the point of my comment!
James - I don’t believe everything I read, but I do know what I personally witnessed over the last three months. If you want to know the truth, call me directly. The article was accurate, and your comment is not.
It’s no longer a question of who recruited him, but who will actually show leadership to get the matter resolved. Vivian is right, time is short and action is needed.
This is starting to get ridiculous! James, you are starting to sound like Bush when you make execuses for Suzette and say it is everyone’s fault but hers. She is in charge and needs to be held accountable. All of Hummel’s financial problems should have come out during the vetting process, since it was all a matter of public record! What did Suzette and the rest of the vetting committee actually do, in terms of vetting? It is the vetting committee’s responsibility to look into these things and this did not happen!
Another question that needs to be addressed is why was Alaine Calender on the vetting committee? She was deeply involved in the vetting process and at the same time was pushing Hummel behind the scenes.
I think everyone needs to stop attacking Amy and instead heap praise on her committee for doing the right thing! She is the only one in this whole debacle that has showed a shred of leadership!
Just my 2 cents…
vetting committee? wow, wish someone in the 4th district had of thought of that one.
One of the funniest things I find is that James is attacking a local committee chair for helping to find a candidate.
My response: Well, what the hell was the candidate recruitment committee for the First Congressional District Democratic Committee (FCDDC) doing?
They couldn’t find any candidate that would run.
The FCDDC spent hours talking about Hummel’s financial situation during a closed meeting and they couldn’t figure this out before now?
the only thing the vetting committee did not do was pay hundreds of dollars to do an investigation into the backgrounds of the candidate. The vetting process at some point short of an investigation requires full disclosure by the candidate, which clearly was not the case in this matter. Of course if the question isn’t asked then why tell your horror stories. Some are looking for perfection and I have yet to see that in any human process. even my computer screws up sometimes. the vetting process was proper and thorough but relied too much on trust and honesty from a democratic candidate.
So now this is what will happen every candidate statewide will clearly be subject to a thorough investigation including all past mistakes such as jaywalking when they were 18. We might as well also set up a list of past flaws that will not be tolerated if found in their backgrounds such as divorce, adultery, drugs, being an ex-republican, and on and on and on.
Suzette was not guilty of one thing period she has always been strictly by the party plan. I also will not put blame on Amy because as chair I know whether you agree or disagree with the direction your committee wants to go with resolutions you still must entertain them unless they are out of order.
There are basically only 3 flaws with the resolutions. The first is that a resolution didn’t need to be typed up and submitted to the press. Whoever did that cares little for the damage that might have been done to the 1st Cd or even their own committee. The second thing is that the resolutions achieve nothing and are absolutely irrelevant. A phone call to Dr. Hummel to withdraw didn’t even need to be a resolution you simply pick up the phone.
The third problem goes back to the resolution being irrelevant. In order for the resolution concerning Suzette to be relevant Fredericksburg would have to find someone to actually submit it to the 1st CD who is on the Committee and then they would need enough votes to win the resolution. That should not and also will not happen simply because the 1st CD committee knows Suzette has done nothing wrong.
I believe it is time to move on to more important things. Fredericksburg did what they did. No problem next time just stay out of the press if you don’t mind because it will truly complicate a search for anybody wanting to ever run in the 1st again. This might complicate anybody wanting to run period. I can see it now only ” Want AD- Candidate to Run for office- Requirements squeaky clean from birth to present.
Give me a break Gene! The fact that Hummel admitted to having money problems should have prompted a background search for potential bankruptcies during the vetting process. Hundreds of dollars I think not! It took this gumshoe no more than 15 minutes and 8 cents per page to track down Hummel’s bankruptcy problems. Do yourself a favor and register for a PACER account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.
Listen the problem is not a matter of too much trust and honesty of a democratic candidate it is a matter of incompetence from the 1st CD Committee led by Suzette Matthews. There is no way that you can be a honest broker or objective because of your relationship with Suzette. The fact that you try and compare multiple bankruptcies to jaywalking clearly shows that you truly lack the full gravity of this situation. How can you say that Suzette did nothing wrong since she followed the party plan? I guess the party plan oks deriliction of one’s duty!
The only thing I agree with is that Amy did nothing wrong. In fact, she showed real leadership in this whole situation.
Well I also agree with the fact that this should not have been aired so publicly. But now that it is out, it must be dealt with and Suzette and those who vetted him must be held accountable.
If you really believe everything you said above, I am truly concerned and wonder if you should be in a leadership position.
This is just my additional 2 cents…
We live in a post 9/11 Patriot Act world and because of that we have to live with a lot of government invading our privacy.
but try to follow Mr. Magruder’s thread (its hard) and what you get is a standard for running for congress that should remain lower than boarding an airplane, getting a business loan, opening a checking account, having a locksmith replace your lost car keys, registering your car, and getting a driver’s license.
I dunno, maybe I’m just a dumb cracker but shouldn’t y’all be investigating your candidates better? People elected to congress get to vote on appropriating my tax money for things like big leather recliners for top brass on military aircraft. At least the taxpayer should know when they do vote on stuff like that your congressman hasn’t gotten caught sticking bricks of $ 100 bills wrapped in tin foil in there freezer.
This guy lied through his teeth. From what Not a Republican says it would have been easy enough to discover this guys financial woes in public records online. That couldnt be too hard to do but y’all didn’t do it. and you got what you gave.
My comment about hundreds of dollars was for what others wish to be a thorough vetting would include more than just looking at your site for money problems. A thorough vetting would include possible court problems, military background, employment problems, schoolyear problems, etc.. the whole nine yards. so your 15 minutes and 8 cents a page would not have been sufficient for a complete vetting.
I really did not know hiring an investigator was so cheap.
I also did not know that we would be acting exactly like Republicans in this matter!!!
Perfection or Death!!
(Not from Fredricksbug) ’seems like a family squabble, but not knowing how things are run, your district would probably be best served by sucking it up and figuring out a way to come up with a solid candidate and support him/her. I expect Republicans will be chortling (sp?) while they read this stuff. Or maybe they are Howelling with laughter?
I don’t know what the process is about selecting candidates and vetting them. Is this formalized in a Democratic policy and procedure document? Some thoghts: maybe each district should identify possible good candidates immediately after the prevous election and develop a plan to win the next one?; maybe each district should get the resumes/ cirr. vitae from the members of their membership and look for people that might be both good and qualified?
Flash, very well said
Does anyone have any history on how Hummel was found; when he was found; who found him; what the vetting consisted of, etc.?
Seems like everyone is talking in generalities and frankly it’s not contributing much to the understanding of how this selection/nomination happened. I doubt that we’ll ever know anything, except through grapevine, inuendo, and rumors.
A good local and district committee should have a standing Candidate Search Committee, with a planned budget, procedures, standards, etc. Don’t you think? Has the 1st District learned it’s lesson?
BTW, a member of another committee in that District has e-mailed a large swath of people in the Fredericksburg area and states that Hummel has told him (the member) that he will resign. The member also callously chastized the Fredericksburg Committee in an attached letter for even making these two resolutions! Please, is there no freedom of speech in the Democratic Party?
I’m anxious to hear more …
The candidate recruitment committee for the district managed to recruit no one.
It took a local committee chair to actually find someone interested in running.
As for the vetting process, the district committee spend hours (I’m serious, it was about three hours) discussing Hummel’s financial status in closed session and couldn’t manage to figure any of this out ahead of time.
I completely agree with 630slugtodc. Gene, you continue to miss the point on the vetting process. If it is true that the 1st Congressional District spent a total of 3 hours vetting this candidate behind closed doors, it is a total embarrassment and again Suzette needs to immediately step down. I understand what is involved in a thorough vetting process, but what disturbes me the most is that a 15 minute effort would have exposed the sheer magnitude and number of bankruptcies. How could Hummel be trusted to spend our tax dollars when he could not even mananage his own money?
At this point, the 1st Congressional District Committee led by Suzette has lost any and all credibility. The longer she remains chairwoman the longer this circus continues.
Becoming more curious about this, I took a look at Raising Kaine and found this “dialogue” (http://raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=14840) which included Hummel’s campaign suspension press release.
Whatever happened, it appears that the 1st CD has some serious operational problems … but is that something new? Will the DPVA step in and help? They’ve been asked before. Regardless of the gerrymandering excuse, this year’s election is about populist issues and there could have been a chance to “make the case” for a Democrat. Sadly, we’ve missed that opportunity. There really should be a formal (doesn’t have to be public) long, hard look at what happened: timelines, procedures used, written guidance used, candidate selection committee staffing (I keep seeing the same names over and over), communication, DPVA oversight, etc. and a solution drafted so that embarrassing situations like this are less likely to happen in the future.
I’ve heard that generic stories that physicians tend not to be good at business. I know of more than one physician that has filed for bankruptsy. I also know of a contractor who was stiffed out of thousands of dollars for work on a plastic surgeon’s office in Williamsburg (the property was actully owned by his father and pretty much all of the plastic surgeon’s supposed assets were under the ownership of other people, reportedly to protect against malpractice suits!)
If this Dr. Keith Hummel has been involved in several bankruptsy proceedings, the probability that he will pull out of the race properly on his own is unlikely. I expect his mommy did his dirty work for him when he was younger, then his office staff and his wife (if he has one) have been doing it since then. I think the best thing to do is for someone to prepare the paperwork and carry it over to the guy to get him to sign it. If a notary is needed, he/she will need to go over as well. Making motions or sending letters to someone like this is probably as waste of time. IMHO, y’all just need to do it, move on, and hope that nobody you know or like gets rolled into an operating room the guy is in.
Flash,
I could understand someone having to file for one bankruptcy.
Everyone at some point has financial troubles.
But this guy had five.
Flash, come on…you’re just continuing the innuedos and prejudices (against a class of people, in this case doctors) without facts.
First, is it a known FACT that Dr. Hummel never mentioned his bankruptcies to 1st District officials? Is it a known fact that the 1st District staff asked the doctor before his nomination about any financial or other problems? Is it a known fact that, if he was asked, that he lied? Is it a known fact that the delegates to the nominating convention were made aware of the bankruptcies?
The Fredericksburg Democratic Committee’s Resolutions were a rightful expression of how and what they, as a committee, felt. They understand perfectly well that their resolutions have no administrative value but are merely a formal expression of what they believe and desire. It’s part of the process.
Lastly, is there a reliable source for establishing 5 bankruptcies versus the 3 that was reported in the newspapers?
To me, it boils down to this: Until the facts and truth are established (and they probably will never be made public for us), categorizing (”physicians tend not to be good at business” ) groups of people is prejudicial; and putting character motivations on another (”the probability that he will pull out of the race properly on his own is unlikely” ) is illogical and disrepectful.
I will agree with you, though, that if the 1st District Committee does not want him as their candidate (how that is formalized, I don’t know), then presenting him with the proper paperwork to withdraw might be wise.
BTW, are any of the commenters on this diary a member of the 1st District Committee and privy to the truth/facts?
I don’t know where those smilies in my above post came from….sorry.
Still being curious, I found this regarding 5 versus 3 bankruptcies: WTOP radio reported — “Hummell filed debt reorganization petitions 1997 and 2003 and a Chapter 7 petition for liquidation in 1992 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.” That sounds like 3 to me!!!
And Dan Smolen on Fred2Blue had this to say on July 3rd on the topic:
“When, Dr. Keith Hummel approached the powers that be that he wanted to run for Congress, he admitted to all the key-influencers and decision-makers that he had once gone through personal bankruptcy reorganization.
It seemed innocuous enough. And, who among us hasn’t known someone that had gone through the hardest, and most-embarrassing, of financial situations? Very few, I’d guess.
Many accepted that notion that perhaps there was only one bankruptcy filing. One person I know, and respect very much, was in a public setting where Dr. Hummel spoke. She said (he) ”lied to all of us. In public session, he stated there was one bankruptcy. One not, THREE!”
After the nomination, the questions about Dr. Hummel started bubbling up. And, sure enough, an easy-to-run public records search spit out not just one bankruptcy filing in the Eastern District, but three. And the list of past creditors was long, very long. Pages long.
Was Dr. Hummel forthright in discussing his financial history? Not being part of the formal process, I cannot say. Unlike my friend, I was not in the room. That said, my friend is an honest broker. I have no reason to disbelieve her account.
I do know this much. The machinery to vet and nominate a First District Congressional candidate broke and needs to be fixed. Questions that should have been asked by the nominating committee, due diligence that should have been done by them, were not. Information provided may not have been given truthfully, or vetted completely.
The Hummel campaign suspended operations. And I speak for many that believe Dr. Hummel should now do the right thing and formally withdraw from the race. Doing so would clear the way for a replacement candidate to come forward.
Then, we need to take a really good look at how all this happened and do everything possible to assure ourselves and the public, that this will never happen again.”
I think Dan hit the nail on the head with his comment that we need to assure the PUBLIC that this will never happen again…..
Sleepless, quoting from The Free Lance–Star Vivian quoted:
Sleepless, I’m not a member or affiliated with the First Congressional Democratic Committee but I was present for the open session portion of their meeting in March.
The meeting went something like this:
Meeting started with some minor stuff (agenda, calendar, etc.)
Motion to go into closed session.
After two and a half to three hours, the closed session ended and the committee stated they had go into the closed session to discuss “private financial details” about someone.
After the chairwoman said this, Hummel got up to speak and stated someone around the following: “I had some financial problems in the pass and had to declare a single bankruptcy. I’ve been opened about it all along and if someone wants to ask me about it, that’s fine.”
This is probably the same event that Dan is talking about in his post, where the woman he quotes said that Hummel “lied to all of us”.
Sleepless - I fixed your post and took out the smilies. And you see there were indeed 5 bankruptcies.
The thing at this point, though, is why hasn’t Hummel withdrawn? What’s the holdup?
Thanks Timothy for the information. That helps.
And thanks Vivian for the clarification and for fixing my post. Maybe your post today (July 23rd) on the matter can collect enough valid information so Hummel can be convinced to withdraw and still accept donations for clearing his debt.
Post a Comment