In a recent government meeting, a delegate from Utah shared a troubling account of their experience on the platform committee, highlighting significant procedural changes that raised concerns about transparency and member engagement. The delegate, who was elected to the committee after participating in local and state caucuses, described a stark departure from past practices during the committee's recent sessions.

Traditionally, committee members would receive the proposed platform in advance, allowing them to prepare for discussions and amendments. However, this time, the platform was only distributed during the meeting, leaving little time for review or input. The delegate noted that they were instructed to leave all electronic devices outside the meeting room, effectively isolating them from communication and information during the discussions.

The delegate expressed frustration over the absence of subcommittees, which had been promised but ultimately did not exist. This lack of structure prevented any meaningful debate or amendments to the platform, leading to accusations of deception regarding the committee's operations. The delegate emphasized that the process felt controlled and restrictive, undermining the collaborative spirit that had characterized previous platform committee meetings.

This account raises important questions about the decision-making processes within the committee and the implications for party unity and member representation. As the delegate concluded, the experience left them feeling sidelined and concerned about the future of the platform's development.