[candidate-development] [statecom-discuss] Delegate Plan - contains latest updates as of June 30, 2008
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Mon Jun 30 23:02:55 EDT 2008
I would like to repeat an injunction to all members of the State
Committee, AdCom, and other decision maker.
Be serious!
Understand that act toward you, any you, as possessing agency, not in
need of endless re-assurance, and in discourse make reciprocal demands
for clarity, careful reading, and understanding of that which is
uttered or written. This demand that I make on myself, and others
with whom I work and wish to work is not idle. It is founded on the
technical necessity for 'good will' if genuine dialog is to occur. No
other use of language, however valuable for finding out about peoples
feelings, can lead to responsible decision making.
From this point of view, I would like to point out the discursive
impropriety of the following:
On Jun 30, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Mike Heichman wrote:
> Hi Elie,
>
> I just sent a message asking if the decisions made by the 6-29
> statement
> were inclued in your proposal.
Why do I have to repeat myself? I responded once guessing that you
were talking about the Delegate Plan under discussion , and in the
belief that you were responding to preliminary minutes. And suddenly
I find that you are referring to something else that you now call
'your proposal.' I have no way of knowing what it is you wish to
know, that you need to know, and that your absence from the meeting
causes you some concern. It would be more direct if you told me what
it is that you are trying to find out. Then I could tell you.
> Additional concerns and requests:
>
> 1. Would you please include how each proposed delegate would
> contribute
> to our diversity goals?
From the very first issuance of the proposal, you must know that I
will not do this. "2. Delegates (and alternates) selected by the GRP
on behalf of candidates who chose not to select their own delegates.
The State Committee selects the following persons, submitted by the
Candidate Development and Legal Committee, as delegates pledged to the
named candidates. (Personal information available but not displayed
for privacy protection.)" This is a proposal signed by several
people. This is not my idea. I work with others. It has to do with
social custom and respect for persons, "Respect for Diversity." My
sensibilities are quite different from those of other people of my
acquaintance. No.
> Specifically-next to each proposed delegate, please list their
> gender and specific ways that each one contributes to
> fulfilling our diversity goals.
I not only will not follow this instruction, I find it utterly
disgusting to approach someone in such a manner. I suggest that he
vast majority of the people I know and respect are not there for such
a purpose. As a matter of fact they would stay far away from someone
who is speaking to them as part of a quota-filling search.
> 2. Repeating an old concern: Is there any commitment in your proposal
> for the party to take responsibility to raise funds to help enable
> potential low-income delegates from attending the convention in
> Chicago?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Heichman
More nonsense. The data required to do make such a commitment is not
available to me. I do know and state the Budgetary Impact very
clearly. As well as the implications for anyone who is concerned
about Diversity above all. But if people are using Diversity as an
argument for a particular group's dissatisfaction with the party's
performance in the matter of Inclusiveness, that is should be obvious
that it would undermining to that group's dearly held dissatisfaction
if it is shown that by working together we would have overcome that
impediment a long time ago.
This is what I mean when I say that not only have you repeatedly
failed to read the words. The status that you attach to yourself
forbids you to understand it. The commitment that you, and others,
made from the beginning, to not working together requires of you that
you not hear anything that says that your adversarial posture needs to
be dropped before anything that you _say_ you want can be assisted by
those designated adversaries.
Elie Yarden
delegate
Middleexs
>
> Yarden wrote:
>
>> The following is the current delegate plan, an updated version of
>> Proposal #3. I t has been adjusted for receipt of the delegate list
>> from the corrected lists sent by the McKinney campaign, other missing
>> information, and has the latest corrections. Please post for further
>> reference. Thank you. Please send corrections as noted.
>> Elie Yarden
>> CDLC
>>
>>
>> Current Plan: "PROPOSAL #3 (as amended 6/30/08)"
>>
>> Title: Proposal to send a full delegation from the Green-Rainbow
>> Party (GRP) to the 2008 Presidential National Nominating Convention
>> (NNC) of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS)
>>
>> Sponsors: Jill Stein, Elie Yarden, John Andrews, Nat Fortune, MK
>> Merelice, Larry Ely, Eli Beckerman
>>
>> Background: More than a year ago, the State Committee of the GRP
>> decided by consensus that the GRP would participate in the
>> Presidential Election of 2008, supporting the candidate of the GPUS,
>> by using the legal status of the GRP to conduct an open primary
>> according to the rules of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and
>> those
>> of the GRP.
>>
>> Accepted by the Commonwealth, by the candidates themselves, and
>> recommended by members of the party, six names were placed on the GRP
>> ballot by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The results of that
>> February 5 presidential primary election are as follows:
>>
>> Ralph Nader: 744 (39.9%)
>> Cynthia McKinney: 474 (25.4%)
>> No Preference: 194 (10.4%)
>> Kat Swift: 60 (3.2%)
>> Jared Ball: 42 (2.3%)
>> Kent Mesplay: 39 (2.1%)
>> Elaine Brown: 38 (2.1%)
>> Write-ins 273: (14.6%)
>> Vote Total: 1864
>> Three of the candidates have chosen to select their delegates and
>> submit them for approval directly.
>>
>> The CDLC Allocation of delegates, as modified by the decision of the
>> State Committee consensus of April 12, is:
>>
>> Ralph Nader 15 delegates
>> Cynthia McKinney 9 delegates
>> No Preference 4 delegates
>> Kat Swift 1 delegate
>> Jared Ball 1 delegate
>> Kent Mesplay 1 delegate
>> Elaine Brown 1 delegate
>>
>> Diversity Goals, in addition to gender parity, specified by the
>> Delegate Selection Plan are:
>> African American 4 delegates
>> Latino 5 (4) delegates
>> Asian, Pacific, and Native American 3 Delegates
>> Gay. Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender 5 (4) delegates
>>
>> In addition to gender parity, we seek to insure that geographic
>> distribution criteria be met with regard to Congressional
>> distribution
>> requirements - Nader, needing delegates from nine of ten districts,
>> and McKinney needing one from the 10th. Congressional District is
>> listed next to the name of each delegate. Other considerations of
>> diversity apply to income, age, physical condition, to insure that we
>> develop the inclusiveness defined by our 10 Key Values and political
>> program.
>>
>> Summary:
>> This proposal (in accordance with the requirements of the Green-
>> Rainbow Party Presidential Nominating Convention Delegate Selection
>> Plan, as amended and approved by the Green-Rainbow Party State
>> Committee, April 12, 2008) presents three lists of persons who are
>> volunteering, under the rules of our delegation and all applicable
>> rules of the GPUS, to become delegates of the GRP to the 2008 NNC;
>> and
>> thus provides the State Committee with all necessary information.
>>
>> Proposal:
>> 1. Delegates (and alternates) designated by the candidates.
>> The State Committee approves the appointment of the following persons
>> as delegates pledged to the named candidates.
>>
>> submitted by and for Kent Mesplay
>> Rich Zitola - Clinton
>> Gerald Sykes III (alternate)
>>
>> submitted by and for Kat Swift
>> Jamie McLaughlin - Boston, 8th
>> Anna Wei (alternate) - Revere, 8th
>>
>> submitted by and for Cynthia McKinney
>> Lyn Meza - Chelsea, 8th
>> Brother NorthStar - Leveret, 1th
>> Grace C Ross - Worcester, 3rd
>> David Schwab - Williamstown, 1st
>> Lisa Richards - Concord, 5th
>> Vincent J. O'Connor - Amherst, 1st
>> Sue Bartone - Easthampton, 1st
>> Owen Broadhurst - Agawam, 2nd
>> Kim Lampereur - Boston, 8th
>> Howard Weiss (alternate) - Cambridge, 8th
>> Helen Beaumont (alternate) ________, 3th
>> Vladimir Morales (alternate) - Amherst, 1th
>> Athena Lee Bradley (alternate) - Greenfield, 1th
>> Sandy Eaton (alternate) ________, 10th
>> Terezinha Cardoso (alternate) - Ashland, 3rd
>> Aaron Tanaka (alternate) ________,
>> Sandra Harris (alternate) - Chelsea, 8th
>> Philip Kindler (alternate) - ________ ,6th
>> as Amended 6/27/08
>>
>>
>> 2. Delegates (and alternates) selected by the GRP on behalf of
>> candidates who chose not to select their own delegates.
>> The State Committee selects the following persons, submitted by the
>> Candidate Development and Legal Committee, as delegates pledged to
>> the
>> named candidates. (Personal information available but not displayed
>> for privacy protection.)
>>
>> Jared Ball
>> Wanda Boeke - Pittsfield -1st
>>
>> Elaine Brown
>> Annie Butler - Cambridge - 8th
>>
>> Ralph Nader
>> 1 - Anaelisa Vanegas - Lee 1st
>> 2 - Kenneth Duncan - Pittsfield - 1st
>> 3 - Jill Stein - Lexington - 7th
>> 4 - Nat Fortune - Whately - 1st
>> 5 - Travis McGee - Danvers - 6th
>> 6 - Hallett German - Peabody - 6th
>> 7- Andrew Fitzgerald - East Freetown - 4th
>> 8 - Elie Yarden - Cambridge - 8th
>> [Note: seven more slots still to be filled, with a particular need
>> for
>> gender parity and other diversity criteria.]
>>
>> 3. Delegates (and alternates) selected by the GRP to serve as
>> uncommitted delegates (not pledged to any candidate, and according to
>> the rules of the convention, free to vote or abstain on all votes
>> taken by the convention).
>>
>> The State Committee selects the following persons, submitted by the
>> Candidate Development and Legal Committee, as uncommitted delegates.
>>
>> 1 - Samantha Zitola - Berlin - 5th
>> 2 - Scott Laugenour - Lenox - 1st
>> 3 - Nancy Lee Wood - Taunton - 4th
>> 4 - John W. Andrews - Lexington - 7th
>>
>> Budget Impact
>> The financing of this proposal is directly related to diversity
>> goals. It is desirable that monetary considerations not be the
>> determining factor in deciding whether one may volunteer and actually
>> attend the Convention. This includes loss of needed income.
>> Especially, the youth of the party are likely to require financial
>> assistance, as are the jobless without savings. Limited income might
>> be the chief bar to attending for many of our members. People with
>> certain disabilities, among them the elderly and infirm, may be
>> unable
>> to travel without special assistance that is extremely costly. While
>> lack of funds may not be a valid basis for making a decision, the
>> study and appreciation of impact is always needed.
>>
>> Implementation
>> The full implementation of this proposal could require that the
>> Virtual Special State Committee meeting remain in session until July
>> to fulfill the remaining open slots.
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> StateCom mailing list
>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/stateco
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
More information about the candidate-development
mailing list