[candidate-development] [statecom-discuss] Concerns about our process

[Merelice]

Welcome to Jim Hammerman, a new representative elected at our Norfolk
County convention.

Jim, The one caveat I would make to your reasoning relates to using
email as a tool of communication. Repeatedly, email has devolved into
the lowest common denominator, as you so aptly note.

But that has not been the case at the meetings at which deliberations
have been respectful and thoughtful. And those holding the minority
opinion have been given extra consideration in the agendas of such
meetings. They have been heard; they have not been agreed with. The
consensus process does not always result in unanimity.

At this point, the frustration level has peaked and, in some cases,
the nastiness along with it.

I respectfully and strongly disagree with your current assessment of
the situation. Unfortunately, instead of giving the majority of the
StateCom and CDLC members the courtesy of notifying us that the
minority opinion was being drawn up --compounded by an impatience with
waiting respectfully for yet another response -- the situation has
been escalated to the point where we can no longer deal with it solely
within the Party.

Members in the Party who chose to convey a prejudicial view to the
presidential candidates -- resulting, in one case, in a formal
complaint against the Elections Division and Party Co-Chairs -- could
not have been seeking solutions. If they had, they would have
suggested that the party's process, not to mention that at the
national party level, could have been appealed to. Both at the state
and national levels, there are ways to seek fairness, without
demanding that our state repeal party processes. This step will now
require getting legal counsel and will hamper our ability to work
within the party.

All of this is happening at a time when the party was becoming the
most vibrant it has been in quite a while -- with committees strongly
reconstituting and several important initiatives underway -- as you
learned at the regional convention.

You have joined at the best of times and the worst of times.
Merelice

On 3/9/08, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>  I'm new to Statecom and have been both following the conversations on the
>  lists lately and, at Merelice's suggestion, doing some reading back
>  through the archives to understand some of the history. My understanding
>  is that there is a real disagreement among thoughtful people about whether
>  we followed our own rules in giving access to our primary ballot and about
>  our process of moving forward given the current status of the candidates.
>  Those raising the issue include leaders within the GRP including several
>  who have run for state-wide office, and one of our Presidential candidates
>  in the form of a formal complaint against the GRP. This is a serious issue
>  raised by serious people demanding a serious response.
>
>  At the same time, what's struck me about the responses of several (but, of
>  course, not all) of those who disagree with the minority opinion over the
>  course of several months is that they are unwilling to actually discuss
>  the issues, preferring instead to impugn the character and the motives of
>  those raising the issue, or declaring that the very fact of raising this
>  substantive concern constitutes harrassment of the co-chairs. (In fact,
>  until now, I've been reluctant to chime into these discussions because
>  their tone is so often so nasty--but feel I can make an important
>  contribution now despite my fears.) These sorts of comments belittling
>  those with a dissenting opinion undermine the core values of a
>  consensus-seeking organization, based as it is on the belief that
>  together, all of us are smarter and wiser than any subset of us would be,
>  whether that subset constitutes a numerical minority or even a majority.
>  Might does _not_ make right. We stand for that in our opposition to
>  militarism and the excesses of capitalism, but must also do so in our
>  everyday interactions with one another. Being committed to seeking
>  consensus requires us to value the views of others, to be humble about the
>  possibility that we're wrong, and to be clear about what it is we believe
>  and why and to communicate that in a way that others can hear. Only then,
>  together, can we find the magic of a consensus that goes beyond our
>  individual perspectives.
>
>  I hope that we can proceed to resolve this issue in that spirit, so that
>  we can move on to the more substantive organizing around essential issues
>  which all of us prefer. I must acknowledge that I am also one of the
>  signers of the minority opinion and, for now, am standing by that. I am
>  waiting for the so-called "majority opinion" which Merelice and others say
>  would help clear up the facts. Given the timetable associated with the
>  process of assigning delegates, I wish that some of those facts could come
>  to light sooner rather than later so that we could have the needed
>  conversation before decisions need to be made. So far, nothing in what
>  people have said convinces me that there wasn't a fundamental inequity in
>  the standards applied to different candidates for gaining access to our
>  ballot which led to a fundamental unfairness in the balloting itself--an
>  unfairness which we need to address in our process of assigning delegates
>  to candidates, or in our rules about their behavior at the convention. I
>  am willing to engage in substantive and civil dialogue with those who
>  believe that to hold such a view, I must not be fully informed of the
>  facts. But my entering into such conversations with respect for those
>  trying to convince me, and a willingness to be convinced to change my mind
>  must be met by a similar respect and willingness on the part of others.
>  That is, we must all acknowledge that it may be possible that, for
>  whatever reasons, we were wrong in our beliefs or our actions and that,
>  together, we can come to a better, fuller resolution of this situation. If
>  we can't have such conversations among those who disagree, then we really
>  aren't building a world so very different from the one that already
>  exists, and that would be very sad indeed.
>
>  Yours in struggle,
>  Jim Hammerman