[Convention] Fwd: Comment, Fwd: from Paul about newsletter, convention decision

[David Rolde]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net>
> Date: August 28, 2006 7:57:39 PM EDT
> To: Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>, Melissa Harrell  
> <harrell3207 at gmail.com>, "Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com"  
> <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com>,  jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org,  
> etwee at earthlink.net,  saphron at verizon.net,  wmv01462 at hotmail.com,  
> davidrolde at comcast.net,  AbolishPoverty at aol.com, convention at green- 
> rainbow.org, jsaad at massbay.edu, anniembutler at hotmail.com,   
> owen.broadhurst at gmail.com, martina_robinson at hotmail.com,   
> experimental_radio at hotmail.com, danthbagelman at msn.com,   
> jstein at massmed.org,  info at jillstein.org, Mike Heichman  
> <mikeheichman at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Comment, Fwd: from Paul about newsletter, convention  
> decision
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I haven't had the time to join the Convention Planning Committee  
> and am most appreciative of the small number of dedicated party  
> members who have stepped up to plan the convention.
> I'm hoping that there will be at least some time for quick reports  
> at the convention from the different committees and a mechanism for  
> new people to join.
>
> While I have been clear that I do not see myself as the "leader" of  
> the CDLC, I have taken the initiative to see if we can have a  
> meeting before the convention. On the agenda will be some kind of  
> report to the convention and a request for others to join.
>
> I was pleased that there was a recent attempt by David to call a  
> meeting of the Platform Committee (although there wasn't enough  
> participation) to do any work. I hope that there will be another  
> effort before the convention.
>
> I would hope that the same could happen with the Membership and  
> some of the other committees that are dormant.
>
> I agree with all those who have been saying that e-mails and  
> newsletters ALONE are not the most effective ways of organizing  
> people to go to the convention or do anything else. However, I  
> believe that they are effective when they are received in addition  
> to the personal contact.
>
> Additionally, our party needs materials. I know that I'm a broken  
> record, but it drives me crazy that we don't have an updated  
> membership GRP membership brochure in at least English and Spanish.  
> If we are saying that a major purpose of the campaign is to build  
> our party, there seems to be something radically wrong that we  
> don't have membership materials! We want more than votes. We want  
> to build our party and help build the movement.
>
> I don't know what will eventually be sent out to whom before the  
> convention. While everybody agrees that there should be phone  
> calls, who is coordinating this? The next meeting of the Boston/JP  
> chapter will be on September 3 and the following one will be on  
> September 17.
>
> It would be wonderful if we had thousands of newsletters at the  
> convention and thousands of GRP membership brochure. The message  
> should be to build our party and support our candidates.
>
> Mike Heichman
>
>
> Ron Francis wrote:
>
>> A few points here:
>>  On adcom decision about postcards vs newsletter:
>> No one on adcom was opposed to sending out a newsletter:  the  
>> issue is money.  If anyone (campaigns or other donors) can come up  
>> with $2500 to do the newsletter plus the volunteers needed to  
>> produce it then it woldn't take hardly any effort for adcom to  
>> approve the sending of the newsletter in teh party's name.  I  
>> believe that some of the campaigns have been able to raise  
>> significant amounts of money and could send out a newsletter.   
>> These campaigns should be asked.... but we should not expect  
>> anything since campaigns have to budget for there individual  
>> expenses.  On Adcom decision:
>> Bottom line here is that many people do not believe that the  
>> newsletter activates people or volunteers.  I am one who has  
>> serious doubts about it.  I suspect that the overwhelming majority  
>> of GRP members will vote for our candidates whether or not we send  
>> them the newsletter.  I do not beleive that the newsletter will  
>> mobilize volunteers.  Only serious phonecalling or door knocking  
>> will do that.  My feeling is that by agreeing to make an effort to  
>> reach our most likely volunteers, we have made a good commitment  
>> to the candidates (I hope we can at least do that phonecalling to  
>> 500 people) and one that will lead to better results than the  
>> newsletter, and is also a good long-term exercise for our party.   
>> I also do not understand the great need for the newsletter:  it is  
>> as if we think people will read it and suddenly decide to get  
>> involved:  That isn't likely to happen.  We will get much better  
>> results by contacting people as human to human.
>>  On Statecom role in Adcom's decision:
>> Adcom administers the party between statecom meetings and  
>> sometimes makes decisions based on its best interpretations of the  
>> feeling of statecom members and is an elected body.  If someone  
>> wants to call an emergency statecom meeting to challenge any adcom  
>> decisions then they have the ability to request a statecom  
>> meeting:  electronically is the fastest way, I believe, to do it  
>> but the bylaws may give other methods.
>>  On Party's commitment in the contract with candidates:
>> I have a hard time believing that the party agreed to contract do  
>> a "full mailing to all members before the party convention in  
>> inform about camapigns" - set for a date which was not even known  
>> about at the time that the contract was signed.  I would like to  
>> see the text.  If it only says that the party will contact all  
>> members about the campaigns, then that is a different commitment  
>> and I think we are doing that to a large degree.
>>  (as noted by David before, our interpretation of the bylaws about  
>> conventions is that we are making a sufficient effort at  
>> "notifying" members, so adcom has dealt with that matter)    
>> However, even if the party had agreed to a contract that  
>> explicitly said that we should contact all members via a  
>> newsletter about the campaigns, then I would still NOT support  
>> doing it at this time.  Jamie is right that we do not have a court  
>> to enforce our contracts.  We are in a dynamic situation in which  
>> things change week to week.  (Ideally by the way, party-driven  
>> campaigns would have the same interests as the party and so we  
>> wouldn't even be discussing this as if the party has a different  
>> interest as the campaign - but clearly we do not have a party  
>> driven slate effort (if so decisions about the campaigns would be  
>> approved by statecom).  The fact that we really haven't had a  
>> party-driven campaign probably invalidates the contract anyway.)
>>  Our fundraising has dropped off a bit in the last month due to  
>> unforseen circumstances, I don't see a huge influx of money coming  
>> in to make up for this, despite several great appearances by our  
>> candidates and a great effort to collect signatures.  The adcom  
>> was willing to do one newsletter prior to the election but not two  
>> newsletters.  We decided to "notify" all members about a  
>> convention using a reasonable bylaws-appropriate method (and  
>> probably better then other previous methods actually), and to  
>> consider doing a newsletter at a later time (election issue I  
>> guess we can call it), for a variety of reasons.
>>  On Mike's nicely written reflection piece:
>> I think Mike has it just about right in his reflections since June  
>> of 2005 and I echo his sentiments and analysis.   The only  
>> question I think that matters though is this:  What are the best  
>> steps for our party to take over the the next two months and  
>> beyond given the resources that we have.
>>  In my humble opinion, we should take steps that lead to us having  
>> 5 or more locals established as a result of our statewide  
>> campaigns, with a strong effort to have municipal campaigns and  
>> candidates for 2007.  I think that a campaign that targets, or  
>> emphasizes, a few specific communities would acheive this.   Along  
>> with this, establish a municipal platfrom.
>>  I note that some of our candidates are taking steps in this  
>> direction by having houseparties and events in specific  
>> communities.  The more communities where we can do this, and also  
>> push folks a bit to set up a local or think about running locally,  
>> then all the better.
>>  I also believe that we should discuss this question at the  
>> upcoming strategy meeting:  "what actions can we take over the  
>> next two months to leave our party in the strongest possible  
>> position going forward after the election?"
>>  Ron
>>
>>
>> */Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>     Am I not reading the AdCom decision correctly? I read it to  
>> mean that
>>     we are cutting back on a postcard mailing for the convention  
>> so we
>>     can, in fact, possibly afford to do and mail a newsletter. I then
>>     thought I read an objection to the postcard cut-back since  
>> there was
>>     concern about the need for the convention to feed into the  
>> campaigns.
>>     Clearly we can't have it both ways. That was why I thought the  
>> AdCom's
>>     decision was a good compromise. I might also have mis- 
>> interpreted the
>>     word "contact" since I thought an earlier email referred to the
>>     original plan to "phone" all members and I assumed that was  
>> what was
>>     meant. Sorry.
>>
>>     The struggle here is how best to carry out our responsibility  
>> to GRP
>>     members regarding both the convention and the campaigns. I'm  
>> inclined
>>     to give priority to an election edition of the newsletter --  
>> including
>>     the mailing thereof. Based on past experience, I did not (and  
>> do not)
>>     favor relying on a newsletter for getting people to a  
>> convention. It
>>     could, however, be said that part of the problem has been our
>>     inability to plan ahead for our conventions and be more  
>> effective in
>>     communicating our plans. We've had more success when we've  
>> planned
>>     better and communicated accordingly. All the more reason not to
>>     hastily slap together a newsletter primarily for getting out the
>>     convention notice.
>>
>>     It is not surprising, given our limited resources (volunteer  
>> as well
>>     as financial), that we struggle with conflicting demands. Past
>>     candidates have gotten little more than endorsements and good
>>     intentions. That's the reality. People in general and AdCom in
>>     particular are doing their best under the circumstances, even  
>> though
>>     the results may make people unhappy. It's too bad that the  
>> subject was
>>     not discussed at the StateCom meeting as Colby and the comcom had
>>     asked, having made recommendations over a period of a couple of
>>     months. Given that fact, who better than AdCom to make a needed
>>     decision?
>>
>>     Meanwhile, it remains clear that more priority needs to be  
>> given to
>>     Party fundraising.
>>     M.
>>
>>
>>     On 8/27/06, Melissa Harrell wrote:
>>     > I believe the reason the list was so limited was an
>>     accommodation to the
>>     > lack of resources to support the candidates in the way the  
>> party
>>     would
>>     > like. The commitment Grace is referring to has nothing to do
>>     with the
>>     > phone banking for the convention. The written commitment is
>>     contained
>>     > in the candidates survey. (per Mike Heichman) If you look at  
>> the
>>     > survey, there is no timeline attached and no mention of the  
>> calling
>>     > anyone prior to the nominating convention.
>>     >
>>     > The issue at hand, is not just that Adcom is reneging on the  
>> party's
>>     > commitment, but the timing. The lack of resources to produce a
>>     > newsletter and thus having to renege on it's commitment to
>>     candidates is
>>     > a decision that should not have been made at the 11th hour  
>> and I
>>     am with
>>     > Jamie on the contention that it might not be adcom's  
>> decision to
>>     make.
>>     >
>>     > Grace's point of how can we attract future candidates if we  
>> don't at
>>     > least attempt to fulfill the barest minimum of commitments is
>>     still a
>>     > valid one.
>>     >
>>     > -Melissa
>>
>>
>