[Green-Rainbow] FW: Straw Poll

[gary hicks]

all that i am concerned about can be summarized in as follows:

1.the green-rainbow process has got to go forward and needs to manifest 
itself (short of the name change)in the creation of functioning committees 
and other working groups, especially around membership development, 
platform, integrating the by-laws language agreed upon at the january and 
march state committee meetings and/or ratified at the convention just 
concluded, beginning to address getting ready for 2004, and other related 
questions
2.all this in turn needs to translate into street visibility on the issues 
facing the people of massachusetts. if the straw poll process isn't doing 
this,or is roadblocking this--a cyber-filibuster-- then it's for nada.

gary hicks




>From: Daniel Melnechuk <isis at isisdesign.com>
>To: "Gil Obler" <greengil at attbi.com>,"'MGP State Com'" 
><statecom at massgreens.org>,<green-rainbow at massgreens.org>,"Patrick Keaney" 
><pkeaney at netway.com>,"Andrew Griswold" <avg at world.std.com>,"Dan Corrigan " 
><books at acircle.com>,"Deborah Becker" <dbecker at shaysnet.com>,"Kate Harris" 
><kate at earthlovers.org>,"Ken Ostrander" <kenster at mit.edu>,Craig Chevrier 
><craigchevrier at juno.com>
>CC: "Mark O'Lalor" <molalor at earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [Green-Rainbow] FW: Straw Poll
>Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 03:37:00 -0400
>
>Gil et al,
>
>I think this is a good first pass and will think more about the contents of 
>the straw poll over the coming weeks. The idea of expanding the question 
>from just about the name change is good, and the spread of your possible 
>responses are well thought out as far as providing a range.
>
>Peter, your comments about removing the possible response about not forming 
>coalitions seems to be a reasonable one -- at least one side of me has that 
>reaction. But if we are asking for the truth, we want to know what people 
>really think. Even if it goes against what i believe where our power is and 
>will be in building a larger and more inclusive party.
>
>The responses to question 1 Gil has created defies the standard poll taking 
>problem of framing the issue into a black or white question. If we were to 
>go that route, the question would be "Do you think we should have changed 
>the name of the party to Green-Rainbow?" with the only answers being "Yes" 
>and "No". What Gil has created is a real outreach communications effort to 
>the party members. And i think this is something we should be doing on a 
>regular basis.
>
>Frank, while i agree this will cost money, we need to uphold the decision 
>of the convention to include a non-binding straw poll to the party members 
>about the name change. Gil's idea to expand that to a straw poll about the 
>whole direction of the Green-Rainbow initiative, and party direction in 
>general, i think is the right idea. Perhaps someone will bring something up 
>that will change my mind. But for now i think this is good.
>
>But i think Frank is correct in that we need to concentrate on signatures 
>and then QCs for the candidates over the next 4 weeks. I know i have no 
>time right now to participate on this and would like to. Not that i want to 
>hold it up but i think we should take some time to hash this out.
>
>So i would suggest that we work on this over the next month until the 
>signatures and QCs deadlines are past and then plan a course of action to 
>abide by the decision of the convention. Perhaps shooting for the mailing 
>in June some time.
>
>One thing i think we should include in the mailer is a plea for donations, 
>and to become monthly sustainers. This could help cover the cost of the 
>mailing.
>
>Also i think we will want to include a little history item about the 
>Rainbow Coalition Party (RCP) for people who do not know who and what the 
>organization is. I was just talking to a friend of mine who had never heard 
>of RCP, except to say he thought it was the Jesse Jackson thing -- i 
>corrected him but none the less folks young and old may not know anything 
>about the RCP.
>
>Last, i would be interested in hearing what Mark O'Lalor thinks about Gil's 
>expanded straw poll.
>
>That is my 2, well 3 cents worth for the moment. Back to signature and QC 
>collections...
>
>Peace,
>Dan Melnechuk
>
>At 10:57 AM -0400 4/30/02, Gil Obler wrote:
>>Background/reminder - At the convention, we agreed to send out a
>>non-binding referendum straw poll of the general membership as
>>part of the consensus compromise on the party name change.
>>
>>Enclosed is my first draft of the straw poll. Obviously, everyone
>>will want to give input on the scope, contents, and wording of the
>>poll.
>>
>
>At 2:11 PM -0400 4/30/02, peterawhite at excite.com wrote:
>>
>>Hi Gil, nice job on this draft!!  I only have two suggestions: first, as 
>>the merger is a done deal, I would remove the options from question 1 that 
>>suggest seperating from the Rainbow folks, it may be devisive and 
>>confusing.
>
>
>At 5:39 PM -0400 4/30/02, Frank Gatti wrote:
>>Gil, No please no! With the campaign for signatures coming down the 
>>stretch,
>>with the state election in November, that would be a terrible waste of
>>money. Let us ask each local to conduct a pole at their next month meeting
>>and forward the results. That should cost nothing. It will of course miss
>>all those who don't come to their local meetings but that is not a problem
>>to me. People who actively are involved should make decisions.  frank 
>>gatti
>_______________________________________________
>Green-Rainbow mailing list
>Green-Rainbow at massgreens.org
>http://www.massgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/green-rainbow




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.