[External Relations] RE: [statecom] External Relations Committee

[Betty H. Zisk]

David I am truly sorry that we have talked past each other in the last few
weeks. Frankly I am just now catching up on e mail (still over 300 messages
behind.) To cut to the pt I didnt remember having supported your proposal
for external relations comm. I am sorry. It isnt the first time this has
happend. No I dont have altsheimers yet--I just have a hard time figuring
out what I did or didnt support. I wont fight your current effort. Betts (I
just got back from Maine and I have intense family problems now. Betts Zisk

-----Original Message-----
From: David Rolde [mailto:davidrolde at comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 6:37 PM
To: State Committee Official Business; outreach at green-rainbow.org
Cc: Betty H. Zisk
Subject: RE: [statecom] External Relations Committee


Betts. My understanding is that the External Relations Committee is
supposed to deal with the GRP's relations with ALL external groups
that we belong to or deal with (for example IPPN, Jobs With Justice,
UJP), not only with the GPUS. I assume that in your post below you
are objecting to having a GRP committee that deals with relations
with the GPUS.  I don't know exactly how the External Relations
Committee was set up. I assume that the idea was passed by Statecom
or a state convention at some point in a previous year before I
joined State Committee, but that the committee had never actually
been convened. There was an effort  at the State Committee meeting in
April of this year to get people to sign up to be on the External
Relations Committee.

The reason State Committee is now considering a proposal to set up
another committee to deal with the GPUS is because we discussed this
idea at a Platform Committee meeting in May at which you (Betts) were
present.  Everyone at that Platform Committee meeting including you
(Betts) agreed that we should propose the creation of a new committee
to deal with GPUS issues and that I should write up the proposal and
solicit feedback on the wording and then send it to Statecom list for
email decision process. I did write up a proposal. I sent it to a
large ad hoc email list for vetting. Several people voiced strong
opinions against the proposal. Several people voiced strong opinions
in favor of the proposal. Nobody offered any feedback on the specific
wording of the proposal. Gil then noted that the External Relations
Committee was already supposed to deal with GPUS issues and that we
could activate this functionality faster by convening the External
Relations Committee than by going through State Committee to form
another new committee. I had been unaware of this official function
of the External Relations Committee.  The proposal for the new
committee to deal with GPUS issues was never submitted for email
decision-making process.  And I'm not sure if the External Relations
Committee has been convened yet or not (Somebody at the July State
Committee meeting said that the External Relations Committee had
started operating via an ad hoc email list).  When the deadline for
proposals for the July State Committee meeting was coming up, I felt
that I had to submit the proposal to form the new committee to deal
with GPUS issues because there had been a lot of support for the
proposal and I thought that people were expecting this proposal to be
submitted.  Julie and Aram had agreed to cosponsor.  I believe that
currently there are some State Commitee members who believe that GPUS
issues are so important and complex that they need a dedicated
committee, there are other State Committee members who think that the
External Relations Committee should be able to handle these issues,
and there are other State Committee members who think that our reps
to the GPUS CC and GPUS committees can operate effectively without
having a GRP committee to coordinate GPUS issues.  I think this needs
to be sorted out at the upcoming State Committee meeting.

I'm confused about your (Betts's) position on having a GRP committee
to deal with GPUS issues. You say in this email that you have never
supported the idea. But I thought you supported the idea at the
Platform Committee meeting in May. The new committee wouldn't be only
or primarily about dictating our delegates' votes in GPUS CC voting.
The new committee would be a place for GRP members who are interested
in working on GPUS issues to discuss these issues so that such
discussion wouldn't have to occur on the State Committee list and so
that proposals for Statecom dealing with GPUS issues would have a
sub-committee to vet them. The new committee would coordinate
information and discussion about other GPUS committees and other
things about the GPUS that are beyond or not directly related to GPUS
CC voting.  The new committee would attempt to recruit and support
GRP members to join and work on GPUS committees such as the GPUS
Platform Committee, International Committee, procedures committee (I
can't remember exactly what it is called), Peace Action Committee,
Communications Committee, Accreditation Committee, etc. The new
committee could be a place for the GRP to develop ideas for how we
can more actively influence the GPUS. We could be suggesting changes
or new initiatives to the GPUS rather than just responding via "yes"
or "no" CC votes to ideas that are submitted by other state parties.
The Green-Rainbow Party could be exerting more influence on the
national party, and we could play a very positive role in making the
national party become an even better party than it is now.

I think the creation of a new GRP committee to deal with GPUS would
not be an encumbrance upon our delegates to the GPUS CC. Rather it
would be an expansion of the role of our CC delegates and an increase
in their importance as they would be chairing what would hopefully be
a vibrant committee doing a lot of important work.  There are several
GRP State Committee members who are already interested in and working
on GPUS issues. At the moment these State Committee members don't
have a proper subcomittee through which to work together and channel
their energy in an efficient and pro-active (rather than reactive)
way.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the GRP committee dealing
with GPUS issues needs to be a new separate committee or whether it
can be the External Relations Committee. It seems that the External
Relations Committee probably cannot be convened before the August 15
State Committee meeting, so I still hope that the proposal can be
dealt with at the State Committee meeting.

In response to Betts's question about what is wrong and why I am
unhappy, the original reason that I felt a need for a committee like
this is because last winter I attempted to join the GPUS Platform
Committee. At the time I didn't know much about the GPUS. There was
no support for me to learn about the GPUS and how to function in the
role of a member of a GPUS committee and in the role of a GRP
representative to the GPUS.  I'm not the only person to have this
problem. I believe that one of our reps to the GPUS CC in a previous
year was never even able to learn how to vote in GPUS CC voting.
Since then I have learned more about the GPUS over many months. It is
now clear to me that there have been and always are a lot of national
Green Party issues that are of great concern to GRP members, for
instance the way the Green Party National Convention and Presidential
Nomination Process were conducted, and that the GRP could be exerting
influence on the national party in a more organized, efficient,
well-thought-out and proactive manner.  I have no mistrust of Betts,
Ebony, Gil and Aimee.  This is not a personal issue.

- David

At 5:04 PM -0400 8/4/04, Betty H. Zisk wrote:
>I dont supprt this idea of an external relat committee. I never have --and
>if I misunderstood purpose of this committee I am sorry. Frankly there is
>far too much control over our voice already. I have tried hard t0 explain
my
>vote in the past and to consult wth my constituents. So has Rudy in past.
So
>have Gil and Aimee. What is wrong--ie why are you unhappy? Betts Zisk in
>sorrow.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>[mailto:statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of David Rolde
>Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:17 AM
>To: statecom at green-rainbow.org; outreach at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: [statecom] External Relations Committee
>
>
>Could whoever is running the ad hoc external relations committee
>email list please add me? Or better yet could we use the Outreach
>list on the GRP server for this committee? I'd like to discuss
>whether the External Relations Committee can handle relations between
>the GRP and GPUS or whether the External Relations Committee supports
>the proposal to have a new full GRP committee to deal with the GPUS
>or whether the External Relations Committee wants to have a
>sub-committee for GPUS issues. I'd also like to see if someone can
>provide a thorough overview of what coalitions and other groups the
>GRP belongs to or deals with regularly. I also have ideas for new
>coalitions we could join and things we could sign on to.
>- David
>_______________________________________________
>StateCom mailing list
>StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
>_______________________________________________
>StateCom mailing list
>StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom