[External Relations] RE: [statecom] External Relations Committee
Gil Obler
greengil at comcast.net
Fri Aug 6 13:47:16 EDT 2004
JUST TO CLARIFY:
The external relations committee pre-existed David's proposal. It was
part of the unity process with Rainbow to add this committee.
The necessity of dealing with our relations with other organizations
is mandated by our bylaws, but has always been a weak point for our
party.
Until recently, we had no connection between the party and who served
on the USGP working committees. We had a HAVA representative for
several months without knowing or having approved of them. We also
have had issues with unfilled or untracked representation on IPPN,
Jobs with Justice, MassCARE, UJP, etc.
We have been trying to do a better job of this, but the need for
a committee to track and handle this is obvious.
All I did is try to channel David's energy into helping convene
the existing committee rather than work a proposal for yet another
one. Since he is on board with that effort: THERE IS NO HERE HERE.
WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE HERE (except for confusion).
Gil Obler
GRP Alternate (MA), USGP Coordinating Committee
Middlesex Delegate, Green-Rainbow Party State Committee
======================================================================
email greengil at comcast.net
home phone (978)455-3984
cell phone (617)388-5445
======================================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: outreach-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> [mailto:outreach-bounces at green-rainbow.org] On Behalf Of Betty H. Zisk
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:57 PM
> To: David Rolde; State Committee Official Business;
> outreach at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: [External Relations] RE: [statecom] External
> Relations Committee
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> outreach mailing list
> outreach at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-> rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach
>
More information about the outreach
mailing list