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

[Gil Obler]

There was no misunderstanding here. The request for formation of the
external relations committee came from the Rainbow Coalition Party
Governing Board and was clear and unequivocal.

With all due respect, I would need to hear from a larger segment of
the former Rainbow Coalition before agreeing to drop this.

Since Chicago is the principle organizer of the effort to convene
this, I find it curious that he is not being consulted on this
question.

When David's proposal for a new committee came along, it made sense
to me to first activate the committee that we promised as part of
the unity process (external relations) and then figure out whether
this committee wants to handle the USGP as part of its overall scope,
or whether the committee wishes to have the USGP treated differently.

I am not assuming anything about the direction this will eventually
take except for a distaste for prejudging the work of a committee
that has not even convened yet.

If anything, however, I have more faith in the future of a committee
convened by Chicago than many other of our party's endeavors.

               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: MereliceGRP at aol.com [mailto:MereliceGRP at aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:10 PM
To: greengil at comcast.net; zisk at bu.edu; davidrolde at comcast.net;
statecom at green-rainbow.org; outreach at green-rainbow.org
Subject: Re: [External Relations] RE: [statecom] External Relations
Committee



In a message dated 8/6/04 1:48:01 PM, greengil at comcast.net writes:


The external relations committee pre-existed David's proposal. It was
part of the unity process with Rainbow to add this committee.


I was beginning to wonder whether this odd committee was a misunderstood
transfer from the Rainbow Coalition!! We had two communications
officers: internal and external. The internal functioned mostly like a
Secretary, taking meeting minutes, communicating with the party's email
list, etc. The external related mostly to the media, but also to working
with other organizations. I'm not quite sure how this morphed into
external relations.

Anyway, I see a distinct difference between our relations with the GPUS
and our relations with other groups, and here's is what I would propose:

I believe our relations with other groups (endorse, sponsor,
participate, join, etc.) should be handled by State Com. Quite often it
involves making policy decisions. If StateCom feels it would help to
have a Task Force explore another organization or an activity so it can
make decisions and sometimes make appointments of reps to those
organizations or activities, then it can activate such action either
directly or through adcom. Maybe we keep the external relations
committee for this, but I would hope it doesn't become yet another
committee that requires regular meetings and drains the party's
resources from the critical more-than-we-can-handle-now party
activities. It's hard to be effective supporters of others when we are
struggling to keep our own act together.

As for the GPUS. Having been to the national convention, I can see the
desireability of our participating more fully at the national level. But
wouldn't it make sense to do this through our committees? Why kid
ourselves into thinking that we can participate actively when we're
struggling locally? I would be very disappointed, for example, if
someone volunteered to work on the GPUS Communications Committee when
our own is barely functioning. If members of our (finally) active
Platform Committee feel we have made enough progress on our own platform
needs (definitely questionable), then by all means have a member or two
connect also with the national platform committee. Much of what the
national does parallels what we need to do. And maybe more people would
get active in the state if they thought they could also influence the
national. I would then ask our reps and alternates to the Coordinating
Committee if they see some other national activity (that does not
parallel a state activity) that needs our attention or our voice.

In short, I'm going to express the same frustration that Gil expressed
(I think on another list): Why can't we feel the same urgency about our
own campaigns and committees that crops up time after time about what
other people are doing and saying? And why is our solution usually yet
another (destined to be inactive) committee? We are losing our focus
(if, indeed, we had it).
Merelice