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

[MereliceGRP at aol.com]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/outreach/attachments/20040806/e01e1873/attachment.htm