[statecom-discuss] Chuck on fusion, et al

[Merelice]

Hello,

On Friday, July 7, Chuck tried to email his fusion statement to Ron in
time for what would have been our July 9 StateCom meeting. It did not
arrive. On Friday, July 14, he tried to email it to me. It again did
not arrive. Today his office sent it to me from a different email
address, and it arrived! Chuck addressed his statement to StateCom and
at his request, I am sharing it with you. I have attached it in rtf
(rich text format) and have pasted it below.

Mel King has been and continues to be public and official in his
support of fusion. He does not represent himself as a spokesperson for
the GRP, but he can legitimately speak on behalf of what was the
Rainbow Coalition Party since we did, at one time, seek fusion
legislation (with the hopes of partnering with the Mass. Greens on
fusion candidates!).

I would sincerely hope that anyone (including Grace, as a nominated
candidate) who speaks against fusion is clear that they are speaking
for themselves and not the party. Our slate is not in agreement on
this since Jill, like Chuck, would prefer that the party stay neutral.
This is viewed as important if we intend to campaign in the very
communities that Grace says she is representing and targeting.

Some background: This is the THIRD time a proposal about fusion has
come to StateCom. Obviously it did not get enough priority in previous
attempts to produce an official Party postion. When I was an elected
official of the Party, I was certainly aware of opposition to fusion
within the party, but I am not comfortable with characterizing it in
terms of "the elected leadership of this party has pretty consistently
been against fusion." If that were clear-cut, we would have taken an
official position by now.

Please do not lose sight of the fact that we are discussing not just
fusion itself, but also the effect of having the GRP take an official
position regarding fusion. And in that context, I present Chuck's
statement for your consideration.
Sincerely, Merelice


Statement to the Green Rainbow Party State Committee regarding the Fusion Issue

   Chuck Turner

Boston City Councilor

      District 7

While I have been following the email discussion on fusion, I have not
taken part. However, given the fact that the state committee is
prepared to take a position opposing the Fusion Ballot question, I
thought it appropriate for me to state my position and make a request.
Let me state my request first. I strongly urge you to not take a
position on the fusion question.

There are a number of reasons why I think that not taking a position
on fusion is appropriate and important.

First, while I believe the strength of the progressive community has
been increasing in the recent past, I think that it is very important
that to the extent possible, we try to avoid fights within the
progressive community in order to maximize our strength. This does not
mean that we should ignore principles in the interest of unity.
Operational unity focused on unprincipled positions is not unity but
hypocrisy. However, I do not believe that the fusion issue is raising
an issue of principle that the Green Rainbow Party opposes.

Second, the Green Rainbow Party is committed to strengthening the
rights of participation in the voting process for all. While many on
the state committee have strategic concerns, I do not believe that
those positions rise to the level of principled concerns. However, to
take a position against fusion would suggest that the fusion process
is promoting a principle we disagree with. This I believe would lead
to tension with those who are our allies without advancing the
principled work of the party.

Third, while I understand that there is fear that this will enable the
Party to be taken over on the one hand or kept in the designation
category on the other, I don't agree. I believe that, in spite of the
New York example, our future as a Party is determined by what we do.
There are always challenges from within and without, but if there is a
commitment to do the work necessary to keep the Party alive and
healthy, we should not fear fusion.

Fourth, an argument has been made that this is a Democratic Party
smokescreen to dilute Third Parties. While I can't speak to the New
York experience, my understanding is that the fusion ballot issue is
not getting support from mainline Democrats in Massachusetts which
would suggest that this is not a Party initiative.

Fifth, I am intrigued by the issue focus of the fusion strategy which
seems similar to what Fletcher and Glover have been suggesting. I
think that in our efforts to increase our effectiveness as
progressives we should not fight initiatives which may broaden our
strategy perspective.

Finally, I apologize for weighing in so late in the effort but as I
have thought about the consequences of our actions, my belief that I
need to speak to the issue has increased. The consequences I refer to
are the tensions and confusion that a Green Rainbow position against
fusion will bring among those whose support is needed on a broad
variety of issues beyond fusion such as IRV.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Chuck-fusion.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 7344 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom-discuss/attachments/20060717/aea87256/Chuck-fusion.rtf