[statecom-discuss] 2 major problems a the convention-request for a respectful discussion

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for responding. I'm sorry that you missed the convention.

It is wonderful whenever any person in our party steps forward and 
offers service in any capacity, including leadership. I am very 
appreciative of ALL those who stepped forward and ran for office.

You wrote, "I trust that nobody is suggesting that we cast our votes for 
someone simply in order to fulfill a diversity requirement - we have set 
aside diversity parameters to account for that." In response:

It is essential that our leadership is diverse if our mission includes 
contesting the system of white, male, heterosexual, rich supremacy. One 
of my problems is that our rules. group dynamics and past practice are 
often barriers to our attempts to make our best decisions. We need to 
create a better way of electing our leadership-one of the most important 
things that happens at our annual conventions. It makes good sense to 
elect co-chairs and to guarantee that at least one would be a female. I 
do not see the necessity of guaranteeing that at least one person be a 
male. If we had made the space and time to talk about this together, 
maybe we would have (s)elected 4 co-chairs including Merelice, Nat, Gary 
and Karin. Karin is new to the party; in a short time she has become one 
of the most active members in our chapter and as a Muslim women, who 
along with her husband, Joachim, has strengthened our connections to 
Muslims in the Greater Boston area. They have two young children and an 
infant that they brought to the convention. Karin would bring a lot to 
our leadership. What's wrong with having 4 co-chairs? As you mentioned, 
no one took on the position of Fundraising Director-maybe having 4 
co-chairs could also play a role in this area, that we cannot "afford" 
to neglect.

If our party were moving in the right direction (which for the most part 
we're not) than over time we should have less of a need for diversity 
reps. To decide not to elect a diverse leadership (which is what we all 
collectively decided to do), we now must now make up for our failure. 
This is not OK.

In your last paragraph, you wrote, "I think it would be about why we 
aren't attracting the people we say we want into the party." That is the 
kind of question that we need to be asking.

-----------------------------

You wrote, "As for the 21-7 policy vote, how many women voted as part of 
the majority? If it's a gender issue, in what way?

I don't know the answer to your first question. The second question is 
what Grace was asking and what we, including me, refused to hear and 
deal with.
------------------------------------------

Thanks for responding. I hope that others will join in the discussion.

Mike

Adam Sacks wrote:

>Hi Mike et al. -
>
>Interesting points.  I would suggest that the diversity problem is not in whom we elected, but in
>who ran and who didn't.  OK, Larry Ely is our white male secretary - we had to plead just to get
>anyone to take the position.  Similarly for membership and communications directors (I forgot who
>volunteered for these), and who wants to do fundraising anyway . . . 
>
>Gary Hicks was the only person of color who ran for adcom, as I recall.  He has served in several
>capacities over the years, including co-chair, we know him (and love him) well.  If he lost the
>current bid it certainly wasn't about not wanting diversity, I would surmise it was because some
>people wanted change for any of a variety of possible reasons and felt Nat would be a good choice.
> I trust that nobody is suggesting that we cast our votes for someone simply in order to fulfill a
>diversity requirement - we have set aside diversity parameters to account for that.
>
>On a couple of other points: I'm a low-income person, and I didn't *want* any official GRP
>capacity - there are too many other things on my plate.  And I don't even have children to take
>care of.  As for the 21-7 policy vote, how many women voted as part of the majority?  If it's a
>gender issue, in what way?
>
>If we're to do any diversity mea culpas, I think it would be about why we aren't attracting the
>people we say we want into the party, not about any of the discussion and/or election outcomes
>last Saturday.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>--- Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>August 27, 2007
>>
>>Hi Members of the State Comm.
>>
>>This letter is about my reflections of only part of what happened at the 
>>convention. There is much that I want to think about and share, but for 
>>this message, I want to focus on 2-related decisions that we made. They 
>>are the decision on who and who would not be able to appear or not 
>>appear on our ballot line for the MA presidential primary and the 
>>election of our leadership.
>>
>>My own reflections have also been deepened and enriched by my discussion 
>>with Grace yesterday.
>>
>>1. The MA presidential primary decision
>>
>>This was the most important issue that was decided by the convention. I 
>>erroneously and foolishly believed that we could accomplish this 
>>quickly. I thought that the issue was clear and there were only two 
>>options.
>>
>>a. To continue the current policy adopted by the January 21 State Comm. 
>>which I thought everyone understood meant that only members of the Green 
>>Party would be allowed to be on our ballot line
>>b. To revise the policy to allow people like Nader and McKinney to be 
>>allowed on our ballot line if they were pursuing the Green Party 
>>nomination and requested that they be placed on our ballot, even if they 
>>were “Independents” and not Greens.
>>
>>My purpose in this letter is NOT to discuss the reasons for these 2 
>>positions, but to discuss what happened with the “process”.
>>
>>One of my hopes was that we would have a respectful discussion. While I 
>>was strongly committed/invested in “b”, I also believed that there were 
>>strong and valid arguments to continue our current policy.
>>
>>I believe that my memory of what happened is somewhat accurate. I may be 
>>mistaken by some details and some interpretations. Please correct me, 
>>especially if this will help us to better understand what happened.
>>
>>It was a long day and we had fallen behind schedule. I’m sure that some 
>>of us may have been a little tired and I’m sure that as the discussion 
>>moved on, we felt the pressure to move forward with our schedule and 
>>listen to our out-of-state guests (Greg, Jerry and Cynthia) address us 
>>about the presidential campaign.
>>
>>I made an opening statement describing the context, my intention and the 
>>reasons why I believed that the change should be made. We followed our 
>>process (which many of you know I believe should be revised) and had 
>>“clarifying” questions. While some of it was useful (especially 
>>Merelice’s point that there was confusion about the meaning of the 
>>January 21 decision), as is often the case, “clarifying questions” seems 
>>to waste a lot of time.
>>
>>At some point, there was an excellent recommendation to have a straw 
>>vote. My memory is that, except for 4 of our members, everyone else who 
>>voted support a changed policy. I was gratified by the results and 
>>hopeful that we would soon be making a decision.
>>
>>I believe that it was Merelice who recommended that those who had 
>>concerns be allowed to speak. I thought that was an excellent idea. The 
>>speakers (Elie, Eva, Wanda and Grace—I apologize if I forgot anyone) 
>>spoke very emotionally, passionately and effectively.
>>
>>My memory is that while this was happening an energy developed by the 
>>“majority” to also express their ideas. This was legitimate. This 
>>important decision merited further discussion. However, the clock was 
>>ticking and I believe we felt the pressure to finish this quickly.
>>
>>We had another straw vote and this time the vote was 21-7. At some 
>>point, Grace, who was the parliamentarian for the convention, made a 
>>point/asked a question—that the 7 members of our party who had voted 
>>together were all women.
>>
>>Immediately, some of our members reacted and I heard one comment that 
>>was disrespectful towards Grace, who was the parliamentarian. I said 
>>nothing. Shortly after, someone made the suggestion that maybe it would 
>>be best to table this decision (to the next State Comm. meeting). 
>>Meanwhile more people (in the “Majority”) waned to participate in the 
>>discussion and were opposed to tabling this decision.
>>
>>I was confused. Too much was going on inside and outside me to figure 
>>out I could effectively do.
>>
>>Some of my internal process: Why did Grace ask this question/share this 
>>observation? I’m sure that she was disappointed/hurt by the “decision”. 
>>Was her comment just an observation? If yes, it certainly was an 
>>important observation and one that deserved our attention. Or was she 
>>calling our party sexist, or just the men? What did I/we do to deserve 
>>blame?
>>
>>The clock continued to click. Our co-chairs (Gary and Martina) 
>>conferred. I moved over to listen to their discussion. I was getting 
>>ready to protest if necessary. I wanted this decision to be made and to 
>>be made now. I wanted to move forward with our business.
>>
>>
>>My perceptions have changed since I talked with Grace. This is what I 
>>believe.
>>
>>Grace’s observation was legitimate. Her observation was not an attack on 
>>the men in our party. If those who had stood in opposition were Gary, 
>>Mel, Chuck, Lloyd, Martina and Wendy, I would have noticed that they had 
>>something important in common. I think many of us would also have 
>>noticed. Making the observation/asking the question would have been 
>>viewed as appropriate.
>>
>>There is a lot going in our party that urgently and systematically needs 
>>to be addressed. Collectively, we are having a hard time living and 
>>practicing our 10 key values. These values are interconnected. Feminism 
>>is more than one of our key values; it is interconnected with the rest. 
>>The last two years we have allowed at least two of our sisters to be 
>>driven out of our party. This is only the tip to a much larger and more 
>>systemic problem.
>>
>>We need to develop a consistent practice of educating /training 
>>ourselves how to more effectively deal with our own internal issues 
>>around gender, race, class, sexual preference, etc., as well as 
>>deepening our understanding and practice of the other “key values”. 
>>Either we become committed to the practice or the heart of our party 
>>will become as meaningful as the “Pledge of Allegiance”.
>>
>>
>>2. The Election of our Leadership of Our Party
>>
>>I want nothing that I say to be interpreted as being critical of any or 
>>all of our members who stepped forward on Saturday and offered to be our 
>>officers. The opposite is true-I thank every single person that stepped 
>>forward.
>>
>>Once again I thank Grace for the discussion that we had yesterday which 
>>helped to inform and deepen my thinking.
>>
>>Grace was the only person who pointed out that in the election of our 
>>leadership, we should pay attention to diversity. I’m sure that all of 
>>us were conscious about this, but there seemed to be no room to discuss 
>>how this could happen.
>>
>>The problem is not with the individual members of our party. The problem 
>>is with our structure and our process. Over and over again our rules and 
>>past practices ties us up in knots.
>>
>>I had asked/suggested that the nominees be allowed to nominate 
>>themselves. While some of us knew most of the candidates, at our 
>>conventions, we always have new people to join us and they know very few 
>>people. While I objected to David’s attack on Merelice, he did raise a 
>>legitimate point—how do we address the concerns that we may have about 
>>the candidates? (This led to a good decision, which allowed some time 
>>for individuals to be able to talk with the candidates.)
>>
>>What do we know about the people that we elected and those we didn’t 
>>choose? What are their visions, plans, priorities, etc? What did we the 
>>membership who attended the convention want from our elected leaders? I 
>>think these are good questions. They were not asked and of course not 
>>answered. All that I am left with is the hope that we chose wisely.
>>
>>Selecting our leaders is one of the most important decisions that is 
>>made at our conventions. We need to develop a better process. I think 
>>that it is good that some of our members surface before the convention 
>>and get signatures. At the convention, ideally I would like to sit 
>>around in a circle whenever we attempt to solve problems and make 
>>decisions.
>>
>>I would have liked if we had selected the 4 candidates to be our 4 
>>co-chairs. I would have also said that while I am so grateful that Dan M 
>>will be our Treasurer once again that it is time for us to have an Asst. 
>>Treasurer or a Co-Treasurer. Who knows what other creative solutions we 
>>could create if we weren’t so trapped by our rules and past practice?
>>
>>Here are the bottom lines:
>>
>>a. The only woman officers that we elected (co-chairs and NC) were 
>>mandated positions for women.
>>b. For our officers: One white woman was elected (Female Co-Chair); No 
>>person of color; No low-income person; No “Handicapped” Person; No 
>>GLBTG; Nobody under 50 years old.
>>c. NO RAINBOW!
>>
>>
>>There were 2 major decisions that we made on Saturday. Both of them 
>>reveal that we have deep problems that need to be addressed.
>>
>>I’m not leaving the GRP. I believe that building an Alternative Party-an 
>>independent and progressive movement and political party is essential work.
>>
>>I believe that we can work together to build a healthier and stronger 
>>organization. I believe that we must do a much better job of solving our 
>>internal problems if we are to even pretend that we can offer solutions 
>>to the problems outside our door.
>>
>>I hope that my letter will lead to a respectful discussion.
>>
>>Mike Heichman
>>mikeheichman at verizon.net
>>617-265-8143
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>statecom-discuss mailing list
>>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>       
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
>http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>  
>