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

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

John - you said this in the meeting - I did not facilitate the process - 
there were two very competent facilitators - Merelice proposed hearing the 
minority opinion and Gary facilitated it.

And apparently, some folks had something going on and did not hear my 
personal point.   Which was to draw a paralell - once you have run or created some 
huge name recognition and good feeling, that it is easy to think that having the 
accountability of being part of a party is just a detraction from running.   
I used myself as an example to personalize it.   And what I said was that 
personally, even with all the detractions, that I think I and others should have 
to run as a member of the party to get the party's ballot line.   Your 
interpretation of what I said would imply the opposite - which I suppose might have 
signaled to folks at the time that you had clearly misinterpreted what I said.

Also, you have clearly not worked with me enough to know but I would have 
made the observation about the composition of the minority opinion no matter what 
the decision.   And although I did it as a parliamentarian, it could better 
have been done bythe vibes watcher or maybe the co-chairs, but they did not. It 
is not my style to undermine decisions reached by consensus no matter what my 
personal opinion.

I am sure there are those out there that can voucher for that - I would ask 
you to reconsider your interpretations - Grace
In a message dated 8/31/07 8:54:29 AM, jandrews at ll.mit.edu writes:


> 
> Mike,
> 
> It’s clear that the Convention did not do a good job of handing the vote
> on your proposal, and we should acknowledge the need to do better next
> time.   You wrote that you talked Grace Ross and that she convinced you
> to question the basis of the vote.  I’d like to just put a different
> perspective on the record.
> 
> I’ve spoken to several people who were perplexed and disturbed by
> Grace’s stepping out of the role of parlimentarian to facilitate the
> proposal.  They are also grappling with Grace’s comments that she didn’t
> get much benefit from the party and could do without the GRP because she
> had the “personality thing” going for her.  These types of things
> trigger reactions that ripple for quite awhile.  People were left
> struggling to reconcile her Grace-centric vision for the Party with
> their own vision.   I think the underlying energy in this discussion is
> coming from Grace’s conviction that the Convention erred in rejecting
> her advice, and she attributes this to some defect in their collective
> judgment - such as sexism.  I don’t think I’m the only person who is
> having trouble with this interpretation.
> 
> Several attendees I’ve talked to feel that Grace’s facilitating for the
> proposal was manipulative.  Proper facilitating would have sensed the
> problems with permitting one side to speak five times - including the
> facilitator - while not permitting anyone to answer who favored the
> proposal.  (Isn’t the purpose of stating concerns to have them
> addressed?)  Without getting into lawyerly arguments about exactly how
> the process went wrong, I would note that if the facilitating feels
> oppressive to a number of attendees, then something isn’t right.
> 
> When the vote went against Grace’s recommendation, she did not show
> respect for the decision of the Convention,  but attempted to analyze
> which members voted on each side in order to imply that the outcome
> reflected sexism.  If this is so, it deserves serious remedy (going
> beyond just an email discussion).  However, several persons has said
> that they don’t think the vote is accurately described as a
> gender-determined outcome. ( In fact, more women voted yea than voted
> nay.  That is, if only women had been allowed to vote, Grace would still
> have been in the minority.)  The possibility of false accusations of
> sexism is important because dividing the Party into subgroups and
> pitting them against each other is destructive to the well-being of the
> Party.  Such accusations should not be made casually, nor should the
> party accept them as valid without verifying that they have a basis.
> 
> When I go to a GRP meeting I feel I am with people who are in the
> forefront of the struggle against war, racism, sexism, injustice,  and
> the destruction of our environment. I believe that they are my team
> members, with a shared purpose, and certainly not closet racists or
> sexists against which I have to defend myself.  Out of the 6.5 million
> people in Massachusetts, only about 50 turned out on Saturday to support
> our Party.  They deserve to be commended for showing support for our
> values.  And the decisions they made at the Convention deserve to be
> treated with respect unless clear evidence is presented that proper
> democratic process was violated.  So far the only violations I can see
> were against the majority opinion.  Unless other evidence can be
> presented, I feel that belaboring the Convention’s decision is
> unproductive.  I hope we can accept the Convention’s decision and move
> on to focus on the unfolding crises out there that are crying for our
> involvement.
> 
> - John
> 
> 
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 




**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour