[statecom-discuss] Part-time work to build GRP local chapters using WSGRP model

[Melissa Harrell]

Yes, I'm quite clear that you're yelling at me and that it's uncalled for.
I don't tolerate that from John Walsh and I will not tolerate that level of
disrespect from you either.

I already said, if this is being sponsored by you(or any individual really)
or a local I had no concerns.  If an individual party member or a local
wants to follow through with this model, more power to them and more
importantly I'll do everything in my power, as Membership Director, to
assist them. My concerns are centered around the danger that it could be
percieved as a state party program and it is not.  Originally, you were not
explicit in who is funding this.  I'm asking you to be explicit that this is
not coming from the top.  As you mentioned, we support de-centralization -
so you being explicit that this isn't a state party sponsored program
shouldn't be an issue.

Now if you want to be clear about where this funding is coming from and what
the process is for a party member to gain access to such funding then I'll
be happy to not only provide lists and such, but I'll take it one step
further and inform all askers that such a program exists.

I'm not seeing how you've incorporated all the feedback you've gotten.  It's
been expressed to you a number of times that there are serious concerns
about locking a specific model into funding and you've not incorporated that
at all.  I can't speak for others but I'm starting to feel like it's being
rammed down my throat reguardless of what my feedback has been, and it's a
very disaffecting experience.

I was also referring to training people how to fundraise.  Fundraising is
not an organic process.  Once in a blue moon it happens organically, but not
often enough for anyone to expect repayment of a debt without first
providing access to training and materials (guides and samples).  If
fundraising were such an organic process there would not be so many programs
providing such training to individuals and groups.

You submitted a proposal to the last statecommittee meeting asking for money
for this (again locking WSGRP model to the funding), so yes, I consider that
a request for endorsement.  If that's not asking for endorsement, what do
you call it?


On 2/7/07, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Response inserted in CAPS FOR CLARITY OF RESPONSE
>
> Melissa Harrell <lissagrp at gmail.com> wrote:
>     I just want to remind you of the feedback that this got from the
> Membership
> Committees.
>
>   I DID REVIEW THE COMMENTS OF MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE OVER THE LAST YEAR AND
> A HALF, AS WELL AS OTHER PEOPLE.  THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK.  SOME REFINEMENTS
> HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INITIATIVE AS A RESULT
>
>   The organizing model you've repeatedly proposed has only been
> used once.
>
>   AND DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE AGAIN ?  IT'S PRECISELY
> BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN TRIED AND HAS HAD MEASURABLE RESULTS (SOME POSITIVE AND
> SOME NEGATIVE) AND THEREFORE A HISTORY, THAT IT SHULD BE TRIED AGAIN.  NOTE
> ALSO THAT THE INTERN'S COMMENTS WILL LEAD TO THE WSGRP MODEL BEING DONE
> DIFFERENTLY.
>
>   That not often enough or in enough diverse neighborhoods for it
> be considered as "replicable" or sustainable.
>
>   NOTHING STOPS THE INITIATIVE FROM FOCUSING ON DIVERSE POPULATIONS AND I
> BELEIVE THAT IT IS A SUSTAINABLE MODEL.   BUT I ENCOURAGE OTHER FOLKS TO TRY
> OTHER MODELS.... IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS MODEL THEN TRY ANOTHER MODEL; THERE
> ARE MANY PLACES AROUND THE STATE WHERE YOU COULD TRY A DIFFERENT MODEL.  GO
> FOR IT.
>
>   So, if you'd like to try it to
> see how it works in other areas, go for it.
>
> The bigger concern is this mentions nothing about what support will be
> given
> to help the "new" local raise money to pay back this loan.
>
>   MOST LOCALS WON'T NEED SUPPORT TO RAISE $150 OVER 3 MONTHS.  LOW-INCOME
> LOCALS CAN BE GIVEN MORE TIME TO REPAY THE LENDER.
>
>   It can be disheartening for a new organization to begin it's existance
> in debt and be
> in a sink or swim situation as to how they're to raise money to pay back
> this debt.
>
>   ON THE CONTRARY, EVERYONE HAVING TO PITCH IN (FINANCIALLY OR OTHERWISE)
> TO MAKE THE LOCAL THRIVE CAN BUILD A SENSE OF TEAM
>
>   Where do the training and materials come from?
>
>   NOT SURE WHAT TRAINING AND MATERIALS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>
> Additionally, Who are these volunteers signing up with?
>
>   NOT SURE WHAT VOLUNTEERS YOU ARE REFERRING TO
>
>   What does that say that the state party's Membership Committee is
> completely ignored?
>
>   MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE WAS NOT IGNORED AND IN FACT HAS HAD FEEDBACK ON
> THIS PROOSAL FOR OVER A YEAR ADN A HALF, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
>
>   Even though we've reviewed the same proposal repeatedly. Feedback has
> been given but not incorporated?
>
>   SOME FEEDBACK HAS BEEN INCORPORATEED AND SOME HAS NOT
>
>   That the State Committee has not passed this
> proposal. Will it be disclosed that the State Party has not endorsing
> this?
>
>   THE STATE COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DICTATE THE INITIATIVES
> CARRIED OUT BY LOCALS OR MEMBERS (REMEMBER THAT THIS INITIATIVE MAKES NO
> REQUEST OF FUNDS FROM THE STATE COMMITTEE).
>
>   COMMUNICATINS COMMITTEE CANNOT PUT LIMITS ON THE BRIDGE NEWSPAPER.
>
>   PLATFORM COMMITTEE CANNOT TELL A LOCAL WHERE TO STAND ON A PARTICULAR
> ISSUE
>
>   WE ARE NOT A TOP-DOWN PARTY.  SIMPLY BECAUSE A PARTICULAR STATE
> COMMITTEE DOES NOT AGREE WITH A PROPOSAL 100% DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CANNOT
> GO FORWARD BY A LOCAL OR INDIVIDUAL
>
>   RATHER THAN CASTING NEGATIVE ASPERSIONS ON THIS INITIATIVE, I SUGGEST
> THAT ALL COMMITTEES DEVISE THEIR OWN PLANS AND INITIATIVES (PROPOSALS IF IT
> MUST GO TO STATE COMMITTEE), CARRY THEM OUT, AND EVALUATE THEM
>
>   (ALSO, STATE COMMITTEE WAS NEVER ASKED TO ENDORSE THIS UNLESS I MISREAD
> THE MINUTES OF THE LAST STATECOM...)
>
> ~Melissa
>
> On 2/6/07, Ron Francis wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > The West Somerville Model has three players in it, in order to make it
> > work.
> >
> > The three players are the Anchor, the Lender and the Organizer.
> >
> > Each of the 3 players gets her or his needs met and that's why the model
> > works.
> >
> > There is the Anchor. (See previous email and notes on the model to
> > understand anchor's role)
> >
> > There is the Lender. (see notes on model). In West Somerville I was the
> > Lender and am willing to be the Lender again for other communities. The
> > lender gets repaid the $150 dollars after about 6 months or so.
> >
> > The is the Organizer (see previous email to understand role of the
> > organizer)
> >
> > This effort is locally-oriented, decentralized and does not involve the
> > State Party, any Statecom committees or any regional entities except to
> note
> > that the local entity that gets formed may or may not choose to be
> involved
> > with State or regional-level activity.
> >
> > Hope that helps...
> >
> > Ron
> > 617 230-2835
> >
> > Melissa Harrell
> wrote: Hi Ron,
> >
> > Can you clarify for me who would be making this loan? Is there a local
> or
> > WSGP making this loan? Is the State Party expected to do this?
> >
> > ~Melissa
> >
> > On 2/6/07, Ron Francis wrote:
> > >
> > > Great Questions Grace...
> > >
> > > I was not at statecom but I read the minutes and I don't think that
> this
> > > proposal or anything resembling it was made.
> > >
> > > The answers to your most of your questions follow from the model (see
> > > below) but I'm happy to answer the questions and it might also help
> > other
> > > people too (to hear the answers), so thanks for responding....
> > >
> > > The main sponsor in the WSGRP model is the local anchor, (who is given
> a
> > > loan initially and then subsequently raises the money from the locally
> > > organized people and repays the loan). In West Somerville I gave
> myself
> > the
> > > loan and the WSGRP repaid me willlingly. I'll do the same (give a
> > loan to
> > > any willing anchor), in other areas, who is willing to go through the
> > sixth
> > > month process, and said anchor will repay the lender.
> > >
> > > So an anchor must be located,.... but the only requirement is that the
> > > person be willing to shephard 3 or 4 meetings (preferably first one at
> > their
> > > own house) starting at about three months from now. (Part of the work
> > by
> > > the part-time staff could be help locate an anchor although I was
> mainly
> > > planning on doing that myself or having someone else who is familiar
> > with
> > > the model be involved in locating anchor)
> > >
> > > All of these things are in the notes for the model although the amount
> > > paid I think could be between $150 and $200.
> > >
> > > I already have two people interested in doing the work but I will
> > announce
> > > that there are 5 days left to apply and make decisions early next
> week.
> > So
> > > if you know people who are interested then please have them apply in
> the
> > > next 4 or 5 days.
> > >
> > > The anchor can work from anywhere. (Michelle operated from Shrewsbury
> > and
> > > did the West Somerville work)
> > >
> > > (Initially the part-time staff person would have to work with me for
> an
> > > hour or so over the phone or in person, in order that they understand
> > the
> > > model. (I will also volunteer time, as I did in West Somerville, to
> > help
> > > guide the anchor's work although Michelle did the work in West
> > Somerville
> > > with only a little bit of guidance....)
> > >
> > > Hope that helps...
> > >
> > > Also note that the person would probably work in a given State Rep
> > > district as this idea can parallel (in terms of geographic
> structuring)
> > the
> > > Local Ballot 2008 proposal I have recently posted. In fact it might be
> > > worth a trial run to try to execute the model with a particular issue
> > chosen
> > > to organize around (rather than the survey used in West Somerville)
> > >
> > > Ron
> > > 617 230-2835
> > >
> > > Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: Ron - is this based on one of the
> proposals
> > we
> > > missed at Statecom?
> > >
> > > Who is sponsoring this? Do you know where this person would be
> > > working? I
> > > assume you raised the $ for this?
> > >
> > > A few of these details, I'll see if any of the younger folks from my
> > > campaign
> > > are interested - thanks, grace
> > > In a message dated 2/6/07 12:07:19 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear GRP folks,
> > > >
> > > > If anyone knows someone who would be interested in part-time work
> over
> > > the
> > > > next half a year ($12) to kickstart, or start anew, Green-Rainbow
> > > chapters by
> > > > doing phonecalling work, mailings, some door to door work and other
> > > types of
> > > > outreach work (see below), then please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > The work would be for 12 +/- 2 hours and would take place over the
> > next
> > > > month and a half.
> > > >
> > > > The person should have good positive energy about organizing, be
> > > organized,
> > > > be committed to GRP values, and be comfortable on the phone and in
> > > reporting
> > > > progress on a regular basis.
> > > >
> > > > The person would look to replicate the steps indicated below (See
> > WSGRP
> > > > outreach model including student intern comments on improving the
> > > model), or a
> > > > very similar set of steps. Included in this email are two of the
> > > flyers used
> > > > to do some of the WSGRP mailing effort from Dec 2005 WEst Somerville
> > > outreach
> > > > effort culminating in a kick-off meeting of 13 people and two
> > subsequent
> > > > meetings of 10 people each.
> > > >
> > > > The outreach work would culminate in three to four meetings
> beginning
> > > three
> > > > to four months from now in a given community for which an "anchor"
> can
> > > be
> > > > established. If the work goes well then further part-time work is
> > > possible.
> > > >
> > > > Persons of color and people from other oppressed backgrounds are
> > > encouraged
> > > > to apply.
> > > >
> > > > If you know someone who is interested, then please forward them this
> > > email
> > > > and ask them to send a brief cover letter explaining (1 paragraph
> each
> > > please)
> > > >
> > > > 1) why she/he would be good for this position
> > > > 2) what her or his commitment is for GRP values.
> > > > 3) experience doing local municipal level organizing
> > > >
> > > > for more info call
> > > > Ron Francis
> > > > 617 230-2835
> > > >
> > > > background:
> > > >
> > > > Various Chapter-building modalities have been tried by the GRP
> > including
> > > the
> > > > West Somerville Model summarized below:
> > > > Â Â
> > > > Â This work was done by a student for a Service Learning
> > > > Â Project at Shrewsbury High School to rejuvenate the Somerville GRP
> > > > chapter.
> > > >
> > > > The student wrote this report in concluding the work.
> > > >
> > > > Â Â
> > > > Â A) Time spent:Â
> > > >  The total time for outreach was 9 hours.  To put stamps on 230
> > > envelopes:
> > > > < 1 hr. Return labels on 460 envelopes (230 being the recipient
> > > envelopes) &
> > > > stuffing the 230 into the bigger envelopes: 2 hrs. Put name labels
> on
> > > 230
> > > > envelopes: < 1 hr. Stuffing envelopes three times (three separate
> > pieces
> > > of
> > > > paper): 1 hr.15. 130 initial phone calls: < 2 hrs. Second, third
> round
> > > of phone
> > > > calls: 30 minutes. Additional time spent counting/recounting,
> > reworking
> > > Excel
> > > > database, adding additional columns to database, and driving.  The
> > > process
> > > > in its entirety of reaching 230 people by mail and 37 people by
> phone
> > > took
> > > > about 8 hours for me, plus about an hour or so from Ron Francis
> > helping
> > > with
> > > > flyers and a few calls and emails. Total 9 hours.Â
> > > > Â Â
> > > > Â Â B) Money SpentÂ
> > > > Â Total money spent was $172 dollars. I spent $12.58 on a box of 500
> > > no. 6
> > > > envelopes, even though I only used 230, and I am returning the
> > > remainder. I
> > > > spent $85.47 on 230 stamps. I spent $73.66 at Staples for the three
> > > pieces of
> > > > paper included in the envelopes to be copied and folded.  The
> grand
> > > total is
> > > > $171.71. (Note: In order to raise money, perhaps at the meetings for
> > > each
> > > > chapter, they could pass a hat around to collect donations. Or maybe
> > the
> > > me
> > > > mbership committee would cover some of these one-time costs, if this
> > > method proves
> > > > workable for jump-starting other chapters)Â This cost of 172 was
> > offset
> > > byÂ
> > > > $90 raised by the group at the meeting in small donations. Â
> > > > Â Â
> > > >  C) The mailing. Â
> > > > Â There were 543 names of Green-Rainbow Party Somerville residents.
> > 130
> > > had
> > > > phone numbers, while 413 did not. Of the 413, I sent out 100 of the
> > > flyers to
> > > > random residents in the 02144 area code (close to meeting location).
> > In
> > > > total 230 pieces of mail were sent out. (It will be interesting to
> see
> > > if there
> > > > is any difference in the turnout between those who received phone
> > calls
> > > and
> > > > those who did not. At the meeting we will ask how people heard about
> > the
> > > > meeting)Â Â
> > > > Â Â
> > > >  D) The phone calling Â
> > > > Â Of the 130 with numbers, I tried 115 of them, while Ron Francis
> > tried
> > > 15.
> > > > Our results were:Â Â 93 whose phone numbers were disconnected, not
> in
> > > service,
> > > > had moved, were a wrong number, etc.,  8 who clearly stated they
> > were
> > > not
> > > > interested,  15 who clearly stated they were interested, 5 of whom
> > > said they
> > > > were planning on attending the meeting,  And 14 who did not return
> > > the phone
> > > > messages.  A day before the meeting I reminded all 15 interested,
> > and
> > > all
> > > > 14 in their messages, to come to teh meeting. and return the survey.
> > The
> > > > number of these returned surveys is yet to be determined. Â
> Numerous
> > > phone calls
> > > > revealed that some people had misplaced or not seriously looked at
> the
> > > flyer
> > > > they received, and a few said they had not received it at all. The
> 93
> > > whose
> > > > numbers were not good will serve the same purpose as the additional
> > 100
> > > in the
> > > > random sample to see who shows up at the meeting without having been
> > > reached
> > > > via the phone.  Of the 8 who said they were no longer
> > > > interested, the responses were: two because of a change of party,
> one
> > > woman
> > > > changing to democrat, two because their English was not very good,
> one
> > > > because she was finishing grad school, one because she had just had
> a
> > > baby, one
> > > > because he was too busy, and one because she thought the use of the
> > > mailing list
> > > > would go better to saving a tree instead of being sent to her.  Of
> > > those
> > > > who were interested but could not come, most reasons were because of
> a
> > > conflict
> > > > in date or because they were generally interested but didn’t feel
> > like
> > > > putting in the specific effort for this event.  The general
> > response
> > > I received
> > > > was uncertainty in the strength of the party. One particular initial
> > > response
> > > > I got was “I got no money.” People seem to feel as if the party
> is
> > > always
> > > > asking for money, and in that sense, most people don’t seem very
> > > optimistic
> > > > about giving. Another man said how he preferred to give money to the
> > > local
> > > > chapter instead of Green Party USA . One person asked why the
> > > > Green-Rainbow Party didn’t join the Progressive Democrats to
> double
> > > the
> > > > strength into one party. Another man said how he found that many
> > > advocates for
> > > > the environment were then guilty of not recycling, etc. themselves.
> He
> > > thought
> > > > that the party should concentrate on the environment more.  One
> > woman
> > > > mentioned how she used to receive the Green-Rainbow Party e-mails
> > until
> > > she blocked
> > > > them. She found them very irritating because they often only stated
> > a
> > > > reminder that she was a member, and she recalls that they never
> really
> > > included
> > > > very important information. One man found the survey to be very
> rigid
> > > and
> > > > formulated, so he didn’t fill it out. He is however coming to the
> > > meeting, so we
> > > > will definitely be able to hear his two cents.  One man is
> > disabled,
> > > and
> > > > rarely leaves the house. He was not sure if he would come or not,
> > > especially due
> > > > to his low energy and low capability to take in a lot of
> information.
> > He
> > > said
> > > > he thought he could be helpful with phone calls, if we needed.
> > > > He has a big problem with the government, social security, the court
> > > system,
> > > > and the way it is run, and said if anyone had a problem with the
> court
> > > > system, he would be on the front line to help them. He also had
> strong
> > > interests
> > > > in animal rights, including cats, dogs, and other animals, such as
> > > raccoons,
> > > > the environment, and the education system. He works in an after
> school
> > > program
> > > > a few days a week. One man was concerned about the dinner being a
> > > vegetarian
> > > > meal, which of course, it was.  Two people we called said that
> they
> > > would
> > > > not respond to telephone calls, and one at the meeting said the
> same,
> > > and that
> > > > he’d prefer to be contacted via mail or email.  My feeling is
> > this:
> > > Of all
> > > > these various and specific concerns comes a party with a lot of
> > > potential, if
> > > > only it could encourage its members via some tangible evidence. I
> told
> > > all
> > > > of those willing to listen about the win in the Cambridge school
> > > committee,
> > > > and the ballot question win in Waltham about land development.
> > > > Many people were excited and interested, but those were the people
> who
> > > were
> > > > already interested.  However, beginning with GRP members gaining
> > > recognition
> > > > in other committees and winning election questions / candidacies,
> > > perhaps
> > > > real change can begin to occur, eventually having with low-income
> > > families
> > > > beginning to speak out in favor of the GRP.Â
> > > > Â Â
> > > > Â Â E) What could be done better:Â Â
> > > > Â Phone numbers: We will need to try the phone book more often in
> > order
> > > to
> > > > get more phone numbers. (It will be interesting to see if using
> > > > peoplepages.com will yield more correct phone numbers than the ones
> > > provided by Dan through
> > > > that phone service.)Â Â I think that sending members a copy of the
> > GRP
> > > > newspaper would encourage them more, sending those on the borderline
> > of
> > > interest
> > > > over to the side of interest. (Ron was supposed to do this but he
> got
> > > busy and
> > > > didn't)  Other than that, I don’t know how much you can improve
> > > > communications with each member without having their telephone
> number.
> > > The success of
> > > > solely sending mail will be proved at the meeting.  Perhaps
> > > door-to-door
> > > > contact would be the next step. Also, at the door, there should be
> a
> > > sign-in
> > > > sheet, along with a list of members who do not have phone numbers,
> so
> > > those who
> > > > attend the meeting can look over the list for people they know whose
> > > numbers
> > > > they could give us.  The only other way to get the numbers of
> > > > those who do not attend the meeting would be to specifically send
> them
> > > > letters asking for their numbers, and wait for responses.Â
> > > > Â Â
> > > > Â Â F) Overall results of the outreach part of experiment:Â Â
> > > > Â Out of 37 people contacted by phone numbers, 5 people said that
> > they
> > > would
> > > > show up at the meeting, although typically only 50% will actually
> come
> > > so
> > > > that may be 2 people but perhaps those 2 will bring others. Still
> > these
> > > 5 could
> > > > be counted as being interested and may come to future meetings. Â
> Of
> > > the 10
> > > > who said that they were interested but could not come, perhaps some
> > will
> > > show
> > > > up in the future. It may also be that some folks bring other folks
> > (some
> > > > said that they know people who may be interested)Â Â It is
> > encouraging
> > > that 15
> > > > out of 37 people that I talked to were interested. If we can figure
> > out
> > > a way
> > > > to turn that interest into participation then that would be very
> good.
> > > There
> > > > are already some active GRP people in Somerville who may bring some
> > > people to
> > > > the meeting. Ron said that his friend Bob Cable from Somerville
> > > Divestment
> > > > Project is coming (didn’t come but called and was very interested
> > and
> > > even
> > > > upset that he couldn’t make it) and Jamie did some outreach as
> well.
> > > >  Other cities may not have as many active GRP’s, proportionately
> > to
> > > their
> > > > size, although they might, so this should be factored in determining
> > the
> > > net
> > > > effect of this experiment. It was cold and snowy on Sunday so that
> > might
> > > have
> > > > affected the meeting results. The meeting is being held at a place
> > that
> > > has
> > > > public transportation so that is another variable.  Personally I
> > > would like
> > > > to stay involved with the party, and maybe other students could be
> > > encouraged
> > > > to take on such a project in another city.Â
> > > > Â Â
> > > > Â Â G) Results of the Meeting:
> > > > Â Â Eleven people were there, 5 women and 6 men. (plus jamie's
> little
> > > son)Â
> > > > Of seven people (including Ron and me) who said they would come,
> five
> > > showed
> > > > up, so the additional six who came had not been contacted via the
> > > telephone.
> > > > They told us they had heard about the meeting via e-mail, or had
> > gotten
> > > the
> > > > mailing (I think 3 and 3). The total cost for the meeting was $170,
> > but
> > > we
> > > > raised $90 by passing a cup around. Surprisingly every member at
> the
> > > meeting
> > > > said they would show up for the next meeting January 15th. Everyone
> > > agreed to
> > > > take a look at the phone list and identify people that they knew and
> > > could
> > > > contact by phone (since many numbers were missing). One man agreed
> > to
> > > get
> > > > information about energy usage issues in Somerville . Another man
> > agreed
> > > to get
> > > > information about military recruiting. Two people volunteered to
> > > organize an
> > > > activity for youth interested in GRP to make events more family
> > > friendly.Â
> > > > Others seemed generally willing to participate. Lot of discussion
> > > > about climate /Â traffic and how that is interconnected to need for
> > oil
> > > > based foreign policy. For about 90 minutes the group discussed
> > issues
> > > important
> > > > to members and how to go about them.  There is a copy of the
> > minutes
> > > from
> > > > the meeting listed below, which gives some detail about every issue
> > > discussed.
> > > > Â Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > > > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > > > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > statecom-discuss mailing list
> > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>