[statecom-discuss] "Local Ballots 2008" Sunday Feb 18th conference call 9:30pm

[Merelice]

Well, Ron, until you have brought yourself up-to-date about the
strategy committee, you can't really address my concern. The strategy
committee is NOT about Statecom or about a statewide plan that has no
local relevance or flexibility. Nor is it about being "involved at the
state-level." The committee will be made up of a representative from
every local chapter, caucus, and working committee along with six
others who add some diversity of viewpoints, regional perspectives,
etc.

Of course the party will not dictate what folks should or should not
do. But it is exactly the kind of direction and clarification that you
are bringing to your effort that many many members have yearned for in
the GRP as a whole. Why would you not want to share your experience
and your enthusiasm with a broader group of members? Why the sudden
sense of urgency to proceed unilaterally, when a couple of months of
strategizing could add broader viability and effectiveness? And why
set up a "straw man" so you can knock it down? (That is what your
negative description of the strategy committee process is. This isn't
about "a long protracted process involving lengthy discussions that
doesn't clearly lead to any definitive results." Ouch! You really know
how to hurt a person.)

The Rainbow Coalition Caucus also put forth a proposal at StateCom for
a two-year program which Gary and I sponsored. But we withdrew it and
cosponsored the strategy committee proposal (with some changes to the
original language to accommodate us). I expect that, as a caucus, we
will refine and advocate for some version of our abolish-poverty
program within the strategy committee. Your program would certainly be
consistent with that. But if you're going to take ownership, proceed
separately, limit your leadership, and not participate in the process,
I believe we will have lost an important opportunity to add a
multiplier effect to whatever we do.

Merelice


On 2/15/07, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Merelice,
>
>   I look forward to a discussion of different plans at different venues with the State level strategy discussions being just one venue out of many different venues.
>
>   "Local Ballots 2008" focuses more on local work and local strategies.  I'm finding that many people, who are not involved at the state-level seem attracted to this plan and outreach hasn't even really begun yet except for a few emails.  It may be that folks not involved at the state level are attracted to a concrete plan rather than a long protracted process involving lengthy discussions that doesn't clearly lead to any definitive results (and might just lead to a consensus to try different strategies anyway....)
>
>   In any event, if at the end of the day there are enough people in our party who want to do something, then they can and should do it, and they should also try to attract others especially many folks who just aren't involved at the state level of discussion and also have no idea about things being discussed in statecom.
>
>   Nothing stops another subset of GRPs, such as statecom, from trying a diferent plan that attracts a different type of person.   One glove does not fit all hands.  We should let each idea prosper to the extent that it can.
>
>   ron