[statecom-discuss]

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Lloyd - yes, both - I am simply in agreement that coordinating things so that 
members who are reached are told about all plans and how to plug in - The 
ballot initiative needs to be part of the overall menu of optoins, so needs to be 
part of the larger strategy discussion.

In a message dated 2/16/07 11:39:09 AM, liveinamerica at cctvcambridge.org 
writes:


>   Hi Folks!Does it have to be either or?!It seems that there is an equal 
> need
>   for the effort at both levels that is being planned for.One without the
>   can never be as effective!The sane should happen throughout the state
>   wherever the effort can be initiated.What do folks think?Lloyd
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Merelice [mailto:merelice at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 05:04 AM
> > To: 'Discussion List for StateCom members'
> > Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] "Local Ballots 2008" Sunday Feb 18th    
> conference call 9:30pm
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>