[statecom-discuss]

[liveinamerica at cctvcambridge.org]

  Hi Folks,Ron let's make it fit and make it work!Grace,thanks for the note.
  Ron hope to hear from you before Sun. pm. meeting.Lloyd


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com [mailto:Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 05:43 PM
> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: Re:  [statecom-discuss]
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>