[statecom-discuss] (different plans and strategies...)

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Ron - this will certainly take research - like much of the legislative stuff 
I am working on - I   work on it with people from my camapgin and party 
activists - I also keep adcom and the co-chairs regularly informed.   And anything 
that might be see by others as representing our party (a line I need to be very 
careful about) - the message is crafted with the co-chairs since they are the 
only spokes people for the state party.

Will you make sure to id a liaison so that these efforts   are updated to 
adcom regularly?   

These efforts you are initiating are in fact statewide so this is not any 
more grassroots than anything any party statewide committee is planning or 
working on.   this is not coming from a local in the Berkshires and something 
different coming from the Nashua River Green-Rainbow.

What you are proposing is wonderful - much like the position papers the 
platform committee is working on - but honestly, it sounds to me like you are 
working on reaching a strategy agreement that will apply across the state - and as 
such perhaps it woul dbe more accurate to start a committee which reports to 
adcom and statecom - and is indeed included in strategic planning.

I know you don't want to hear this but it is what it looks like.

I wil repeat my suggestions - that you go for binding initiatives that 
actually accomplish something at the minicipal level in as many municipalities as 
you can - That can be part of a visionary project that starts with effecitve 
steps that create change and credibility for the GRP-

Thanks, grace
In a message dated 2/16/07 6:43:58 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:


> I do plan to participate and I think teh people discussing Local Ballots 
> 2008 will most likely bring something to alny and all strategy discussions... 
> why not ?
>   
>   In the meantime plannign goes forward.  It will probably take two months 
> of research and planning to begin to execute this plan and we needed to get 
> started yesterday !
>   
>   We need to understand that we as statecom, are only a small subset of a 
> 10,000 member party, and we  do not control the members.  We control the shared 
> state-level resources and that is about it.
>   
>   already there are 6 non-statecom people who have responded.  That's great 
> but it also shows that there are people out there who are nonstatecom people 
> who are ready to do some serious planning.
>   
>   If 100 people are interested in dong this plan then it will probably get 
> done with or without staecom and that is the way our party should operate.  
> Working with any subset of the party is optional and not compulsory; give some 
> space for people who aren't interested in the map that you want to follow.  
> There are several roads to the promise land.
>   
>   There is no need to stop planning and organizing becuase a certain subset 
> is interested in stalking strategy.  We've been talking strategy in 
> membership committee for two years.
>   
>   Should we also stop other strategic efforts like making a platform or 
> updating our brochure.  Everything we do has strategic implications and there is 
> counterproductive to suggest that people should not be planning just because 
> one subset of teh party called a strategy meeting.
>   
>   Mike is right.  Let's let 100 flowers bloom adn provide fertile grond as 
> well.  I'll see you at some strategy meetings and hope you participate in 
> Sundays' phone conference.
>   
>   Also would appreciate feedback on Local Ballots 2008 if you cannot make 
> the phonecall.  Help us mold a good plan to give teh plan the highest chance of 
> being accepted by as many people as possible, statecommers or not.  Lift 
> every voice.
>   
>   The challenge is to craft a fundamentsl social change ballot question !  
> like we did in Somerivlle.
>   
>   It's very encouraging to hear that people want to get moving.
>   
>   Ron
> 
> Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:
>   On 2/16/07, Ron Francis wrote:
> > We should be careful with this....Outreach can become difficult if it 
> involves mutliple items being thrown at people simultaneously... people can get 
> confused and time can be limited too.
> 
> 
> My point exactly, Ron. That is why the strategy committee seems like
> such a good idea. It will help get folks on the same page, reinforcing
> each other's efforts instead of willy-nilly going in a dozen
> directions on the issue-du-jour.
> 
> I would like to show genuine enthusiasm for what you are doing.
> Unfortunately my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that I deeply want
> a GRP plan that has some coherence and I don't understand why you
> don't want to participate in that process instead of preempting that
> process. Don't you see that if you start recruiting and calling
> people, it will be confusing (and may have already caused confusion)
> when the strategy committee also gets in touch with them? Once again,
> the party will look as if it can't get its act together.
> 
> Won't you consider presenting your program for consideration by the
> strategy committee whose findings and recommendations will be brought
> to the next StateCom meeting? Then the expectation is that
> implementing the plan will become a core part of this year's State
> Convention. This doesn't stop people from organizing in their own
> locales. Quite the contrary: It will take local organizing to feed
> into the strategy work. This is a bottom-up, not a top-down, process.
> 
> Merelice
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
>