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

[Ron Francis]

Sharing resources and looking at overlap and timing is what I call "coordinating" and not what I refer to as strategizing (thinking through a political plan to build power often long-term in nature but not necessarily).

I hope that the discussions go beyond "coordinating" that but I have no idea what the agenda is.... does anyone know ?  Elie didn't. 

Agreed however that coordinating is always good - more info never hurts you.   The main requirement is that information is shared so that, as you correctly point out, duplication and efficiencies can be taken advantage of.  As long as all strategic options are transparent with their needs and resources then coordination can and often does happen.  For example once I knew that Pat Keaney had an updated Somerville database  for Jill's campaign I obtained it and used it.

It is not misinformation (or mislabeling) to call the strategy effort a statecom effort.  It was not passed at a convention and we have no idea if the general membership would support such a use of person hours.   They may be but we can't say for sure.  

Also it is misleading to say that the strategy effort is an effort constructed by all elements of the party  (even if it attempts to reach all locals and members which is a different matter...since Local Ballots 2008 also attempts to reach all members.....).  It would be different if statecom reps had polled members in each county ....but absent that, it is a statecom effort passed at a statecom meeting.   And there is nothing wrong with that by the way.  I support all efforts at any levels as far as strategizing goes.  I would support an adcom strategic retreat or an MRGRA strategic effort.

In any event, that's not the misinformation I think that Merelice was referring to .... I think she meant that people would confuse Local Ballots 2008 with the "strategy" effort; I could see some people thinking that because the plan is, as one respondent put it, "well thought out".   However that is not the fault of the Local Ballots 2008 proposers if the proposal is confused with strategy discussions since Local Ballots 2008 makes no reference to any strategic discussions at all ! (In fact I think there would be less confusion if there was some known agenda for the "strategy" efforts ... but even Elie didn't know and I don't know either)

You said "It's not a competition where one strategy will be chosen as the holy writ of".  That's not true.  Let's be honest.  We may wish that it is not a competition but it is in fact a competition for volunteers since there are a finite amount of volunteer resources especially startup volunteer resources.  But there is nothing wrong with such competition as long as it is done respectfully.  Ideas for good organizing should compete !

you said
"I also agree with Grace, this is being presented as a state-wide project,
not just a project being put forth by one person/local who is looking to
expand on their project.  It's not an accountability issue, it's about
letting the state party (and the strategic planning committee) be helpful in
any way it can be.".

It is a statewide project and it is ALSO "a project being put forth by one local/person who is looking to expand".   It is a statewide plan but that does not mean that it has to involve the state-level party !  It can but it doesn't have to.  It might be an effort led by the local level of our party.... imagine that... or an effort led by individual members who want something different....now, there's a thought.

I appreciate your concern about having the state party wanting to help the effort.  I'm sure that the Local Ballots 2008 planning committee will let you know when and if help is needed.  

Local Ballots 2008 should be seen like any party effort such as The Bridge or running for local office.  It needs no approval by anyone and we should all hope that it works.  I'll give it a solid effort.

One final point:  Coordinating together is always good.  Working together is sometimes a disaster !

Ron

Melissa Harrell <lissagrp at gmail.com> wrote: To answer your question about the three mythical strategists and what this
"strategic planning committee" would accomplish.  All three sit down,
discuss what steps and timelines each tactic will follow, look for overlaps
where they could support and complement each other, thus avoiding
duplication of work.  They would also look for potential spots where they
will work at cross purposes to each other and come up with ways to avoid
that.  They then go forward with all three, coming back together on a
regular basis re-asses how these tactics are playing out and tweak them as
needed.

It's not a competition where one strategy will be chosen as the holy writ of
the party's organizing.  You'd previously put forward the idea that so many
choices will muddy the waters.  I strongly disagree with that.  We're aren't
going to hit the streets and hand people a list and demand that they pick
something!  We'll actually talk to people!  Have an actual two-way
conversation! Find out what people want to do and turn them loose in that
direction.

It's been my experience (and others as well), that when not given choices,
people will follow along to a point. They will not take that comittment
seriously. Give people choices and they'll pour their heart and soul into
their choice and be very committed.  That happens because it's their choice,
it's something they already care about and enjoy doing because it usually
plays to their strengths.

You also asked about misinformation, it is misinformation for you to
continuously refer to the strategy committee as just being composed of
statecom members.  It's mandated that this committee include *all* locals
and an effort be made to reach out to everyone. Including any individual
member who feels they have something to contribute.  Any and all
Green-Rainbows are strongly encouraged to participate.  A key part of this
process is to get a good cross section of our membership to do this, and
those of us who support this process take that  very seriously.  I feel it's
disrespectful to not acknowledge that committment to bottom up leadership.

I also agree with Grace, this is being presented as a state-wide project,
not just a project being put forth by one person/local who is looking to
expand on their project.  It's not an accountability issue, it's about
letting the state party (and the strategic planning committee) be helpful in
any way it can be.  Which brings me back to where I started with this
email.  By being part of the strategic planning and the state party's
process you can save yourself some work and avoid having another project
working at cross purposes to yours.  Working together is never a bad thing.
It's one of our key values.

~Melissa

On 2/17/07, Ron Francis  wrote:
>
> I have no idea what the statecom "strategy" sessions are all about
> especially because the word strategy is so multi-faceted that I really think
> that sometimes it becomes meaningless as a word.   However I think that
> "strategizing" which to me is synonymous with "thinking out long term plans
> to achieve some objective" is always a good thing to do.
>
> As you know I love strategic plans, have executed several, and encourage
> it at all levels, and I plan to participate where feasible in any and all
> discussions.
>
> I hope the strategic planning is successful and I'll try to contribute to
> its success.  By the way, when are the strategy sessions and what is the
> agenda ?
>
> My main point in this discussion, however, is that any particular attempt
> at "strategizing" shouldn't be seen as something that prevents other plans
> from going forward.   A lot of us have already strategizing and have been
> doing it for some time and have some plans and ideas worked out.  To think
> that because the almighty statecom called a strategy session that the other
> strategic thinking and planning should stop is inconsistent with our value
> of decentralization.
>
> For example, suppose a person, let's call that person strategist A,
> decided that we should only do local organizing for 4 years using a the
> democratic outreach methods specified in our bylaws and nothing else.
> Should Strategist A be discouraged from doing that ?  For all we know it
> could catch fire.   Instead of pressuring strategist A from not working on
> that, because it has to fit in with some other strategy ideas is potentially
> counterproductive and might even slow down strategist A.
>
> Consider next strategist B.  Strategist B says that we should start now
> and work for a statewide ballot question and wants to pull people together
> to see if there is interest.   Should we discourage strategist B ?
>
> How about strategist C.  She thinks that we should put 90% of our energy
> into locating candidates Maine-style.  If she has a plan to assembles a team
> to call 1000 GRPs to encourage people to run, then should that be
> discouraged ?  For all we know she might hit a nerve and be wildly
> successful.
>
> Strategist D says that we should work on the Secretary of State race in
> 2010 and start doing work on issues that the Secretary of State office would
> focus on, so that we build for three years and make a decent showing or
> win.  D believes that one successful statewide run is the way to mobilize
> people.  Who are we to say that D is wrong ?
>
> If A, B, C, or D can assemble enough people to execute her/his plan than
> she/he should go for it.
>
> Good ideas attract people and multiply bringing in new people.  You don't
> have to get everyone on board with one plan to get things done.  What is
> needed is a good plan.  An example:
>
> In my living room three years ago a small group of us strategized about
> grassroots organizing for fundamental human rights for Palestinans.  We sent
> "the shot heard round the world" according to one newspaper, when 8
> Somerville politicians co-sponsored our resolution, and you know about our
> ballot question results in 2006 plus the volunteer strength of SDP.  We were
> able to build SDP's strength because the plan was a good plan.
>
> At the same time, three years ago, a group called the Greater Boston
> Intiaitve for Palestine Peace Network pulled together people from about 8
> groups, plus individuals working on Palestine, in order to came up with a
> strategy for the groups to work on.  That group folded in about 6 months.
> (This is not to say that braod strategizing won't always work.... but it is
> to say that sometimes a small group with a good plan can achieve results.
>
> We need to experiment with new ideas (hypotheses), document the
> characteristics of the experiments, learn best practices (conclusions) and
> then move forward to improve them.  I know this sounds scientific but my
> training is as an experimental physicist and I use my understanding of the
> scientific method to help my organizing.
>
> Ron
>
> Merelice  wrote: Well, Ron, maybe we are almost there.
> But as long as you go on and on
> about statecom, you still haven't gotten the concept of the strategy
> committee, despite my multiple tries at clarifying its mission and
> describing its broad base.
>
> You haven't yet acknowledged that this effort is meant to reach and
> include those very non-statecom people that you say are "ready to do
> some serious planning." The other activities you mention -- the
> platform, the party brochure, etc. -- will all benefit greatly from
> carrying a consistent message that reflects the best thinking and
> input of as many segments of the party as we can reach and embrace.
>
> Once again, your email set up a straw man (first it was the strategy
> committee and now it's statecom) whose role you describe inaccurately
> and then proceed to "educate" or "enlighten" or tear down. I'd like to
> think we've reached a plateau of some understanding as a result of
> these emails. It would be encouraging if you could describe accurately
> what the strategy committee will do, how it will proceed, and in what
> ways it could fulfill your own goals for the party.
>
> So far that has not happened which gives me reason to be concerned
> that you might misinform others as you proceed with your own plans. In
> that case, you could do yourself as well as the strategy committee a
> disservice by shutting yourself and others off from a broader base of
> action.
>
> Merelice
>
>
> On 2/16/07, Ron Francis  wrote:
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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