[statecom-discuss] AdCom size; party growth

[Merelice]

Hi,

First of all, let me express clear appreciation for AdCom's commitment
and diligence in trying to do a good job for the party. I know what
that demands.

Responding in haste, so I'll just address the diversity concerns
expressed by Grace and Melissa about my proposal to reduce the size of
AdCom. The body for which diversity needs serious focus is the State
Committee. This is the body that is supposed to represent the members,
make policy, and set strategy. But it has been ages since we've made
any effort to fill any StateCom diversity seats as mandated by our
bylaws. Suggesting that AdCom be expanded to include more diversity
seats (as happened at the Fall StateCom meeting) pulls away people who
are needed on StateCom, on working committees, and in Local Chapters.

In my suggestion to reduce the size of AdCom from 12 to six, I am
reducing both the elected officer and the diversity seats by 3 each
(the officer seats from 7 to 4 and the diversity seats from 5 to 2),
so the proportions remain similar.  And, strictly speaking, ALL seats
should be viewed as diversity seats. Either size does not guarantee
full diversity, but I'll quote one member who said that if AdCom were
composed entirely of Lesbians of color who all were committed to doing
the administrative work, that would be fine. While that's an
over-statement, it speaks to my concern that AdCom has increasingly
seen itself as THE leadership body of the party rather than the body
that attends to administration and infrastructure. I'm aware that at
times, important things get sidelined by things that seem urgent. (OK,
sometime they ARE urgent, but not always, and AdCom could probably
exercise more discretion about how their limited time is spent. Maybe
it could set some goals and deadlines for itself so it stays focused.)

As a quick aside, please note that I'm trying to reduce the BURDEN on
Adcom (along with the size) by having more responsibilities delegated
to the bodies that really should be carrying them out. In the bylaws,
one of AdCom's responsibilities is to see that others are doing what
they should be doing. Too often, it seems easier to just do something
rather than invest time in setting up ways to decentralize. Part of
preparing to grow is making sure that the GRP is organizationally
prepared to absorb growth.

The fact remains that we are still a start-up organization. If we
needed to collect 10,000 signatures for something in the next 4-6
weeks, do we have the organization to do it with any level of ease?
Hmmmm. This is not meant to be a criticism -- simply a recognition of
reality and the job ahead of us.

Merelice



On 1/23/07, Melissa Harrell <lissagrp at gmail.com> wrote:
> The confusion about the designations has come up again, and  we're working
> on setting up a meeting with folks to get back on track with getting the
> confusion cleared up.
>
> As for the soapbox, I appreciate your concerns.  I just don't see how having
> less people to do the work solves the problem.  Statecommittee meetings is
> more a drain on my time than Adcom is.  I share Grace's concerns about
> losing those diversity seats in addition to dropping committee chairs.  Much
> of the committees work overlaps and Adcom is a good time for us to
> coordinate those efforts and also keep adcom in the loop about what we're
> doing.
>
> On 1/23/07, Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
.....As you know, we still have to sort through the various confusing
> > designations, something we on AdCom talked about a couple of years ago
> > and began to explore with legal counsel. Just one example of the
> > administrative work that gets overlooked because AdCom is overloaded
> > and makes other things a higher priority. (Yes, I'm on my soapbox
> > about how I think AdCom should be spending its time!) Especially if we
> > decide to engage in a voter registration drive, it would be helpful to
> > get the confusion of names cleared up.
> >
> > :-) Merelice