ConsensusRe: Dormancy, adcom & quorumRe: [statecom-discuss] (nosubject)

Betty H. Zisk zisk at bu.edu
Sat Jun 2 20:54:30 EDT 2007 

Re not only consensus process but leadership issues. A reply to Bill and to Grace and to Ron, but in general.
I hate to lecture you, my respected friends, because you are sometimes a lot wiser than I am. I see two things wrong with the green process (and I mean badly wrong). One is that we tend to eat our leaders alive. The other is that at times we are insufferably boring--in meetings large and small. A third but one I wont discuss here is that we seem not to know our own history very well and thus are doomed to repeat it. (I know that is a quote but I have forgotten the source.) I DONT think that procedural changes like dropping the consensus process are the solution; I think a very real change of attitude toward each other might help. I am not writing in despair; I wouldnt have stuck with Greens for more than 20 years if I felt hopeless. (Please bear with me when I use the word Greens; I mean GRP since we merged but I often speak of the premerger period as well.) 

I was chilled when I reread the chapter on Green politics in my book (on local activism in peace and envir mvts published over 10 yrs ago) to note that what I said then was still true today. My academic colleagues (and a few are sympathetic to Greens; most arent) say that infighting is simply a fact of life for minor parties and they then pt to the populists and other historical parties. All well and good but why? I guess the standard answer is that the two major parties want to win via coalitions and thus compromise (except for mavericks like Kutichich). Greens/GrP seem totally unable to  abandon a relatively pure position and thus will condemn anyone who departs from this. By the way I am not trying to sell my book; it is out of print and out of date. Of course the normal human traits like jealousy of others takes place. I dont deny that and I am not all sweetness and light either. But I want to know why we devour our leaders. I dont mean just Nader --and that is a complex situation. I mean Grace and Jill and Ron and others who have dared to be different or to run a different sort of campaign. (And I suspect that Grace will deny it but I can cite chapter and verse to the contrary.

Do we bore each other? Ask yourself honestly when was the last time you greeted GRP meetings with pleasure or joyful anticipation. Dammit it doesnt need to be this way. One thing might be to keep the proposals short and sweet. I wld throw out any proposal that was over about 100 words total. The second reform I wld favor is NOT going into the long explanations of the consensus process. I have discussed this in previous emails. You dont need to go into the objections to the objections in that detail. If you are truly borrowing from Quaker process just say (after a silence) does anyone have a concern. Answer that one from the floor not from the chair. Then as facilitator take a deep breath and give your statement of what seems to be a consensus. (I have had many unanswered concerns when I was a feisty activist; I bowed to the clear consensus around me. A single persons lack of agreement doesnt mean the business of the meeting cant proceed. I think we are perhaps hung up on this issue wrongly.) Love and peace. I promise I wont do the lecture mode often. Betts Zisk










 

 



-----Original Message-----
From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
BillCunningham
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:21 PM
To: Discussion List for StateCom members;
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
Subject: Re: ConsensusRe: Dormancy, adcom & quorumRe: [statecom-discuss]
(nosubject)


In response to comments by Betts, Grace, and Ron,

I don't judge whether the Quaker way is better; for me it is definitely more desirable. It's worth emphasizing that the consensus process was nurtured within a tradition of organized faith without hierarchy. I wish we had a common faith strong enough and clear enough to sustain such a practice. Who knows, maybe some day we will. 

We have tried to EXPRESS our values and goals by using the consensus process to make decisions. But is the consensus process IN ITSELF a basic value or goal of our party?

I don't see any special class or ethnic bias in either consensus or paliamentary procedure. The type of process used seems to be determined by other factors.

Thus, consensus is common to villages, clans, administrative boards and ruling class power-lunches. Roberts-style-rules are usual in conventions, legislatures, PTAs and town meetings.  

The StateCom is no more or less dysfunctional than the rest of the Party. I see Mike's initiative as part of a general reappraisal which I hope will lead us in new directions. 

I have been demoralized, but knowing I'm not alone gives me hope that we can rediscover our inner light. I'm convinced that we have to clear away unnecessary obstacles at the "center" in order to move toward a sustained focus on local organizing. And vice-versa. 

-----Original Message-----
>From: Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
>Sent: Jun 1, 2007 11:50 PM
>To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: ConsensusRe: Dormancy,	adcom & quorumRe: [statecom-discuss] (no subject)
>
>Betts- your voice is very welcome!   And you mention God as a role in your 
>life - that is part of our lovely diversity as a party, please don't apologize!
>
>Peace is the presence of justice not the absent of conflict - I have seen and 
>experienced profound differences expressed clearly and directly as part of 
>consensus and it was not a problem.
>
>I think that we struggle more about speaking openly and trusing that others 
>will take hte time to understand and truly weigh what we say and fromm whence 
>in our heart and spirit our understanding commes from.   Consensus requires 
>openness, honesty, vulnerability and respect and a willing ness to listen and be 
>changed as well as hopefully change others.
>
>Are these not the values and skills we want to nurture in each other in our 
>organization so we can take them out into the world and represent a different 
>kind of leadership?   MMany of those qualities are the very ones that make 
>Chuck beloved and mmade Mel so - I hope they are part of the qualities that lead 
>so many to be inspired by my leadership-
>
>Let us cherish that which nurtures us to become a different force for change 
>even as we struggle to "become the change we seek in the world" - Love, grace
>In a message dated 6/1/07 11:21:56 PM, zisk at bu.edu writes:
>
>
>> Please forgive my jumping in here. I am not on statecom at present but most
>> of you know me. I just want to make one point about the consensus process
>> and I hope that it will be taken seriously. I agree that it really hasnt
>> worked at times for GRP. I think that is partly because it has been
>> presented (at most of the statecom mtgs I have attended) as something
>> needing massive step by step explanation. It doesnt. Bill argues that
>> Roberts Rules is almost second nature for us as a society. I argue that
>> consensus process is easier IF it is presented very simply and as a matter
>> of how we do things here. Yes I am biased--I am a Quaker. I have also dealt
>> with the frustration of Quaker biz mtgs where consensus was not easily
>> reached. (In Cambridge we took 2 years way back in the late 80s to approve
>> gay marriage. Most Friends get marriage licences as well but we dont need
>> them for a marriage to be valid in our Meeting.) We took a horribly long
>> time recently to reach unity on CORI checks. But when we finally reached
>> unity we have always stood by it and not sniped or complained.) I am not
>> entirely sure that the Quaker experience has ever applied to GRP because of
>> the major differences. For instance Friends children are raised in a
>> consensus mode on the whole. I have never heard massive dissent among my
>> children or other kids about this way of doing things. I of course felt
>> awful when we are most upset as we were on CORI.
>> 
>> GRP people on the contrary seem almost contentious by nature. I hesitate
>> even to talk about silence or prayer. I am not a religious nut. I am a human
>> being who depends on the presence of god.
>> 
>> Greens however are different. They havent been raised in consensus or unity.
>> I also use the term unity quite pointedly because it is different from
>> consensus: it brings the idea of god (or divine guidance) into the equation.
>> Quakers seek unity with god's help. And we have a clerk who helps us in that
>> task. (Our GRP facilitators serve that role except that I doubt that they
>> ask for silence and for prayer and pause before making a suggested
>> compromise or a ruling of someone being out of order.)
>> 
>> I am NOT suggesting that the Quaker way is better. Perhaps until GRP shows
>> some self restraint Roberts Rules will suffice to keep order. I wld hope we
>> could do better. I have served as vibes watcher at many GRP events--and I
>> prayed for us silently. But I am highly aware that GRP includes rage and
>> sarcasm and pressing of free speech to its extreme limits. I lament that
>> fact. I wish we could work together peacefully.That implies some self
>> restraint. Frankly I have yet to see that in GRP. Sigh. With love Betts Zisk
>> (Again I do not talk lightly but from the heart. I know that some of you are
>> offended by talk of divine guidance. I promise I will not do it again.
>> Please contact me if you are offended. BZ)
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>> [mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of Ron
>> Francis
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:14 PM
>> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
>> Subject: Re: Dormancy, adcom & quorumRe: [statecom-discuss] (no subject)
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think anyone is rejecting diversity as I read the proposals, and
>> certainly no one would prevent folks from coming if they they really wanted
>> to (both are against our fundamental principles).
>> 
>> The large number of adcom people makes sense if it fulfills some purpose.
>> What is accomplished by an adcom of 11 people that 7 couldn't do fine ?...
>> because the price in lost person-hours is very high.
>> 
>> If the only answer is diversity of opinion then I guess that is the heart of
>> the disagreement.
>> 
>> I would say the adcom can make decisions just fine with 4 people getting
>> input from all statecom members.   The decisions that adcom makes are
>> administrative; they are simple to make (rarely any dispute) and also just
>> not that important compared to local organizing.
>> 
>> Can one example be provided of a decision that required a large adcom ?
>> 
>> We need to streamline our operation as much as possible to help people get
>> out into the field and do local organizing - the heart of any social
>> revolution.
>> 
>> We just can't afford the person-hours if we want to be serious about the
>> local work that we've shortchanged for years.   Let's take 4 adcom members
>> and have them shift to generating energy in any local of their choice;  our
>> party flounders and will die unless we take local organizing seriously.
>> 
>> Until we have several strong healthy locals we will continue to have little
>> effect on anything.   Our strongest local (Cambridge) is, despite great
>> efforts, not that strong or healthy by the admission of one of its own
>> members.  Why would anyone take us seriously if we don't have enough of a
>> base to be a factor.
>> 
>> We have some peaks when people run for office locally, but that that is
>> different than having local bases.  I visited another state recently where
>> the progressive community was built around the rent control issue and is now
>> a permanent force in city politics.  A permanent force.
>> 
>> We need a state party that emphasizes local organizing and not
>> administration.
>> 
>> As to the form of local organizing,... there are many options including
>> running for local office... whatever builds a real identifiable issue-based
>> local force, I would support.
>> 
>> However consider this thought:
>> 
>> In ordinary resident's minds, we need to connect the party to passionate
>> issues, like Return, IRV and Iraq, where the party was or can be affiliated
>> with a large fraction of people.  We've won some IRV ballot questions and
>> got 45% on Return.  WE could distinguish ourselves on Iraq with the correct
>> position.   These are places where we have a chance on building a because
>> because people can see clearly why and how we are different.
>> 
>> ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: I am not getting this argument - people keep
>> saying "more efficient": smaller
>> adcom meetings have not been more "efficient" in my experience.   Getting
>> enough diverse voices in the room so we can really get a full range of
>> perspective and have liaisons to all the GRP activities is WAY more
>> "efficient" in my
>> experience.
>> 
>> But I tend to find being inclusive and more democrat to be "efficient" but
>> then I am a radical - Love, grace
>> In a message dated 6/1/07 7:27:37 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>> 
>> 
>> > I can't speak for others, of course, but I think the call for reducing
>> > adcom is based on the need for efficiency as is the call for reorganizng
>> into
>> > supercommittees.
>> >
>> > The decisions that adcom needs to make just don't warrant 32 person-hours
>> > being spent at an adcom meetings. We need to free up more individuals to
>> focus
>> > on local organizing instead of putting in 8 hours per month to do two
>> adcom
>> > meetings... meetings which often don't deal with stuff that directly helps
>> > the party with local base-building and often is non-controversial.
>> >
>> > In two years as co-chair I recall at most, two situations where there
>> wasn't
>> > unanimity or close to it. In any event, if it is a bigger decision, it can
>> > be overturned by statecom.
>> >
>> > a) I would say adcom should be 4 officers and three others with a quorum
>> > being 4 out of 7.
>> >
>> > b) Other committees (4 supercommmitees maybe now) should meet once per
>> month
>> > with every other meeting being a phone meeting.
>> >
>> > These two ideas above would really start to free up time for some solid
>> > local work by statecommers who want to do it.
>> >
>> > Ron
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: Mike - I like the focus on getting our
>> > committees going, on clarifying how
>> > many locals and committees people are on. I would love for instance for
>> > EVERYONE to really commit to a committee and a local - one each - and
>> REALLY
>> > commit,
>> > put energy into getting it up and running and getting tasks done, so
>> people
>> > feel effective and excited.
>> >
>> > A few things specifically:
>> > we have had active committees when we have had leaders who did work to
>> > increase energy and excitement and worked specifically interpersonally to
>> > build
>> > those - email does not increase energy of excitement. Convenors, for
>> > instance,
>> > need to get on the phone and call their folks. we really are still human
>> > beings not extensions attached to key boards.
>> >
>> > I know that people only recognize a little diversity but diversity is
>> > complicated and we have a wonderful adcom these days with enough members
>> to
>> > actually
>> > be able to have quorum even withour busy schedules - why do those not on
>> > adcom
>> > keep trying to take apart something that is actually working?
>> >
>> > As for quorum for statecom, someone needs to look into the state
>> > requirements
>> > for statecom now that we are again a ballot-access party - Love, grace
>> > In a message dated 6/1/07 12:46:02 PM, mikeheichman at verizon.net writes:
>> >
>> >
>> > > June 1, 2007
>> > >
>> > > Members of State Comm.
>> > >
>> > > I have just submitted the proposal below for the July State Comm.
>> meeting.
>> > >
>> > > I am officially asking for this to be vetted by State Comm., Adcom and
>> all
>> > > of the Working Committees.
>> > >
>> > > I request your feedback. There is plenty of time to modify this
>> proposal.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Mike Heichman
>> > > mikeheichman at vrizon.net
>> > > 617-265-8143
>> > >
>> > > ------------------
>> > > Major Item for July State Comm-Improve the Operations of the State GRP
>> > > Friday June 01, @12:05PM, by Mike Heichman, Suffolk county
>> > > Subject : State Comm Improvements
>> > > from the State Comm & Working Commitees dept.
>> > > Summary :
>> > > 1.$(D*$ $(D*$ For most of 2007, the State GRP has been working with
>> very little
>> > > energy. Some of the reasons for this are
>> > > structural in nature-how our State Comm. Meetings are run, the dormancy
>> of
>> > > most of our working committees, etc.
>> > > 2.$(D*$ $(D*$ For the last few months our state party has been engaged
>> in a
>> > process
>> > > of
>> > > reflection and planning for the future.
>> > > While SPWG is the major motor for this focus, it would be productive for
>> > > members of the State Comm. to reflect on
>> > > our past practice and to make changes that will improve the operations
>> of
>> > > the State GRP.
>> > >
>> > > I have introduced these ideas before and I want to thank some members of
>> > > the State Comm. who have responded to
>> > > my ideas and shared some of their own.
>> > >
>> > > I am officially making these proposals now (June 1). I$(D+$"om asking
>> for
>> > further
>> > > discussion and feedback. Later on, after I
>> > > modify my proposals, I will ask for co-sponsors. I encourage others to
>> > make
>> > > their own proposals to improve the
>> > > operations of our State GRP.
>> > >
>> > > Text :
>> > > A.$(D*$ $(D*$ Operations of the State Comm.
>> > >
>> > > 1. The State Committee meeting will prioritize its agenda more wisely by
>> > > focusing most of its attention in the
>> > > following areas:
>> > >
>> > > i. making of policy between conventions
>> > > ii. improving communication and coordination
>> > > iii. evaluating the progress of the party
>> > >
>> > > It will stop doing the work that should be done by other organs of the
>> > > party. Examples:
>> > >
>> > > i. It will stop making endorsements (Adcom or Another Comm.)
>> > > ii. It will stop working on the Platform (Platform Comm.)
>> > >
>> > > 2. Every State Comm. member must belong to at least one (but no more
>> than
>> > > 2) local chapter. (The only exceptions
>> > > are the State officers of the GRP.) (Justification: State Comm. members
>> > are
>> > > supposed to represent other members of
>> > > the party.) Every State Comm. member must be a member of some other
>> aspect
>> > > of the State GRP (including Adcom,
>> > > Working Committees, member of a Caucus, involved with the National
>> Party).
>> > > The only exceptions are members who
>> > > have just joined the State Comm., who will be expected to quickly become
>> > > involved in other parts of the party.
>> > >
>> > > 3. The quorum will be changed from 50% of the State Comm. to 40%.
>> > >
>> > > 4. The consensus process will be changed:
>> > >
>> > > An attempt will be made to reach consensus. After a reasonable time, the
>> > > facilitators of the meeting are authorized
>> > > to shift to other ways of making decisions (straw votes, etc.) When
>> votes
>> > > are taken, a 2/3 vote or greater will be
>> > > needed to make a decision.
>> > >
>> > > 5. The new vetting process will be changed in the following ways:
>> > >
>> > > i. Initiators of proposals should be encouraged (not required) to vet
>> > their
>> > > proposals to the appropriate committee(s).
>> > > Committee should be encouraged but not required to vet these proposals.
>> > >
>> > > ii. We should go back to the old system of expecting that members of
>> State
>> > > Comm. will $(D+$¢®
>> > >
>> > > a. read the proposals before the meeting.
>> > > b. offer their support by co-sponsoring if they are in agreement.
>> > > c. share their concerns with the sponsors with a mutual attempt to
>> resolve
>> > > concerns before the meeting.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > B.$(D*$ $(D*$ New Committee Structure
>> > >
>> > > (Justification: Most of the Committees are dormant or operating with
>> > > minimal energy.)
>> > >
>> > > (Note: I am stealing this idea from Bill Cunningham and making a couple
>> of
>> > > changes. If Bill still likes his idea, I
>> > > consider him to be the primary sponsor.)
>> > >
>> > > 4 SuperCommittees will replace the current Working Committees.
>> > >
>> > > 1.$(D*$ $(D*$ Adcom
>> > >
>> > > a.$(D*$ $(D*$ Membership: The elected officers and 3 members elected
>> by the
>> > State
>> > > Comm. A majority of the members of
>> > > Adcom must be $(D+$)Mdiversity members$(D+$¢®.
>> > > b.$(D*$ $(D*$ Responsibilities: The current responsibilities except
>> that it will
>> > not
>> > > be involved in platform development.
>> > >
>> > > 2.$(D*$ $(D*$ Membership Support SuperComm. (This will include the
>> tasks of the
>> > > current Membership, Communications and
>> > > Tech Committees.)
>> > >
>> > > 3.$(D*$ $(D*$ Outreach SuperComm. (This will include the current tasks
>> of the
>> > > Platform, CDLC and External Relations.
>> > > Additionally, it will be the place where we may decide to take on
>> > > $(D+$)Mmovement$(D+$¢®/issues work (Examples: Abolish
>> > > Poverty, Anti-War, etc.)
>> > >
>> > > 4.$(D*$ $(D*$ Finance, Legal, Office and Records
>> > >
>> > > Reply
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Contact the tech team with suggestions/corrections for this site.
>> > > About This Site
>> > >
>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft$(D*$"n Windows$(D*$"n and Linux web
>> and
>> > application
>> > > hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > statecom-discuss mailing list
>> > > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> > > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > **************************************
>> > See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **************************************
>> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>
>**************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss


Bill Cunningham
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss

More information about the statecom-discuss mailing list