[statecom-discuss] 4-26 letter to State Comm

Sat May 5 09:16:56 EDT 2007

Mike, I have been very slow in responding to you, not from apathy but rather
from too much on my plate. (I still teach alternative semesters as BU and
will for three more years.) I think many of your ideas are sound and
feasible. But I am not sure you have quite gotten at the roots of our
spiritual disarray.

As a former and very active member of statecom I dont think procedural
change will do the trick. Yes the quorum requrement shld be changed. Perhaps
Roberts Rules would help. Certainly the cumbersome and time consuming
process of ranking proposals needs tweeking (i think I would throw it out
altogether). But the core problem (at least in my view) is the lack of
realization that we are forever doomed to the periphery of state or national
politics as a third party in a winner take all system--and we need to act
accordingly. (I hope I dont need to prove this pt which has been amply
demonsrated in past elections.) We are simply not going to win or even have
more than marginal effect under our present system--except at the local or
state level of office espec in nonpartisan elections. And we have very small
hope of changing that. When I signed on as a Green about 20 years ago I knew
that (espec as one who tries to teach pol sci including mmovement politics).

I see a great deal of hope in establshing the strategic planning group
though I agree with you that we are going to be stuck with a slow process of
getting out our report. I hope that you will come and participate in these
procedures. You are a bright light that we need badly. Other than this I
suggest that we wait and see what emerges. I have my own deeply felt views
about the lack of faith and hope and belief that so many of us seem not to
have. I dont ask for my simple belief in Quaker principles; I ask that GRP
not be so negative and nasty about ANY belief. Most of my atheist friends in
Green Party (Greg Gerritt; John Rensensbrink for example) at least have a
profound belief in a guiding principle of nature--and frankly I dont see
that ANYWHERE in GRP. We dont talk anymore about basic beliefs and our joy
in them. Instead we tend to be nasty and shouting at demonstrations. This is
very far from the spirit in which I became a Green in 1986. Fondly Betts
Zisk

-----Original Message-----
From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
mikeheichman at verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:03 PM
To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
Subject: [statecom-discuss] 4-26 letter to State Comm

April 26, 2007

Dear State Comm Members:

Another State Committee meeting has come and gone. For me, it is time to
reflect on the state of our party and how
we can move best move forward.

I am hopeful that the SPWG process will help our party develop a long-term
strategy; it is a task that is desperately
needed. I am thankful that the committee is composed of a good mix of
members-some who are currently active
and others who had been more active in the past. However, this process is
going to take months (my estimate is late
September or October) and will deal mostly with what our political program
should be.

The purpose of this letter is to present some of my ideas on how we can
improve the operations of our State Comm.
I ask that you read my letter and respond with your own ideas and proposals.

1.	The State Comm. needs to improve its internal coordination?

Who is “supposed” to be coordinating our 4 meetings/year? What role does
Adcom play? The role of the co-chairs?
The Secretary? The Treasurer? What is the State Comm supposed to be doing
for itself? Is this division of
responsibility clear to us? Is it working?

When Gary and I (the Suffolk County delegates) arrived, Dan and Wendy (and
her wonderful baby who was the major
joy of the meeting) were already present and getting the meeting organized.
Dan had printed quite a bit of the
materials that we needed for the meeting and as usual credentialed the
delegates and acted as our parliamentarian.
(Thank you Wendy and Dan)

Gary knew that he was the co-facilitator of the meeting. He didn’t know who
his co-facilitator was. No one else did
either. No one had the minutes from the last State Comm. meeting on January
27. Colby had taken the minutes for
our Secretary and had sent it out promptly on February 1. The minutes would
have informed us that Wanda was
supposed to be the co-facilitator. Thanks to Wendy for agreeing to
co-facilitate the meeting.

Who was responsible for printing out the minutes of the 1-27 meeting? What
are the functions of the co-facilitators
before and during the meeting? I don’t know. Who knows?

2.	The State Comm. needs to change its quorum rule.

For most of the meeting, we lacked a quorum, although at times we “agreed”
to pretend otherwise. In the past twice
I had submitted a proposed to make it easier for us to have a quorum, so we
can make decisions and do our
business. It seems like an incredible amount of time for so many of us to
take most of the day off during the
weekend and schlep all over the state to get to a meeting that can’t
conduct its business. Instead of wishing that this
wouldn’t be a problem (which is what we have chosen to do over the years)
or pretending that we have quorum, let’s
fix it so we can come together and “legally” conduct our business.

Why is it that so many of the leaders of our party cannot make these
meetings? Some of them are legitimate. We
have personal lives and sometimes we have competing party business (like
last year when our candidates and many
of us were busy campaigning).  However, I believe that there are some
members of the State Comm who do not feel
a commitment to attend our meetings or perform other expectations like
being a member of one of the committees.
Is this observation accurate? If so, why? What’s going on?

3.	The State Comm. wastes a lot of time during our meetings.

On April 14th I was hoping that we would have some time discussing what is
going on in the party and what we can
do about it. I was also hoping (I had earlier sent out a request when some
of us were discussing the agenda.) that we
would spend time meeting in committees, in an attempt to re-energize our
committees. None of this happened.
Instead we got bogged down on items that, if the state party was working
properly, should not have been discussed
at all.

What are some of the problems?

a.	We waste time prioritizing what we are going to discuss. We need to come
up with a new system of ranking
proposals.

I had a major proposal for the 2008 Elections, which I spent a long time
working on and Merelice had submitted a
proposal to change the size and functions of Adcom. These were the only 2
proposals that dealt with policy, which is
the major function of State Comm. These were the only 2 proposals that were
judged to be presented on time. My
proposal was the last thing we did that day and received a totally
inadequate amount of time. Merelice’s proposal
was not even discussed.

Instead we got bogged down. We spent too much time discussing my proposal
to endorse Chuck and Grace for
municipal office. In my opinion the only legitimate issue which was raised
was whether or not Grace was a candidate.
It was disheartening to debate whether or not Grace deserves our
endorsement. Most of our candidates have given
so much to our party and have received very little support in return.

We then wasted time debating two proposals which needs to be addressed by
the Platform Comm. However, the
Platform Comm has stopped meeting.

b.	We need to get rid of the “expedited round”. I can’t remember a time (I
may be wrong.) when we have passed
anything using this process. I believe that “State Comm” and “expedite” is
an oxymoron.

I suggest a different procedure, some of which is not new:

i.	The State Comm. should actually read and discuss (by e-mail) the
proposals before the meeting. (Note: No one
responded to my 2 proposals through the State Comm list. These were the
only proposals sent to State Comm
before the meeting-certainly not an onerous requirement.)
ii.	At the meeting, we should discuss what deserves/needs/should be
discussed (and what should be referred to
another place, like a committee, or another day). Items that deal with
public policy and have been properly
submitted/vetted; and proposals from chapters, committees, other groups
should have a higher consideration for an
earlier time slot.
iii.	If we discuss/vet matters beforehand, more of us should be prepared
for discussions during the meetings.
However, we should put a limit on how much time we spend getting bogged
down with comparatively small details.
It’s true that language is important and when we “argue” about language we
are often expressing important political
differences. However, we should put a limit to the amount of time we spend
discussing our differences. When we get
to the point where the majority decides to end discussion, the facilitators
should find out by a straw vote if there is
general agreement to the proposal. If the answer is yes, then it can be
referred to Adcom for final languages and
adoption.

4.	The State Comm’s consensus process is not working.

Sometimes our consensus processes at State Comm meetings drive me crazy. I
don’t believe that I’m alone. I
propose that we experiment for awhile with a combination of consensus and
“Roberta’s Rules of Disorder”.

Let’s maintain the spirit of consensus. We are attempting to make decisions
that we can all support. This is better
than majorities and minorities, winners and losers. Yes, this takes time.

When we get bogged down, let’s have more straw votes. And sometimes, let’s
vote. Let’s experiment with making
decisions with a 2/3 vote (or some other high percentage). Let’s see what
the positive results and negative
consequences would be if we made decisions in this manner.

5.	The Vetting Process is not working.

Before there was a vetting process, members of the State Comm. was expected
to read the proposals before the
meeting, communicate their concerns and seek to have those concerns
addressed before the meeting, and co-
sponsor the proposal if they wished. The problem was that this was not
happening.

One of the problems with the vetting process, which I have consistently
opposed, is that it has removed this
expectation from State Comm members. I believe that the former process is a
realistic expectation and requirement,
and that we were mistaken to change this policy and practice.

An additional problem is that this mandates an additional responsibility on
the committees, some that are not
meeting at all and others that are barely functional.

I support the voluntary vetting of proposals. It is beneficial for those
sponsoring the proposals to ask for and receive
feedback from the appropriate committees.

Despite my opposition, I had faithfully sent out my draft proposal, “2008
Elections Plan”, early in March with plenty
of time to get feedback from both the State Comm and the CDLC. I got no
feedback from the State Comm list and
received some helpful feedback from the CDLC list, which I incorporated
into my final proposal.

Then I submitted my proposal to the State Comm and when I could to the GRP
webpage. I vetted the proposal to
every committee I could think that it was related to, including the SPWG.
The result before the meeting was silence.
No one communicated with me, including the CDLC. No one on State Comm.
co-sponsored the proposal. (It had
been my intention that this would have been a CDLC proposal, not mine.) At
our April 14th meeting, the only
committee that had vetted my proposal was the Membership Comm. It wasn’t
even vetted by the CDLC.

I propose that we go back to the old process. We should encourage, but not
mandate, the vetting of proposals to
committees. I believe that this vetting would strengthen proposals.
However, the State Comm. is the policy-making
body of the GRP, between conventions, and its members should take this
responsibility seriously.

6.	What’s going on with the State GRP?

I believe that we should discuss ways of improving the practice of our
State Comm. However, none of this addresses
our most important challenge. What’s going on with members of the State
Comm? Why are our numbers down? Why
didn’t we have quorum on April 14th? Why are so many of us increasingly
disengaged from the work of the State
Party (State Comm and the Committees)?

I believe that we are experiencing some kind of spiritual crisis. While
many of us continue to work hard and take our
party commitments seriously, there is something missing in our community;
somehow our collective spirit has
become disengaged from our party.

I don’t know why. Let’s talk.

Love,

Mike Heichman
mikeheichman at verizon.net     617-265-8143

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail

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