[statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party

[Ron Francis]

As to being in the collective process:

You said:

"Part of the collective process is hearing from members across the
state, including you. Yesterday's "hearing" went quite well in that
regard"

SPWG has already heard from me in detailed written form about the fundamental problems facing our party  and so the process has already included me (I am indeed part of the collective process) and I would have come in person except for a potluck involving local organizing which will always be a priority for me.

I don't think the SPWG wants specific plans at this point; it seems like the group wants principles and ideas which I have already put forward for months, including my last email,... and so that it what I mean by not putting forward a specific plan - it would pre-empt the process.  (THE SPWG process needs to consider the root causes of our problem, and once that is understood move forward with a plan).   And anyhow, if it is a specific plan that is desired, then I have already put out such plans, again in detailed written form and thus I am part of the collective process.

To summarize, I have provided a set a principles for thinking about our root-cause problems, and I have ALSO submitted a detailed plan to solve the problems.  I am happy to resend these materials.

As for number 2)

You said:

"Isn't your proposal about local referenda with a possible focus on
 an abolish-poverty issue a suggested plan for going forward? Shouldn't
 you want the SPWG to put that in the mix among its considerations?"

If the SPWG is interested in specific proposals based on the fundamental ideas that I have put forward (including both the Common Local Ballot Question Initiative and the Local Organizing Initiative), then the group is free to advocate for or discuss those kinds of proposals and similar ones.

These specific proposals (CLBQ adn LOI) are already in the mix...in detailed written form.   They have even been submitted with timelines, rationale and even mailed out in physical form to many members....  So I'm confused to hear a suggestion that they are not in the mix.  In fact they are well in the mix as is the ideas that Mike H. sent out the other day.  (I asked Eli to make the CLBQ and LOI materials available to SPWG, as well as other more root-cause analysis and I assume that he did)

Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote: On 5/6/07, Ron Francis  wrote:
> Hello Betz,
>
> I don't want to suggest any plan for going forward since I prefer that the Strategic Planning Working Group use a collective process.
>
Hi Ron,

Your response is confusing on two counts:
1 - Part of the collective process is hearing from members across the
state, including you. Yesterday's "hearing" went quite well in that
regard.

2 - Isn't your proposal about local referenda with a possible focus on
an abolish-poverty issue a suggested plan for going forward? Shouldn't
you want the SPWG to put that in the mix among its considerations?

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