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

[Eli Beckerman]

I have not yet shared any of the written submissions with the SPWG --
I am getting everything into a standard form and will send them out soon.

On 5/7/07, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>