[statecom-discuss] please, let us not rush the delgation process
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Tue May 15 17:10:35 EDT 2007
Ron - I have to wonder when people say running state wide accomplished
nothing for the party.
Clearly, anyone who says that is not talking to lots of people on the strett-
we are seen completely differently. Once you make a splash like a very
popular run, that needs to be followed up by locally organizing - to draw on the
seeds that have been sown.
And if you think it is a feel good activity - you should try ti some time -
it was among hte most challenging organizing I have ever done- we continue to
reap incredible benefit fromm it -
For instance, folks outside our party have proposed several initiatives to
help us grow and move forward - now those like other initiatives need to be
acted upon -
And I assure, folks supporting my run in Worcester are passionate- we need to
actually be successful and we'll see how that passion grows and matures -
Thanks, grace
In a message dated 5/15/07 4:13:57 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Well, I think we are stuck as a party and need to break out... we have to
> try something radically different.
>
> We are not a on a growing course. Most of us recognize that we are failing
> because of lack of local organizing to develop actual bases grounded in some
> issues. Therefore we need some radical experiments in local organizing and
> get the Grassroots Organizing Index up.
>
> We could do it in Roxbury (which Ebony suggested some years ago), or even
> Worcester where we have a candidate. I don't really care where it takes place
> but I rather have it be non-candidate focused so that there is a passion
> behind the organizing.
>
> "Dissolution of our state Party" would not be a major loss because we don't
> have a base statewide to begin with. At the state level we are just a bunch
> of disparate names with no coherent action, and the times we have tried
> coherent action at the state level, they have led to little longterm results.
>
> I'm just being brutally honest with self-criticism.
>
> And also, simply not having long drawn out statecom meetings is not gong to
> cause a dissolution - it just means meeting less often to allow people the
> chance to do some focused local work instead.
>
> Each Statecom meeting is 200 person-hours !. That's 200 person hours !
> (how much local organizing comes out of these 200 hours ? the answer is
> unfortunately zero)
>
> Also when I say "curtail" I included shifting activities to help directly
> with local organizing.
>
> you said
> " But what would this work be connected?:"..
>
> I don't understand the English...
>
> On running for high office... yet again:
> We need to learn our lessons. Running for statewide office ad nauseum is
> not helping us: we've put a lot of energy into these efforts and have little to
> show for it. Why do it again: I think it is just a feel good activity ...
> something we can do to pretend as if we are a political force when the
> reality is that we aren't. A run for Senate or President is ineffective at this
> time.... although I wouldn't stop anyone from trying based on principle of
> being decentralized, but I feel duty bound to point out that such tries have not
> done anything substantial for us after the initial honeymoon with Nader in
> 2000.
>
> Why not work with Owen and figure out what he needs to be successful locally
> in Agawam and put energy there instead of a Senate race ?
>
> Now I know you may feel put aback by my direct challenge to the usefulness
> of statewide efforts, but please remember that I make these statements in
> order to be frank so that we can have a sharp discussion...(it is nothing
> personal).... instead of our usual plodding along without serious heartfelt internal
> criticism.
>
> Once we have 30 to 50 chapters then we can start thinking about running at
> state levels.
>
> It's all about local organizing.
>
> Short of a catastrophic event that directly affects people, a third party in
> the U.S. must focus locally and build.
>
> Every action we take should be forced to answer the question of "how will
> this help local organizing".
>
> We are on the right track in Worcester although I wish we had an issue (or a
> longtime local resident running) that had a base grounded in local work, or
> local experience in that area (like Luc was in Cambridge, or Chuck in
> Boston)... however, being desperate !, I'll take any form of experiment in local
> organizing and support the local Worcester city council efforts.
>
> My own contribution is the Local Organizing Initiative. At this point we
> have an paid intern who is going to attempt to mobilize local efforts this
> summer, using different experiments in the 8 communities where we identified
> local anchors. The LOI is going to use strategies that pay for themselves over
> time thus minimizing the costs.
>
> If anyone would like help from the intern to do a local organizing
> experiment then please respond to this email.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> "mikeheichman at verizon.net" <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote: Hi Ron,
>
> Interesting ideas.
>
> I do not at this time believe that it would be helpful for most of our
> state party at this time to cancel our State
> Comm. meetings or curtail the work of our committees. I do not believe that
> this would currently lead to more local
> organizing. Instead it would lead to the further dissolution of our state
> party. In the short term, some local
> organizing would continue, especially where we have existing chapters. But
> what would this work be connected?
>
> As an active member of the Boston chapter, I beleive that belonging to a
> strong statewide and national party would
> be a tremendous asset for our local work.
>
> There is much that the State Comm and committees do that go beyond
> supporting local organizing. I am sure that
> many GRP members, including myself, want our party to participate in
> running a Green for president in 2008. I
> believe that there would be some support for a race for US Senate or for
> Congress (I'm sure that many would also be
> opposed.) Both of these will not happen if the CDLC disbands. Etc.
>
> However, i beleive that you are asking an excellent question-What is the
> relationship of all of the work that we do to
> the growth of our local chapters?
>
> For myself, I disagree with the idea that "We should think globally and act
> locally." Instead, I beleive that we should
> think and act locally, regionally, nationally and globally.
>
> I also support SPWG. There needs to be a place and a process for exchanging
> our ideas and coming up with a plan to
> grow our party. I am sure, Ron, that you have a lot of support in the party
> to focus much of our attention locally.
>
> Mike Heichman
>
>
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Ron Francis ronwf777 at yahoo.com
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 06:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
> To: mikeheichman at verizon.net, statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] please, let us not rush the delgation
> process
>
>
> Agree with Mike.
>
> And let's apply the same thinking to our state.
>
> Until we have a dozen functioning local chapters, state level work and
> statecom meeings should be curtailed
> altogether to a maximum of one per year. Let commitees meet and to focus
> all of there energies on finding ways to
> help locals develop.
>
> we don't have any local chapters that engage 1% of their local communities
> in a comprehensive way at least two
> times a year; ... which means little Grassroots organizing going on: This
> is not to say that people aren't doing
> positive things such as education and meeting to discuss ideas... but it is
> to say that we have little grasroots
> organizing going on.
>
> I'd like to define an Index that I am going to call the Grassroots
> Organizing Index: GOI. It is a measure of the extent
> to which a political idea reaches the general public each year.
>
> A value of 1 on the GOI index = person to person contact with 1% of the
> identified local population in a 1 year's
> worth of time with an intent to involve tehat person.
>
> Let's see how this works: In a city of say 50,000 people, then 1 % would
> be 500 people. A group that talks to 500
> in a year in a local community people would score a 1 on the GOI Index. GOI.
>
> Currently I believe that none of our chapters rates a 1 score including my
> own.
>
> Another thought:
> Suppose we decided to be radical and and suspended a statecom meeting and
> used all 200 person hours to
> distribute 20,000 pieces in Arlington: a city where we have people
> interested in local organizing but no chapter. The
> flyer would invite them to an event on some issue of relevance. Then we
> wold have something. Even if we only
> used half of the person hours then 10,000 would be distributed. it would be
> fun.
>
> could we try this instead of doing the same old statecom meeting ?
>
> ron Francis
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "mikeheichman at verizon.net"
> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org; natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org;
> martina_national at yahoo.com;
> adcom at green-rainbow.org; statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org;
> yen.yarden at verizon.net; statecom-discuss-
> request at green-rainbow.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:50:19 AM
> Subject: RE: [statecom-discuss] please, let us not rush the delgation
> process
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have a major concern about the GRP deciding to expand our delegation to
> the national party.
>
> Currently I beleive that most of the "major" statewide committees (CDLC, $,
> Membership, ComCom, Platform, etc.)
> are either not functioning at all or functioning at a minimal level. Please
> correct me if you think that I'm wrong.
>
> I think that it would be counter productive to strengthen our participation
> in the national when things seem (to me)
> to be falling apart at the state level.
>
> Mike Heichman
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: jamie mclaughlin experimental_radio at hotmail.com
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:45:40 -0400
> To: natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org, martina_national at yahoo.com,
> adcom at green-rainbow.org, statecom-
> discuss at green-rainbow.org, yen.yarden at verizon.net,
> statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] please, let us not rush the delgation process
>
>
>
>
>
> I do not think that it is wise to implement prop 272 before the
> national
> meeting in July. The state committee of the Green- Rainbow party does not
> meet again until July 7th. Unless we hold a special election, this is not
> adequate time to elect 6 more members that will serve the the NC properly (
> what ever that means....)
>
> We had hoped to elect our 6 new delegates at our state convention in Aug.
> or
> Sept. giving canadates time to consider the responsibilities ( A LOT of
> INTERNET READING) of NC work,
> if we elect a make shift delegation, they would:
>
> a. not have the benefit of pre convention registration rates at the
> NON-UNION, ritzy convention hotel
>
> b. they will not have the benefit of advanced group fundraising, it is
> unreasonable to expect delegates to pay out of their own pocket when our
> members are struggling enough as it is
>
> c. they will have a hard time processing the amount of information that
> goes
> into the the daily grind of NC work
>
> We had hoped to do some car pooling to the event, it is a 7-10 hour drive
> to
> Reading from the metro Boston area, that is not as bad as other places
>
> however i think that it would be better to allow states more time to elect
> informed delegations and not try to rush the process
>
> peace,
>
> Jami McLaughlin, NC MA
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Message: 3
> >Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:48:54 -0700
> >From: Aram Falsafi
> >Subject: [usgp-nc] Planning for apportionment changes and National
> > Meeting
> >To: usgp-coo at gp-us.org
> >Cc: app-com at lists.gp-us.org
> >Message-ID: <464876D6.2020601 at aramfalsafi.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> >
> >To National Committee delegates:
> >
> >The GPUS Apportionment Standing Committee is making its best effort to
> >submit
> >the new apportionment numbers to be implemented before the national
> >meeting. In
> >addition to the mandate in Proposal 272 for the Apportionment Standing
> >Committee
> >to calculate the numbers in a timely manner, many feel that ensuring that
> >all
> >state parties have fair representation in upcoming elections is important
> >in
> >order to have sufficient participation in the Presidential nomination
> >process.
> >
> >Rather than require state parties to do all the research required for the
> >calculation, the committee is doing research on available data and will be
> >submitting all of that to your state parties for review and possible
> >correction
> >shortly. Meanwhile, we are publishing below our current estimate of the
> >final
> >apportionment numbers, based on the latest formula changes and inclusion
> of
> >2006
> >data.
> >
> >To allow for the smoothest, most cooperative planning for the national
> >meeting,
> >we strongly encourage your state parties to plan for more than one
> >contingency.
> >Examples of options some state parties are employing are:
> >
> >* for an expected increase, planning to fill all the seats, but informing
> >delegates that not all the seats are definite yet and asking for
> volunteers
> >to
> >serve as alternates if necessary
> >
> >* for an expected decrease, planning to fill the smaller delegation, but
> >asking
> >for alternates to be ready to fill the delegate seats if necessary
> >
> >* calculating ranked ballot results for different sizes of delegations and
> >informing all potential delegates of the possible results
> >
> >* using the option of proxies at the national meeting to give the state
> >party
> >additional flexibility in making contingency plans.
> >
> >Thank you for your cooperation and consideration of the various needs
> >within the
> >party.
> >
> >-Aram Falsafi
> >chair, GPUS Apportionment Standing Committee
> >on behalf of the GPUS Apportionment Standing Committee
> >
> >
> >
> >State Number of votes
> >Alabama 2
> >Alaska 2
> >Arizona 2
> >Arkansas 2
> >California 42
> >Colorado 3
> >Connecticut 4
> >Delaware 2
> >District of Columbia 4
> >Florida 4
> >Georgia 2
> >Hawaii 2
> >Idaho 2
> >Illinois 10
> >Indiana 2
> >Iowa 2
> >Kansas 2
> >Louisiana 2
> >Maine 9
> >Maryland 4
> >Massachussetts 8
> >Michigan 6
> >Minnesota 4
> >Mississippi 2
> >Missouri 2
> >Montana 2
> >Nebraska 2
> >Nevada 2
> >New Jersey 4
> >New Mexico 2
> >New York 9
> >North Carolina 2
> >Ohio 3
> >Oklahoma 2
> >Oregon 7
> >Pennsylvania 8
> >Rhode Island 2
> >South Carolina 2
> >Tennessee 2
> >Texas 7
> >Utah 2
> >Vermont 2
> >Virginia 2
> >Washington 3
> >Wisconsin 6
> >Wyoming 2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live Hotmail.
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migratio
> n_HM_mini_protection_0507
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list