[statecom-discuss] Re: vote on NC proposal 321: statecom-discussDigest, Vol 171, Issue 1

[Betty H. Zisk]

I will trust your judgement on this issue. Thanks for your thoughtful and
full reply. I didnt realize that Calif delegation still remained an issue. I
have very mixed feelings on this. You may not know that my former home was
Calif. Dad was a UCLA prpfessor. But that is beside the pt. Betts

-----Original Message-----
From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of Yarden
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:47 PM
To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
Subject: [statecom-discuss] Re: vote on NC proposal 321:
statecom-discussDigest, Vol 171, Issue 1



On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 12:00 PM,
statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:10:28 -0400
> From: "Betty H. Zisk" <zisk at bu.edu>
> Subject: RE: [statecom-discuss] (no subject)
> To: "Discussion List for StateCom members"
> 	<statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <LLEFLHPOHPIAFBDJDDBDIEIDEDAA.zisk at bu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> Please translate. What is the Brpp? Why to they have right of review? I
> write from ignorance not misundestanding. Betts Zisk I have concerns
> because
> proprosal isnt clear. BZ

Betts,
Sincere appreciation is felt for anyone who demands explanation; an
important way people for people to learn.  Our chief problem is not
inability, but indifference to learning.  And it is likely to be those
who are already able who will help to overcome the resistance to
becoming less committed to the one or two things that they already know
and that sustain them until a hurricane hits.

1. I was inconsiderate in assuming that BRPP would become clear from
the context; first paragraph of "Background" reads,

"Per the policy adopted in Proposal #266, Process for Resolution of
Procedural Objections (adopted, 4/1/07), the Green National Committee
is asked to vote on whether to uphold the Steering Committee's decision
to send a proposal recently submitted by the Green Parties of
California and Washington to the  __Bylaws, Rules, Policies and
Procedures
Committee."__

2. But other people -- good to know that we are not the only ones who
read -- have already jumped in and explained.

3. The Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures Committee(BRPP) does not
have a "a right of review," but the Committee is likely to have the
best knowledge of the subjects for which it is named, and if a
submitted proposal is primarily about the procedure for accomplishing
something, in this case, apportionment of delegates to the upcoming
National Nominating Convention for 2008, it might easily expedite
getting of a proposal passed quickly, if it is reviewed by people who
already are engaged.  Thus, any flaws in details, or resolvable
disagreements with or within the proposal submitted by state parties of
California and of Washington, should be taken care.

4. The Steering Committee(SC), and this is a meliorative interpretation
on my part, decided to refer the proposal to the BRPP, hoping that
given the prejudice (old-style non-ecological politics) toward
California to be found in many of the GPUS state parties might be
overcome by acting as it did.

5. However, what actually occurred was that the BRPP requested that the
proposal be referred to them, and the SC acceded this request, thus
triggering a procedural objection to their action.  This challenge is
what was (according to the requirements of  Proposal #266, Process for
Resolution of Procedural Objections (adopted, 4/1/07)) put to a vote by
the NC.

6. Before deciding on how to vote, and knowing that the outcome might
be of concern to some members of the GRP, I did go to the trouble of
doing the following:
a) ascertaining the membership of the BRPP to make sure that they are
people who will act with due regard for principle, however much they
might differ, and not rubber stamp with indifference.  I.e., they are
responsible and will not let anything pass, or compromise just for the
sake of avoiding (inevitable) conflict/
b) noticing the thoughtful comments of Mike Feinstein (California) and
Brent White (Washington) who explained the reasoning that led him to
change his vote from NO to YES,
inquired further into the matter.
c) discovering the blatant disregard for the 10KV shown by some of the
delegates to the NC in attempting to dominate by manipulating
procedural disagreements to cover intentions and agendas about
outcomes, hoping to delay decisions, declaring decision urgent, and
acting in such a manner that the decision, i.e., placing a proposal on
reapportionment has been delayed by three or four days.  All this in
the vain hope of trying to 'get the edge' on the outcome, and other
pathetic power games characteristic of duopoly politics.  There are
very few people in the party who "use" it for narrow personal agendas,
and who believe that it exists for no other purpose.  These are the
ones who make the most noise.
d)  A quotation from George Eliot, one of the greatest mind of the 19th
Century.               "
"The Roman Emperor in the legend put to death ten learned Israelites to
avenge the sale of Joseph by his brethren.
And there have always been enough of his kidney, whose piety lies in
punishing, who can see the justice of grudges but not of gratitude.
For you shall never convince the stronger feeling that it hath not the
stronger reason, or incline him who hath no love to believe that there
is good ground for loving.
As we may learn from the order of word-making, wherein _love_ precedeth
_lovable_ .

I hope that I have answered fully.  But I readily admit to having left
out all the juicy details that could have made their way in to
check-out counter journalism.
Elie Yarden,
delgate, NCMA GRP
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss