[statecom-discuss] 2 major problems a the convention-requestforarespectful discussion

[Maureen Doyle]

guys, while i certainly haven't read all the back and
forth email emssages on this topic i have read several
. i noticed that many talk about the "7 women (who
voted for only members of the party to run)"; isn't
the number 7 sort of inconsequential when you consider
the proportion of women? I honestly don't know what
the percentage of women to men was at the convention
but it seems like that would be a more meaningful
number than just the numeral 7. What percentage was
that seven? Just a thought. if someone already said
it, sorry for wasting everyone's time.

have a good day! maureen
--- Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote:

> September 2, 2007
> 
> Hi Members of the State Comm:
> 
> Thanks to Adam, Merelice, Betts, Grace, Bill, Nat,
> John and Mel, ((I 
> hope that I haven’t forgotten anyone.) who have
> responded to my initial 
> message of August 27 requesting a discussion around
> two issues relating 
> to our convention and thanks to those of you who
> have been reading and 
> thinking about our discussion.
> 
> I wish to apologize for not noticing Adam you at the
> convention. While I 
> would really appreciate it if you would become more
> involved in the 
> party for many reasons, I now have an additional
> reason because I want 
> to be able to recognize you at future meetings. I
> also want to apologize 
> for all those who were elected on August 25 who are
> under 50.
> 
> My own understanding of the convention and its
> aftermath has been 
> deepened by the discussion that we have had on line
> and the private 
> discussions that I have had with some of you by
> e-mail and on the phone.
> 
> I. Our Discussion
> 
> I thank Bill for his following comment: “Mistakes
> are inevitable, but 
> only one is fatal: not learning from mistakes.”
> 
> We ended our last state convention meeting by going
> around the circle 
> and briefly reflecting on what had happened at our
> meeting. Many of us 
> expressed unhappiness. My understanding of Dan M’s
> comment was that one 
> of the problems of the meeting was that many of us
> had arrived with low 
> expectations. (Dan, please correct me if I’m
> wrong.) I think that Dan 
> was right. However, how can we come to State Comm.
> meetings when we have 
> a recent history of not managing our meeting well
> and not using our time 
> well to address our major problems?
> 
> I am more hopeful when so many of you (this time)
> have taken the time 
> and energy to communicate with each other (Yes-at
> times our 
> communication is messy, but as Grace noted at the
> convention, it’s 
> always going to be messy.).
> 
> II. The MA presidential primary decision
> 
> 1.      I was partially responsible for making a
> mistake in planning the 
> convention. Those of us who met after the last State
> Comm. meeting did 
> an exceptional job of coming up with a preliminary
> agenda and to 
> continue working on a convention which was far more
> successful than I 
> had expected. However, it was an enormous mistake to
> only plan to have 
> 15 minutes for the only major discussion that we
> knew would be addressed 
> at the convention. Grace had communicated with me a
> number of times 
> previously that my decision to bring this before the
> convention would be 
> time-consuming and messy. I thought that the choices
> would be very clear 
> and that we could handle it quickly. Grace was
> right. Mea culpa.
> 
> 2.     While things certainly got messy, the process
> was much better 
> than I remembered. The major problem, I think, was
> not the process but 
> not providing enough time and problems with group
> dynamics. As someone 
> who often criticizes the process, on reflection, I
> think that this time 
> the process worked very well under difficult
> circumstances.
> 
> 3.    The 21-7 vote
> 
> a.    I still believe that Grace was right to point
> out the 7 were 
> women. (That was her observation.) Merelice pointed
> out that one of the 
> seven was a male. No one else has said whether or
> not the actual number 
> was 6 or 7. It really doesn’t matter to me whether
> the number was 6 or 
> 7; I think that it was a legitimate observation made
> in our party, which 
> embraces the values of social justice and equal
> opportunity, respect for 
> diversity and feminism.
>  
> b.    The vote did not go down strictly on gender
> lines. Many women 
> voted for the proposal. If there had been more time
> for the “majority 
> viewpoint” to express their reasons, it is highly
> likely that the result 
> would have been greater than 21-7, which by itself
> is a significant 
> majority.
> 
> c.    There is a lot of evidence based on what
> people said in this 
> dialogue that the decision was made based on the
> merits of the arguments 
> made. No one yet has made the argument why this was
> a feminist issue.
> 
> d.    Except for the major problem with a lack of
> sufficient time to 
> discuss this important issue, there was nothing in
> our process which 
> distorted the results of the vote. I believe that
> there was sufficient 
> understanding of the two choices before the vote was
> made.
> 
> e.     I agree with those who believe that the
> correct decision was made 
> by the co-facilitators (Gary and Martina) that the
> convention, the 
> highest decision-making body of our party, had made
> a decision and that 
> there was no justification to table this to another
> body (Adcom or State 
> Comm).
> 
>  
> III. The Election of our Leadership of Our Party
> 
> 1.    At different points during the convention, we
> were involved in 
> different steps in nominating and electing the
> leadership of our state 
> party. Grace was the only person who pointed out
> that in the election of 
> our leadership, we should pay attention to
> diversity. While I believe 
> that people heard Grace, other people should have
> made this message at 
> different times. There were a number of people who
> attended the 
> convention that were relatively new to the party.
> Many of them do not 
> know much about the history of our merged party.
> They do not know that 
> we always have elected at least one person of color
> to the position of 
> Co-Chair. I know that I felt discomfort about this
> before the election. 
> I did not know how to say something without the
> appearance that I was 
> inappropriately campaigning for some of the
> candidates. So I said 
> nothing. Mea culpa.
> 
> 2.     I wrote this in my August 27 letter. “Here
> are the bottom lines:
> 
>     a. The only woman officers that we elected
> (co-chairs and NC) were 
> mandated     positions for women.
>     b. For our officers: One white woman was elected
> (Female Co-Chair); 
> No person of     color; No low-income person; No
> “Handicapped” Person; 
> No GLBTG; Nobody     under 50 years old.
>     c. NO RAINBOW!”
> 
> I’m sorry about the under 50 comment. I believe
> that the rest of my 
> statement is accurate.
> 
> 3.     Response to E-Mail Discussion:
> 
> A. In response to Adam, I agree with him when he
> wrote that it is 
> important for us to ask,  “why we aren't
> attracting the people we say we 
> want into the party, …”, but I disagree when he
> wrote 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC