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

[Adam Sacks]

Hi Mike -

I appreciate your thoughtful considerations, but I must take vigorous exception to this item:

" C. In response to Adam, I made a recommendation to help remedy this problem. Maybe electing Gary
and Karin, which would add to the diversity of our state leadership, is not a good one or the best
one.  I am sure open to better ideas. However, your response reflects a tendency in our 
party on behalf of some of our members to equate a call for diversity with an attack on white
males."

I never said nor implied this, nor do I believe it, and IMHO it is inappropriate for you to put
those words in my mouth.  The reason I suggested we consider why we aren't attracting the people
we say we want is directly related to why we didn't elect any as officers: as far as non-white
non-straight men and women are concerned, with the exception of Gary,* they simply did not run. 
We couldn't vote for them if they weren't on the ballot.  As it turns out, we were exceedingly
grateful that we filled almost all of the offices with *somebody* (and I think the somebodies will
do an excellent job, lack of diversity notwithstanding).

Adam

* At this point I'm not ready to consider religion a component of diversity for our purposes, and
therefore do not consider Karin a diversity candidate (although she may have other diversity
qualifications that I'm not aware of).  I don't recall religion as a diversity criterion ever
coming up before, and I have little idea as to whether our officers have been Christian, Jewish,
Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or one of numerous other possibilities.  

To my knowledge, Karin's religion came to the fore at least in part because of the elephant in the
room that we're not discussing, the Israel-Palestine and Sudan issues.  I don't think that a
significant change in diversity policy should slip in through this back door.


--- 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 that “we shouldn’t 
> focus on any of the discussion and/or election outcomes last Saturday.” 
> This is part of what I had written to him, “It is essential that our 
> leadership is diverse if our mission includes contesting the system of 
> white, male, heterosexual, rich supremacy. One of our problems is that 
> our rules. group dynamics and past practice are often barriers to our 
> attempts to make our best decisions. We need to create a better way of 
> electing our leadership-one of the most important things that happens at 
> our annual conventions."
> 
> B. While Merelice explained some of the reasons and barriers which led 
> to several women, people of color and young people choosing not to run, 
> she remains the only officer elected officer who is not a white male. 
> Merelice pointed out that what happens at the local level will be more 
> important to the future of the party than who was elected to AdCom. 
> While agreeing with that sentiment, I disagree that the party only grows 
> from one direction (bottom up). If we want our party to grow and become 
> more diverse, the leadership of the party must reflect our vision. I 
> believe that the current election was a major setback; in the past we 
> have always done a much better job of electing a diverse leadership. We 
> should acknowledge that this is a problem and constructively deal with it.
> 
> (I am thrilled to hear from Merelice that Wanda has agreed to be the 
> Assistant Treasurer!)
> 
> C. In response to Adam, I made a recommendation to help remedy this 
> problem. Maybe electing Gary and Karin, which would add to the diversity 
> of our state leadership, is not a good one or the best one.  I am sure 
> open to better ideas. However, your response reflects a tendency in our 
> party on behalf of some of our members to equate a call for diversity 
> with an attack on white males.
> 
> I see nothing in our party which necessitates this kind of protection. 
> In many ways we do not promote sufficient affirmative action. Instead 
> our affirmative action rules often protects the participation of males, 
> which I find to be unnecessary and ridiculous. Why do we have to have a 
> rule that one of our co-chairs must be a male? Imagine that we had 
> elected Wendy and Martina to be our co-chairs!-Our rules would prevent 
> that from happening. Imagine that Suffolk County in our next election 
> would elect 8 delegates-all of them female including women of color, 
> low-income women, lesbian, etc.!—a richly diverse delegation would not 
> be seated unless at least 7 males were also elected. How ridiculous!
> 
> Affirmative Action is not about including everyone. It is about taking 
> positive steps to include those who are historically and currently kept 
> behind. I look forward to the day when we discover that our party needs 
> to take affirmative action to protect white privileged males. Until that 
> day let us focus our efforts and energies on our real problems.
> 
> D. Bill (and others) wants us to focus more of our energies in building 
> our party at the local level. I’m sure that there are many reasons why 
> this is not happening. One of them is NOT that the state party is 
> actively standing in the way. While I agree that more of us who are in 
> the leadership of the state party could do more local work and chapter 
> development, I believe that a stronger state party would better 
> facilitate that goal.
> 
> It’s true that our party has been in decline despite our statewide 
> campaign last year. While I believe that there could have been things 
> that the slate could have done better during the campaign and since the 
> election to use their efforts to build our strength locally, I also 
> believe that the lack of support from the state party was (and 
> continues) to be a barrier. Imagine that our party had a membership 
> brochure last year and along with the candidates had made a big effort 
> to distribute those brochures! If this one thing had happened, I believe 
> that we would be a stronger party today.
> 
> On a more positive note, the Boston chapter sponsored a workshop on the 
> Sudan at the convention. Karin, Joachim and David did a wonderful job of 
> organizing the workshop and bringing some new people to the convention. 
> At our chapter meeting next Sunday, we are inviting our guests to join 
> us for a potluck meeting. We will discuss the workshop, the convention 
> and their perceptions of our party. We will invite them to join the 
> chapter and the GRP; I will bring voter registration forms. One new 
> person  who attended just changed his major to Political Science and is 
> interested in joining our National Committee.
> 
> E. General Comments based on other communications and reflection:
> 
> Having diversity positions on the State Comm. and AdCom are both 
> excellent examples of our commitment to affirmative action. However, 
> these mechanisms should not be used to deny or cover up our weaknesses. 
> It is not OK that we didn’t elect a rainbow leadership because we have 
> an Adcom which will add diversity to our leadership.
> 
> Our officers are our public face both inside and outside our party. 
> Comparatively speaking the all white male MA congressional delegation is 
> among the most liberal in the country; that may be acceptable behavior 
> for the Democrats, but it should never be acceptable to us.
> 
> We have two choices--What we did was acceptable and no change will be 
> made or we will come up with some kind of solution.
> 
> III. Reflections on Rodney King’s Question: “SO WHY CAN’T WE ALL GET ALONG?”
> 
> I was thinking of Dan M’s comment that he made at the last State Comm. 
> meeting about our expectations helping to shape our experience. I find 
> myself more and more to include the request, “Let’s have a respectful 
> discussion.” in my thinking and writing. It’s part of the subject title 
> of this discussion. I also confess that it is more of a prayer than a 
> request.
> 
> I don’t know anybody in the GRP who is not sincerely interested in 
> building our party. I don’t know anybody in the GRP who doesn’t have 
> some personal issue that they haven’t successfully worked out.
> 
> I must admit that there is a member of our party who has my number. This 
> wonderful person often pushes my buttons and drives me crazy. There have 
> been times when we have been together and I have lost it. So when we are 
> together, I try to be better prepared. If my button is pushed, I try to 
> be reflective and ask what’s going on inside me. I try to be more 
> patient and more forgiving.
> 
> I have a new question-“So what can we do, individually and collectively, 
> to better get along with each other?”
> 
> Love,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? 
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/