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

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Maureen,

Thank you for responding with your question and concern. Your 
participation is not a waste of anyone's time.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if the number were 6 or 7. And it 
doesn't' matter whether the percentage of women who voted with the "7" 
were 40% or 70%.

What matters is that there was a significant gender difference in the 
vote. Grace pointed this out to us and asked us what this meant.

The more I think about this the more I believe that this was a valid 
observation and question.

The more I think about this the more I think I'm making some sense of my 
own behavior.

Some have focused on statistics as one way to understand what happened. 
Imagine throwing a penny in the air; what are the chances that it will 
fall "heads"7x in a row. I'm not very good in math, but I think that the 
answer might be 256:1. My guess is that there are others on this list 
that have better math skills than me.

So, why does this matter. Well, if the answer is 256:1, there was a 
rational reason why the vote turned out the way it did. The answer is 
pure coincidence. If that's true, then the only thing that matters is 
that the convention made a very strong decision. Anything else is a 
diversion. Let's move on.

But, there is a problem with this logic. People ain't pennies. Men and 
women are different and experience the world through different lenses. I 
don't know how this would work out mathematically.


Maureen, I not only voted with the "21"; I was the initiator and chief 
proponent of the proposal that revised GRP policy.
If the vote by the "7" was not coincidence, it might mean that there is 
significance.

This is a scary thought.

Love,

Mike

Maureen Doyle wrote:

>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
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>  
>