[statecom-discuss] vetting the advisory ballot referendum proposals

Tue Apr 8 11:59:16 EDT 2008

Dear Members of the State Committee:

Earlier I have communicated with you about my concerns about the process
which has led to the submission of 
proposals for the GRP to work on advisory ballot questions. So far my
concerns have not been addressed.

I just sent the letter below to both the CDLC (which meets tonight) and the
Platform Committee (which meets 
Thursday night). I hope that my concerns will be addressed before our
meeting on Saturday.

Mike Heichman

April 8, 2008

Beginning on April 1, I have sent e-mails to Jill Stein and to the CDLC,
Platform and State Committee-Discuss e-mail 
lists. I have repeatedly expressed concerns over the process that has led
to 4 questions being submitted for the 
April 12th State Committee meeting. So far my concerns have not been
addressed. I still hope that my concerns will 
be addressed before the State Committee will meet this Saturday.

I am not the only person who has expressed concerns. Immediately below is
an e-mail that Gary Hicks had sent out.

 “I am supposed to be co-chairing a sub-committee of the CDLC with 
Jill, concerning Ballot Questions. Supposedly, Jill has been way too busy 
to be addressing any of the stuff below. And now all of a sudden all of 
this stuff pops up in time [barely!!!] for the Statecom meeting. And as 
co-chair of the sub-committee this is the first I've heard of any of this,
except for the proposal on sub-prime lending.

With all due respect, I am FUCKING PISSED! I want to know why I 
have been bypassed, and WHO besides Jill has been NAVIGATING THIS STUFF
AROUND ME------------and WHY??
?

With all due respect,

Gary Hicks”

On February 21, the last time that CDLC met, Gary and Jill, the new
co-chair of CDLC, (who I also have heard is the 
co-chair of the Platform Comm.-is that true?) volunteered to represent CDLC
on this Platform-led committee. The 
fact that Gary was not even invited to participate is outrageous. As
somebody who has been active on CDLC and who 
is on the Platform Committee’s e-mail list, I saw NO discussion of these
issues until Saturday evening, March 29, 
when this was posted on the GRP website, just before the deadline for
submitting proposals for the April 12th State 
Committee meeting.

So, Gary was not “invited” to participate. I was the author of the proposal
that was adopted at the last State 
Committee meeting, have been active on CDLC and I wasn’t “invited’ to
participate. I am unaware of any meetings 
held by either the CDLC or Platform Committees to discuss these ideas (and
other potential ballot questions). I have 
seen nothing on either the CDLC and Platform e-mail lists.

In response to an earlier question, Merelice said that she was asked to
submit a proposal with the members of the 
Rainbow Caucus. I am very pleased that there was this very appropriate
outreach to the Rainbow Caucus. However 
the larger questions are 

-WHO HAS BEEN MAKING ALL OF THESE DECISIONS AND UNDER WHAT INSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY HAVE THEY BEEN 
OPERATING?

Additionally, it appears that whoever has been in charge has not
implemented parts of the proposal that was passed 
at the January 28, 2008 State Committee meeting.

Below are excerpts from the proposal that I had submitted on January 13.
The night before the January 28 State 
Comm. meeting, Jill and I had a conversation. I was very impressed by her
excitement for my proposal and 
encouraged her and the Platform Committee to take on leadership role if
this proposal would be approved the next 
day (which it was). Below are excerpts from my proposal, which demonstrates
my intentions to involve members of 
our party in the selection of the questions that we would put on the
ballot, and the revised proposal written by Jill, 
which I supported and was ratified by the State Committee on January 28th. 

A. “2008 PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION CAMPAIGN (EXCERPTS)
Sunday January 13, @06:34PM, by Mike Heichman, Suffolk County

Text:
Proposal/Timeline:
January 27, 2008:

3. If the State Committee believes that there is a good chance that there
will be few GRP members running for the 
above offices in 2008, it will authorize the CDLC to set up an “Advisory
Ballot Question Task Force”, open, of course 
to all GRP members. 

If the above is passed by the January 28 State Comm. Meeting:

February-Early April:

1. CDLC will publicize and organize the Task Force.
2. We will ask the Regional Meetings to discuss this idea.
3. We will contact Local Chapters and ask them to discuss this idea, as
well as encouraging them to run candidates.
4. We will solicit ideas for potential ballot question.
5. If support develops for a very small number of issues, we will do some
initial outreach to local and statewide 
groups who might be interested in working with us.
6. The Task Force will become knowledgeable about the appropriate campaign
laws.
7. If sufficient support develops for a very small number of issues, the
Task Force will come up with a plan and 
make a proposal for the April State Comm. meeting

April State Comm. Meeting: We will decide whether we will proceed with this
project.”

B. DRAFT REVISION OF PROPOSAL (NOTE-EXCERPTS FROM Jill’s revised proposal
which was adopted)

“Text: Proposal/Timeline

January 28, 2008:

3. Platform Committee is asked to establish an Advisory Ballot Working
Group (ABWG) which will include 
representatives from CDLC and Membership Committees, SPWG (the Strategic
Plan Working Group), the Rainbow 
Task Force on Housing Foreclosure, interested GRP locals, and interested
GRP volunteers.

4. The ABWG is asked to develop and coordinate implementation of a plan for
supporting legislative and/or 
municipal advisory ballot questions in the 2008-2009 time period. The Plan
should address the following elements:
- What are potential ballot questions that best serve the purposes of
strengthening GRP locals, growing the Party, 
and furthering the Party’s strategic objectives?
- What ballot questions appear to have a base of support that would make
them successful, considering the level of 
enthusiasm from GRP locals, GRP presence in existing issue-oriented
networks, and other factors?
- What resources and support should be supplied by State Committee and its
associated working committees.

5. The ABWG will identify and establish the appropriate local committees,
assist them with legal issues and with 
volunteer recruitment.

6. The ABWG will present their plans to the April State Committee,
including proposed language for the ballot 
initiative(s), any funding and support needs, and plans for outreach to
locals and activists.

7. An initial progress report will be presented at the April State
Committee meeting. The ABWG will attempt to have a 
commitment to one or more specific campaigns by the time of this report.”

According to the draft minutes of the January 28 State Committee meeting,
this proposal was passed by consensus 
with no concerns.

Comments and Questions about the implementation of this proposal:

A. My memory is that Merelice had done an excellent job of encouraging the
regional conventions to discuss 
potential ballot questions. This was done at the Norfolk/Suffolk Convention
and I believe at others. To what extent 
were the reports of these meetings communicated to whoever was coordinating
this project? How did those who did 
the planning use this information?

(On March 1, 15 members of our party met at the Norfolk/Suffolk Convention
and discussed this initiative. Each 
person could vote for up to 3 issues. The results of our vote:
	-Predatory Lending (10)
	-Peak oil, Climate Change, Environmental Justice issues (8)
	-Universal Health Care (8)
	-Full Employment (7)
	-Prison population, CORI reform (6)
	-Ranked ballot voting; IRV (4)
	-Transfer funds from military to human needs (4)
	-UN Declaration of Human Rights (2)
	-Casinos (2)

Did other Regional Conventions also meet and discuss this issue? I see no
evidence that the time that members of 
our party spent (the people that we will ask to implement our campaigns)
mattered. Is this accurate?

B. What local chapters were contacted? What happened with this part of the
process?

C. In what ways was the GRP general membership contacted and asked to
participate in this process? (GRP website, 
e-mail lists, etc.)

D. Who contacted what other organizations? What happened with this part of
the process?

E. Was the Advisory Ballot Working Group (ABWG) ever established? If no,
who did the work and under what 
authority? If yes, to what extent was their participation from the
Platform, CDLC, and Membership Committees, from 
SPWG, from the Rainbow Task Force on Housing Foreclosure, and GRP locals?
How did these different GRP 
formations keep in contact with their groups? How were other GRP members
recruited and what were their roles?

My fear is that a small group of party leaders took this proposal, selected
who they wanted to work with, and the 
issues that they wanted to explore. They met and operated in secrecy and
with a total lack of transparency.

I hope that my fears are groundless and that the answers to my questions
will put me at ease. It looks to me that 
the potential ballot questions might merit the support of State Committee.
But first, I would like to believe that the 
process has been kosher. As of this date, my concerns have not been
addressed.

Mike Heichman

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint