[statecom-discuss] [candidate-development] CDLC Telecon meeting

[Merelice]

Dear Grace,

You are well aware that both I and Jill have been in touch with both
you and Gary regarding ways in which help is needed and ways in which
your participation would be most welcome. And right after the last
StateCom meeting, I sent Mike an email suggesting he focus on the
success of having passed the ballot proposal and work on this exciting
effort.

There is little cause for anyone to feel so victimized or to be so
lacking in appreciation and compassion toward volunteers who manage to
fit their considerable party work in with very full lives and other
responsibilities.

There is more work being accomplished, more vibrant StateCom meetings
taking place with many more active Statecom reps from more parts of
the state, more working committees being re-activated, and more
openness than has been the case in a long time. But the bulk of emails
on party lists don't reveal this.

So I hereby put it on record and suggest that folks start singing!

Merelice



On 4/8/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
> Hi, I know everyone is frustrated and stretched thin -
>
>  While I don't recommend the accusatory tone some of Mike's or Gary's emails
>  have taken - I think they are both saying tht they volunteered and agreed to
>  help with these processes.   I think they are not complaining about work getting
>  done. I think they are complaining that because they have not been contacted
>  and conversations have not been taking place on our public listservs, they
>  have been thwarted in their commitment to help in these processes.
>
>  I totally understand people feeling over-stretched.   the problem is that if
>  people are over-stretched but don't prioritize engaging those who have agreed
>  to help - there is no way for those who have gone a record as ready to help,
>  to give that help.   they don't even know that someone is trying to implement
>  the projects they agreed to help with.
>
>  Please, everyone, post the result of initial conversations and even baby
>  steps so that others who are prepared to help know you are out there trying to
>  move things along.   then we can help...
>
>  Thanks, grace
>
> In a message dated 4/8/08 2:56:01 PM, jandrews166 at gmail.com writes:
>
>
>  > Mike,
>  >
>  > Over the past few months I have noted that you have ceaselessly harassed
>  > anyone who dares to actually do work for our Party.  You demand that they
>  > report their actions fully to you, respond to your ideas for how they should
>  > behave, obey your interpretations of process and rules,  and redo their work
>  > to please  you.  If they do not, you demand that they tell you how they
>  > intend to satisfy you.  At times you have been responsible for almost half
>  > the email load on our listserves.  Imagine what it would be like if all our
>  > two dozen StateComm members behaved like this.  Several persons subjected to
>  > this harassment have dropped out of our discussion lists or have threatened
>  > to resign from the Party.  Many valuable hours have been consumed trying to
>  > respond to criticisms, emails, and negative postings. This is not
>  > contributing to the health of our party.
>  >
>  > Many of the disputes involve legalistic arguments involving process or
>  > interpretation of by-laws.  While I appreciate the need to try as best we
>  > can to adhere to published process and bylaws,  I think what has been
>  > happening is that recently these provisions have been used inappropriately
>  > to further personal ambitions, settle grudges, and advance partisan
>  > objectives.  I think this has to wind down.   We are in the process of
>  > building a stronger and more effective party.  People are actually doing
>  > work between committee meetings.  That is wonderful.  We need that.  We need
>  > to shake off the old habit of having people show up for a meeting without
>  > having done any work, give directions to the few workers present, and then
>  > disappear for a month.
>  >
>  > We are all stretched thin.  Often things are done late or at the last
>  > minute.  That's probably not going to change anytime soon.  But we are on
>  > the verge of getting some really exciting things going.  We've got much
>  > better things to do than argue with each other over who best followed some
>  > vision of the process.
>  >
>  > Please think about how your actions are going to help or hurt the Party.
>  > For my part, I think the process debates are hurting the Party, and I don't
>  > want to spend our precious meeting time embroiled in such arguments.
>  >
>  > - John
>  >
>  > P.S.
>  >
>  > Regarding your repetition of Gary's complaint that he is "co-chair" of the
>  > Advisory Ballot Working Group, be aware that the minutes of the CDLC state
>  > that " As a result of a proposal passed at the last StateComm meeting, the
>  > CDLC is asked to appoint a representative to a working group focused on
>  > advisory questions placed on district ballots.  Jill Stein and Gary Hicks
>  > volunteered to serve on this group.  "  Thus Gary and Jill are jointly CDLC
>  > reps to the Advisory Ballot Working Group.  This group will presumably elect
>  > its own chairs, if that is how they want to organize.  The Platform
>  > Committee is convening this group. Everything done up to now has been
>  > informal and exploratory.  But it has been important in getting things
>  > rolling.
>  >