[statecom-discuss] from Nancy Lee Wood: Presidential nomination....GRP MIA!

Mon May 26 11:43:57 EDT 2008

Just a note on a typo from Mike:

I wrote that the "fundamental problem is NOT that the party leaders aren't willing to work" and you mistyped it,  but you did state that you agreed with me....

I don't think you understand my point.  What is needed is not one of my many experimental proposals, but instead a recognition that we need systematic replicatible growth plan, and that it will take an effort to find an approach that works... and this will require some local focused effort.

We seem to just think that we can more or less randomly choose campaigns / ballot questions, without a focused approach, and that this will lead to a sustained growth of the party.   Yet the evidence belies this.  

The honest truth is that we have no replicatible local growth plan and a a result very slow growth, if any growth. I think that once we realize this then we can begin to move forward, since at least we will understand what is missing.

I think we have had one working model; that would be to have someone run for high office and then make an effort to establish a local chapter with that person as a central figure.

Unfortunately, in this model, there can only be one attempt every few years and it requires a) someone willing to do a statewide run (and even then it is not clear that local chapters will develop as we have had people run statewide without either having beforehand, or being able to afterwards, establish a local base), and dedication of a lot of party resources to run the high profile campaign.   So the model has its difficulties.

But at least it is a model.  And it is replicatible.  Unfortunately it is way too slow.  if we build one chapter every 4 years or so then our loss rate will be higher than our growth rate;  we need a model that grows faster than our loss rate (the rate at which we lose chapters and members).  

But enough talk.

I would propose that we choose one municipality to try to develop a chapter and have everyone (who is on board) commit do participating x hours of work one month in that locality to see if a chapter can be started.  This could be done with any of the categories of work (candidate, ballot question, regular issue work or some other category)

If we don't try, then we will never know if it could have worked.

Ron

Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote: Hi Eli,

Thanks for your thoughtful responses and constructive criticism.

Responses:

Building the Boston chapter is never an after thought. It has been an 
important party of my work on behalf of our party for many years. Yes, 
it is true that I, as well as some others, are spread out too thin. It 
is also true that "The Controversy" has diverted much of my time and 
drained much of my energy and motivation. However, building the Boston 
chapter has always been a challenge and the major obstacles have little 
to do with "The Controversy".

You are also an excellent example of a leader of the party that I am 
referring. Thank you for all of the wonderful work that you have been 
doing on behalf of our party. It is people like you who have been 
carrying our party on our shoulders for years. We need to find ways to 
involve others in sharin the load. Only in doing this will our party be 
able to do more than just remain a float. Why is it that you are alone 
on ComCom? If you put out a call to ComCom and send it to State Comm 
asking those who are not involved in a Committee to join, who would 
answer the call? If no one would answer the call, the question would be 
"Why?". The same with SPWG? You are ready to make the call--Who will 
answer? Yes, "The Controversy" has been a reason. However, just like 
everything else, the lack of moving forward with SPWG and the 
unwillingness of others to join ComCom predates the last few months.

Yes, a number of members of the party, including you, have criticized my 
role in "The Controversy" and have blamed me for much of the toxicity. 
And maybe you are right. However, what can I do? Can I scream about the 
wars that are being waged outside our doors and be silent about the 
injustice that I perceive has been done inside my own home? If I were 
alone, there would be a much better possibility that the disease lies 
just within me. But, I am not alone. There are others who see  "The 
Controversy" in similar ways. What would it have meant if we had chosen 
to be silent or allowed ourselves to be silenced? How often have I, or 
other members of the Minority Report, called on those who disagree with 
us to be silent?

Nothing that I have said above makes judgment over who is right and who 
is blameless. Instead I once again call for an acknowledgment that there 
are important differences that separate us and for a process that will 
lead to a just resolution of "The Controversy" and a process that will 
lead to healing within the party.

Mike

Eli Beckerman wrote:

>Mike, it sounds more like you have your fingers in a little bit of
>everything,
>more than, say, your fingers really deep into any one thing. If you focused
>on
>building a local Boston chapter then it would be more likely to
>exist/survive/flourish
>than if you were doing it as an afterthought.
>
>To answer a couple of your criticisms/complaints/observations, when I made
>the
>leap to become communications director at the State Convention in August, I
>didn't
>realize how hard it would be to finish up the SPWG work while committing to
>this new
>responsibility. But when push came to shove, and no one was interested in
>that position,
>I felt like I needed to put up or shut up.
>
>Since that time, my participation has been soaked up into the administrative
>committee,
>into a newsletter that was prepared more for the purpose of our presidential
>primary than
>any other reason, and then into an incredibly complex web of reading,
>discussion, work,
>and argumentation -- mostly against my will -- related to narrow agendas
>regarding the
>presidential primaries. Not only did these new demands prevent other work in
>the time spent
>engaging them... but they also have served to de-motivate me to perform
>other responsibilities.
>
>And when alone -- on a media & communications committee with no other active
>members --
>it is very hard to find the energy to turn that around. It is impossible
>when there is no motivation to.
>
>Instead of a nurturing environment, the toxic environment we are creating
>here in the Green-Rainbow
>Party plays a very large role in many of the faults you find. And I ask
>EVERY MEMBER of the State
>Committee to consider their own role in that toxicity. Mike, your endless
>emails focusing on process abuse, criticisms of the work of others,
>shortcomings in this or that work, unfairness, obstruction, etc. etc. etc.
>do very clearly -- in my personal involvement -- add to the toxicity of my
>experience.  I intend
>this as constructive criticism and I welcome any in return.
>
>UPWARDS,
>eli
>
>
>  
>
>>6. Why is it that so many of the "leaders" of our party are not very
>>active at all? Why is it that some of the leaders of our party, who are
>>doing a lot of work, are obstructing the possibility of more of us doing
>>the work? A few examples:
>>
>>   a. What happened to SPWG? I don't believe that there are many who
>>have been involved in that project (whether an active member or for the
>>many members of our party who have participated in this project) believe
>>that this project became unimportant? Our party needs a strategy and a
>>strategic plan. I brought this up at the last meeting of the State Comm.
>>I know that there is interest. Why is it still not moving?
>>
>>   b. A number of members of the CDLC participated in very difficult
>>discussions about this controversy. One of the complaints that was
>>raised was that this was preventing us from addressing the important
>>work of the committee. We elected new leadership on February 21 and have
>>had one meeting on April 8. Why? I have repeatedly called for the
>>co-chairs to call meetings-not only to deal with the controversy, but to
>>do the other necessary work? Why is it that I am the only one that has
>>complained?
>>
>>   c. When I joined the ABWG, I also joined the Platform Committee. I
>>have been unsuccessful in having the Platform Committee meet. ABWG has
>>the responsibility to have our work approved and strengthened by a
>>larger group of members. I want to know about the work of the Fossil
>>Fuels Committee. I want us to decide whether or not we will get involved
>>with the coalition that is working to defeat the attempt to repeal the
>>state income tax. The Rainbow Caucus has been working on the Foreclosure
>>Crisis and has asked the support of our party for their campaign. Why am
>>I the only one that has been calling for the Platform Comm. to meet?
>>
>>   d. Why is it that the Membership and ComCom Committees haven't had
>>meetings for months? Who is complaining?
>>
>>7. These are just some of the things that I have noticed. I am sure that
>>others know about some other major things in our party that are not moving.
>>
>>8. How can we expect that every member of the StateCom belong to a
>>committee and not have committees that meet? And what will happen if a
>>meeting will be called? Who will answer the call?
>>
>>9. In addition to the presidential campaign,the Foreclosure Crisis and
>>the ABWG Project, the State Party doesn't have much that is going on.
>>Why is it that very few of us so far have become involved with the ABWG
>>Project? We have phone conferences on a weekly basis and very few are
>>involved in the call. A few others have been active outside of our
>>meetings. Will the leaders of our party, especially those who are not
>>actively involved, get involved in this project and work to get one or
>>more of our questions on the ballot in their area. If not, why not?
>>
>>10. Yes, this controversy has been a bummer, a demoralizer and a drag.
>>However, it doesn't answer the concern that you raise in your message.
>>
>>Hopefully, others will join in this discussion.
>>
>>Mike Heichman
>>
>>
>>
>>jstein at massmed.org wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>  forwarded from Nancy, who's having trouble posting -jillï¿½
>>>
>>>
>>>  All,
>>>
>>>  For the life of me, I cannot understand all the hoopla over the GRP
>>>  presidential nomination when in the broad scheme of thingsï¿½  - IT
>>>  DOESN'T MAKE A RAT'S DIFFERENCE!ï¿½ ï¿½
>>>  It seems to me our precious time, energy and talents would be far
>>>  better spent focused on regional, state and local
>>>  issues/campaigns/relocalization efforts in food security/agriculture,
>>>  public rail transportation, home heating and housing security,
>>>  rethinking education for post-carbonism and "green jobs" etc., etc. -
>>>  especially given that we have entered the period of permanent and rapid
>>>  declines in oilï¿½  (and all fossil fuels) - the real unraveling of our
>>>  current social system.ï¿½  We, as a party in MA and New England, should
>>>  be at the forefront of providing analyses, alternatives and solutions
>>>  to the royal mess that is soon to escalate as prices of oil continue to
>>>  climb making food, heating, transportation, health care access, etc.
>>>  more expensive, less secure and/or inaccessible to all but the very
>>>  rich.ï¿½
>>>  But no!ï¿½  What are WE in the GRP doing?ï¿½  Dithering around with the
>>>  nonsense of presidential nominations - as if our pathetic little party
>>>  had any real influence on the national level in the first place - when
>>>  our real potential influence lies within the region, state and local
>>>  communities.ï¿½  Where is the MA GRP at the time when all hell is about
>>>  to break loose?ï¿½ ï¿½  MIA!ï¿½ ï¿½  What a real shame!
>>>  SUGGESTION:
>>>  Can we please give up this presidential nomination effort?ï¿½  Can we
>>>  forgo having a presidential slot on the MA ballot altogether?ï¿½  Trust
>>>  me - the public does not care one iota if there is a GRP presidential
>>>  candidate on the ballot. ï¿½  People are far more concerned about the
>>>  "shit-storm" (James Howard Kunstler's term) descending upon them as
>>>  humankind finds itself propelled into permanent escalating energy costs
>>>  - and all that this entails - and with no leadership to be found
>>>  anywhere.ï¿½
>>>
>>>
>>>  Can we please get down to the other work the co-chairs and committees
>>>  are trying to do that this nonsense is distracting us from? This is the
>>>  work that will truly bring people in to the party, and start to deal
>>>  with the growing crises at the local/state/regional level.
>>>
>>>  Nancy Lee Wood
>>>  PS:ï¿½  This all would be quite comical if it were not for the real
>>>  tragedy of time/human waste and lost opportunities in helping the
>>>  public get through what promises to beï¿½ ï¿½  -ï¿½  at the very leastï¿½  -ï¿½
>>>  a frightening and very difficult two-decade period.ï¿½  Truly, the
>>>  silliness and impotence shown by the MA GRP would make Petra Kelly role
>>>  over in her grave.
>>>
>>>References
>>>
>>>  Visible links
>>>  Hidden links:
>>>  1. file://localhost/webmail/driver?nimlet=showcanvas
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>StateCom mailing list
>>>StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>statecom-discuss mailing list
>>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>  
>

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