[statecom] Fwd: [adcom] Fwd: decisions reached at the 6-29-08 in-person StateCom meeting
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Tue Jul 1 10:10:39 EDT 2008
Dan, and everyone.
It is my ineptitude at e-mail communication -- I act as though I am
addressing real persons who I know in 'real' space that causes me to
miss saying what I intended to say. So _please_ (I do care about
words) correct the end to read: "sanctimonious 'old fart'"
Thank you for your tolerance.
Elie Yarden
An instance of 'rule - reality' truth, and knowledge that concern me
in the GRP, the latest example of what informs my views on 'due
process' just came through the e-mail. It is instructive. and is
entitled: Subject: [Fairmont] traffic concerns and the big picture
It reads:
"Dear friends and neighbors:
Last night's Traffic Committee meeting was indeed a spectacle.
Despite the City Solicitor's initial warning that nothing of substance
could be discussed due the pending Planning Board decision, Craig
Kelley did finally draw out a number of interesting opinions from
Ranjit and Drisdell. Sorting thru which, if any, of those pieces of
testimony might be grounded in facts or legally defensible is another
matter, of course, and I am planning a letter to the Traffic Committee
to fill in a few facts that were not dealt with.
For the moment, though, I want to encourage this group to act on a
couple items:
1) We learned last night that the problem of the improper filling of
the utility trench on River Street -- the one that causes all our
homes to shake when trucks and buses hit it as they barrel down River
Street at highways speeds -- is not something the ISD or the Traffic
and Parking Department has jurisdiction over. Instead, it is a matter
to be taken up with the Department of Public Works (who were not
represented at the meeting last night). I would like to ask everyone
today to put in a call to DPW inspections and ordinance enforcement --
617-349-4816 -- to complain about the trench and request that it be
repaired. This is not just a matter for owners in 280-290, it affects
us abutters, too! I called already and left a message earlier this
morning. If anyone succeeds in reaching a real person at this number,
please ask about the process of obtaining approvals for tearing up the
road and what requirements there are for inspections after the utility
work is completed. Perhaps by putting pressure on as a large
concentrated group of complaints, rather than calls from individuals
spread out over a week or more, we can convince someone there to get
that trench repaired ASAP. This should not continue to be an issue,
and it is not related to or pending a decision from the Planning
Board. We need to partition this issue away from the Planning Board
so that they do not make road repair a "condition" for granting a
Special Permit. (I could say the same thing about the street trees
that Rocco's construction vehicles destroyed two summers ago).
2) If there is a plan to submit a joint letter to the Planning Board
from residents and abutters of the project asking them to deny the
Special Permit, we really need to get acting on it immediately. I
have seen drafts circulating around, but it appears that priorities
and strategies are still shifting as the City effectively provides
ever-shifting interpretations of past and present actions. I think
the time has come to decide whether a joint letter is still what
everyone desires, or whether we should be writing individual letters
to argue different detailed points. I for one think that a unified
letter signed by the entire neighborhood would be very effective in
blocking the Special Permit, but that letter -- or any other --
probably needs to get sent out to everyone for comment and signatures
within the next week. We don't want to get caught without a letter
when Liza Paden decides to stop accepting letters into the public
record! And th is will be our only chance to be heard on Ranjit's
latest determination about party walls (among other things not yet in
the record) if the PB decides not to reopen the hearing to public
commentary, which is likely at this point.
It would be great if others could weigh in with their thoughts on this
today... THANKS!
-- Mark"
Dear friends and neighbors:
Last night's Traffic Committee meeting was indeed a spectacle.
Despite the City Solicitor's initial warning that nothing of substance
could be discussed due the pending Planning Board decision, Craig
Kelley did finally draw out a number of interesting opinions from
Ranjit and Drisdell. Sorting thru which, if any, of those pieces of
testimony might be grounded in facts or legally defensible is another
matter, of course, and I am planning a letter to the Traffic Committee
to fill in a few facts that were not dealt with.
For the moment, though, I want to encourage this group to act on a
couple items:
1) We learned last night that the problem of the improper filling of
the utility trench on River Street -- the one that causes all our
homes to shake when trucks and buses hit it as they barrel down River
Street at highways speeds -- is not something the ISD or the Traffic
and Parking Department has jurisdiction over. Instead, it is a matter
to be taken up with the Department of Public Works (who were not
represented at the meeting last night). I would like to ask everyone
today to put in a call to DPW inspections and ordinance enforcement --
617-349-4816 -- to complain about the trench and request that it be
repaired. This is not just a matter for owners in 280-290, it affects
us abutters, too! I called already and left a message earlier this
morning. If anyone succeeds in reaching a real person at this number,
please ask about the process of obtaining approvals for tearing up the
road and what requirements there are for inspections after the utility
work is completed. Perhaps by putting pressure on as a large
concentrated group of complaints, rather than calls from individuals
spread out over a week or more, we can convince someone there to get
that trench repaired ASAP. This should not continue to be an issue,
and it is not related to or pending a decision from the Planning
Board. We need to partition this issue away from the Planning Board
so that they do not make road repair a "condition" for granting a
Special Permit. (I could say the same thing about the street trees
that Rocco's construction vehicles destroyed two summers ago).
2) If there is a plan to submit a joint letter to the Planning Board
from residents and abutters of the project asking them to deny the
Special Permit, we really need to get acting on it immediately. I
have seen drafts circulating around, but it appears that priorities
and strategies are still shifting as the City effectively provides
ever-shifting interpretations of past and present actions. I think
the time has come to decide whether a joint letter is still what
everyone desires, or whether we should be writing individual letters
to argue different detailed points. I for one think that a unified
letter signed by the entire neighborhood would be very effective in
blocking the Special Permit, but that letter -- or any other --
probably needs to get sent out to everyone for comment and signatures
within the next week. We don't want to get caught without a letter
when Liza Paden decides to stop accepting letters into the public
record! And th is will be our only chance to be heard on Ranjit's
latest determination about party walls (among other things not yet in
the record) if the PB decides not to reopen the hearing to public
commentary, which is likely at this point.
It would be great if others could weigh in with their thoughts on this
today... THANKS!
-- Mark
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
> Date: July 1, 2008 8:10:21 AM EDT
> To: "Green-Rainbow Party \(GRP\) Administrative Committee" <adcom at green-rainbow.org
> >
> Cc: GRP State Com <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
> Subject: Re: [adcom] Fwd: [statecom] decisions reached at the
> 6-29-08 in-person StateCom meeting
>
> Dan,
> As you were leaving, having hurriedly collected some things that you
> brought with you, I came up to you to find out why you were leaving
> so precipitously, and to tell you that you were needed. You
> answered that you were not walking out -- that you needed your ride.
>
> As facilitator, I knew that you were needed for what now appears to
> me as hindsight. And also, please observe that my attitudes toward
> rules cannot be those of a parliamentarian. And it also reminded me
> of the dynamics of the single meeting of the AdCom which, at the
> insistence of Jamie McLaughlin (the only other delegate to the NC),
> I attended. Matters proceeded more or less smoothly despite the non-
> appearance of any co-chair. Grace Ross arrived after about an hour,
> demanded that people go back over things that she had missed, I
> remember turning to you -- as parliamentarian -- to answer some
> question. That did it. Grace treated it as a sexist snub, and for
> the remainder of my stay, made be wait, and interfered with the
> purpose for which I had been asked to come. I appreciated that in
> her eyes -- if in hers alone made no difference -- I was completely
> unwelcome, that his was enough to prevent the actions needed from
> being heard. However wrong, this required repair. It was my error
> that allowed her to behave toward me on categorical assumptions, and
> I decided that we needed to talk and we have ever since.
>
> Life is not easy for a new kid on the block. Even after more than
> three years. Grace even complimented me recently, when referring to
> the good times after the merger when she and Gary ran things, by
> remembering that I was not around then. I was, but it was not until
> after the 2004 convention -- having worked in the party for almost
> five years that I even considered that I might have something to
> offer the State Committee. An understanding of the 10KV in the the
> light of ecological thinking, as well as an appreciation of the role
> of history and culture in human affairs.
>
> So with interest I read your authoritative conclusions -- about what
> occurred in your absence or might not have occurred had you been
> present. This is important to me as ecologist -- concerned with the
> realities of social interactions -- and not only with rule permitted
> ones that form but one aspect of the whole picture. Sometimes it
> might be called; looking to seeing how the rules work.
> And knowing that they frequently work badly, I also know the
> standard gaming response of --- well then let's change the rules. It
> might be better to consider the role of rationality, social power,
> and other matters, if we are to become what we claim.
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2008, at 9:33 PM, Daniel Melnechuk wrote:
>
> First:
>
>> Thank you for getting some early results back. Full text of the
>> passed proposals to statecom list by the sponsors are desired as soon
>> as possible.
>>
>> Here are my opinions as procedurally on a few of these items:
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>>
>>> 4. ad com proposals and actions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jill Stein was elected as a diversity representative to Ad-Com by a
>>> vote
>>> of 11 – 0 – 3.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposal "L" on ad-com size change proposed by Merelice and Nat was
>>> adopted by consensus as originally written. Implementation of this
>>> proposal requires adoption of new bylaws at the State Convention;
>>> the
>>> change in ad-com size will not take place till then.
>>
>> Saying that this proposal requires adoption of new bylaws at the
>> state convention is incorrect. Our bylaws allow changing the bylaws
>> by statecom. But it requires consensus or a 3/4 vote to adopt. If so
>> adopted then they are put up for review at the state convention.
>>
>> So all this proposal in effect is a recommendation that the state
>> convention is to look at possibly adopting bylaw changes to change
>> adcom, or not. There has not been any effective change in the size of
>> adcom.
> All well and good, I can understand what you say.
> I observe that, according to Luc, who was present, the concern about
> the poor functioning of the Ad-Com was a very real one, and that
> instead of operating in an administrative role, it was hampered by
> both size, and endless controversy that prevented it from doing that
> for which it was intended. Is this true?
>
>
> Secondly;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. virtual state com meeting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> State Com appointed new co-facilitators to the June 14th online
>>> virtual
>>> state com meeting currently taking place: Wanda Boeke and Eli
>>> Beckerman to
>>> relieve Jamie O'Keefe, who becomes the former facilitator of that
>>> meeting.
>>
>> There was no proposal put forth two weeks in advance of this statecom
>> meeting, nor was this action brought up as an urgent matter that the
>> statecom meeting decided at the beginning of the meeting to take up.
>> So this attempt by unseat the facilitator and to change the virtual
>> meeting taking place is not valid.
>>
>> On top of that, the virtual meeting is it's own meeting with
>> participants who decided to do what it is doing. If people want to
>> change facilitators at the virtual meeting then someone needs to
>> bring up a proposal in that meeting to change the facilitators.
>> Attempting to reach into one meeting from another has no basis in
>> procedure or bylaws.
> This sounds very much like a 'takeover' in an adversarial
> situation. And I am sure that, had you been present, not only would
> you have explained matters carefully and thoughtfully -- I certainly
> would have, as facilitator turned to you for your opinion -- but
> that some other way might have been considered in dealing with the
> problem of continued partisan delay of in addressing the purpose of
> the meeting, being facilitated by Jamie O'Keefe alone, and
> frequently overworked. The social reality might have had something
> to do the desire of a particular group of people to attend to the
> business of allowing a delegation, and another group with a
> conflicting desire to make over everything concerning the
> composition of its membership conform to something that is not the
> case. So if I am of the opinion that this kind of forcing is
> ecologically unsound -- the path of dominating is a false one --
> where do I go to find out the truth
>
>
>
> Thirdly;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. appointment of new state com members
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> State com agreed by consensus to the following proposal adopted as a
>>> urgent action: appointment of the following new members to state
>>> com,
>>> with
>>> appointments to begin July 15th, subject to confirmation by the
>>> appointed
>>> members of their continued willingness to serve:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lyn Mesa
>>>
>>> Sandra Harris
>>>
>>> Lisa Richards
>>>
>>> Amanda Sanderson
>>>
>>> Terezinaj Cardosa
>>>
>>> David Maceswski
>>>
>>
>> While i applaud that the meeting decided to seat the persons who came
>> to be elected to statecom, all of which increased the diversity of
>> statecom in youth, LGBT, low income, persons of color, there is
>> nothing in the bylaws that say you can elect a statecom member with a
>> delay. So they are now considered elected to statecom.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Dan
> So, again -- as parliamentarian -- you point to the rules. This
> time with schadenfreude. And I say this because I am more
> disturbed to discover this in persons, than I am amused at seeing a
> parliamentarian with an unbuttoned fly and underwear showing. Since
> I am deeply concerned, Obviously there have been many errors. But
> ever since the formation of an adversarial group -- whether it calls
> itself "A Minority Opinion" to whose spokespersons I was referred
> for discussion by its website -- or calls itself something else,
> errors and selectivity in the application of rules was bound to
> occur. Does the inclusion of the six people named above alter the
> reality of need for the strong participation of persons (I have
> talked and tried to at least three of them over the years) that you
> describe " all of which increased the diversity of statecom in
> youth, LGBT, low income, persons of color . . ."
> even begin to address the problem? Is serious? Or is it just an
> opportunity for a parliamentarian to say "Gotcha!" and then end with
> Peace, Dan. I am truly disappointed by this sense of reality. What
> is the truth? Perhaps just that I am regarded as just an 'old fart?'
>
> Thank you
> Elie Yarden
> MRGRA
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AdCom mailing list
>> AdCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/adcom
>> To email Administration Committee members: adcom.members AT green-
>> rainbow DOT org
>
More information about the StateCom
mailing list