[statecom] [Rainbow Caucus] My heart breaks...

Wed Jul 2 09:22:46 EDT 2008

Thank you, Ron.

You're right, it doesn't meet the smell test. To look at the mostly
new members of the state committee and accuse them of rejecting even
more new members on the basis of rejecting diversity is shameful. And
I sincerely hope that someone will reassure the prospective new
statecom members that that is definitely not the case. To have them
think otherwise would be terribly misleading.

I wasn't at the beginning of the meeting when it happened, but the
"compromise" -- as I was later told -- was that they would be seated
at the end of the meeting instead of the traditional beginning. The
trust level was indeed low, for the reason you list. What I find
somewhat ugly is that the prospective members walked out AND were
accompanied by a group of current StateCom members -- including four
AdCom members who several people have said were thereby derelict in
their duty -- with the remark that when they left, the body would be
short of quorum and would not be able to take care of business.

Well, I got out of my sick bed and drove more than an hour to make
quorum and take care of what turned out to be a substantial amount of
business in about 1 and 1/2 hours. That business included agreeing
WITH the Rainbow Coalition's recommendation not to expend state party
resources supporting the presidential campaign --- AND seating the
people who had come to the meeting, effective July 15 and assuming
they still wanted to be seated.

My heart breaks, too, at those Rainbow members who keep rejecting
and/or dissing new GRP members on the basis of gender and race. For
the first time since the parties came together, two of the four
officers are from Western Mass. -- but you would think they were the
"enemy" given the immediate reaction their election received. It could
be said that some members of the Rainbow deserted the party and not
the other way around. If you still have the last newsletter, read Mel
King's poem about the rainbow -- that was his response specifically to
charges like the ones now being made.

With a more positive and welcoming attitude -- and much less
criticism! -- among the leaders of both "sides" (which actually can be
hard to define), I believe we can still build community within the
GRP.

Merelice

On 7/2/08, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Grace and all,
>
>  Hmmm.. this doesn't seem to pass the smell test....
>
>  What is the real reason why these folks weren't seated ?  (There's got to be something going on under the surface here....it will be interesting to read the minutes of this meeting)
>
>  Does it have to do with the delegate controversy ? (which I don't understand and wish someone would summarize for those of us who don't care enough to follow all of the details....)
>
>  I have often wondered if a multi-racial organizing effort can work unless it a) either grows out of an effort that began as a low-income of people of color effort or b) was nearly totally committed to issues affecting people of color and low-income folks.
>
>  It may be time to unmerge the parties with each doing what it does best....
>
>  Maybe the future looks like this:
>
>  Once a rainbow-led (or some other group-led) effort can organize a significant fraction (say 10%) of communities of color, then perhaps mostly white-led effort would be willing to join on to it and become a part of it rather then "merge" with it.  For example, If the GRP mad a commitment to help mobilize people in District 7, under chuck's leadership, then wouldn't that have been a good way to insure a healthy multi-racial development.
>
>  I'm curious how this situation manifests at the national level or in other states... I will try to investigate this question
>
>  Ron
>
>  --- On Tue, 7/1/08, GracCRoss at aol.com <GracCRoss at aol.com> wrote:
>  From: GracCRoss at aol.com <GracCRoss at aol.com>
>  Subject: [Rainbow Caucus] My heart breaks...
>  To: rainbowcaucus at green-rainbow.org
>  Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 11:22 PM
>
>
>  Dear friends,
>
>  As you know, a number of us have been concerned with the plummeting numbers
>  of women, people of color, GLBT, and lower income people in leadership in
>  the GRP.  One especially alarming measure of this situation was the statecom
>  seated this spring - only 29 members of which only four were people of color
>  and less than a third was women, only two out GLBT folks....
>
>  For those of you who came to the Rainbow meeting, there was very serious
>  discussion and focused questions about what each of us have done to promote
>  the diversity of leadership we need.   Connected to that, I believe, was the
>  issue of the need for the GRP to put energy towards issues that directly
>  effect our communities - such as the foreclosures and CORI reform...
>
>  Some of us took that challenge on to encourage more leaders from less
>  privileged backgrounds to take more leadership in the Party.  Some of us
>  were pointedly quizzed or told in other committee meetings in the GRP over
>  the last few weeks, to "go find the diversity" that we
>  "claimed" to care
>  about...
>
>  With concentrated hard work, we managed to nominate over 20 people to these
>  empty statecom seats: overwhelmingly women, people of color, GLBT and lower
>  income folks.  With the appropriate number of nominators, no statecom
>  nominee has ever been turned away from being seated by Statecom in the past
>  at the beginning of its next meeting...
>
>  Adcom met before the present virtual statecom meeting and agreed that all
>  statecom nominees should be submitted as a slate for consensus...
>
>  The first objection to the slate came from one of the co-chairs present at
>  that adcom meeting. The objections continued (I paraphrase but feel free
>  to read the statecom email archives yourself): these nominees are not to be
>  trusted to show up at
>  other meetings (folks seated in April were not even asked about future
>  statecom meetings).  Other people express "grave concerns" that they
>  don't
>  know these people (that has never been raised before because we trusted the
>  nominators), or that this many nominees must be part of a manipulation or
>  underhanded scheme...  Or they simply stated that they have grave concerns
>  and will not stand aside...
>
>  How often have I heard these words used to describe those with less
>  privilege who put themselves forward to lead?
>
>  Once engaged a number of these nominees were committed to going to whatever
>  lengths to get seated.   Since stated basis of the objections on the virtual
>  emails related to nominees showing up at an in-person meeting, even with last
>  minute notice and that they were the first to be denied seating at a statecom
>  meeting (the virtual one) seven took steps to show up at the in-person meeting
>  on June 29th.
>
>  With a credentialling report attestig to their status in the party and a
>  short statement from each about their background and desire to serve, a series
>  of
>  concerns were raised - they did not know what a staetcom seat required, they
>  would not understand our democratic process, they did not know the history of
>  decisions they would be required to make, they were brainwashed, they had been
>  brought to change a decision not because they were interested in serving, etc.
>
>
>  16 seated statecom members (2 of whom were women, 1 person of color) decided
>  not to seat 7 (5 women, 4 people of color, 2 GLBT, 3 low-income, 2 youth).
>  Vote of 9 to 6.
>
>  In disbelief, after lunch, the nominees asked their nominators and allies to
>  request a reconsideration by the statecom members present.   3 more statecom
>  members had arrived - bringing the total to 19 (3 women, 1 person of color).
>  Discussion repeated and nominees spoke strongly - but vote went against again.
>   Six of the sitting statecom members walked out with 6 of the nominees and
>  their friends...
>
>  So our set aside seats for women, for geographic diversity, for people of
>  color, remain emptied ...
>
>  On April 12, 27 had been seated who were not asked about any of these things
>  and were assumed to meet the above litmus tests.
>
>  At last fall's meeting in Amherst, 9 nominees were seated when there were
>  only 17 remaining statecom members - no one distrusted the nominees, nominators
>  -
>  no one accused anyone of a conspiracy - 9 folks: all white, most men, 1
>  GLBT...
>
>  I loved this party - I was so excited - the shared values many of which have
>  been central explorations of my life, from which I have profoundly learned
>  and been changed...
>
>  And I was excited to be part of a team, a team committed to the hard work of
>  listening, really hearing deep down and being willing to be scared and
>  challenged by each other and by the work we wanted to do in the world - and
>  all of it profoundly informed and enfolded by a commitment to the power of
>  love such a counterforce to the crippling love of power that poisons most
>  everything in our society...
>
>  But my heart is heavy and I see no way forward, we have wandered so far from
>  the path that was defined by what we thought were shared values....
>
>  Love, Grace
>  P.S. This is a report   -no one is named on purpose, no one is accused.
>  Please don't attack me for sharing a report with those I was asked to
>  represent
>  in the merger of our parties...
>
>
>  **************
>  Gas prices getting you down?
>  Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.
>
>  (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
>  _______________________________________________
>  RainbowCaucus mailing list
>  RainbowCaucus at green-rainbow.org
>  http://green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/rainbowcaucus
>  _______________________________________________
>  RainbowCaucus mailing list
>  RainbowCaucus at green-rainbow.org
>  http://green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/rainbowcaucus
>