[statecom] Facilitation to build trust
vladimirmorales at comcast.net
vladimirmorales at comcast.net
Wed Jul 2 21:46:43 EDT 2008
Gary,
send something to the group but it was returned . The essence of my Commentary was that I totally agree with your analysis on Nancy Wood, and to thank you for your advocacy and service. I honestly believe that the Rainbow Coalition Members on this Party should just quit and go with A New Rainbow Coalition Collective . to bring change.
for people who needs it.
Peace
Vladimir
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com>
> elie:
>
> so --------------------------- you and john andrews gave different reasons and
> motivations as to why you wound up on the nader delegate list, and i am
> satisfied that this isn't about partisanship.
>
> but when grace and i, who agree on many things and disagree on many others, wind
> up as co-signatories on the minority opinion and other missals[yes, the spelling
> is correct here] somehow we're partisan, and maybe on behalf of mckinney. this
> even though i'm a "nota" person and have no desire to go to chicago.
>
> furthermore --- and this is a viewpoint not only held by john andrews but by
> others, as expressed rather grotesquely at sunday's statecom meeting -- there is
> this craziness going on about grace, named in some emails and unnamed in others,
> being this demon-like leader with magic powers of an evil category, who can wrap
> folks around her finger, deceive us with all kinds of disengenuous arguments,
> and lead us on a marauding escapade through our party. when the alleged demon is
> white and many of the alleged followers are people of color, it smacks of the
> white supremacy that has brought us such tales in my lifetime as:
>
> >> it's a bunch of northern [white] abolitionists [and later] outside white]
> agitators and communists who are arousing our normally content negroes
>
> >> it's the russians [white] who are agitating and supporting those chinese in
> korea, vietnam, and god knows where else
>
> >> it's those white communists who are leading the african guerrilas of umkontho
> we sizwe in south africa --- that nasty guy joe slovo in particular
>
> the people who heard the language expressed sunday are people who in their
> lifetimes have, like me, heard similar charges lodged against them in their
> struggles for immigration rights, trade union power, community integrity and
> peace, struggles for justice in the lands of their birth, and other issues that
> they will bring with them to our green-rainbow table when and if brought into
> our leadership. again, they are clear thinkers and do not need to be led by
> grace's or anyone else's hand.
>
> finally, a special word about the honest, if disgusting, concern put out by
> steve baer at the sunday meeting. first -- if asked, but only if asked -- i will
> support him in the struggle to get the restrictions lifted under which a public
> employee can run for public office. and i will support this struggle only
> because this is not about steve baer but everyone who would run for public
> office as a daughter or son of the working class. but i will not lift a finger
> for or against him in his own run for office [ steve, please remove me from the
> list where i signed up to support your campaign]. when he questioned the chapter
> affiliations of green-rainbow members who would join our leadership he showed
> his ignorance, after all of these years of membership of how this party is
> structured. that there were other statecom members present -- john and [later]
> jill and merelice, nancy and david from fall river, who also do not have chapter
> affiliations -- and who
> were not questioned about this, suggests a white supremacist -edged double
> standard. intention here is a secondary matter. it's the results that matter.
>
> gary hicks
>
> --- On Sat, 6/28/08, Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> From: Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [statecom] Facilitation to build trust
> To: "State Committee Official Business" <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
> Cc: gooberthink06 at yahoo.com
> Date: Saturday, June 28, 2008, 10:06 AM
>
> Gary,
> I did not know until I came across this that you were wondering aloud
> -- for the benefit of others no doubt -- about why name came up
> in the list for delegates _pledged_ to Nader. I would have thought
> that you knew. Simply. Because it is the longest to be filled. The
> details of the contacts are spelled out in the response I gave you
> initially supported by documentation. Noblesse oblige removed me from
> a 1st preference, 'non-committed'; 2nd preference 'Brown'; 3rd
>
> preference; Nader. But the truth is that I anticipated this situation
> and requested the web-site volunteer receiver to switch me from my
> earlier request to a delegate pledged to 'uncommitted' to be a
> delegate pledged to 'Nader'. It was not acknowledged, so I do not
> know whether it actually occurred when I sent the request to the web-
> site or after the CDLC meeting of June 11, when we decided to find out
> by e-mail, and talking to the people involved. what the choices were.
> So, in the listing submitted, I am on the Nader list. Maybe the
> reason I volunteered early was because I believed that my ability to
> recognize objective realities is worth more to me than my feelings.
>
> My point is that my being delegate for Nader is an artifact of a
> Delegate Selection Plan, and should not be compared with the personal
> commitment to any candidate, hence my initial preference. Since I
> know that, were i permitted to go to the PNC as a delegate for Nader,
> this would present no threat to my independence of judgement of which
> choice would most benefit the GRP, and possibly the GPUS, I do not
> care about being a delegate for someone who is not there as long as I
> am answerable to the people who voted for him in Massachusetts. Ball
> represented no freedom of choice because I take what people say
> seriously even when I do not use it to predict the future. I would
> never compare my electoral choice with that of person who is truly
> committed. You know me well enough to know that I am committed to
> party, not persons seeking office.
> In peace and struggle,
> Elie Yarden
> Middlesex
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2008, at 8:37 AM, John Andrews wrote:
>
> > Gary,
> >
> > There is abundant evidence for what I am saying, but I do not think
> > an email
> > list is the proper place or venue to attempt to lay this out.
> >
> > Elie Yarden, in fulfilling his responsibilities, asked all persons
> > willing
> > to be delegates to indicate which candidates they would be willing to
> > accept. I told Elie that because I felt that an important function
> > of a
> > presidential candidate was building the party at the grassroots
> > (state and
> > community) level, I would be uncomfortable taking instructions from
> > any
> > candidate that had been party to undermining our state party's
> > decision-making process. Specifically, I would not want to take
> > instructions from Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson who filed to have Secretary
> > Galvin intervene in our delegate selection process. The evidence was
> > somewhat ambiguous at to whether Cynthia McKinney fell into this
> > category,
> > although she seems to if we are to believe that Hugh Esco and Grace
> > Ross
> > speak for her. Therefore I told Elie that I preferred to be
> > designated for
> > Nader, Mesplay, or uncommitted with a preference for uncommitted.
> > Elie
> > didn't reflect this properly in the first list he sent out, so I
> > sent him an
> > email asking that it be corrected.
> >
> > I do think that the Party has to think twice before we extend
> > resources in
> > support of a presidential candidate who is trying to undermine our
> > right to
> > manage our own primary election process. I put any candidate who
> > supported
> > the legal filings against the Party in that category. But that is a
> > longer
> > discussion.
> >
> > - John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regarding willingness to ber
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:13 PM, gary hicks
> > <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> john-------------------
> >>
> >> concerning your email below:
> >>
> >>>> no person by themself can do that much evil, even if it is
> true
> >>>> [which i
> >> don't believe it is]. she had to have help. i was one of the
> >> helpers. i am
> >> not one to be wrapped around one's finger for the use/abuse of
> >> someone
> >> else's agenda. nor are most if not all of those others who agree
> >> with grace
> >> and myself. so please, please stop attributing demonic magical
> >> powers to
> >> grace and using cute words like "ingenuity".
> >>
> >>>> before grace or any one of those of us who agree with the
> political
> >> positions with which we, including her, are associated --- before
> >> we admit
> >> to any so-called partisanship, it would be helpful for you, jill
> >> stein, elie
> >> yarden, larry ely and others to explain why your collective names
> >> on a
> >> proposed delegation to represent non-candidate for nomination ralph
> >> nader is
> >> any less partisan. thank you in advance for your anticipated
> >> response to
> >> this matter.
> >>
> >> gary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Fri, 6/27/08, John Andrews <jandrews166 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: John Andrews <jandrews166 at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [statecom] Facilitation to build trust
> >> To: "State Committee Official Business"
> <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
> >> Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 3:46 PM
> >>
> >> The disingenuous nature of the note below is probably clear to most
> >> members
> >> of State Committee.
> >>
> >> Given her repeated attempts to undermine our convention and our Party
> >> committees, and to facilitate attacks from outside the Green-
> >> Rainbow Party,
> >> I do not think that Grace Ross should be allowed to appoint herself
> >> to any
> >> effort to define solutions for State Committee. If we are going
> >> to make
> >> progress we must first get some honest answers from Grace about the
> >> dirty
> >> tricks she has played during the presidential campaign and about her
> >> organizing against State Committee. We don't need more emails.
> We
> >> need
> >> face-to-face questions and answers, and a little honesty.
> >>
> >> In terms of allowing Grace's recruits to take seats on State
> >> committee, I
> >> feel it is important to have a conclusive investigation to determine
> >> whether
> >> this is or is not part of an organized attempt to engineer a partisan
> >> takeover of State Committee in order to win more delegates for a
> >> particular
> >> candidate. To protect State Committee from such efforts, I would
> >> urge us
> >> not to seat any new State Committee members until after the national
> >> convention is over (which would mean the meeting after next). If
> >> we do, I
> >> am sure that the online meeting which Jamie O'Keefe has said he
> >> intends to
> >> continue after July 29, will be the venue for further mischief.
> >>
> >> After the national convention, each prospective new State
> >> Committee member
> >> should present themselves to State Committee individually, in
> >> person, to
> >> say
> >> why they want to serve on State Committee and to answer any
> >> questions that
> >> State Committee wishes to ask them. I think that all current
> >> members of
> >> State Committee have done this.
> >>
> >> I apologize for adding to the volume of emails that we must wade
> >> through.
> >>
> >> - John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:44 PM, <gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I want to thank Wanda for a wonderful call last night - she gave
> >>> an hour
> >>> and a half and probably would have tlaked longer if I had not been
> >> literally
> >>> falling asleep...
> >>>
> >>> Wanda is right that when conflict levels get high enough in an
> >>> organization, yo have to start by going back to your agreements,
> >> following
> >>> them and working out from there - everything I have ever learned
> >>> about
> >>> organizational development backs her up!
> >>>
> >>> She has put a significant amount of work into looking up old
> >>> records to
> >> try
> >>> to get us back on track - and I thank her for that time
> commitment.
> >>>
> >>> And I agree with her that using our email decision balloting form
>
> >>> is not
> >>> helping us - because it was designed to be used to check consensus
>
> >>> after
> >>> discussion AND assumes that even if you have a significant concern
>
> >>> that
> >> you
> >>> will still follow through the consensus process to seek resolution
>
> >>> so
> >> your
> >>> concer is addressed or you will be willing to stand aside.
> >>>
> >>> Given the level of distrust, I think the "concerns, won't
> stand
> >> aside" has
> >>> contributed to an atmosphere of entrenchment.?
> >>>
> >>> I have found myself needing to re-write it each time to make clear
>
> >>> I am
> >>> still open to learning and changing my position.
> >>>
> >>> Wanda went back to the standing rules and has reviewed where we
> have
> >> gotten
> >>> to at this point.
> >>>
> >>> I am sorry I was passing out from exhaustion - the place of
> >>> difference we
> >>> got to was that Wanda wants the credentialing to be more publicly
> >>> accountable.
> >>>
> >>> I would hope that perhaps a credentialing report might meet that -
>
> >>> how
> >> each
> >>> person's status was verified - rather than felling like we
> need to
> >> somehow
> >>> all be able to pour over Dan's shoulder.? And that in the
> >>> interests of
> >> trust
> >>> building we not suddenly need to physically verify something we
> have
> >> mostly
> >>> simply trusted in the past.
> >>>
> >>> Wanda is also right that trying to seat statecom nominees as a
> >>> slate was
> >> a
> >>> big mistake.? It is part of the standing rules, and has to be
> >> accomplished
> >>> first so we clarify who has decision-making powers each meeting.?
>
> >>> But in
> >> the
> >>> past we have usually had a sentence about each person nominated
> and
> >> trusted
> >>> the nominators and have seated every nominee..
> >>>
> >>> Wanda researched the last meeting where we seated a number of
> >>> nominees -
> >> 9
> >>> when we only had 17 sitting statecom members (also a big
> >>> percentage) - it
> >>> was at the Hitchcock center .? And some of those stepped down in
> >>> days
> >>> following the meeting - so there is no way, I think, to ensure
> >> participation
> >>> as Nat (and the rest of us, I imagine) wish.
> >>>
> >>> The slate idea was unfortunately proposed and passed by concensus
>
> >>> at the
> >>> adcom meeting.? It should have been a heads up when the first
> adcom
> >> member
> >>> found themselves expressing concerns - it was not a matter of
> >>> dropping to
> >> a
> >>> vote to resolve it.
> >>>
> >>> Wanda feels it requires skipping over credentialling until we are
> >>> face-to-face.? I think we need to follow our standing rules for
> >>> this like
> >>> any other meeting.? We need to seat people either one by one or
> some
> >> other
> >>> way since we always have.
> >>>
> >>> We have not even gotten to seating Wanda and Jamie C.
> >>>
> >>> So I want to thank Wanda for hanging in on the absolutely critical
>
> >>> piece
> >> of
> >>> bridge building - her love and commitment are clear - and I hope
> >>> are a
> >> model
> >>> in calling and working together instead of avoiding resolution by
> >> avoiding
> >>> connecting with each other.
> >>>
> >>> Wanda and I will hopefully finish figuring this out.? I will put
> >>> forward
> >>> another seating proposal so she and Jamie as well as others
> >>> willing to
> >> serve
> >>> can participate fully!
> >>>
> >>> Yours, Grace
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> StateCom mailing list
> >>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> >>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> StateCom mailing list
> >> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> StateCom mailing list
> >> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > StateCom mailing list
> > StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
More information about the StateCom
mailing list