[statecom] Continuation of V Meeting response

[Wanda Boeke]

Merelice, Grace and State Committee

Eli has been helping assemble the delegation info packet that GPUS
requested, and I had work, so I didn't respond to Grace's request to start
the virtual meeting from 'going back' to where we were.

My response is:

1) This would be asking that all state committee members who are in both
meetings somehow erase their memory of the one in order to participate in
the other. I wish my body could do that when I get medication for one part
that ends up affecting another. I¹m afraid Œturning the clock back¹ is
unrealistic.

The very fact that the request is to 'go back' - is already acknowledgment
that we have 'gone forward' by means of the 6/29 meeting.
 
2) The state committee is a body that is constantly changing in that
different individuals step in and step out. True, the meetings each have
their own agendas etc. However, we cannot say that the consensus reached at
meeting X was taken by state committee X and consensus at meeting Y was
reached by state committee Y as if we had an infinite number of state
committees. We have one state committee with decision-making, policy-making,
and implementation powers as long as a quorum of state committee members
participates.

All concerns except Gary's as to how one person (Merelice in this case) can
stand behind two things: the Rainbow Coalition's send no delegation
suggestion and also sponsor a proposal to accept such a delegation - have
been addressed between the two meetings.

Thank you,

Wanda