[statecom] [adcom] Special State Committee Meeting now in session
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Wed Jun 18 12:25:29 EDT 2008
Thank you, Grace,
It is good to hear another voice attending this State Committee
meeting. No apology needed really, but perhaps I too must apologize
for " . . . maynot have read all materials- . . " Where can we
find a readable copy of the the McKinney favoring apportionment
(" . . . apportinoment I suport - McKinney delegates must fulfill
mosto f those." ) that you support? The only apportionment that I
operate from and therefor _present,_ is the only one that was
available to discuss in the efforts of the CDLC to do the work
assigned it. Had there been another set of numbers, we might have
offered two apportionment lists; one with only 4 uncommitted
delegates, giving the GRP a minimal role in the selection of a 32
person delegation, if this is what Grace intends. But I really do not
know what I am talking about. The only apportionment, I have read, is
the one that spells out as Ball (1), Brown (1), McKinney (9), Mesplay
(1), Nader (15), Swift (1), not committed (4). The numbers for the
other apportionment -- the one to which Grace refers -- was not before
the CDLC. I would, as a member of the State Committee, and also as a
delegate to the NC would very much like to read it. Where may I find
it?
There had been an earlier interpretation of the official election
results according to our official Delegate Selection Plan, that would
have allowed for a greater number of Uncommitted delegates - eight.
And having 8 uncommitted delegates would have allowed us twice as much
scope for achieving diversity goals as having only 4. But, at our the
previous State Convention Grace Ross, Jim Hammerman, Mike Heichman and
perhaps a few other people opposed the proposed apportionment. One of
the problems, it appeared, when John Andrews, Jim, Grace, and I
stepped out of the room, had to do with the distribution of 'write-
ins' on our ballots, enough votes for 4 delegates in the initial
reapportionment. The 'compromise' insisted upon by Grace on various
grounds, was that to redistribute these votes, for unknown persons,
among the existing candidates was somehow 'fairer.' I readily admit
that I simply did not 'get it.' "Fairer to whom?" I asked myself and
could not find an answer. But here, _I_ am at fault for -- among
other things -- failing to see how this could affect our ability to
meet the other goals of apportionment which are referred to by Grace.
One of the first orders of business at this Special State Committee
Meeting should be to substitute the _amended_ Delegate Selection Plan,
approved as amended by the last GRP State Committee meeting and dated
April 12, 2008 that was sent to all the candidates whose names
appeared on our Primary ballot, for the earlier version that was
placed there at before our meeting opened. I will explain why clarity
about numbers is important elsewhere. There are persons involved.
Elie Yarden
On Jun 18, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
> I apologise that I may not have read all materials-
>
> But I believe we are not simply going to be able to use STVP for
> uncomitted
> deelgates - we have criteria that I beleive will limit that - We
> could STVP
> within gender (in fact I think we did in 2004) if we have enough
> volunteers for
> uncommitted slots to need to choose -
>
> But we will need a simple system to clarify diversity
> characteristics - for
> instance, in the apportionment that Elie presents - the delegates
> representing
> Nader need to fulfill our geographic diversity requirements of
> representing
> almost all Congressional districts. In the apportinoment I suport
> - McKinney
> delegates must fulfill mosto f those.
>
> In addition, we need racial diversity and sexual orientation diversity
> informatio. And I suspect the percentages required for thse
> categories in our
> delegate selection plan will need to be posted.
>
> And if we are piking among ovluneteers we are supposed to receive, I
> beleive
> some brief statement from each? As these are representative
> positinos and
> not everyone already knows everybody...
>
> Thanks, Grace
> In a message dated 6/18/08 1:16:19 AM, jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org writes:
>
>
>> Hi Elie, et. al.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> The substance of the proposal to appoint delegates from the GRP to
>>> the
>>> 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention has already been presented
>>> to
>>> the State Committee meeting.
>>
>> I am confused. I don't see anything in the official statecom list
>> archives that could be considered the substance of a proposal to
>> appoint specific delegates to the national convention. To what are
>> you referring?
>>
>>> Since this meeting was called to select
>>> those delegates who are not selected by the Candidates, and
>>> because we
>>> would like to have as complete a delegation as possible chosen, the
>>> proposal to be made should also allow for volunteers to be appointed
>>> until such time as this is complete.
>>
>> That is my understanding as well.
>>
>>> I have no familiarity with the
>>> design of such proposals and have therefor requested as a model, a
>>> copy of the proposal for delegate selection used by the GRP in 2004.
>>> While I am sure that I do not have the experience and competence to
>>> write such a proposal, I was charged with reporting the work of the
>>> CDLC in this matter to the State Committee.
>>
>> Thank you for taking on that responsibility.
>>
>>> While I have no proposal to present, I am participating in this
>>> meeting, called to perform the task of approving a list of delegates
>>> to the Nominating Convention. And there is nothing for me to do. I
>>> would like to invoke the technical skills in proposal writing that
>>> undoubtedly exist in the Party, to handle the demands of so
>>> complex a
>>> task, with all due regard for the attitudes of the people who are
>>> waiting to find out whether or not they have been selected. May we
>>> have some volunteers and recommendations by tomorrow afternoon.
>>
>> I was unable to dig up what was presented in 2004. I would hope that
>> the CDLC would have consulted with the 2008 Delegate Selection Plan
>> for whatever specifications it provides.
>>
>> I did find a note that the CDLC presented statements by people who
>> wanted to be delegates. It looks to me like the delegates for
>> uncommitted delegate positions were elected by the STV-PR system we
>> specify in our by-laws (Section 5). The primary thing was to order
>> the delegates so the first positions filled were delegate positions
>> and then alternate delegate positions.
>>
>> Candidate lists were approved in total, I believe.
>>
>> Additionally, please consult the April 2004 State Committee meeting
>> minutes (specifically pages 4-5):
>>
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2004-April/
>> 004692.html
>>
>> And the 2004 Party Convention minutes (specifically pages 3-4):
>>
>> http://green-rainbow.org/StateConvention/2004/GRP_Convention_2004_Minutes.pd
>> f
>>
>>> Are the people in attendance reading this? Have any volunteered
>>> to be
>>> delegates?
>>
>> I would think that these messages are being sent to all state
>> committee members. I hope they are reading it. When we actually
>> have
>> a ballot, I am sure I will be doing a bunch of calls to all of the
>> state committee members who have not posted their ballots.
>>
>> Jamie
>> _______________________________________________
>> StateCom mailing list
>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars.
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
> _______________________________________________
> 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