[statecom] [candidate-development] [adcom] Special State Committee Meeting now in session

[Yarden]

On Jun 18, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Eli Beckerman wrote:

> Hi Grace,
>
> You write:
>
> " And as we have not agreed to an apportionment in either CDLC nor  
> Adcom, it
> is appropriate I believe to continue to list the options which will be
> available to Statecom".
>
> And I disagree, based on two reasons:
>
> Reason 1: The 4/12/08 State Committee meeting weighed in on these  
> questions,
> and delivered a compromise by which we affirmed that these are still
> candidates -- up to the point when the first ballot is cast. After  
> that
> point, committed delegates to "non-candidates" are free to vote as  
> they
> choose. This was the best we could do to affirm the vote and to
> simultaneously protect our members from being bound to vote  
> continually for
> an absent "candidate".
>
> Reason 2: Since you disagree with Reason 1, it would have been  
> necessary for
> AdCom (as per our delegate selection plan) to revise the CDLC  
> allocation. If
> you read the final sentence of the relevant passage in the plan ("If  
> the
> Administrative Committee still does not agree with the calculations  
> that
> determine the results, then they have one (1) week to revise them or  
> they
> are accepted."). The 5/26/08 AdCom meeting was the opportunity  
> (despite it
> happening well over a week later) to revise the CDLC allocation ("or  
> they
> are accepted").
>
> I believe that the "options" are settled. I'd like to see us move  
> forward
> for once instead of sideways and around and down. I hope you might  
> agree.
>
> Best,
> Eli
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom