[statecom] [adcom] Important question Re: credentialing new StateCom reps

[Eli Beckerman]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Jamie O'Keefe <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org>
wrote:

>
> Most of the people who have now stepped forward to devote their time
> and effort to participate in the state committee are women, people of
> color, LBGT, people with disabilities and youth members.  Are we not
> going to even consider seating them to participate in something that
> should be a simple ratification lists of members who want to go to
> national convention?  What does that say of us?


"Stepped forward to devote their time and effort" or "recruited into a
virtual online meeting to participate in a contentious vote"?

There's a big distinction, and I am a little bit perplexed why the same
people who made it clear that in-person meetings were necessary to deal with
our differences would find a virtual meeting to bring "women, people of
color, LBGT, people with disabilities and youth members" into the State
Committee the appropriate opening.

I wish this were a simple ratification of lists... but you have argued for
this to be open to anything and everything, and there is a continued attempt
to ignore previous StateCom decisions, to ignore the fact that the
allocation has been settled, and to fight tooth and nail to change the
definition of "candidate" or "release". StateCom modified the Delegate
Selection Plan to handle this issue, freeing delegates committed to a
candidate to vote as they please after the first round. The CDLC allocation
was automatically approved by AdCom's inability to revise it. But that is
being ignored. And now a StateCom virtual meeting, who's only purpose was to
approve the delegation, seems like maybe it will be used to challenge the
allocation.

How are we to know, Jamie? Would you be willing to say this is not the case?
You know that trust is very low at the moment. Is this an effort to build
trust? Why am I skeptical?

In hope,
Eli