[statecom] A listing of concerns for PROPOSAL #1: CREDENTIALING PROPOSAL, Please discuss and see if you can resolve concerns

[Larry Ely]

Jamie,

 From about 1:00 pm through 3:00 pm today, I am having scheduled work done 
by Comcast on my cable connection, which provides my email capability.  If 
your c. noon email were to arrive considerably after noon today, I might 
not have time to read your email and to respond to it by 3:00 pm.  Hence I 
state now that I will not stand aside on the concerns I provided in my 
email yesterday that arrived before noon, so they were recorded and I see 
that they have been duly and fairly represented in their essence by you in 
your enumeration below.

Larry


At 12:10 AM 6/24/08, you wrote:

>Thank you to all of the folks to took the time to describe their
>concerns.  The concerns for PROPOSAL #1: CREDENTIALING PROPOSAL are
>listed below.  To expedite this process, members have until noon to
>discuss these concerns and attempt to resolve them.
>
>Around noon, I will ask if anyone is willing to stand aside on their
>concerns or no longer has concerns.  If I do not hear that people have
>agreed to stand aside on their concerns by 3pm, then I will issue a
>voting ballot.
>
>NOTES:
>
>To be clear, this proposal is part of the credentialing agenda item as
>defined in our State Committee Standing Rules, and as such it does not
>have a sponsor.  We only need to credential and approve new State
>Committee members if people wish to be considered to be State
>Committee members.  This meeting is a Special State Committee meeting
>and is not using the Email Decision Making Process.
>
>I removed David Schwab because one of his nominators was only willing
>to support him for the 6/29 State Committee meeting.  Jamie Mclaughlin
>asked to be an alternate instead of a full-State Committee member.
>
>If I missed your concern, I hope it is covered under one of the
>concerns listed below.  I did my best to be true to the concerns that
>people listed.
>
>Concerns to seating an additional 21 members to the State Committee:
>
>o   will prevent us from reaching quorum at the 6/29 State Committee meeting
>
>o   gives the appearance of a partisan effort to seize additional
>convention delegates for a favored candidate
>
>o   is stacking the special State Committee meeting and is increasing division
>
>o   candidates have not introduced themselves to the State Committee
>or answered questions as to why they want to serve.  Cannot evaluate
>the honesty and moral courage based on names.  Minimal commitment of
>participating at one face-to-face State Committee meeting should be
>required
>
>o   the way this is happening really bothers me. We should censure
>somebody and I know who it is.
>
>o   no new delegates are required to carry out the purpose of the meeting.
>
>o   negativity implied in the stress on diversity takes our eyes off
>the ball of trying to visualize the good, the positive
>
>o   the counter-productive nature of bringing diversity into the Party
>via cyberspace
>
>o   we cannot bring in new members until we improve our basic
>functioning so we can be a nurturing organization.
>
>o   prospective candidates should show a voter registration card or be
>shown to be a dues paying member
>
>o   credentialing not supposed to be performed when using Email
>Decision Making Process
>_______________________________________________
>StateCom mailing list
>StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom