[statecom] Response to Lorenzo on Proposal #1

[Lawrence Fine]

My response underlined

On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Jim Hammerman wrote:

> See responses in CAPS below -Jim
>
> Lawrence Fine <lorenzonine at earthlink.net>
> Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> 06/24/08 12:55 PM
> Please respond to
> State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
>
>
> To
> State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [statecom] out of town, unavailable till mid day tomorrow -   
> concerns -
> not standing aside
>
>
> o   will prevent us from reaching quorum at the 6/29 State Committee
> meeting
>
> my concern should be worded with "may" instead of will

> DOES THIS POSSIBILITY THEN PREVENT SEATING THESE DELEGATES?

no - - -

> THERE'S ALWAYS
> A RISK THAT WE WON'T REACH QUORUM.

which is why I said "may"

this is the only concern I'm willing to stand aside on at this time.

>
>
> o   gives the appearance of a partisan effort to seize additional
> convention delegates for a favored candidate
>
> totally agree, not that it makes much difference to me.
> IF IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE, THIS ISN'T A CONCERN THAT WOULD
> PREVENT YOU FROM STANDING ASIDE

incorrect - - - it's not candidate preference I'm concerned with.  
This is process concern that's steeped in partisanship, ---NOT  
standing aside at this time.

>
> o   is stacking the special State Committee meeting and is increasing
> division
>
> that is the vibe I get - - - agree.

> AGAIN, THE "DIVISION" IS ALL AROUND US. THERE ISN'T AN ARGUMENT  
> HERE ABOUT
> WHY NOT TO SEAT THESE NEW DELEGATES EXCEPT THAT IT MAKES _SOME_  
> STATECOM
> MEMBERS MORE COMFORTABLE NOT TO. (OTHERS OF US FEEL MORE  
> UNCOMFORTABLE BY
> THE REFUSAL/ RESISTANCE OF PEOPLE TO SEAT THESE NEW FOLKS.)

The ONLY message I'm getting here is that a few party members would  
be "comforted" if their preferred StateCom candidates are seated.
I'm also looking at the possibility of GRP members not on the list  
who are interested on being on State Com attending the State Com  
meeting Saturday. NOT standing aside

>
> 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
>
> Jim Hammerman wrote:
>
> "Many of the proposed StateCom representatives have been part of the
> party
> for a number of years and have therefore met current StateCom members.
> They are all activists who share our values,"
>
> My comment:
>
> Jim, from what I've been witnessing here, "we" don't even share "our"
> values.
> Again, I'll be glad to accept new members to the state Committee who
> show up at the state convention.

> WELL, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT THAT "WE" MAY NOT REALLY SHARE "OUR"  
> VALUES.
> THAT'S A BIGGER DISCUSSION. I ASSUME YOU MEAN "STATE COMMITTEE  
> MEETING"
> RATHER THAN "STATE CONVENTION" IN THE SENTENCE ABOVE, YES?

whoops - - - lost in space - - - yes :-]


> HOWEVER, I
> DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT HERE AND WHY IT SHOULD MAKE A
> DIFFERENCE--THESE PEOPLE _ARE_ SHOWING UP FOR _THIS_ STATE COMMITTEE
> MEETING AND THERE'S NO REASON IN OUR BYLAWS THAT ALLOWS US TO  
> DISTINGUISH
> THIS ONE FROM ANY OTHER ONE.

Jim, how can you guarantee that ANYONE is showing up for this meeting  
on Saturday?
Again, there are other members ( not on the list ) who may show up  
who are interested in serving on StateCom that may be seated at  
Saturdays meeting.
  I prefer to keep this open and above board - - - It still smacks of  
partisan stacking. NOT standing aside

>
> Jim wrote:
>
> " who are being sponsored by
> two current GRP members, mostly from their region or identity caucus.
> This
> sponsorship by members to fill vacant seats so that these regions  
> can be
> represented obligates us to seat them."
>
> o   the counter-productive nature of bringing diversity into the Party
> via cyberspace
>
> Again and again, I'll be glad to accept new members to the state
> Committee who show up at the state convention.
> this MAY also insure that we reach quorum - - - NOT standing aside.
>
>
> lastly and not leastly
>
>
> PLANS CHANGE - - - - - - - - -

> peace and love - - - - - - - - - l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom