[statecom] I move to adjourn

[John Andrews]

I agree with the sentiment of Eli Beckerman's recent note.  Therefore, I
move that this meeting adjourn with the understanding that its single item
of business be taken up at the Fall River face-to-face meeting that will
convene in less than 48 hours.

DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSAL FOR ADJOURNMENT:

It is clear that the meeting is not being facilitated with the intention of
achieving the purpose of the meeting as defined by State Committee.  This
meeting was intended to provide timely approval of a delegate list as its
only item of business.  This is no longer achievable, and the benefit of any
such approval at this point is negligible.

It is clear that a number of requirements for the proper conduct of our
business have not been fulfilled, particularly with regard to
co-facilitation, advance notice, vetting of proposals, openness, and fair
treatment of all members.

It is clear that a number of our members are having difficulty following the
excessive number of emails and participating in the deliberations.  In part
this is because the original intention of a focused meeting, assuming good
faith on the part of everyone to get the job done, have not been realized.
There are also problems with email and travel.  I doubt that, in actuality,
we have a real quorum of people who are effectively participating in this
meeting.

Many State Comm members who wish to participate have other responsibilities
in their own lives and in their Party work.  The time already taken for this
meeting is excessive due to  the impediments that have been thrown in our
way.  We should not ask that State Comm members spend further time trying to
get this meeting to make a decision.

A FURTHER NOTE:

This is NOT part of the proposal to adjourn.

I would hope that some time on Sunday be devoted to an investigation of
whether the virtual meeting was deliberately sabotaged with the intention of
preventing the responsibilities of State Committee from being fulfilled and
with the intention of undermining the decision of the April 12 meeting that
delegates be appointed in a timely manner according to our Delegate
Selection Plan.  This is a serious question that needs to be resolved,
because State Committee must act to ensure that its decisions are
implemented.  This is more important than making additional decisions for
which implementation may also be frustrated.