[statecom] Facilitation to build trust

[John Andrews]

The disingenuous  nature of the note below is probably clear to most members
of State Committee.

Given her repeated attempts to undermine our convention and our Party
committees, and to facilitate attacks from outside the Green-Rainbow Party,
I do not think that Grace Ross should be allowed to appoint herself to any
effort to define solutions for State Committee.     If we are going to make
progress we must first get some honest answers from Grace about the dirty
tricks she has played during the presidential campaign and about her
organizing against State Committee.  We don't need more emails.  We need
face-to-face questions and answers, and a little honesty.

In terms of allowing Grace's recruits to take seats on State committee, I
feel it is important to have a conclusive investigation to determine whether
this is or is not part of an organized attempt to engineer a partisan
takeover of State Committee in order to win more delegates for a particular
candidate.  To protect State Committee from such efforts, I would urge us
not to seat any new State Committee members until after the national
convention is over (which would mean the meeting after next).  If we do, I
am sure that the  online meeting which Jamie O'Keefe has said he intends to
continue after July 29,  will be the venue for further mischief.

After the national convention,  each prospective new State Committee member
should present themselves to State Committee individually, in person, to say
why they want to serve on State Committee and to answer any questions that
State Committee wishes to ask them.  I think that all current members of
State Committee have done this.

I apologize for adding to the volume of emails that we must wade through.

- John




On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:44 PM, <gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:

> I want to thank Wanda for a wonderful call last night - she gave an hour
> and a half and probably would have tlaked longer if I had not been literally
> falling asleep...
>
> Wanda is right that when conflict levels get high enough in an
> organization, yo have to start by going back to your agreements, following
> them and working out from there - everything I have ever learned about
> organizational development backs her up!
>
> She has put a significant amount of work into looking up old records to try
> to get us back on track - and I thank her for that time commitment.
>
> And I agree with her that using our email decision balloting form is not
> helping us - because it was designed to be used to check consensus after
> discussion AND assumes that even if you have a significant concern that you
> will still follow through the consensus process to seek resolution so your
> concer is addressed or you will be willing to stand aside.
>
> Given the level of distrust, I think the "concerns, won't stand aside" has
> contributed to an atmosphere of entrenchment.?
>
> I have found myself needing to re-write it each time to make clear I am
> still open to learning and changing my position.
>
> Wanda went back to the standing rules and has reviewed where we have gotten
> to at this point.
>
> I am sorry I was passing out from exhaustion - the place of difference we
> got to was that Wanda wants the credentialing to be more publicly
> accountable.
>
> I would hope that perhaps a credentialing report might meet that - how each
> person's status was verified - rather than felling like we need to somehow
> all be able to pour over Dan's shoulder.? And that in the interests of trust
> building we not suddenly need to physically verify something we have mostly
> simply trusted in the past.
>
> Wanda is also right that trying to seat statecom nominees as a slate was a
> big mistake.? It is part of the standing rules, and has to be accomplished
> first so we clarify who has decision-making powers each meeting.? But in the
> past we have usually had a sentence about each person nominated and trusted
> the nominators and have seated every nominee..
>
> Wanda researched the last meeting where we seated a number of nominees - 9
> when we only had 17 sitting statecom members (also a big percentage) - it
> was at the Hitchcock center .? And some of those stepped down in days
> following the meeting - so there is no way, I think, to ensure participation
> as Nat (and the rest of us, I imagine) wish.
>
> The slate idea was unfortunately proposed and passed by concensus at the
> adcom meeting.? It should have been a heads up when the first adcom member
> found themselves expressing concerns - it was not a matter of dropping to a
> vote to resolve it.
>
> Wanda feels it requires skipping over credentialling until we are
> face-to-face.? I think we need to follow our standing rules for this like
> any other meeting.? We need to seat people either one by one or some other
> way since we always have.
>
> We have not even gotten to seating Wanda and Jamie C.
>
> So I want to thank Wanda for hanging in on the absolutely critical piece of
> bridge building - her love and commitment are clear - and I hope are a model
> in calling and working together instead of avoiding resolution by avoiding
> connecting with each other.
>
> Wanda and I will hopefully finish figuring this out.? I will put forward
> another seating proposal so she and Jamie as well as others willing to serve
> can participate fully!
>
> Yours, Grace
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>