[statecom] Facilitation to build trust

Sat Jun 28 08:37:00 EDT 2008

Gary,

There is abundant evidence for what I am saying, but I do not think an email
list is the proper place or venue to attempt to lay this out.

Elie Yarden, in fulfilling his responsibilities, asked all persons willing
to be delegates to indicate which candidates they would be willing to
accept.  I told Elie that because I felt that an important function of a
presidential candidate was building the party at the grassroots (state and
community) level,  I would be uncomfortable taking instructions from any
candidate that had been party to undermining our state party's
decision-making process.  Specifically, I would not want to take
instructions from Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson who filed to have Secretary
Galvin intervene in our delegate selection process.  The evidence was
somewhat ambiguous at to whether  Cynthia McKinney fell into this category,
although she seems to if we are to believe that Hugh Esco and Grace Ross
speak for her.   Therefore I told Elie that I preferred to be designated for
Nader, Mesplay, or uncommitted with a preference for uncommitted.  Elie
didn't reflect this properly in the first list he sent out, so I sent him an
email asking that it be corrected.

I do think that the Party has to think twice before we extend resources in
support of a presidential candidate who is trying to undermine our right to
manage our own primary election process.  I put any candidate who supported
the legal filings against the Party in that category.  But that is a longer
discussion.

- John

Regarding willingness to ber

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:13 PM, gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> john-------------------
>
> concerning your email below:
>
> >> no person by themself can do that much evil, even if it is true [which i
> don't believe it is]. she had to have help. i was one of the helpers. i am
> not one to be wrapped around one's finger for the use/abuse of someone
> else's agenda. nor are most if not all of those others who agree with grace
> and myself. so please, please stop attributing demonic magical powers to
> grace and using cute words like "ingenuity".
>
> >> before grace or any one of those of us who agree with the political
> positions with which we, including her, are associated --- before we admit
> to any so-called partisanship, it would be helpful for you, jill stein, elie
> yarden, larry ely and others to explain why your collective names on a
> proposed delegation to represent non-candidate for nomination ralph nader is
> any less partisan. thank you in advance for your anticipated response to
> this matter.
>
> gary
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 6/27/08, John Andrews <jandrews166 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: John Andrews <jandrews166 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [statecom] Facilitation to build trust
> To: "State Committee Official Business" <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
> Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 3:46 PM
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>