[statecom] [adcom] Explanation for actions

[Merelice]

Jim,

Would you consider extending me the courtesy of checking out your
accusations with me before making them? One of the accusations might
approach the truth and one of them is way out of whack. And one of
them ridiculously gives me the power of not "allowing" AdCom to meet!
Whew!

Meanwhile, there is ample evidence from past actions that there is a
continuing effort not to implement the delegate allocation process as
mandated in the delegate selection plan. Why are you not concerned
about that far more serious dereliction of duty?

By the way, delegating responsibility does not mean abandoning
responsibility. Nor does it mean that the body to whom the
responsibility is delegated can abuse it by deciding not to carry out
its responsibility in a timely manner (or, worse, at all), which is
what has been happening and what has driven the frustration levels of
many people in the party through the roof.

Merelice


On 5/21/08, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu> wrote:
> Dear John,
>  I find it disturbing that you (and Merelice in the email you refer to) are
>  twisting the meaning of the April 12 StateCom decision to mean the
>  opposite of what it says. In particular, the decision affirmed the
>  Delegate Selection Plan with the two modifications you refer to.
>  Otherwise, the original plan was left in place. The Delegate Selection
>  Plan gives _AdCom_ the responsibility to review and approve the delegate
>  allocation (p. 15) and to contact the candidates (p. 21). Merelice has
>  acted outside her authority and subverted the very plan she claims to
>  uphold by declaring that a decision has been made on delegate allocation
>  without allowing AdCom to meet and review the plan, and again by sending
>  out letters to candidates over her own signature (and Nat's) rather than
>  that of AdCom as a whole. I do not see how AdCom members who are insisting
>  on an opportunity to fulfill their responsibilities under the approved
>  Delegate Selection Plan can be accused of a fiduciary breach, as you
>  threaten. But there is a strong case to be made that Merelice, and Nat, to
>  the extent that he has participated in these actions, have violated the
>  plan and might therefore be subject to sanction or removal from office.
>  While you may not like the requirements imposed on us by our bylaws and
>  our delegate selection plan, you cannot reinterpret them willy nilly to
>  suit your own aims or preferences.
>  -Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>  "John Andrews" <jandrews166 at gmail.com>
>
> Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>  05/21/08 05:38 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
>  Re: [statecom] [adcom] Explanation for actions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The main point Merelice is making is very important.  We should all step
>  back a minute and consider the course of action that Grace is proposing.
>
>  On April 12 I co-sponsored a proposal that was adopted by consensus by
>  State
>  Committee.  It made two final changes to the Delegate Selection Plan and
>  instructed the working committees and officers of the Party to implement
>  that plan as written to the best of their ability.  The State Committee is
>  the author of the Delegate Selection Plan.  The AdCom does not have the
>  authority to defy State Committee.  AdCom is not a policy-making body.  It
>  is supposed to implement policies developed by more democratic organs of
>  the
>  Party.
>
>  Any member of AdCom who cannot find it within them to implement the plan
>  should either recuse themselves from its implementation or should resign
>  from AdCom.  Trying to defy the will of State Committee is an extremely
>  arrogant and harmful action, and amounts to a breach of faith with the
>  Party.  It would certainly be cause for immediate removal of the persons
>  involved from AdCom.  I don't relish the thought of going down that road.
>  But if necessary, I hope that State Committee would defend our
>  decision-making process from these very harmful attacks.
>
>  - John
>  _______________________________________________
>  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
>