[statecom] Grace re Fwd: preliminary report on adcom meeting

[Merelice]

Dear StateCom colleagues,

As one of the co-facilitators of StateCom's April 12 consensus
regarding the GRP delegate selection plan, it appears that I did not
complete my job if Grace's email below is correct. As I recall, it had
been clearly determined both before and during the consensus process,
that StateCom had to make its own policy determination and
interpretation, leaving just the calculation and implementation (not
any interpretation) to CDLC and AdCom. In your view, was there further
interpretation needed? And if so, would it have been more accurate not
to engage in a consensus that did not reflect true feelings?

Sincerely,
Merelice, Co-Chair


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com>
Date: May 29, 2008 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [candidate-development] preliminary report on adcom meeting
To: yen.yarden at verizon.net, owen.broadhurst at gmail.com
Cc: merelice at gmail.com, john.walsh at umassmed.edu,
jim_hammerman at terc.edu, elibeck at gmail.com, mikeheichman at verizon.net,
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com, mail at natfortune.org, nfortune at mac.com,
nfortune at natfortune.org, candidate-development at green-rainbow.org,
statecom at green-rainbow.org


[Please stop emailing to my personal address?]

 As for Elie's rendition, what is here is mostly accurate - major
misrepresentation is that the Statecom meeting did not resolve the two
main interpretive issues - about who qualifies as a "candidate" for
the purposes of the plan (someone not seeking the Green Presidential
Nomination might not be covered in the Green-Rainbow Party
Presidential Nominating Convention Delegate Selection Plan) nor
addressed if candidates release they delegates by definition at the
time they leaving the race or announce they are not part of the
race...

 And the Statecom was only deciding the wording of the Plan, not its
interpretation...

 Yours, Grace