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

[John Andrews]

As the author of the proposal passed by consensus on April 12, I feel I have
some right to say what it means.

It says that working committees should implement the Delegate Selection
Plan.  Period.

Getting on with implementation was the whole point of the proposal.  I don't
know how to make it any clearer.

It did NOT say that there were issues still to be addressed and that working
committees could modify the plan as they saw fit to address whatever issues
they might invent, even if this meant deviating greatly from the written
plan.

Specifically, it did NOT intend that working committees should invent new
categories of candidates (declared, not declared, draft, withdrawn,
incomplete paperwork, complete paperwork,   etc.) and use those fanciful
categories as an excuse to avoid implementing the plan.

The Delegate Selection Plan gives equal validity to all votes cast.  Votes.
Grace wants to invent new categories into which the votes are placed in
order to disenfranchise some of our voters.  This would be completely at
odds with the StateCom decision.

The fact that someone has the ability to invent categories and express
"concerns"  does not justify undermining the decision of StateCom.  I can
invent categories and express "concerns" also.  Grace's concerns and
proposals have been consistently crafted to benefit her chosen candidate.
Some of the categories others could invent would do great harm to Grace's
chosen candidate.  But none of us has the right to act on our inventions
unless we go to State Committee and get our ideas recognized in the approved
Delegate Selection Plan.

- John



On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>