Limit proposal proposers to no more than 1 proposal per meeting (as floor manager)

State Committee meetings are an excellent opportunity for long-term planning, training, and getting actual work done implementing proposals we have already based.  We shouldn't necessarily spend the bulk of the day discussing new proposals just because we could.  By taking on less, we could make more progress on those we do take on. In addition, if the proposed project is an important priority, then so is the follow through, and the best person to ensure follow through occurs is the person for whom this project is their highest priority. 

(1) This proposal asks state committee representatives to prioritize their many good ideas  by choosing the one proposal they believe most important to put forward for adoption, and by increasing the commitment required of the proposal sponsor.

(2) No one may be lead sponsor for more than one proposal per meeting.  That person -- the lead sponsor for the proposal --- also agrees to become the 'project shepherd' should the proposal pass. 

(3) the Project shepherd becomes the contact person for all the committees involved in the project, including ad com, helping them keep track of progress (or lack thereof) and upcoming deadlines and milestones. One of the milestones should be date for conclusion of the project. 

(4) the project shepherd reports back to the next state committee meeting in advance in writing on the actions that have occured implementing the proposal and the current state of the project. Time will be set aside for discussion on the status of each adopted proposal. 


Showing 4 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2012-09-22 10:12:37 -0400
    Comments about the Proposal

    1. I don’t remember that we have ever spent the “bulk of the day” discussing proposals at StateCom meetings. Recently, we have shortened the time that we have spent together and have had less time discussing proposals.

    2. I don’t see the problem of the state party being solved by “taking on less”. When I look at what the state party has been doing this year, I can’t think of very much beyond the presidential campaign and our support for our one candidate for State Rep. At our StateCom meeting on 9/23, we may decide to take positions on ballot questions. By the time, we create a leaflet, there will be precious little time to do outreach. The major problem is that we do not have a compelling program. This proposal will have no effect at best on this problem and possibly could discourage such a thing from happening.

    3. This proposal has the intention of discouraging proposals. A small handful of StateCom members are responsible for most of the proposals that are submitted. The “shepherd” responsibility will discourage our members, who may have good ideas, from submitting proposals.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2012-09-10 18:13:52 -0400
    I don’t think that the entire StateCom should suffer from the sins of one member.

    Mike Heichman
    Suffolk County Rep
  • Nathanael Fortune
    tagged this with Concerns 2012-09-10 18:11:02 -0400
  • Nathanael Fortune
    published this page in 2012 Fall Meeting Proposals 2012-09-10 15:32:48 -0400