POST-ELECTION REFLECTION CONVENTION: BUILDING GRP FOR THE FUTURE

  • SPONSORS: CHERYL ROSE, LOIS GAGNON, PENELOPE HERIDEEN, ELIZABETH HUMPHREY
  • VETTING COMMITTEES:

    • MEMBERSHIP

    • PROCEDURES

    • COMMUNICATIONS

  • FLOOR MANAGER: CHERYL ROSE 

  • SHEPHERD:  BRIAN MULHEARN
  • SUMMARY:
    • PURPOSE: TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GRP AS AN ELECTORAL TOOL OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT IN MA. 

    • IMPLICATIONS:  TO INCREASE RECRUITING, INCREASE RETENTION, BUILD ENTHUSIASM FOR THE GRP, ATTRACT MORE CANDIDATES, SMOOTHER RUNNING OF THE PARTY, MEETING PARTY GOALS

    • BACKGROUND: A MAJORITY OF VOTERS AGREE WITH THE GRP/GP PLATFORM BUT THE GRP HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT GETTING THE MEMBERS AND VOTES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT  IT.  CHANGES ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO FULFILL OUR PURPOSE VIA:  

      • MAINTAINING BALLOT ACCESS
      • INCREASING MEMBERSHIP/DIVERSITY
      • RUNNING CANDIDATES
      • STRAIGHTENING OUT THE GRP NAME
      • UPDATING OUR BRANDING/REPUTATION
  • TEXT OF PROPOSAL:

    • THE MA GRP WILL HOLD A POST ELECTION CONFERENCE IN NOVEMBER 2024 FOR THE PURPOSES OF

      • FELLOWSHIP & RAISING ENTHUSIASM FOR THE WORK OF THE GRP

      • BUILDING AND VOTING ON APPROVAL OF TERMS, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, PROCESSES AND EXPECTATIONS USED IN THE WORK OF THE GRP, AS ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE TIME ALLOWED

      • REVIEWING AND MODIFYING SOME BYLAWS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AND MAKE MORE PRODUCTIVE THE WORK OF THE GRP

      • CONVENTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 16

  • IMPLEMENTATION:

    • THE PROPOSED MEMBERS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ARE:  jOHN bLUMENTSTIEL, LOIS GAGNON, PENELOPE HERIDEEN, ELIZABETH HUMPHREY, DAVID KEIL, MARK LASERTE, BRIAN MULHEARN, AND CHERYL ROSE.  COMMITTEE DUTIES INCLUDE:

      • CHOOSE A VENUE

      • MAKE LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONVENTION

      • PLAN FOR AND HOST THE CONVENTION

      • PROMOTE THE CONVENTION

      • CREATE AND IMPLEMENT AN AGENDA

  • FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 

    • EXPENSE:UP TO $500. INCOME: ?DONATIONS


Showing 11 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
  • David Keil
    followed this page 2024-10-19 22:00:45 -0400
  • David Keil
    commented 2024-10-19 18:04:32 -0400
    In accordance with consensus process, a naive member, whose name is the same as mine, attempted to amend this dangerous proposal, five days ago. Those making the proposal replied to the amendment only by asking two GRP chapters to endorse the proposal, unamended. Thus the amendment is being treated as a counter-proposal. So be it.

    It is highly undemocratic to place the planning for a decision-making convention solely in the hands of a self-designated caucus that has demanded a convention to change the bylaws. More undemocratic is the procedure of waiting until only a short time before the convention to reveal an agenda for the meeting; presumably a set of major bylaws changes.

    Please consider this post to be a counter proposal, as is the evident wish of the caucus proposing the convention. See the amendment of five days ago. Add to that a plan for a decision-making convention of the GRP in January or after, giving us time to deliberate on bylaws changes. Add as well that such convention should be organized by the State Committee, not a caucus.
  • David Keil
    tagged this with Impractical 2024-10-19 18:04:31 -0400
  • David Keil
    tagged this with Bad 2024-10-19 18:04:31 -0400
  • Eileen Wheeler Sheehan
    commented 2024-10-16 21:24:20 -0400
    Responding to David’s comments:
    1. – change “convention” to “conference” throughout
    I am not sure of the difference between a convention and a conference. However, I hope that our proposal, when passed, will allow for a series of inclusive discussions before our small group of activists are convened to pass bylaws. If the conference is less rigid than a convention, then that makes sense to me.
    2. – change “modifying” to “recommending modification of” in the passage “REVIEWING AND MODIFYING
    SOME BYLAWS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AND MAKE MORE PRODUCTIVE THE WORK OF THE GRP”
    Although wordy, I support the sense that we are bringing changes to the table for discussion, not immediate resolution.
    3. – include referral of any bylaws issues to the Procedures Committee
    If I understand correctly, bylaws are reviewed by the Procedures Committee before being brought to the larger body. If so, this modification makes sense.
    4. – address the financing of the event; if the conference cannot be financed in person, then it should be on Zoom.
    Totally agree.
    5. – refer implementation to AdCom and volunteers rather than only a self-selected committee
    We are all “self-selected.” I am grateful to those trying to build a more efficient organization. I do believe that AdCom should play a role in making sure proposed major changes are shared widely among working committees, chapters, and the wider membership. Give everyone a voice in an orderly manner.
  • Brian Cady
    commented 2024-10-16 03:23:43 -0400
    Further organizational design resources – this one for decentralized, yet well-functioning organizations: https://www.sociocracyforall.org/
  • Brian Cady
    commented 2024-10-16 03:20:48 -0400
    I hope that efforts to transform GRP will integrate wisdom from those accomplished in successful organization structure design –
    for example, from within: https://assets.cambridge.org/97811084/93284/frontmatter/9781108493284_frontmatter.pdf
  • David Keil
    commented 2024-10-14 15:32:06 -0400
    This is to urge amendment of the proposal as follows:
    - change “convention” to “conference” throughout
    - change “modifying” to “recommending modification of” in the passage “REVIEWING AND MODIFYING
    SOME BYLAWS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AND MAKE MORE PRODUCTIVE THE WORK OF THE GRP
    - include referral of any bylaws issues to the Procedures Committee
    - address the financing of the event; if the conference cannot be financed in person, then it should be on Zoom.
    - refer implementation to AdCom and volunteers rather than only a self-selected committee
    - change all-caps text to upper-lower case throughout
  • David Keil
    tagged this with Important 2024-10-14 15:32:05 -0400
  • Eileen Wheeler Sheehan
    commented 2024-10-14 10:08:23 -0400
    I applaud those who would build a more robust party,
    capable of large-scale actions,
    supporting multiple candidates, and
    stopping the duopoly.,
    However, the proposal does not identify the key challenges to be addressed at a convention. nor the process by which we will address them.

    I urge the working group to identify the Party’s proposed vision and the four or five actions most needed to achieve our vision. (One will surely be to solicit timely feedback from appropriate members so that hot issues don’t fizzle away.)

    Within the key areas, I ask that the working group identify the parts of the bylaws that are most relevant to achieving that vision.

    We need much more clarity before we spend the time and money to begin the discussion at a convention. Can the committee provide more detail on the key issues and opportunities it believes must be addressed first?

    I am including a previous attempt from 2012. https://www.green-rainbow.org/strategic_plan_proposal
    Thanks for your work,
    Eileen Wheeler Sheehan
  • cheryl Rose
    published this page in 2024 Fall Statecom Proposals 2024-09-29 19:00:34 -0400