[Sdalliance] Structure Commitee Proposal: Liberal Participation in Open Committees

[Monty Kroopkin]

Fellow Workers, This proposal is getting there, and is better than the way it currently reads, but This proposal is much too rigid on delegation selection by autonomous member organizations (and likely to prevent some orgs from even being members of CRSD if they are unable to contort themselves into these requirements for delegates). It would be more beneficial for diversity, and more practical for member orgs to implement, if we keep one delegate vote per org but allow each org to send a 'delegation' of more than one person to the council. Additional members of a 'delegation' could be stated as appropriate solely for the purpose of gender balance and overall diversity issues. The requirements for CRSD selection of committee co-chairs and committee delegates are also too 'cookie cutter'. Although it may be more possible for CRSD to 'staff' these committee positions the way the proposal is written, it would clearly mean that some of the committees we may all want to have could be impossible to start if we do not have enough volunteers who meet the required criteria for co-chair and delegate positions. Gender balance and diversity goals should be goals, not rigid requirements, especially while our initial numbers of members remains small. Having the open committees elect from within to fill any vacancy in the co-chair or delegate positions would help sustain continuity of that committee's representation on the council. However, it would become an obstacle if there are not enough (or not any) members of that committee who are both members of CRSD AND willing to serve as a replacement co-chair or delegate. We should anticipate and avoid that roadblock by having it be "....or, in the absence of a qualified and willing candidate within the committee, then CRSD will select the replacement." Also, although I certainly hope the next general assembly can vote to approve some version of an amendment of the structure proposal to resolve the open committees question, I wonder if the ratification process will be/should be the same as for the structure proposal itself. If a 'critical mass' of founding orgs have already ratified the structure proposal before the next general assembly, then should we limit the ratification voting to those orgs? Should this be the first decision that follows the process of the Structure Proposal? (or should we ask all the founding orgs to approve the amended Structure Proposal?) IWW San Diego General Membership Branch just voted yesterday to approve the Structure Proposal and the Points of Unity. It will be another month before the branch could decide on any amendment. mk mk 

---------- Original Message ----------



Hello All: Please find below the link to Structure Committee's proposal to address Liberal Participation in Open Committees, for review. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TkphHBRrZXU175hgNMosVSVr50U851aDJ3IvMhsMyfs/edit?usp=sharing Best, 
Yesenia Padilla


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/sdalliance/attachments/20170221/f930ddf9/attachment.html>