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

[justin hewgill]

Monty,

*A, On the delegation from the member orgs*, I hear you, and we could make
the gender and identity balance of the two delegates be a suggested rule,
such that if an organization cannot conform to it they are not excluded.

*B, Regarding committees*, 1) I think if we cannot staff a two person
co-chair for the committee then perhaps we are overreaching. Having this
structured will function to limit the number of committees. I personally
think that is a good thing. In these types of coalitions it often happens
that we have a proliferation of activities without enough human power
behind each activity. We should limit ourselves to activities where there
is enough interest from members (i.e. members of member orgs and individual
radicals who assent to the points of unity and want to work with us) to
provide basic leadership.

2) If people feel that the gender and identity rules could be cumbersome
here too, they could be a suggestion for campaign chairs and delegates as
well. Although, I hope we are diverse enough to pull this off at the
campaign committee level.

*C, On the issue of process,* 1) as you probably noticed, I have been a big
advocate of moving into the council structure. However, the body seemed to
have a majority opinion in the last meeting that the issue of liberal or
non-member participation in campaign committees should be resolved in GA
before going to council.

2) The structure committee figured if we were going to amend the structure
document to accomplish this we could also simultaneously deal with the
issue of delegates which you and also Raf and a few others had raised.That
way we could have those two issues worked out for our big mass meeting
where we would be inviting more orgs and individuals to hopefully join -
i.e. having dual delegates for the sake of more participation and for
creating a device of ensuring gender and identity representation.

3) However if there is a lot of controversy on the delegate issue at the
meeting we could move that question to the delegate process.

Justin

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Monty Kroopkin <mkroopkin at juno.com> wrote:

> 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/1TkphHBRrZXU175hgNMosVSVr50U85
> 1aDJ3IvMhsMyfs/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Best,
>
>
> *Yesenia Padilla*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sdalliance mailing list
> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>
>


-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information used in this e-mail is
confidential, may be legally privileged, and is only intended for the use
of the party named above.  If the reader of this is not the intended
recipient, you are advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in
error, please immediately notify me by telephone at 909 636-6861 and
destroy this e-mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/sdalliance/attachments/20170221/83f25497/attachment.html>