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

Tue Feb 21 16:48:44 PST 2017

Hi Bo:

Point of clarification: is this in addition to the existing committees or
in lieu of?

Thanks,

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Bo Elder <belder76 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear comrades,
>
> I appreciate everyone's work, and all of the concerns raised and
> suggestions made are valid.  However, I must say I do not think we should
> make any changes to the Structure at this time, or additional requirements
> (other than suggestions) for affiliated organizations and committees.  Like
> the Points of Unity, the Structure document is already being circulated and
> has already been ratified by 2 organizations: Industrial Workers of the
> World and Redneck Revolt.  Moreover, every person/organization I have
> reached out to has expressed that they feel the Structure is already very
> complicated and demanding.
>
> I believe most of the issues and needs we are raising can be address at
> least partially by voting to charter (or not charter) committees on
> Sunday.  I propose that we charter the following committees:
>
> 1. Committee for Rapid Response
>
> 2. Committee for Internal Communications
>
> 3. Committee for External Communications
>
> 4. Committee for Fundraising
>
> 5. Committee for Legal Aid
>
> 6. Committee for Women and Femmes and/or Gender and Sexuality Issues
>
> I hope we can finalize our Mission Statement, confirm affiliated
> organizations, charter Committees, and be ready to move to a delegate
> council format by the end of Sunday's meeting.  People and organizations
> will join us, but we must show them that we are committed to not overly
> draining their member resources and that we are committed to planning and
> taking actions.
>
> in solidarity,
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:07 PM, justin hewgill <jhewgill at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/1TkphHBRrZXU175hgNMosVSVr
>>> 50U851aDJ3IvMhsMyfs/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
>> <(909)%20636-6861> and destroy this e-mail.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sdalliance mailing list
>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sdalliance mailing list
> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>
>

-- 
*Yesenia Padilla*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/sdalliance/attachments/20170221/382375b1/attachment.html>