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

Tue Feb 21 16:55:52 PST 2017

Thanks Yesi, important question.  My idea was in lieu of.

Bo

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Yesenia Padilla <yeseniatpadilla at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20170221/72bf0403/attachment-0001.html>