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

Bo Elder belder76 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 21 17:22:16 PST 2017 

I also apologize for not going to the meeting and then proposing something
totally different.  Now I'm *that *guy!

:p

Bo

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Bo Elder <belder76 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Another comrade asked a useful clarifying question off-list...
>
>  think we should talk about participation, but not in a way that makes new
> requirements of affiliated organizations or alters the Structure document.
> I'm open to any other kind of resolution, but I think if we A) change the
> Structure document now and B) raise the number of delegates needed from
> each affiliated organization from 1 to 2 now we will have a very hard time
> convincing organizations to affiliate and stay affiliated with us.  Lots of
> orgs are interested, but they're worried we'd ask too much of them as
> affiliates (everyone is stretched thin) and they've already made some level
> of peace the Structure document as is.
>
> I guess what I'm saying is, let's talk Sunday about what requirements we
> want to make of *individuals* joining committees, but not revise what
> we've decided to require of *committees and organizations* themselves.
>
> thanks and solidarity,
>
> Bo
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Bo Elder <belder76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/d425a08a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Sdalliance mailing list