[Sosfbay-discuss] Agenda for 2/4/09 meeting

[Drew Johnson]

I'm sorry Fred, but I have to reiterate some things because I believe
you've distorted some events.

Fred In the desire to welcome a new person (which I have too) I think
you're bending over backwards to accommodate his bad behavior.  To wit...

I believe that far from 'wrongheaded', my concerns about David's
autocratic nature are right on the money and this was again shown last
night when he walked out (was it in disgust?) immediately after HIS topic
was complete.   And by the way I think he completely wasted our time with
by using his time to again attack me instead of either  reporting on the
event and how it is proceeding -- isn't that what his time was alloted
for??? but we heard next to nothing about that!!!  (ah but that would be
accountability and it appears he doesn't want accountability to anyone but
himself) .

By walking out when he did he left questions in my and other people's
minds: Does he only care about HIS event???  Does he only care about
getting HIS way???  And when he doesn't get satisfaction does he then walk
out??? It certainly looked that way.  More autocratic and obstinant
behavior I'm afraid.   And yes I DO think this behavior NEEDS to be
confronted -- maybe gentler than I did, but nevertheless yes by all means
confront it.

Yes, I will stand firm in characterizing David Ledesma's response to being
questioned about why the VfP folks had such an overwhelmingly negative
reaction to being involved in anything he was participating in as an
'atack' on me.  Instead of addressing the question of why they might feel
so negatively  way and and why the rejected coalitional participation with
him he tried to turn the tables on me and just attacked me!  Frankly it
seemed to me to be just an ego defense mechanism of someone in denial. 
Instead of addressing the question just attack the questioner.

And IMO Fred is WAY underplaying the harsh response the VfPers had to
David Ledesma.  If we want to go to them and ask their opinion, I'm
certain we'll get an earful!  As a matter of a fact I think we need to do
just that.  Let's ask them about their experience with David Ledesma and
why they are so adamantly opposed to being a part of something he
particpates in.  Could it be that his past behavior with them has so
turned them off that they will now have nothing to do with him?  Let's
ask!

At no point did he EVER say ANYTHING addressing about why the VfP folks
are so down on him, not that night, not since.  Or what we could do to
mend those fences so that we could count on the VfP's support in the
coalition.   Nada.  That was the whole point I was trying to ask him about
so that we could see whether that situation could be improved and whether
he was willing to operate within a Green check and balance situation.  As
far as I was concerned by his actions he failed that measure.   My concern
level over whether he is an obstinate

Secondly I didn't infer that David has ill intent towards the Green Party
and TRYING to disrupt us.  Ill intent doesn't really matter.  Like Cameron
I don't think trying to guess people's intent is at all useful.  I see
people as black boxes and not only are we unable to dicern motivation, I
see that many times people can't figure out themselves why they do what
they do.  So I don't try to guess their intent or motivation.  Its the
behavior and the effect that we CAN and MUST judge if we are to maintain
integrity of the party.

What I was driving at was that it is irresponsible of leaders in the Green
Party if we do not maintain vigilance about we we empower to lead us.  It
is a universally bad idea that defies common sense to give too much power
to someone just entering the party.  A newcomer, no matter how marvelous,
can not possible understand our culture (or that of ANY group for that
matter).  It is only common sense that a newcomer not be empowered too
quickly before they've been shown the lay of the land and before the group
has confirmed how the person operates is in alignment with our 10 Key
Values.  THAT's what I was saying.

And so when David essentially put across the vibe in his very first
meeting that he ever attends that what the Green Party really needed was
an extreme makeover that HE would be happy to give it (in HIS image), yeah
I do have be concerned about where this person is coming from.  And THEN
when his followup behavior looks VERY AUTOCRATIC, yeah that WILL TRIGGER
MY RADAR and raise concerns about whether he can operate within our
values.  And yeah, I will act in those circumstance to PROTECT THE PARTY
as any leader of the party should do.

At LEAST one of the County Councilors voiced frustration that David
Ledesma was allowed to take up soooooooooooo much of the time in the
December meeting.  After all, we don't even know if he's a member yet!!! 
As I said above, any sane group simply does NOT HAND OVER MUCH POWER TO A
NEWCOMER, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEM.  PERIOD.  I
count it as OUR mistake that we allowed an unconfirmed member (or possibly
nonmember) to even make a proposal let alone take up such a tremendous
amount of our General Meeting time.    We should have had an active Green
Party Member (and neither David nor Valerie qualified at the December
meeting) -- in other words a Green who actually has the standing, whom we
know and trust -- to make any proposal to be made.  Our mistake!

Then again it terms of taking up tremendous amounts of our time he did it
again last night.  Instead of reporting on the David Ledesma Stop
Recruiting Kids event he spent his time trying to whip up a mob to come
after me!  We never did get to hear much about that event!!! Alarm bells
go off for many of us when we see this kind of behavior from a newcomer.

Again mostly I fault US for not handing the situation in a way that would
have saved everyone pain.  We fell down by not having an active Green
Party member give any proposal that was to be made, but 2) not summarizing
in one or two sentences what proposal we were consensing on (so now we all
have different understandings of what we consensed to (and I was the
notetaker that evening so I myself would have done better to insist in the
moment that we have a concise version of the proposal (not merely David's
rambling 3 or 4 pages which rambled which covered many topics about his
what I'll term 'extreme makeover of the party in his image').  IMO on many
different levels WE BLEW IT.  In the end its not the newcomers fault that
the party doesn't handle itself well.  Its OUR FAULT.

We can do better and we will.  We can create better informational
exchanges whereby we orient newcomers to all our unique ways.  We can put
sane limits on who has standing to make a proposal to the General Meeting.
 We can put sane limits on who and how rapidly we empower newcomers to
enter into positions of service and not put someone off the street
immediately into a place where they haven't been trained for.  We can
spell out that we require gender balanced CoChairs of any Green Party
committee or if its a coalitional effort what our guidelines are for how
they operate and the democracy they need to entail.  Etc. These are all
things WE CAN AND MUST DO IF WE ARE GOING TO MATURE AS A PARTY AND BECOME
AN EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION.  Si Se Puede!  Yes we can!


Green is Accountability!

Drew

On Wed, February 4, 2009 17:53, Fred Duperrault wrote:
> Dear Paul and other GRSCC Readers,
>
> Please don't interpret what Drew has expressed re David Ledesma as the
> truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>
> I'm sorry to have to enter this public discussion regarding
> personalities and misinterpreted reports on what happened in certain
> meetings, but I feel I must do so in the best interests of more than one
> group in which Drew and I have been members, and in defense of David
> Ledesma.
>
> First of all, Drew's accusation of David Ladesma trying to "attack" him
>   was inaccurate and unfair. Secondly, inferring that David "as an
> outside disrupter who has ill intent toward the Green Party" was
> uncalled for, not true. And, after hearing a critical word, but not
> damning,  about David during a VFP meeting, Drew, at the very beginning
> of the SRK planning meeting, confronted David as if he were a
> prosecuting attorney accusing David of being an obstinate, incompatible
> person.
>
> Please don't accept Drew's wrong headed account of David Ledesma, his
> character and motives.
>
> Regretting having to intervene,
>
> Fred Duperrault
>
>
>
>
> Drew
>
> Thank you for your clarification re; Ledesma's relationship with Green
> Party
>
> I heard him at a meeting of a peace group I belong to,  where  he
> described his attitude against military recruitment and I felt he was
> quite dedicated and seemed to do his actions on an individual basis  I
> have been a registered Green Party voter for a number of years and
> before that with other progressive small parties, regretfully none
> have become major parties.  I thought Ledesma's ideas compatiblewith
> the Greens, but am sorry he had difficulty cooperating with local
> Greens.
>
>
> I admire youriniative and energy in developing an Anti-Recruitment
> Coalition and wish you well .People like you are sorely needed.
>
> Have you considered working with Clean Money organization? They work
> toward public financing of elections and this could benefit the Green
> Party and other less than affluent parties.
>
> Thank you your time and detailed explanation re Ledesma and the Greens
>
> With continued hope for democracy and peace for all     Paul
>
> 0
> On Feb 3, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Drew Johnson wrote:
>
>> Paul, I have no idea who you are and what if any relationship you
>> have to
>> the Green Party.
>>
>> ...but the facts are that when Jim Doyle, Fred Duperrault and I went
>> to
>> the Veterans for Peace Chapter 101 meeting the general response was
>> they
>> would NOT go forward with any coalition that involved David Ledesma
>> because their experience was that he had to have everything done his
>> way
>> and had to have 100% control of it.  I was very shocked that THEY
>> had such
>> a negative reaction.
>>
>> But then a series of actions on David's part totally seemed to fit the
>> behavioral pattern the VfP folks had described.  when I tried to ask
>> David
>> about whatever had lead to them having that reaction he wouldn't
>> respond
>> to it and started attacking me!   Ah, that's good -- the guy who just
>> walked off the street (David) is trying to tell party officials how
>> to run
>> their business!
>>
>> Then he said he didn't want to be part of a Green Party committee or
>> coalition anymore.  I can live with that.   We have to safeguard our
>> party
>> from outside disruptors, and those who have ill intent towards the
>> party
>> or simply don't understand and fit in with our 10 Key Values.  Heck, I
>> don't even know if David is a member of the party!!!
>>
>> Someone like David could very well have some great input, but it
>> behooves
>> them to 1) at least hang out with the group for awhile (I did for
>> one year
>> before volunteering for anything), 2) join the party and fullfill the
>> requisite 'dues-paying' before launching a campaign to remake the
>> party in
>> their image.
>>
>> And by the way Paul, the coalition is happening in large part
>> because I'm
>> building it.  Coalition -- its what Greens do.
>>
>>
>> Green is Coalition!
>>
>> Drew
>>
>>
>> On Tue, February 3, 2009 13:34, Paul & Mary Engstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> IMy reaction to Drew's negatism in reaction against Ledesma reminds
>>> me
>>> of the petty competiveness so frequent in the Left and progressive
>>> groups
>>>
>>> Go ahead with promoting a coalition against recruiting without the
>>> spitefulness which reflects badly on the Green Party
>>>
>>> For democracy and peace foe all    Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Drew Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> As part of our ongoing reform of the General Meeting to make it
>>>> interesting, fun and worth going to I've been lobbying for months
>>>> now to
>>>> make it a regular feature of the meeting to
>>>>
>>>> 1) have an 20 minutes set aside for inspiring talk/presentation by
>>>> one or
>>>> more folks (could be a panel) near the front of the meeting -- this
>>>> month
>>>> I nominate Roy for the slot and request we put it in after
>>>> approval of
>>>> last month's notes (which I'll post sometime today or tomorrow along
>>>> with
>>>> the previous month's) and the Treasurer's Report and before the
>>>> other
>>>> Recurring Business
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> 2) have specific time set aside for breakout meetings of committee,
>>>> working group, etc.  If people get into the habit of arriving at
>>>> 6:30 as
>>>> we advertise this time for breakout meetings time could even be
>>>> before the
>>>> 7:30 main meeting time.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Note also that as I previously announced on this e-mail list that
>>>> David
>>>> Ledesma specifically declared at the last SRK Santa Clara Coalition
>>>> meeting that his March 7th event was no longer going to be
>>>> considered a
>>>> Green Party event (let alone a GP fundraising event as was
>>>> originally
>>>> planned) and that he no longer wanted to be a part of a Green Party
>>>> committee or coalition addressing fraudulent military recruiting
>>>> tactics.
>>>> So I would question giving David time on the agenda at all for his
>>>> non-Green Party, non-coalition event.  He seems to have the details
>>>> of his
>>>> event well in hand and I'm sure it will come off very successfully
>>>> but it
>>>> doesn't seem that he needs General Meeting time to address his non-
>>>> Green
>>>> Party, noncoalitional event.
>>>>
>>>> 4) I will ask for 10 minutes to report on the formation of the
>>>> (renamed
>>>> from SRK-SC to) Santa Clara Truth in Recruiting Coalition. We
>>>> already have
>>>> an e-mail list going and we've already started discussion with
>>>> members of
>>>> Veterans for Peace, Chapter 101.  The coalition will be moving
>>>> forward
>>>> with an alliance with Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against War
>>>> and
>>>> and others similarly concerned about truthfulness in recruiting and
>>>> in not
>>>> recruiting children fraudulently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Green is Go!
>>>>
>>>> Drew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, February 3, 2009 10:24, Peter Myers wrote:
>>>>> Based on what I've heard so far, here is the agenda for tomorrow's
>>>>> meeting. Please look over it before the meeting. If you have
>>>>> anything
>>>>> you'd like to add or change, please e-mail me those thoughts as
>>>>> soon
>>>>> as possible. Please don't wait until tomorrow evening to suggest
>>>>> changes, because it will take longer to finalize the agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Green Party of Santa Clara County
>>>>> Meeting Agenda, February 4, 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> Beginning Business
>>>>> Choose facilitator, time-keeper, note-taker, vibes-watcher - 5 min
>>>>> Introductions - 5 min
>>>>> Finalize agenda - 5 min
>>>>> Recurring Business
>>>>> Treasurer’s report - 5 min
>>>>> Stop Recruiting Our Kids (David) - 10 min
>>>>> CiviCRM (Cameron) - 5 min
>>>>> 2010 Candidates, including Wes’s suggestion for Water Board
>>>>> (Peter) -
>>>>> 10 min
>>>>> Accountability (Brian) - 5 min
>>>>> Tabling kits (Caroline) - 5 min
>>>>>
>>>>> New Business
>>>>> Oscar Grant (Drew) - 5 min
>>>>> Oscar Grant (Carol) - 5 min
>>>>> Upcoming tabling events - 10 min
>>>>> Roy Nordblum - 10 min
>>>>> Whistleblower support (Brian) - 10 min
>>>>> Long-term project ideas (Jim) - 10 min
>>>>> Earth Day event (possibly in south of county?) - 10 min
>>>>> Palo Alto and Sunnyvale’s greening projects (Dana and Drew) - 10
>>>>> min_______________________________________________