[GPSCC-chat] Critique of an agenda item

[perrysandy at aol.com]

Hi Warner,

At our March 28 meeting we agreed to the following proposal, which directs us to organize our agendas around the movement for single payer health care and the movement against climate change. It did not direct us to form committees, although that might be a good idea that might arise out of the discussion. Since this proposal was adopted by the meeting, I believe we should do what it says.

Sandy



PROPOSAL ADOPTED: 
I propose that our local GPSCC adopt two issue campaigns inorder to concentrate our local work, increase our impact, and grow: climatechange and single payer heath care. 
This does not mean we would drop other issues or refrainfrom endorsing other causes. Above all, it does not mean any member has to stopdoing work he or she as an individual feels called to do. 
It means we would devote more collective thought,discussion, planning, and meeting time to two campaigns with the idea of makinga breakthrough in expanding our ranks and influence. We would build our monthlymeeting agenda around planning how to advance our work around these issues.This would help to keep us grounded in life and death questions facing ourpeople, and make us more accessible for new members who want to get involved inconcrete activity.



-----Original Message-----
From: WB4D23 <WB4D23 at aol.com>
To: perrysandy <perrysandy at aol.com>; sosfbay-discuss <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 9:17 pm
Subject: Critique of an agenda item



The following are just my opinions -- FWIW -- Warner
 
In a message dated 4/24/2013 1:53:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, perrysandy at aol.com writes:
  
a discussion of the next steps for the single payer health care movement,   upcoming activities, role of the Green Party in building the movement and how   we can work in the movement more effectively to build the Green Party.
  
TIME: 30 MINUTES.

To my thinking this is an excessively broadly framed discussion.  I don't believe that the GPSCC has agreed to take on or other wise be responsible for the entire "single payer health care movement".  To do so would seem to be hugely arrogant and cosmically beyond the relatively meager GPSCC participants' time/energies -- notwithstanding members who are already involved in the local county health care for all chapter.  
 
The term "Green Party" likewise is overly broad.  Is a member of the California Delegation to the GPUS or some other GPUS officer or committee member expected to attend our meeting to represent and discuss the activities of the national Green Party?  Is there someone from the GPCA Coordinating Committee or Green Issues Working Group expected to attend?  Isn't our self-acknowledged role as a progressive political party to be supportive rather than directive?
 
Again, use of the word "movement" without qualification seems overly broad and poorly framed.  How are we expecting ourselves to have responsibility for the whole "movement" -- whatever that means.
 
30 MINUTES...  30 MINUTES!!!!????  There is no concrete proposal; just an invitation for more meandering undirected conversation.  Isn't this something a committee can be created for people who want to have an extended conversation to develop a clear proposal for action(s) that GPSCC participants could practically accomplish and bring to a meeting as a clear and doable proposal?.  
 
-- Warner


 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20130425/7af1265f/attachment.html>