[GPSCC-chat] Critique of an agenda item

Thu Apr 25 15:55:59 PDT 2013

Thank you for your clarifications, Drew. You are right that I was referring to GPSCC. You are also right about what I meant by the term "movement". My intention was not to ask the GPSCC to take on the movement, run the movement, or in any way be responsible for the movement. My intention was for us to BETTER UNDERSTAND the movement, its next steps, strategy, etc. so we could plan OUR activity within it. Our activity within the single payer movement should consist of participating in it to make it stronger, and on that basis to step by step urge it to break from the Democratic Party and embrace independent politics like that of the Greens.

If we have a good discussion with the three guests during the 7:00 to 7:30 time period, I believe we could then wrap up the agenda point on what we (GPSCC) should do in our single payer work in about 15 minutes. I will try to have a proposal ready.

Thank you for your work on this, Warner. I am not trying to be a complainer, I am just fighting to make the meetings better to the best of my understanding.

Sandy

-----Original Message-----
From: Drew <rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com>
To: sosfbay discussion group <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Sent: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 11:52 am
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Critique of an agenda item

My understanding from previous discussion was that these two local campaign issues were going to primarily be how we chose our speakers.  If we are talking about using significant amounts of General Business Meeting time, then I would have similar concerns as Warner.  I don't wish to spend my time working on either of those issues, though I know that they are extremely valuable and that many in our group want and I would say need to have that opportunity to do practical local activism.  I had thought a group that was specifically interested in running these campaigns were going to get together to talk about them not in the General Business Meeting.  However I have suggested a number of times that we provide time during our meetings to break out into such focus groups and THAT I would support.  

Thinking further on this discussion, I'm thinking that at the bottom Warner and Sandy have similar aims -- that is for our party to focus on local issues, be effective and spend our time effectively.  Warner I see that Sandy's initiative that we approved really provides a channeling of our efforts down to only two global issues that we will focus on locally.  Without this limitation we have a tendency to try to cover all the bases and end up being effective at none.  I understood that the 

As to theuse of the term "Green Party" I took it as obviously meaning the GPSCC.  We only have direct steering ability over ourselves and since we promote the 10 Key Value of "Decentralization" and local control, even if Sandy didn't specify that in his proposal, I believe we all understood it that way and I'm confident he would be willing to stipulate that and update the already-consented upon text accordingly.

Several times in the GPSCC I have heard objections when I or others use the term of art "The Movement".  Within The Movement (ie. the progressive movement in the U.S.) this term is widely accepted, used and understood, so I stand pat on the use of that term and assert it is meaningful.  The point is that the Green Party (as an international phenomenon) has always functioned as a bridge between the broader social justice movement (The Movement) and electoral politics.  There is and always will be a tension between whether we put our energies more towards electoral politics per se, or connecting back to our base (The Movement).  If we do not connect to our base, who are we representing?  And if we are only representing ourselves (Green Party members per se) and not The Movement, what good are we doing?  After all its not as if we have had wild success (yet) so if all we are doing is representing ourselves I say that has no inspirational value and we are therefore wasting our time.  If however we are about representing The Movement which, after all has next to zero real representation in the Democratic Party then we are fullfilling a valuable function despite our lack of outward success (so far).  

Green is GO!

Drew

~*~*~*~
Jill Stein for President -- A Green New Deal for America
Campaign website:  http://www.jillstein.org/
Climate Voter Power Pledge: http://www.jillstein.org/dc_climate_protests
     First TV Ad http://tinyurl.com/JillStein1stAd

   From: "perrysandy at aol.com" <perrysandy at aol.com>
 To: WB4D23 at aol.com; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:12 PM
 Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Critique of an agenda item

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

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20130425/1753f047/attachment.html>