[StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5
shane que hee
squehee at ucla.edu
Tue Dec 14 07:37:46 PST 2010
EVERYONE:
To incorporate Cres's excellent and logical idea:
Question 14: Do the Counties and Locals have other concerns about
our future not covered above in the previous 13 questions? Please
provide your assessments/perspectives.....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 07:12 AM 12/14/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote:
>Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to
> strategyplan at cagreens.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer)
> 2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (civillib)
> 3. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales)
> 4. Re: StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4 (shane que hee)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:42:43 -0800
>From: Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
>To: GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
>Message-ID: <4D06E7B3.4030102 at greens.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Kendra -
>
>Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's the
>same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to
>send a list
>of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements on each.
>I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues we should
>concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what issues the
>state party thinks we should work on and see if they agree.
>
>The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of topics
>we want discussed.
>
>The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA
>proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that counties
>do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like this. The
>only lengthy section of the message is the reference list of issues, but I
>assumed we would whittle that down.
>
>The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion
>to the CC.
>I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't want to
>spend a lot of time on it.
>
>I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed:
>
> - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment.
>
> - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues.
>
>
>My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no
>forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first discussed
>at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the CC to promote
>it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after the Spring GA.
>
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
>
> > I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not
> > at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really
> > simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or
> > questions for their consideration.
>
> > The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when
> > reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found
> > that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach because
> > its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the
> > same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's
> > sake!
>
> > Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items
> > so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we
> > document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created
> > one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it
> > for the larger picture stuff too?
> > http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.
>
> > Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together?
>
> > Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own
> > platform:
>
> > CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test.
> > CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or
> > www.cagreenideas.org .
>
> > I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was
> > going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best
> > approach.
>
> > Kendra Gonzales
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:48:40 -0800
>From: civillib <civillib at comcast.net>
>To: GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
>Message-ID: <4D070538.8050206 at comcast.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Just a thought...what if we try it BOTH WAYS. Give them some
>ideas and also ask for their ideas in addition to commenting
>on our queries. Can't hurt.
>
>We can use responses, if any, for talk over at the GA as Jim suggests.
>It'll be a start, and if nothing else, may keep our counties
>engaged...
>
>Cres
>
>On 12/13/2010 7:42 PM, Jim Stauffer wrote:
> > Kendra -
> >
> > Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's
> > the same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to
> > send a list of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con
> > statements on each. I'm proposing the counties tell us what they think
> > are the issues we should concentrate on in the long term. Not telling
> > the counties what issues the state party thinks we should work on and
> > see if they agree.
> >
> > The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds of
> > topics we want discussed.
> >
> > The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most GA
> > proposals, and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that
> > counties do respond (relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects
> > like this. The only lengthy section of the message is the reference list
> > of issues, but I assumed we would whittle that down.
> >
> > The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion to
> > the CC. I don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I
> > don't want to spend a lot of time on it.
> >
> > I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed:
> >
> > - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment.
> >
> > - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues.
> >
> >
> > My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no
> > forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first
> > discussed at a GA. This is now going to need some active support from
> > the CC to promote it through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until
> > after the Spring GA.
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >
> >> I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County
> >> Contacts....its not
> >> at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we
> >> really
> >> simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or
> >> questions for their consideration.
> >
> >> The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when
> >> reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found
> >> that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach
> >> because
> >> its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the
> >> same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's
> >> sake!
> >
> >> Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items
> >> so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we
> >> document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created
> >> one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we
> >> use it
> >> for the larger picture stuff too?
> >> http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.
> >
> >> Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together?
> >
> >> Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her
> >> own
> >> platform:
> >
> >> CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test.
> >> CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or
> >> www.cagreenideas.org .
> >
> >> I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was
> >> going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a
> >> best
> >> approach.
> >
> >> Kendra Gonzales
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > StrategyPlan mailing list
> > StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:08:31 -0800 (PST)
>From: Kendra Gonzales <earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
>To: GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
>Message-ID: <45644.39067.qm at web56901.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>my responses in yellow below
>?
>Kendra Gonzales
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
>To: GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 7:42:43 PM
>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
>
>
>Yes, I suggest we send a short list of issues asking for pros/cons, just as a
>starting point...just as?some kind of reference?or example of what a
>Strategic
>Plan might include - just as you suggest.
>
>
>The only use I see for an issues list is as an example of the kinds
>of topics we
>want discussed.
>
>Again, exactly my point. All we are?asking locals to do is ?consider
>the issues
>we raise. They may throw them right out as being irrelevent, though I doubt
>that. Of course, we?also ask?for their ideas.
>
>
>The message I'm proposing is not too long. It is shorter than most
>GA proposals,
>and it's not a complex topic. My experience has been that counties do respond
>(relatively speaking) to short, succinct projects like this. The only lengthy
>section of the message is the reference list of issues, but I
>assumed we would
>whittle that down.
>
>I agree with the whittling down
>
>The message asks each group to submit a summary of their discussion
>to the CC. I
>don't object to using a wiki, but I doubt its usefulness so I don't want to
>spend a lot of time on it.
>
>So, if the CC is the recipient of all the data, then they are responsible for
>putting it into some sort of recorded strutcture. What do you
>propose that would
>be?.? I disagree that Wiki is not useful. Also, locals can have an
>opportunity
>to post their responses and ideas themselves. If they don't, then
>fine...the CC
>can do it for them.
>
>
>I'd like to hear comments on the two approaches being proposed:
>
>? - Send a list of issues to the counties for their comment.
>
>? - Ask the counties to send us a list of issues.
>
>Why not do both?. Send 10 "suggested" issues, ask for pros / cons and ask
>for?THEIR ideas too.
>
>That's the main focus of what this project - the local viewpoint.
>The 10 (or so)
>items are just suggestions.
>
>
>My main concern is that this project is coming to the counties with no
>forewarning. There's better participation when the project is first
>discussed at
>a GA. This is now going to need some active support from the CC to promote it
>through the Regional Reps. Or, put this off until after the Spring GA.
>
>
>I don't see the need for a warning. Its a pretty basic request and simply
>opening up lines of communication.
>We would waste the entire first quarter of 2011 waiting for the GA
>and then we
>certainly don't have all of our locals represented there. One of
>the?benefits of
>this proposal happening now and throughout Jan, Feb, March is to
>offer plenty of
>opportunity for locals to receive, digest, discuss, and respond. And, time
>for?us to?do follow-up from those who don't respond to the email(s).?
>?
>I would also like to hear back from?others please.?The 10 suggested items and
>Wiki?seem to be the only thing we disagree on. Getting close!?
>
>
>
>
>On 12/12/2010 12:42 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
>
> > I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County Contacts....its not
> > at all disimilar to what we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really
> >? simplify the email, offer just a handful of suggested topic items or
> > questions for their consideration.
>
> > The email is a bit too lengthy and people might feel overwhelmed when
> > reading it....not to say all the content isn't important, but I've found
> > that email communication warrants a short and to the point approach because
> > its just too easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the
> > same problem myself and need to really edit things down for simplicity's
> > sake!
>
> > Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action items
> > so we can record and organize them together into the "Plan". How do we
> > document everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created
> > one but specific to her proposal for the first part of 2011. Can we use it
> > for the larger picture stuff too?
> > http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.
>
> > Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together?
>
> > Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own
> >? platform:
>
> > CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test.
> > CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or
> > www.cagreenideas.org .
>
> > I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said he was
> > going to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a best
> > approach.
>
> > Kendra Gonzales
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>StrategyPlan mailing list
>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>
>Kendra -
>
>Every time I raise a concern or suggest something different you say it's the
>same as what you've proposed. It is not. Your last proposal was to
>send a list
>of issues to the counties and ask them to write pro/con statements
>on each. I'm
>proposing the counties tell us what they think are the issues we should
>concentrate on in the long term. Not telling the counties what
>issues the state
>party thinks we should work on and see if they agree.
>
>
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101213/69713ce0/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:12:23 -0800
>From: shane que hee <squehee at ucla.edu>
>To: strategyplan at cagreens.org
>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4
>Message-ID: <201012141512.oBEFCIoo028321 at mail.ucla.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> >
> >Kendra/Jim:
> >
> >I agree that our request needs to be as short and simple as possible.
> >
> >I also think they should send their replies to this strategy E mail
> >listserve by the end of January.
> >
> >We might then do a wiki.
> >
> >
> >All I think we need to say to the Counties/Locals by County Contacts is:
> >
> >"The Green Party of California needs the help of our County Councils
> >and Locals in charting our way forward following the November elections.
> >
> >.In keeping with our key value of decentralization we would like
> >your written response by January 31 2011 to the following questions
> >that we hope you can formulate at Locals/County/Regional meetings as
> >appropriate:
> >
> >1. Given the current recession and its detrimental effect on
> >fundraising, should GPCA and its Locals and Counties adopt a
> >"survival plan" until recovery is tangible (e.g. unemployment below
> >8%)? How would this affect all goals and strategies?
> >
> >2. What are realistic voter registration goals? What attracts
> >people to a small party? What caused the California Green
> >registration decline of the past six years, can it be reversed? Was
> >the 2010 election new registrations of about 1,000 too unambitious?
> >
> >3. Given that we have fewer than 1% of registered voters, what are
> >realistic electoral strategies for a party of our size? Do we
> >continue attempts in partisan races or focus on non-partisan races?
> >If there is to be focus on State-wide office, then should GPCA focus
> >on MOST "winnable seats"? What are the latter? What funding and
> >effort split is desirable?
> >
> >4. How do we recruit/develop electable candidates for non-partisan offices?
> >
> >5. How do we recruit electable candidates for state-wide offices?
> >
> >6. Does Prop 14 provide any potential to us? Should GPCA continue
> >to be part of the lawsuit against Prop 14? Do we raise funds for
> the lawsuit?
> >
> >7. Should we make a real, concerted effort to promote
> >ranked-choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting and proportional
> >representation)?
> >
> >8. Should GPCA consider closer ties with the Progressive Caucus of
> >the California Democratic Party? How would this work at the level
> >of the Locals and Counties?
> >
> >9. The GPCA's decentralized structure and consensus-seeking
> >decision process is an experiment that we've carried on for 20
> >years. Is it working well enough? Is there a good balance of
> >responsibilities between the state party and the
> >county parties? Should we examine giving more authority over
> >internal business to the state party? Is continuing to rely solely
> >on volunteer labor a viable plan for growth?
> >
> >10. What kind of representation do Counties/regions/locals want in
> >GPCA? How should the current system be changed for the better?
> >
> >11. What factors have created viable, stable Locals and Counties?
> >What factors have caused Locals and Counties to deteriorate?
> >
> >12. What resources do Locals and Counties need from the state
> >party? What resources does the state party need from Locals and
> >Counties? What specific services/mutual agreements do
> >Counties/regions/locals want from GPCA? How should the current
> >system be changed?
> >
> >13. Should in-person General Assemblies be scrapped? If yes, what
> >should replace them? Are the alternatives cost-effective?
> >
> >Please send the responses to strategyplan at cagreens.org.
> >
> >We hope to present the submitted responses and our resulting
> >proposed GPCA strategic plan for comment in the March Budget General
> >Assembly Plenary packet for discussion "....Kendra Gonzalez, GCWG
> >Co-Co, DEC 14 2010"
> >
> >....Shane Que Hee, Dec 14 2010
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >At 12:00 PM 12/13/2010, strategyplan-request at cagreens.org wrote:
> >>Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to
> >> strategyplan at cagreens.org
> >>
> >>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> >>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org
> >>
> >>You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org
> >>
> >>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >>than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..."
> >>
> >>
> >>Today's Topics:
> >>
> >> 1. web tool from Jenni Woodward (Kendra Gonzales)
> >> 2. our approach to Strategizing (Kendra Gonzales)
> >>
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Message: 1
> >>Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:16:43 -0800 (PST)
> >>From: Kendra Gonzales <earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
> >>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
> >>Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward
> >>Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >>For consideration as a tool to use in our Strategy process:
> >>
> >>(by the way, I'm curious as to who is subscribed to this list?)
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Gloria,
> >>
> >>Thank you for the endorsement of the survey.
> >>
> >>FYI I copied Obama's OFA survey, made a few edits to it so it is
> >>GPCA specific,
> >>and put it on my CAGreens-Test site.? The revised survey for the
> >>GPCA has been
> >>available there since about 24 hours after I emailed the GPCA folks who's
> >>addresses I have.
> >>
> >>I haven't checked if anyone has taken the survey.? I'll do that in
> >>the next 72
> >>hours, and perhaps post some interim results on the web site.? And
> >>I'll keep the
> >>survey "open" for anyone to take through the holidays.
> >>
> >>Please "pass it on" that the survey is "up and running" on
> CAGreens-Test also
> >>very soon to be known as CAGreenIDEAS.org.
> >>
> >>I just yesterday registered a new domain name, CAGreenIDEAS.org.?
> >>It will "point
> >>to" the very same CAGreens-Test site which was not registered.? If
> >>all goes well
> >>the domain registration will allow people to web search for
> things like this
> >>survey as well as find other content on the site they o/w don't
> >>know is there.
> >>
> >>BTW: I think the "TRANSLATED" CAGreen, SF Greens, US Greens feature
> >>I discovered
> >>just a few days before the Nov. 2 election is WAY COOL! Potentially
> >>one can look
> >>at ANY Green web site in any of 52 languages, even though the web site
> >>builder/maintainers never added "translation of web pages" to their
> >>site.? Check
> >>it out in the "Web Links" section c/o the left hand side Main Menu.
> >>
> >>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test.
> >>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or
> >>www.cagreenideas.org .
> >>
> >>Jennifer Gopinathadasi Woodward
> >>San Francisco
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------- next part --------------
> >>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>URL:
> >><http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/2010
> 1212/096bcb59/attachment-0001.html>
> >>
> >>------------------------------
> >>
> >>Message: 2
> >>Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:42:18 -0800 (PST)
> >>From: Kendra Gonzales <earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
> >>To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
> >>Cc: Barry Hermanson <barry at barryhermanson.org>, Barry Hermanson
> >> <barry at hermansons.com>
> >>Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
> >>Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >>Hello all,
> >>
> >>I've briefly scanned over Jim's draft to send to County
> >>Contacts....its not at
> >>all disimilar to what?we've been proposing. However, I suggest we really
> >>simplify the email,?offer just a handful of suggested topic items
> >>or questions
> >>for their consideration.
> >>
> >>The email is a bit too lengthy and people might?feel overwhelmed
> when reading
> >>it....not to say?all the content isn't important, but I've found that email
> >>communication warrants a short and to the point approach because
> its just too
> >>easy to hit "delete". As evidenced by this email, I have the same
> >>problem myself
> >>and need to really edit things down for simplicity's sake!
> >>
> >>Another missing component is a place to send local ideas and action
> >>items so we
> >>can record and organize them together into the "Plan".??How do we document
> >>everything? I have suggested Wiki....Marnie Glickman has created one
> >>but?specific to her proposal for?the first part of 2011. Can we
> >>use?it for the
> >>larger picture stuff too??http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Green_2012.?
> >>
> >>
> >>Do we create our own Wiki, or use something else all together?
> >>Jenni Woodward has also created a Greens Specific virtual space on her own
> >>platform:
> >>
> >>
> >>CAGreens-Test is reached at: www.weblearningtools.org/CAGreens-Test.
> >>CAGreenIDEAS.org will be reachable at either cagreenideas.org or
> >>www.cagreenideas.org .
> >>
> >>I'll create a draft email to the counties as well, and Barry said
> >>he was going
> >>to do one. Maybe between Jim, Barry, and myself we can create a
> >>best approach.
> >>
> >>
> >>Kendra Gonzales
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>StrategyPlan mailing list
>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>
>
>End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5
>******************************************
More information about the strategyplan
mailing list