[StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing

Tue Dec 14 20:10:08 PST 2010

We really don't seem to be communicating. If you put out a list of 10 issues
(each one being fairly broad) and ask for pro/con statements on each, you've
just used up at least half of the 4 hours being proposed for this exercise.
That is not a "stating point" or just a reference, it's a major task by
itself. How do you get a "local view point" if all you're asking is for them
to rate a set of pre-determined ideas sent to them?

Again, I'm trying to stress the need for Locals to tell us what ideas they
have. If they respond with some of the same ideas as in the referenced list of
issues, then they're telling us they agree.

If we really think it's important to get their feedback on the list of issues,
let's just ask them to rate each on a scale of importance, rather than asking
for pro/con narratives that will require a lot of discussion and documenting.

You repeat, "All we are asking locals to do is consider the issues we raise."
I keep saying we should ask the Locals what issues they are thinking about.

As to the CC collecting responses, it is their designated responsibility to
produce a strategy plan for the party. And they have to present it at a GA. We
haven't discussed this part, but some team will need to organize and analyze
the responses. Wiki does not automatically organize responses for you. Whether 
by email or wiki, someone(s) will have to collect and work the data. We may 
get 'official' response from the meeting and some individual responses. We 
need to distinguish between the two. I would like to see the official 
responses go to the CC, or to this list if the CC prefers.

As to warning the Locals that this is coming, I can only restate the number of
years I've been doing this, and that there is a notable difference in the
response if you've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Locals
before sending them the project. But there are definitely drawbacks to
postponing this to the Summer.

Jim

On 12/13/2010 9:08 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
> 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
>
> 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.

> 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 <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan mailing list
> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan