[StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7

[shane que hee]

Jim:

What do you disagree with?....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



At 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, 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: [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4
>       (Jim Stauffer)
>    2. Re: our approach to Strategizing (Jim Stauffer)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:24:10 -0800
>From: Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
>To: GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3,
>         Issue 4
>Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>I cannot state how strongly I disagree with this.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>On 12/14/2010 7:07 AM, shane que hee wrote:
> > 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/20101212/096bcb59/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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------- next part --------------
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> URL:
> >> 
> <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101212/f9cf4a9f/attachment-0001.html>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> StrategyPlan mailing list
> >> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> >>
> >>
> >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4
> >> ******************************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gpca-cocos mailing list
> > gpca-cocos at cagreens.org
> > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800
>From: Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
>To: strategyplan at cagreens.org
>Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
>Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>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
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>StrategyPlan mailing list
>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>
>
>End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7
>******************************************