[StrategyPlan] revisit of approach
Kendra Gonzales
earthworks_works at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 15 16:05:21 PST 2010
Honestly, we are wasting too much time trying to agree on the right questions.
Though these are very relevent issues to raise and thank you Jim and Shane (and
others) for all of the input, its too much...eyes will glaze over....mine are!
Jim....hold on to your hat....lets go with your approach and ask he locals ONE
question:
"How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012, in 5 years, in 10 years?"
But, we MUST, MUST, MUST give direction on how the locals give us the answer(s)!
Can we PLEASE, pretty please create a Wiki for this and try it out. If it
doesn't work, fine we can work on getting those answers from locals and
documenting them somewhere ourselves.
We should be the ones to answer or give pros/cons on the issues we've been
bringing up and then combine that with what locals respond with from this one
very simple question.
How about it?
Kendra Gonzales
www.vccool.org
www.cagreens.org/ventura
"All the energy stored in the Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas
is matched by the energy from 20 days of sunshine" ---Union of Concerned
Scientists
________________________________
From: shane que hee <squehee at ucla.edu>
To: strategyplan at cagreens.org
Sent: Wed, December 15, 2010 1:26:23 PM
Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7
Everyone:
Here is the latest version of my suggested letter to the
Counties/Locals:....Shane Que Hee, Dec 15 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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..
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, CCWG Co-Co, DEC 14 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t 12:00 PM 12/15/2010, you 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
> ******************************************
_______________________________________________
StrategyPlan mailing list
StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20101215/5259ac89/attachment.html>
More information about the strategyplan
mailing list