[StrategyPlan] Strategizing
Kendra Gonzales
earthworks_works at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 16 10:05:41 PST 2010
Bert! Thank you!
Sorry you'll get this 3 times...
I love where you are going with this...exactly what I've been envisioning and I
hope we can just move forward already!.
I also have some time starting fri and thru the weekend to look things over and
answer some of Bert's questions and brainstorm...hope others can do the same. I
hope we can get a preliminary email out to County Contacts very soon.
Shane - your suggestion to give the locals a deadline of Jan 31 is much too
short...though I really appreciate that we need to give some kind of
deadline. However, we should open the time frame to allow a fair and realistice
window of review, digestion, discussion, and documentation...not to mention the
follow-up that will have to be done to light a fire under peoples bums.
Plus....Jan 31 is the deadline for our working groups to get our workplans
completed...its just too much to add in this deadline at the same time.
This project will keep evolving over the next 3 months...the deadline should be
shortly before the Plenary for a first draft. Even then, a GPCA Strategic Action
Plan (I hope we'll adopt this title) is an always evolving thing. There really
is no absolute "end product" - this is a framework we are creating that needs to
be flexible enough to accept societal, fiscal, electoral, and structural
changes from within our party and from without. Our Platform is also always
evolving...same sort of thing, but a specifically Stragetic Plan, in my mind, is
the nuts & bolts of the HOW we implement what our Platform says and of course
grow larger and stronger.
Sorry....I do go on!. Lets get this started!
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: Bert <truekahuna at comcast.net>
To: Kendra Gonzales <earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
Cc: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org>; GPCA Cocos
<gpca-cocos at cagreens.org>
Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 7:50:23 AM
Subject: Re: [gpca-cocos] revisit of approach
To all,
Two points: I volunteered to handle the wiki work and I asked for direction.
I don't see that anyone else is handling this, so I will. If someone ELSE wants
to do the wiki thing, or if there is some wiki other than wiki.cagreens.org,
then say so. Otherwise I am moving forward.
OK, on to the directions. I am going to ask questions of the CO-CO's on this
list. The time right now it is 12/16/10 0645. If you have answers or opinions,
please get them to me within 36 hours.
Definition:
Just so we have names for stuff, I am going to call the entries in the Main Page
"Categories" and each page within an category (other than the Table of Contents
- a.k.a. first page beneath the category) is a "topic".
Example categories: "Green 2012", "Props 2010", and "IT" are all existing
"categories" in the GPCA wiki.
Example topics: within the Props 2010 article, are the "topics" Props2010/18,
Props2010/19, etc.
Please digest the above. Also, I think my names for these things suck. So if
someone has a better set of names for use in conversations just like this one,
then say so and we'll use them.
Step 1:
Am I creating a new category? Or am I extending the Green 2012 category?
Unless I hear otherwise: I will create a new category named "Moving Forward: A
Party Strategy" (or something hifalutin like that). Why? Because Green 2012 is a
two year plan and this "strategy thing" seems to have different horizons.
Step 2:
Throughout all of the email threads, there have been a number of questions
suggested. So the next decision is:
(a) Do we want one big topic for the whole thing (broken into sections),
OR
(b) Do we want to break the discussion up into separate topics (ex: one for each
of the questions posed by various co-co's)
Unless I hear otherwise: I will assume a separate topic for each question. Why?
Because I am anal-retentive that way. Also I see it as helping "people who
contribute" to stay focused (see "direction" below). And so that "people who
collate" have an easier time of it.
Step 3:
Who do we expect to contribute? County councilpersons? State party Co-co's? CC
members? Any CA registered Green? Any Green at all? Any person at all?
I will get in touch with IT and we'll see about logins and rights and such like.
Step 4:
I can/will read back through all of the email and create a "question list". I
can present the "question list" to THIS list for comment.
Note the "question list" is needed w/o regard to the decision in Step 2.
Really Note: the "question list" could be just the one question posed by Jim.
Though I agree with Kendra: if we ask one question w/o any additional direction,
I fear we will receive responses that are "all over the map".
Really Really Note: If someone else wants to do Step 4, then say so and I won't
spend MY time on it.
Step 5:
Assuming I am doing the work, I want to create the wiki category and topic
page(s) next weekend (12/18..12/19). That is when I have the time. So, if I
don't hear anything, or if what I do hear are equivocations and ambiguity, then
what work I do will be subject to my mind-reading skills (and all overly-harsh
passive-aggressive post-facto armchair quarterbacking will be met with Bert's
Standard Two Word Response).
Please get back to me ASAP; let's get this done together,
Bert
Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>
> 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
><mailto: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 <mailto: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
><mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org
><mailto: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 <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > To: GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org
><mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3,
> > Issue 4
> > Message-ID: <4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org
><mailto: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
><mailto: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
><mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org> wrote:
> > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to
> > >> strategyplan at cagreens.org <mailto: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
><mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>
> > >>
> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org <mailto: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
><mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org
><mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward
> > >> Message-ID: <601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com
><mailto: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
><mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011 <strategyplan at cagreens.org
><mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson <barry at barryhermanson.org
><mailto:barry at barryhermanson.org>>, Barry Hermanson
> > >> <barry at hermansons.com <mailto:barry at hermansons.com>>
> > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
> > >> Message-ID: <181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com
><mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > To: strategyplan at cagreens.org <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>
> > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
> > Message-ID: <4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org
><mailto: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 <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning <strategyplan at cagreens.org
><mailto: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>
><mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>>
> > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________ 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpca-cocos mailing list
> gpca-cocos at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20101216/a71a2c05/attachment.html>
More information about the strategyplan
mailing list