[StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7

Thu Dec 16 15:40:01 PST 2010

Shane -

Try to put yourself inside the head of the reader. They've not heard anything 
about the party attempting to set long-term goals and strategies. They just 
get this email one day asking them to answer a list of 13 questions, with 
little context as to why. I don't believe this is a scenario that will elicit 
response or participation.

You're asking all this be done in just a couple of weeks. That is not enough 
time for a Local to respond, much less a regional meeting that first has to be 
organized.

There is only a vague reference to "Locals/County/Regional meetings." One of 
the main tenets of my plan is getting counties together, and there are several 
reasons why that is a healthy action.

These are my main objections.

Jim

On 12/15/2010 12:08 PM, shane que hee wrote:
> 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
>> ******************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> StrategyPlan mailing list
> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>