[StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] Strategizing
shane que hee
squehee at ucla.edu
Thu Dec 16 16:06:17 PST 2010
Kendra:
If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget
General Assembly in the plenary packet, a Jan 31 deadline is
reasonable since all of us (or in this case probably mostly
you) need to consider and digest the replies to formulate the draft
strategic plan.---not a short process. I also deliberately chose the
budget deadline because the co-cos should see beforehand any
suggested innovations that are in their areas and propose a budget
for them. I suppose the strategic plan could be slated to begin the
next budget year---that is, 2012--but that is too long to wait in my opinion.
What is your specific alternative time line? It sounds as if you
intend to present the March General Assembly with a draft plan cold
turkey---something that has much less chance of succeeding.
We need to get people in the locals and Counties thinking immediately
so they can reply in a substantive manner. A month (January) should
be long enough to be able to answer one question.
I have also attached the latest version of the 14 questions we had
for general use....Shane Que Hee, Dec 16 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:05 AM 12/16/2010, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>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 <<mailto:squehee at ucla.edu>squehee at ucla.edu>
> > *To:* <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>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
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>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
> > >
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>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>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > >
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>strategyplan-request at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >
> <mailto:strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org>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 <<mailto:jims at greens.org>jims at greens.org
> <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > > To: GPCA Strategy Planning
> <<mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] [gpca-cocos] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3,
> > > Issue 4
> > > Message-ID:
> <<mailto:4D0834DA.1040106 at greens.org>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
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>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,
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>strategyplan-request at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org> wrote:
> > > >> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to
> > > >> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>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>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > >>
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>strategyplan-request at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan-request at cagreens.org>
> > > >>
> > > >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > >>
> <mailto:strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org>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
> <<mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>earthworks_works at yahoo.com
> <mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>>
> > > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011
> <<mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] web tool from Jenni Woodward
> > > >> Message-ID:
> <<mailto:601249.30492.qm at web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com>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>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
> <<mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>earthworks_works at yahoo.com
> <mailto:earthworks_works at yahoo.com>>
> > > >> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011
> <<mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>>
> > > >> Cc: Barry Hermanson
> <<mailto:barry at barryhermanson.org>barry at barryhermanson.org
> <mailto:barry at barryhermanson.org>>, Barry Hermanson
> > > >> <<mailto:barry at hermansons.com>barry at hermansons.com
> <mailto:barry at hermansons.com>>
> > > >> Subject: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
> > > >> Message-ID:
> <<mailto:181530.58966.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com>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>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>http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101212/f9cf4a9f/attachment-0001.html>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> StrategyPlan mailing list
> > > >> <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> > > >>
> <http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4
> > > >> ******************************************
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > gpca-cocos mailing list
> > > > <mailto:gpca-cocos at cagreens.org>gpca-cocos at cagreens.org
> <mailto:gpca-cocos at cagreens.org>
> > > >
> <http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:08 -0800
> > > From: Jim Stauffer <<mailto:jims at greens.org>jims at greens.org
> <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > > To:
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>strategyplan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] our approach to Strategizing
> > > Message-ID:
> <<mailto:4D083FA0.8080707 at greens.org>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 <<mailto:jims at greens.org>jims at greens.org
> <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > > > *To:* GPCA Strategy Planning
> <<mailto:strategyplan at cagreens.org>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>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
> > > > <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>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>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________ StrategyPlan
> mailing list
> > > > <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> > > >
> <http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > StrategyPlan mailing list
> > > <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> > >
> <http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> > >
> > >
> > > End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7
> > > ******************************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > StrategyPlan mailing list
> > <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
> <mailto:StrategyPlan at cagreens.org>
> >
> <http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gpca-cocos mailing list
> > <mailto:gpca-cocos at cagreens.org>gpca-cocos at cagreens.org
> > http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20101216/6a850666/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GPCA CC LETTER 121510.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30720 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20101216/6a850666/attachment.doc>
More information about the strategyplan
mailing list