[StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18
civillib
civillib at comcast.net
Mon Dec 20 23:21:20 PST 2010
Folks, finalizing the message is good now, but I wouldn't send this out
to the counties or anyone seriously until after the holidays. Like Jan.
2 or 3. Just thought I'd mention it. :)
Cres
On 12/20/2010 2:03 PM, Kendra Gonzales wrote:
>
> From: shane que hee<squehee at ucla.edu>
> To: strategyplan at cagreens.org
> Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 1:40:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [StrategyPlan] StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18
>
> Kendra:
>
> Where are the responses from the Counties to go?
>
> I address this at length in another email I just posted today...
>
> The 1st request should read "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/ 2012?"
> 2010 IS GONE, JUST ABOUT
>
> just a typo....of course should be 2011/2012
>
>
> You need to draft the request
>
> will do!
>
> .....Shane Que Hee, Dec 20 2010
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> At 11:10 AM 12/20/2010, you wrote:
>> Send StrategyPlan mailing list submissions to
>> strategyplan at cagreens.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> strategyplan-request at cagreens.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> strategyplan-owner at cagreens.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of StrategyPlan digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Strategy: answers to Shane (Kendra Gonzales)
>> 2. Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki (Kendra Gonzales)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:22:11 -0800 (PST)
>> From: Kendra Gonzales<earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011<strategyplan at cagreens.org>
>> Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategy: answers to Shane
>> Message-ID:<622856.10490.qm at web56907.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> My?responses in yellow below:
>>
>> (from Shane) Kendra:
>>
>> If we intend to have a draft strategy plan for the March Budget General
>> Assembly
>> in the plenary packet
>>
>> Not my intention to have an entire draft strategy plan done by March / next
>> Plenary. My intention is an introduction of the general idea and what we have
>> collected from the locals?so far, and what the state has addressed?so far, and
>> any combination there of.? VERY premliminary!
>>
>>
>> , 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 agree this is not a short process and so disagree that Jan 31 is reasonable.
>> Please trust me when I say that getting responses from local groups in 1
>> month's
>> time is just not a reality. This is ever more broad than County Polling and
>> that
>> took at least 3 months of needling, begging, inspiring, cojoling...over and
>> over
>> and over and that was a very specific request, whereas this will ignite
>> (hopefully!) a whole lot of discussion and debate within the locals. Look how
>> long its taking for just the few of us to agree on how to even approach this!.
>>
>>
>>
>> ?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.?
>>
>> Again, this is very preliminary....there is not enough time to?think about
>> applying budget lines yet. Our working groups ARE thinking about strategy and
>> budget lines right now for 2011/2012, and that is a part of the strategic
>> planning process, as it always has been, right? The difference in what we are
>> attempting here is?asking for direct input from the locals - which, again to
>> reiterate is going to take some time.?
>> ?
>> The Strategic Plan is not going to always be directly tied to funding. Some of
>> it is going to be about volunteerism, using free technology (like facebook),
>> internal communication, what sort of direction do we generally want to be
>> heading, types of campaigns, and so forth. If there is something innovative
>> that
>> costs money and?comes forward between budgets without any kind of budget line
>> from a working group that could be applied to it, then we should have a means
>> to
>> address that.?Our Bylaws don't address this in full at all and this is in fact
>> one of the things that should be on the Strategic Plan!.?Also, any innovations
>> that are going to cost money?should have some funding action?attached. Locals
>> can raise their own money too.
>> ?
>>
>> ?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.
>>
>> Portions of?a Strategic Plan can be applied right away, some of?it not until
>> later. Lets not think of this in terms of an end product...that doesn't
>> really?work the best. I'm learning as a non-profit Board?member that usually,
>> there?is?planning process like what we're attempting to do now.....an amazing
>> document will be created...an "end product"....everyone looks at
>> it.....debates.... maybe a final draft is adopted,? then?its filed away in a
>> drawer and never looked at again.?I'm hopeful we can look at this as?ever
>> evolving and constantly used.?We might not want to?attempt an official
> adoption
>> per se...getting to THAT point could be endless. Maybe?the way to look at this
>> is?as a tool,?a resource,?options to consider....a "roadmap"..
>>
>> What is your specific alternative time line??
>>
>> All throughout 2011 and on-going.?By the Spring Plenary, there could be a
> basic
>> outline of what we all mostly agree on as the direction we want to head, but
>> the
>> details on HOW to get there?should be dynamic and allow for flexibility. .
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> No...just a basic introduction and outline of what are the most important
>> actions that Greens are agreeing on at the local and state levels....so far.
>>
>>
>> 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 agree on immediacy to start this process; I would like for an email to go
> out
>> to County Contact no later than the end of?December.?Its really 3
>> questions.?But,?these are huge questions...
>> ?
>> How should the GPCA move forward in 2010 / 2011?
>> How should the GPCA move forward for the next 5 years?
>> How should the GPCA move forward for the next 10 years?
>>
>> ?
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/strategyplan/attachments/20101219/cab30d6e/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:10:11 -0800 (PST)
>> From: Kendra Gonzales<earthworks_works at yahoo.com>
>> To: Green Party Strategy Jan 2011<strategyplan at cagreens.org>,
>> coordinating committee<gpca-cc at cagreens.org>
>> Cc: Bert Heuer<truekahuna at comcast.net>
>> Subject: [StrategyPlan] Strategizing / Local in-put / using Wiki
>> Message-ID:<767873.87881.qm at web56906.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> I'm copying the CC on this email thread to address Jim's concern that the CC
> is
>> the body this is?authorized to conduct?Strategy Planning and that the CC needs
>> to be behind this.
>>
>>
>> We've been debating different approaches on the Strategy Plan listserve:
>> strategyplan at cagreens.org
>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?(to subscribe)
>>
>> I'm hopeful we can agree to ask 3 very simple questions of the locals:
>>
>> How does the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012?
>> How does the GPCA move forward in 5 years?
>> How does the GPCA move forward in 10 years?
>>
>> At first we were talking about?asking specific questions for the locals to
>> answer.?I now agree its better to ask very broad open ended questions like the
>> ones above, BUT, "we" can answer the specific questions amongst ourselves (on
>> Wiki) and combine those answers with what the locals come back with into one
>> place (Wiki) as the basic outline of what will become our Strategic Plan. ?
>>
>> If this blended approach is agreeable, then I propose we re-draft and email?a
>> very simple email to the County Contacts by the end of December, with these 3
>> questions and a request to?post their responses to a virtual space for
>> recordingd purposes.?(like Wiki)? with the response timeline to be throughout
>> Jan, February, March...in preparation for a very preliminary?Plan outline by
>> the
>> Plenary.
>>
>>
>> Bert Hauer has kindly volunteered to be our IT person for this data
>> collection.?I?have responded to his
>>
>> questions below in yellow.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The idea of using Wiki, or something like it, is for Locals to do their OWN
>> work
>> of typing in their responses. This won't happen across the board of course,
> but
>> its a start. We may have to do some of the documentation, like copying email
>> responses into Wiki for the locals who just wont go there.
>>
>>
>> I want to be supportive of Wiki..of course there is concern it will be shut
>> down...what is the likelihood of that?.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I missed this deadline!. So sorry...
>> I suggest that anyone else who is interested in working on this subscribe
>> specifically to:
>>
>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Use each of the questions to locals (above) as a?Topic?
>> ?
>> ie: "How should the GPCA move forward in 2011/2012" is a Topic.
>> ?
>> Use each of the "questions" posted by Shane and Jim, and anything else that is
>> brought forward by State level Greens as a?Topic as well?:
>>
>> ?
>> ie: "?What are realistic voter registration goals?
>>
>> But then....how do we break that out into timelines..."2011/2012", "In 5
>> Years"..."In 10 Years"...
>>
>>
>> ??? 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.
>>
>> Does Wiki just have the 2 layers of Category and then Topic?
>>
>> ?
>> If so, that is kind of limiting....can we create a whole new Wiki link just
> for
>> this?
>> Or, do we want ONE Wiki for all things Greens for the entire State? Can one
>> Wiki
>> accomodate everything we do?
>>
>> ??? 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)
>>
>> Again, depends on what Wiki allows for...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Lets visit this soon unless its already done? Its probley best to all look at
>> Wiki together at the same time if we can manage it. Maybe a conference call?
>>
>> ??? 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?
>>
>> YES, all.....open, so no one feels left out if they are not on a certain list
>> or
>> committee or council.
>>
>> We have to be VERY CLEAR that this request needs to go out further than just
>> the
>> person who gets the County Contact email.. Plus, we can post it to all of the
>> working groups...Cal-Forum, etc..
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Sounds Good!
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I'm not certain what this one question is any more!
>>
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> The direction can come from?the 14 or so Questions that "we've" come up with
>> that locals will see on Wiki. So, there is space for them to respond to our
>> specifics, and space for them to come up with entirely new or different issues
>> we might not be thinking about. I'm all about balancing the 2 approaches.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> As always, I may be a day late and a dollar short....its now Monday.....wah.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/20101
>> 212/096bcb59/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/20101
>> 212/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/attachments/20101220/25cce14f/attachment.html>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> StrategyPlan mailing list
>> StrategyPlan at cagreens.org
>> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/strategyplan
>>
>>
>> End of StrategyPlan Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18
>> *******************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the strategyplan
mailing list