[NV Greens] Jenefer writing regarding Platform committee

[Barb Ewing]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jenefer Ellingston 
To: charleslaws at att.net 
Cc: Barb Ewing 
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Results of today's (10/15) NV Green party general meeting


Charles ... and Barb Ewing,
I guess Barb has newly joined the Platcom. (or is about to) and Charles is bringing her up to speed. Did a note go out to the Platcom. about a new member? I ask 
because I didn't receive one ... and wondered if our elected officers were doing their job. 

Anyway, a couple of comments... mostly repeating what Charles has written, but more succinct. 
The function and work of the Platcom. is obvious in its name. We are the compilers/editors/archivists of the Green Platform - updated every 4 years, supposedly synchronized with our presidential convention, which votes to accept or reject the new version. 
 
Now... an apt quotation from Charles:  
  "The final proposal from the committee is presented to the nominating convention for adoption.. This stinks because .. like the patriot act.. nobody has read it, few give a hoot anyway, and so with a few dissents, ...., it passes. Most state party leaders haven't had time -or inclination?- to bother. As Nader and others have said.. the campaigns are nearly over when the platform on which candidates are supposedly running is published. Actually the 2004 platform didn't get on the website until after the elections..I think. [All the folks with the "responsibilities were working on the campaigns.].     ..And so, some members are currently preparing brochure formats.. summaries of the 2004 platform.. now!.. to be put on the website with only a few printed.. no money.. "

Now, a reminder: The updated Platform does not start from scratch. In fact, the last one mostly embellished with window-dressing what was already there. Also, its range and depth were magnified,  in some cases.  

Arguments that arise in the process of updating the Platform are not about issues on which we differ. It's safe to declare that 90% of Greens do not reject or seriously object to our platform. (90% of Greens do not read it). The complaints are largely about omissions or wording (style). 

The standard Green posture against "hierarchy" is a red herring (and silly). Practical reality contradicts it right away. Inevitably only a small group will take on the task of writing a platform ... and the rest will complain. Human nature is such that few of us are genetically endowed to speculative thinking and the shaping of policies that derive from principles. When you get down to practice... divergencies show up. Full participation is assured in two ways:  First: Any Green through his/her state
can submit a proposal - or many proposals. After proposals are absorbed (lined up with old text), they are all sent back to the states for re-vision, deletion, approval .
If done properly, members have no right to complain that they didn't see the updated version. They just didn't bother. By the time the platform reaches the convention, 
it should be have been "cleaned and cleared"... and it shouldn't be a problem to vote for it... even though the vote looks like its pro forma - lip service- or done under 
pressure. 

Presumably, members join the Platcom. because of their personal bent in that direction. Nevertheless of the 20-some members, few actually pull their weight. Isn't
that standard for most groups?  Being a Platcom. member does open opportunities for fame, power, wealth or sex. Unless you like that sort of work, it's no fun.

Now, personal remark. The 2004 Platform was a 78-page, unwieldy elephant. I rejected it totally and begged the SC not to waste money printing X copies. Instead,
I asked that they print a summary - something you can distribute, use to recruit,  and hand out at political meetings. I wrote a summary which was ready in March-April
of 2005 but the Co-chair refused to delete items I told her to delete, and she refused to send it out until she had Budd's summary to send with it... months later. 
Budd's was accepted.... and printed, I suppose. I have never seen a copy and wouldn't use it if I did. (I guess one could claim that I am not a team player... but 
there is more to it than that.)  I find Holly evasive and she shifts language to mean something not intended by the writer. Also, she puts aside what doesn't fit her agenda   
>From my point of view, she doesn't understand that her function is to supervise not control the committee. 
Thus... our recent struggle with writing our rules of procedure. I think that's over... and no longer any need to dive into endless squabbles like the NC. 

Alert: rules of procedure have nothing to do with updating the text of the Platform. 

Charles - I have asked Holly twice to print out proposals #1, 3,  5  and to explain that #2 and 4 are moot, overridden, withdrawn or whatever. Then all members
 will know the rules and no need to argue. My memory (weak) says you entered proposal #6 - is that so? did you withdraw or postpone it? Do we need it - 
meaning does it cover matter already covered?  you have a tendency to write to fine ... like how many times to breathe in 60 seconds. 
grateful for a reply, 
Jenefer


  









At 03:02 AM 10/16/2005, you wrote:

  Thank you Barb, and pass thanks to the other possible volunteers. Will there be minutes posted?
  [Hi-Jenefer! Ain't quiet nice?]

  I'll forward some of the reports from the past.  The platform is at www.gp.org/platform.shtml
  And, I'll add here an unedited unorganized ramble of what the PlatCom's about..
  The duties and responsibilities.. are what you choose them to be.. IMO. there are some very -overactive?- participants, and some on the list I've never read or met. [There about 35 on the list, I'd recognize maybe a dozen addresses, met many of them at meetings, some 18 years ago!  I'm Cc:ing this to Jenefer Ellingston, a member in DC who can correct and add to my comments if she wishes. I think she'd enjoy some of the jokes you've sent me. and I hope you will enjoy meeting..even if by e-mail. We were at several meetings, simultaneously, but have never actually met face to face!]
  n.b.[I've just gone to the archives to see if there might be some interesting things I've offered to forward.. discovered my posts are filed under the list address, and too hard to sort out. you're saved! -a little ;-)  ]


  The committee, GPUS "PlatCom", can have up to three members from each state, and alternates and observers who read what's on-line and presumably can communicate through the designated members.
  I suggest that everyone willing should take a look, participate as motivated, and see if the functions fit the interests..   it would be very supportive of whoever does it to have a "discussion group" to share thoughts with/among.  

  I would like to have you get signed on as a member, and the others as observers, -at least-.
  I can continue for a while and it would be fun to have company to gripe with.  The PlatCom does have face to face meetings at the annual GPUS meetings and conventions.. Few members choose to take part in those meetings, as those who might be attending are usually involved with whatever else is going on.  I doubt my trips to the States will coincide with the GPUS meetings.. who knows.. but I plan to resign as soon as there's someone from NV to enjoy this stuff, or push it on.

  The PlatCom members are either the GPUS delegates or members appointed by the state party. "Permitted" was one term applied to those not delegates. A letter from the state party to the PlatCom is all that's necessary.

  The way things have been set up is that all content is supposedly passed to the committee from the states. Some people are very adament that this is a confederation of state parties, and not a self-empowered agency. The intense work of the last two platforms, and probably the next one, takes place during the winters before the conventions. Madness begins with development of contentious issues and final wording the following spring and trying to get the states to accept -or even acknowledge- the words.. The process attempts to be very grassroots with as much participation distributed as widly as volunteers can be found.. Very few people have been in the editing, mostly I think because of the energy spent on getting things in and read. 

  It is really within the states' committees that the stuff they're interested in gets put into words that candidates can change and become the images of the Green Party. It's the collection of all these local orientations that become the platform, organized and formatted by the committee. The committee work is to review and revise [without changing concepts], and present the platform. 

  There will probably be few actual decisions. The committee has just accepted a process format for discussions and decisions, that will become part of what the GPUS calls Rules, Policies & Proceedures [RP&Ps], and then they have to be accepted by the National Committee [NC] after presentation to them by the steering committee [SC] person, [most of the steering committee members are GPUS Co-chairs] -Gwen Wages,  who "holds the portfolio" containing the PlatCom.. [the organization of Greens -once was quite anti-heirarchical.. and has adopted many layers of functions, all empowered and constrained by the members, ultimately those of the state parties].. The SC members are state or caucus delegates to the NC and elected by the NC. The committees all function to meet NC needs.  www.gp.org will get to the bylaws etc. which are really not that bad..

  Of course, most of the folks who volunteer for this have some issues they are promoting or have a slant they want to see expressed.. OK. They do what they need to, and it gets entered as if from their states. 

  The final proposal from the committee is presented to the nominating convention for adoption.. This stinks because .. like the patriot act.. nobody has read it, few give a hoot anyway, and so with a few dissentions, usually by individuals who feel their slant on a particular issue hasn't been honored, it gets passed. Most state party leaders haven't had time -or inclination?- to bother. As Nader and others have said.. the campaigns are nearly over when the platform on which candidates are supposedly running is published. Actually the 2004 platform didn't get on the website until after the elections..I think. [All the folks with the "responsibilities were working on the campaigns.].     ..And so, some members are currently preparing brochure formats.. summaries of the 2004 platform.. now!.. to be put on the website with only a few printed.. no money..   

  I have discussed the possibility of moving the platform adoption to the mid term convention, but have yet to make the proposal.. Partly as the past "leaders" -with at most one cycle's experience- don't seem to have the energy to make it easier and stick to what's been done before like flies in molasses.. The committee has two co-chairs, Holly Hart, also serving as SC Secretary, has been a co-chair through the 2004 cycle, and Howard Switzer, just elected, who's also a NC delegate.. elections are alternating , and a secretary, now Budd Dickinson.  [I'm not too happy with the "Officers" they seem to either be in the molasses or the ointment types].

  We've just been through a round.. torturous.. of rule revision. I don't have a "final" edition, and was planning to offer more proposals in the future ..hopefully to make the discussions and results more rewarding and effective, and make a more reasonable schedule.   The list has been quiet for almost a week! 

  I hope you enjoy reading..  I suggest a red highlighter to identify all stumbling blocks and phrases.. It's the only way this ""thing" will evolve if you or someone does it!..

  Thanks.
  Let me know if you run out of things to read..  :-)

  Really.. Thank you.
  Charles


   -------------- Original message ----------------------
  From: "Barb Ewing" <nieceofjr at cox.net>
  > Charles, today at the fall general NV Green Party meeting, I volunteered to 
  > be the NV Green party representative for the GPUS platform committee. Then 2 
  > other people decided they might be interested in it if only they knew what 
  > the responsibilities for this position were. I told them it would involve 
  > E-mail not "in person" communication with others - but they did not really 
  > believe me. Could you please email me a description of the duties & 
  > responsibilities of a NV Green Party representative on the GP platform 
  > committee so that I could forward it to everyone else. I'm pretty certain I 
  > will withdraw my decision to volunteer - but they MUST HAVE an explanation 
  > of what duties and responsibilities this position requires.
  > Barb Ewing
  > 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/nvgreen/attachments/20051016/100df38c/attachment.html