Monday, August 07, 2006
I object!
As visitors may know, I objected to the Peace Action Committee proposing the creation of the Peace Action Committee. Instead of going through the proper process, GPAX simply began doing it's (very valuable) work, and ignored the niceties of being properly established.
Once this was pointed out, the committee sponsored it's own creation. In other words, GPAX proposed the creation of GPAX. Not a state. Not a caucus. Not an already standing committee. GPAX proposed it's own creation.
Then the Merchandise Committee, which I once chaired as a sub-committee of the Fundraising Committee, apparently decided that sub-committee status was inadequate, and they also proposed their own creation. Instead of having a standing committee, state, or caucus propose the creation of the Merchandise Committee, the Merchandise Committee, like GPAX before, simply proposed their own creation.
I have written Steve Kramer, the floor manager for the GPAX proposal, and Holly Hart, national party secretary, and asked them how GPAX could create itself, and Steve did not reply. Holly wrote back "Good question..."
Now I see that the proposal to establish the Merchandise Committee has been pulled from the voting system and GPAX is listed as approved. So, the committee which helps bring in money is not established and the one that has gotten us into fights and arguments of questionable value was approved, even though neither follows clearly laid out rules for the establishment of standing committees.
I have written again to Steve Kramer, and my letter to him follows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Steve,
I saw that an objection was made on the proposal by GPAX to create itself by a qualified member of the GNC. I see that the same member objected to the proposal to create the Merchandise Committee.
THe proposal to create GPAX was allowed to go to a vote and was apparently "approved". The proposal to create the Merchandise Committee, which has functioned in one form or another much longer than GPAX, was withdrawn.
I can't help but wonder if that's because there are no "power players" involved in the Merchandise Committee, and there are "power players" behind GPAX.
I object to this ignoring of process. There are several committees and states ready and willing to bring the question of creating GPAX to the GNC through **proper** process.
Can you please explain to me why the GPAX proposal was allowed to go forward after Marc Sanson's objection? Also, please tell me which committee I bring a procedural objection to?
If you can't do that, I want to start a blogger's committee, and want the blogger's committee to be able to propose it's own creation, just like GPAX. Please explain to me how we can propose our own creation as a standing committee of the USGP.
Gregg Jocoy
South Carolina
Once this was pointed out, the committee sponsored it's own creation. In other words, GPAX proposed the creation of GPAX. Not a state. Not a caucus. Not an already standing committee. GPAX proposed it's own creation.
Then the Merchandise Committee, which I once chaired as a sub-committee of the Fundraising Committee, apparently decided that sub-committee status was inadequate, and they also proposed their own creation. Instead of having a standing committee, state, or caucus propose the creation of the Merchandise Committee, the Merchandise Committee, like GPAX before, simply proposed their own creation.
I have written Steve Kramer, the floor manager for the GPAX proposal, and Holly Hart, national party secretary, and asked them how GPAX could create itself, and Steve did not reply. Holly wrote back "Good question..."
Now I see that the proposal to establish the Merchandise Committee has been pulled from the voting system and GPAX is listed as approved. So, the committee which helps bring in money is not established and the one that has gotten us into fights and arguments of questionable value was approved, even though neither follows clearly laid out rules for the establishment of standing committees.
I have written again to Steve Kramer, and my letter to him follows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Steve,
I saw that an objection was made on the proposal by GPAX to create itself by a qualified member of the GNC. I see that the same member objected to the proposal to create the Merchandise Committee.
THe proposal to create GPAX was allowed to go to a vote and was apparently "approved". The proposal to create the Merchandise Committee, which has functioned in one form or another much longer than GPAX, was withdrawn.
I can't help but wonder if that's because there are no "power players" involved in the Merchandise Committee, and there are "power players" behind GPAX.
I object to this ignoring of process. There are several committees and states ready and willing to bring the question of creating GPAX to the GNC through **proper** process.
Can you please explain to me why the GPAX proposal was allowed to go forward after Marc Sanson's objection? Also, please tell me which committee I bring a procedural objection to?
If you can't do that, I want to start a blogger's committee, and want the blogger's committee to be able to propose it's own creation, just like GPAX. Please explain to me how we can propose our own creation as a standing committee of the USGP.
Gregg Jocoy
South Carolina
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 12:06 PM 
