Rudy Perkin's comments
Thursday May 24, @11:55PM, by Rudy Perkins
Subject : Structure
Summary :
Rudy Perkin's comments
Text :
To whomever is taking comments on the bylaws proposal,
here are some of mine:

1) The proposed Executive Committee is far too small;
it will end up as the main energy center of the party
as a statewide organization and 7 people is not enough
to create that energy. The SC is not the sole problem
with the party currently, the lack of people in the
party with a statewide focus is also a part of the
problem, and reducing that number to 7 will not help.
How about adding 7-14 elected annually from the State
Committee to also be part of the Executive Committee,
if the Exec. Comm. concept is to be retained?

Alternatively, have the newly reorganized State
Committee meet monthly for a year and see if its new
geographic representation shakes things up a bit. If
a year or two show that a small Exec. Comm. is indeed
needed, we could add it next time round.

2)The State Committee should meet AT LEAST three times
per year, not be limited to three times per year.
Some of the state committee members should be elected
at-large at the annual Congress to guarantee that the
viewpoint of State Committee members is not strictly
local and that there will be State Committeee members
with a statewide organizational perspective and
contacts with locals throughout the state. Such a
two-phase election of State Committee members (one
group from the county conventions, one group later
from the statewide convention) would help with
continuity throughout the year. You'd never have an
all-new group to cohere.

3)I can live with the IRV voting, but frankly think it
is cumbersome, unnecessary, and possibly misleading in
this context. I fear IRV voting will mislead us to
the adoption of more proposals not wholeheartedly
supported by most party members. We need to find ways
to focus the party, adopting primarily decisions that
a majority fervently support. Decisions should mostly
be a supermajority's "#1" choice, or not be adopted at
all. That way maybe this party can begin to cohere
and move forward together, instead of merely
acquiescing to dozens of projects and decisions
supported by only a few people.

4) For the same reasons as in (3), I think it is time
to eliminate the by-law requirement for consensus
decision-making. In our party, consensus decisions
often get us decisions that people don't strongly
object to, instead of getting us decisions that most
people energetically, affirmatively support and will
work to make happen. Let's only adopt decisions that
really have the clear support of a super majority of
the group. There is also more accountability with a
vote, you can't just shrug later and say, 'I didn't
support that, I just didn't strongly object to it. My
silence didn't mean I supported that decision.'

In my experience, consenus only works well where it
has grown through trust, via years of working together
with the same people; it cannot be mandated through a
rule, in a group with constant personnel turn-over.

5) Having to organize county conventions may be
difficult; look how hard it is to organize our state
conventions. Counties like Worcester are huge and
people from different parts of such counties have no
necessary interrelationship politically, economically
or ecologically from one end to the other. Is there a
smaller area we could use (like state senate
districts? or groups of 10 towns, or the like?).

6)By-law proposal 8.4 "Publicly support party
nominees" should be changed to "Refrain from publicly
criticizing party nominees." Party discipline
shouldn't force me to speak on behalf of a candidate I
think is weak or misdirected in some aspects of his
politics. Commanding my silence in such cases may be
asking quite a lot, and that's the most that should be
asked.

7) At some point a formal process for email or
telephone votes should be considered, maybe not this
revision.

8) Minutes should only be required of the major
committees (e.g. State, Executive) and those with over
10 active members. Otherwise producing minutes is a
burden on the few committee members who are actually
doing the substantive work of the committee.

Hope this is helpful. -- Rudy Perkins
Reply

• Re: Rudy Perkin's comments
  Friday May 25, @07:20PM Friday May 25, @07:20PM, by Gil Obler
  Did my latest set of changes (from last night -
  they actually got on here before your post - but
  not before I had seen your email version) to the
  bylaws address at least some of your issues?
  
  At least one of the chages I actually noted as coming from you....
  Reply