[MAPC-policy] yet another resolution update

[MAPC-policy] yet another resolution update

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-07

Just talked to X.  She says work with X, try to get
him to sponsor the stronger one, push for debate before Thanksgiving.  So
I'm working on that plan.  I have his day (work) number, and will try to set
up a meeting with him (and include any who can come).  We need to either
file by title only for tomorrow, or maybe we can do it on 11/13 (I will find
out).

X nixed the intro by communication idea.  She also said pick
one title (Shall we go with "Humanitarian Priorities in Afghanistan"?)  Then
we put the strong text forward, and be ready to sub in the weaker text later
if necessary.  She's has a wealth of practical tips.

I promise to slack off on the e-mail as soon as we get this going.


>From: X <X>
>Reply-To: policy@madpeace.org
>To: <policy@madpeace.org>
>CC: <X>
>Subject: Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update
>Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 10:32:15 -0600
>
>hi X. and all,
>
>Thanks for all your work on this!  To clarify - who exactly have you been
>talking to and do you have any sense for how representative their views are
>(at least for the progressive caucus)?  I realize that you'll know all that
>better after Thurs night.
>
>Ideally, I guess I'd like to see the "stronger" resolution introduced as a
>communication and have the "weaker" one be introduced by one or (hopefully)
>more progressive alders.  If that's not going to happen - and it sounds
>unlikely from what you've sent - I think we need to pressure the alders
>we've been talking to to introduce the "weaker" one before T'ksgiving.  I
>have to say I'm really disappointed that they're hesitant to do anything
>before T'ksgiving.  After all, the reality we're addressing is an impending
>massive humanitarian crisis.  Jeeeeeeezus.  THEY need a breather????
>
>I don't know anything about resolutions introduced as a communication w/out
>any alder sponsors, but it seems to me that doing that with our "weaker",
>more likely to pass resolution will flag it as unacceptable to the council.
>If I were a middle of the road alder and saw that none of the PD alders had
>signed on, I sure as heck wouldn't vote for it.  (But I think it'd be fine
>to introduce the "stronger" one like that, if we do still decide to
>introduce it.)
>
>So, I guess - with the current info we have - I feel ambivalent about the
>"stronger" resolution.  If it will help the "weaker" one pass to introduce
>it - by communication or by an alder - then I say we go for it.  But the
>people we need to talk to for this analysis are the PD alders who are
>balking at the "weaker" one.
>
>I strongly feel that we should have SOMETHING - preferably the "weaker" one
>unchanged from where we left it (or at least not substantially changed)
>voted on by Nov 20.  I feel the broader MAPC would agree with this -
>remember, at the last meeting the 1st vote was unanimous support for us
>bringing SOMETHING to the council (with a sense of urgency regarding the
>imminent starvation of millions), and the 2nd was in support of the
>2-pronged strategy.  If we have more info now that the 2-pronged strategy
>won't work, the directive from the 1st vote still stands.
>
>That's my rambling input for now.
>
>-X
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > The progressive caucus thought they would be ready to act on something
> > AFTER Thanksgiving.  Apparently changing "prayers" to "sympathies" was
>very
> > divisive last time, so they needed a breather.
> >
> > I still haven't gotten the in-depth feedback on this--Thursday night I
> > should.  X has been appointed to do this for me.
> >
> > X suggested we intro the whole text as a "communication" (no
> > alder's name attached).  That could be done BEFORE Thanksgiving.
> >
> > My first step though will be to call X, to make sure I am
> > acting on her excellent strategy advice.
> >
> > I'd like the Policy Committee's input on something though.  How far do
>we
> > pursue the two-pronged approach?  What I'm hearing from the progressive
> > alders is that they don't want something too "divisive" (presumably to
>their
> > own caucus?), which means they want to back the weakest thing we've
> > presented them with.  If we are going to introduce one final text "as a
> > communication" I definitely need the Policy Committee's OK on what that
> > final text should be.
> >
> > OK, I'll get back to you when I know more.
> >
> > Sorry about all the e-mail.
> >
> > --X
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > policy@madpeace.org
> > http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-policy
>
>____________________________________________
X
>East Timor Action Network field organizer   ETAN field office
>diane@etan.org                              Social Justice Center
>office XXX-XXX-XXXX                         1202 Williamson St
>cell XXX-XXX-XXXX                           Madison, WI 53703
>home XXX-XXX-XXXX                           fax XXX-XXX-XXXX
>
>Check out these internet sites!
>the East Timor Action Network/US http://www.etan.org
>Madison, WI - East Timor projects http://www.aideasttimor.org
>Madison's Social Justice Center http://www.socialjusticecenter.org
>
>"We struggled for more than 24 years for independence. We've learned the
>lesson that even small people have a voice."
>     -East Timorese leader Mari Alkatiri, during the August 30, 2001
>Constituent Assembly vote
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>policy@madpeace.org
>http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-policy


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


_______________________________________________
policy@madpeace.org
http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-policy

Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:46 AM

[MAPC-policy] yet another resolution update