Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-10-31

Thanks for taking the lead on this, X (and for braving the
presentation last night).

My feeling from the meeting was that the "two pronged" approach people want
us to follow is:
    * proceeding with our ("weaker" - ick, I hate that characterization)
initial resolution, slightly amended - deleting the "U.S. support democratic
processes" clause AND adding a clause DIRECTLY calling for the bombing to
stop;
    * drawing up and also trying to introduce to the Council a resolution
more directly reflecting the 3 MAPC points of unity - in other words,
calling directly and emphatically for the bombing to stop but not limiting
the reason given for it to humanitarian purposes, etc.

X, what did you understand from the meeting?  The feedback was a little
confusing.  Basically, people felt that (as a peace coalition) we needed to
at least attempt to get a strong anti-bombing resolution passed, and that
even if it didn't pass it would help generate debate on the issue and be
something for us to organize people around.  Then we'd have the other, more
politically palatable humanitarian-focused resolution which would hopefully
pass (and send a message nationwide).

X, what do you think?  It doesn't seem like we'll be able to throw
something together by this Thursday, especially since we need to make sure
that we adequately represent the feelings of the wider MAPC group AND we
need to talk to a number of Alders about the 2 resolutions (and give them
time to ponder them/ confer with others).

take care,
X

PS- the next few council meetings are (all Tues nights):
November 6, 2001 6:30 p.m. Room 201, City-County Bldg.
November 13, 2001 BUDGET 6:30 p.m. Room 201, City-County Bldg.
November 20, 2001 6:30 p.m. Room 201, City-County Bldg.

> Dear Committee,
> Last night we got the mandate from MAPC to float both a stronger "stop
> the bombing" resolution, and a weaker one (the one posted to the
discussion
> list and handed out last night).
> I was somewhat dismayed to realize today that the deadline for filing
> resolutions for the next meeting is today at noon, or tomorrow at noon for
> addendum.
> So I took the liberty of contacting by e-mail all the alders X
> suggested we approach (5 or 6).  I presented them with both copies.
> The stronger language I inserted was to replace the next-to-last clause
> with "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the United States should immediately
stop
> military action against Afghanistan because that is the main obstacle to
> addressing the humanitarian catastrophe there; and."  Otherwise, it's the
> same as the one posted to the discussion list.
> X got back to me right away saying he needs to take the
> weekend at least to discuss with his colleagues.  I thanked him.
> I'm sorry for acting unilaterally.  The deadline got me panicked.  Now
> we know we have definitely missed the upcoming 11/6 Common Council
meeting.
> Though on the other hand, we've got the ball rolling.
> I'll forward X's response in case you're interested.
> I believe there's still room for wordsmithing, so keep me informed on
> your wishes.
>
> X

Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:16 PM

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update