Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-10-31

You could have an alder (or more) intoduce the resolution "BY TITLE ONLY"
which
would be due at the City clerk's desk by 9am tomorrow.  This means that just
the
title of the resolution could be given to the Clerk by 9am tomorrow and then
the
text itself could be worked on before the meeting for Nov. 13 (I doubt since
that
is budget night; I think we'd want more time for community members speak
than
they would allow) or Nov.20.  There's no possibility at this point to have
it
introduced and voted on for the Nov. 6 meeting because that was due at noon
today.

You could also have it intoduced from the floor of the Council at the end of
their Nov. 6 meeting, including text, but again, the voting would be
happening
Nov. 20.

At any rate, this way there should be adequate time for both MAPC and the
alders
involved to have it figured out.  It would need to be approved by MAPC at
the
very latest by Tuesday, Nov. 13 since the Clerk would need the complete
resolution by noon of the following day.

We should speak with X, X and X before any
others
regarding the "stronger" version.  X and/or X are our best bets and
then
X, only because a new guy in politics.

I'd be happy to conttinue to be of assistance to you regarding this -- just
keep
me posted.  We can also talk about strategy together.

peace,  X

X wrote:

> 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 4:06 PM

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update