Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-07

When I made the motion for the "two pronged" strategy, I phrased it as a
"recommendation" from the membership to the Policy Working Group, in
anticipation of this possibility.  Ultimately, the alders, not MAPC or the
Policy Committee, are in control of this process.

If your group feels that it has made its best effort to get a stronger
version introduced, and the alders won't go for it, then I have no problem
with proceeding with whatever the alders are willing to support.

The unfortunate consequence is that we will lose out on the opportunity to
hold a very public debate over the war itself -- something that, as Allen
suggested at the meeting based on Gulf War precedent, would be a great
organizing opportunity.  But, as I say, we're not in control of this
process, so we take what we can get.

One suggestion:  Perhaps when hearings are held on the "weaker" version, we
can encourage speakers to support that resolution, but urge the Council to
take a stronger position in the future.

X

----- Original Message -----
From: "X" <X>
To: <policy@madpeace.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 8:17 AM
Subject: [MAPC-policy] resolution update


> 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
>


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

Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:25 AM

Re: [MAPC-policy] resolution update