|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jul 2, 2012 14:31:41 GMT -5
I can't imagine you getting thrown out Dawn, but I'm glad I didn't go as well because I would have walked out just based on the delegates not getting a say in the process/agenda as was part of the original agreement.
The bottom line is I think a lot of us recognize the need to bring people together and unite around a common message that can really engage the entire population and motivate them to take action to achieve meaningful reform on the real critical issues...and that no issue is more critical than the issue of money in politics. And so, if it turns out that we are unable to achieve this through the document(s) created at CC2.0, at least we have made some real connections with people who passionately want to see our democratic and moral principles restored, so hopefully we can continue to work together whether it is through this organization, or some other.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 2, 2012 16:21:57 GMT -5
I don't know, Mike. I worked so hard to try to have the delegates involved in the process and thought that by having the first vote being voting on the agenda, I had moved things in that direction. Then to learn that vote was not taken really ticks me off!! I don't know if that was agreed on in the meeting that was supposed to take place between delegates and the SC Sunday night or not but if not then I would not have been able to go along with that. I would like to know who was in the Sunday night meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 16:39:30 GMT -5
The Sunday meeting was a great deal of tension and the process being explained to us. One of the SC stormed out of the room a few minutes into it.
It was a rather uncomfortable meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jul 2, 2012 16:40:06 GMT -5
I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. Matt will probably leave a report, but I expect to talk with Matt and/or Nathan and Jon tonight.
And I'm pretty sure Jon met with Robert last night, not sure who else was involved, but I doubt any of the delegates that were active in pushing the Steering Committee to get the delegates more involved in deciding the process/agenda would have agreed to simply make Alex chair with no vote, so I'm definitely curious to know how it all went down as well.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 16:51:05 GMT -5
The day ended with committees still in discussion. More later as I process the information from the day.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jul 2, 2012 17:03:35 GMT -5
Heh...as children are wont to do when they don't get their way.
Kind of ironic, since it's not like you or Jon or the others in our group didn't understand the process the SC wanted...in fact I think we all understood it well enough to know that there were numerous flaws in their process, and did a pretty good job of explaining why the process was flawed and why the alternatives proposed by numerous delegates independently of one another made more sense. Luckily there was at least a begrudging attempt to rectify at least some of the issues we had, though imo it did not go far enough.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jul 2, 2012 19:05:10 GMT -5
I agree, it sounds like we're going to have to go with Mike's option 3. If Matt's perceptions are correct (and I believe they are), it seems that this was never intended to be anything but a "rubber stamp" of MP's predetermined list of grievances. No wonder he took down the forum - we were acting like we took the whole thing seriously and all he wanted was 800 idiots who would sign their names to whatever he put in front of them.
I'm sorry that things are going this way. I really hoped it would be different. But like Dawn, I'm glad now that I did not go. I am not the type to keep quiet, nor am I afraid to challenge "authority"... I would have been tossed out on my keister too.
When this is over, those of us who want to truly work on something lasting and meaningful will have to come up with a new plan of our own.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 3, 2012 14:43:36 GMT -5
Getting ready to vote on the grievances again, then select the steering committee.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 3, 2012 18:29:50 GMT -5
Matt, did you mean drafting committee? How many grievances did you end up with?
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 3, 2012 18:42:04 GMT -5
Matt, did you mean drafting committee? How many grievances did you end up with? Yes. Sorry. Tired and using the phone. We're still voting on them. We're on the 4th one. Still.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 3, 2012 20:14:14 GMT -5
Matt, It's probably going to be a long night. Hang in there. I appreciate your posts!!
|
|
|
Post by annehatch on Jul 3, 2012 20:31:34 GMT -5
Matt and Dawn, I appreciate the posts from both of you. I have been checking on the progress regularly. Matt, thank you for taking the time to keep us informed.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jul 3, 2012 23:33:15 GMT -5
This. I'm very unhappy with how that turned out. How are hundreds of millions of Americans supposed to support this document if ~80 people can't be trusted by the SC to make their own decisions?
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 4, 2012 8:40:09 GMT -5
Style Committee (new name for drafting) handpicked by SC.
So far, every category has made it and we're still voting.
David was told the preamble he wrote was too long.
It's... you know what, we're going to sit and watch what happens and learn from it.
That's about all we can do.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 4, 2012 10:55:02 GMT -5
We're now voting on amendments to grievances that have already been amended and passed.
Seriously. Why did we even have an agenda or any attempt to pretend we had rules?
Everything has been passed, with the exception of term limits and the employment category.
|
|