dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 12, 2012 18:58:45 GMT -5
If the SC facilitated a conference call for all the delegates, what would be the best day and time for the call?
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 12, 2012 19:37:35 GMT -5
I'm off of work (generally) on Mondays and Tuesdays. Beyond that, I'm free late on Wednesdays and Thursdays (I'm out of work around 7:30 to 8:00 EST). Fridays I don't go in until 3:00, so a morning call would work, but I imagine others have more standard work day hours.
Saturdays and Sundays... hmm... I can expect to be out by 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon on both days, so an early/late evening call on one of those days would work, as well.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 12, 2012 19:59:51 GMT -5
I'm not working right now, so I have no limitations in that regard. However, I'm still trying to complete my move, so my schedule can change rather quickly as things develop.
Basically, I will try to make myself available for whatever date/time is chosen. I would prefer an evening call though. I am okay with it being late (eastern time) so that we can accommodate the work schedules of those on the west coast... so, for instance, if the call was at 10pm EST in order for the western delegates to be available at 7pm their time, that's okay with me.
|
|
|
Post by craigwood on Jun 12, 2012 20:12:44 GMT -5
The four (4) of us might talk to each other, but we do not have email, forum links or phone numbers of all of the potential delegates to reach out right now. If you all have any of the aforementioned links let me know.
I can talk any time, but I may have work at my computer while trying to talk/lessen.
|
|
STEVE CICKAY PA DISTRICT 8
Guest
|
Post by STEVE CICKAY PA DISTRICT 8 on Jun 13, 2012 0:25:54 GMT -5
If you are asking for me personally what is the best time, I would offer this answer for everyone: Anytime is the best because this cause is so important it should take precedence over anything in our lives right now. And trying to find the optimum time to reach 700 delegates across several time zones is an impossible administrative task.
The more important answer revolves around the purpose of the teleconference. What is the agenda of this teleconference (and it should be published prior to the call)? What do you hope to gain from the call? Do the delegates have to prepare for the call to make it more effective? And will the delegates be required to do things after the call but prior to the Congress? Answers to those questions may be key factors in your decision as to when to place the call.
I suggest that several key options about process during the Congress (delegate participation, the mechanics of the grievance voting, media events and publicity during the Congress, outreach to our friendly external organizations, and next steps after the Congress) should be fairly well outlined and articulated before the teleconference.
So my question to you is: are you ready? Because I bet all the delegates are ready and willing to learn more about what exactly we all will be doing in Philadelphia.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 13, 2012 7:35:54 GMT -5
Karlie tried to moderate a 100 person call one time, after the person who was supposed to moderate it backed out, with very little notice or warning . Despite her best efforts, it was chaos. If www.freeconferencecall.com offers a service where people are muted but can signal a wish to be unmuted to speak or ask a question, and if the moderator is skilled (i.e. someone whose name rhymes with "lawn pail") I think a teleconference to communicate with the delegates would be a very good idea. I'd make it my business to attend.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 13, 2012 9:57:01 GMT -5
A chat room might be easier to manage, and you'll have a log of what was posted that can be shared with whomever can't make the meeting.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 13, 2012 12:56:50 GMT -5
You are so funny, David Itkin! I have checked out www.freeconferencecalling.com and they allow 1000 people on a call and have the feature where everyone is muted but the moderator and people raise their hand to speak by hitting *5.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 13, 2012 13:17:01 GMT -5
That sounds like a great option then, Dawn, since we'd have approximately 800 people (if they all participate), including the SC.
In fact, that would be a great solution to a question I had thought of as I was finally getting to bed last night... minutes!
In just about every organization I have worked for in my life, whether for profit or non-profit, there was always someone recording the minutes of every meeting, which were then distributed to the attendees of the meeting and other interested parties.
Yet there are no minutes posted of any of the meetings either of the Board (I believe they are required to meet at regular intervals as part of the incorporation rules) or the SC. I'm sure this was just an oversight, but it's something that can cause a problem down the road if the organization is ever audited, for instance.
If those meetings were held as either an online chat or a teleconference, then there might not be a need for recorded minutes, because those who wanted to know what was being discussed could just dial into the meeting or log into the chat room. Or, alternatively, you could have a couple of delegates assigned as minutes keepers during the calls. Then they can compare each version, combine it into a complete document, and post it here on the forum (I'll create a section for it) for everyone to see.
It's definitely worth considering!!
|
|
STEVE CICKAY PA DISTRICT 8
Guest
|
Post by STEVE CICKAY PA DISTRICT 8 on Jun 15, 2012 5:31:46 GMT -5
I've conducted hundreds of teleconferences. Having a set agenda published in advance creates the skeleton for the note-taking. As Maureen suggests, having two people assigned to take notes under the agenda topic headings would facilitate the creation of a public documented record. And if the SC is even still tight-fisted with their authority, they can even ask to review the combined draft notes of the two note-takers before its dissemination to all the delegates. All this could take place in less than a day with some competent people involved. It is a good model for transparency in government. Or we can vaporize all computer disks and lobotomize the brains of the delegates to keep everything quiet , safe and on the Planned Party Path.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 15, 2012 6:02:35 GMT -5
I think it important to honor that there are two caususes in the Continental Congress 2.0. The Reform Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. Since the Steering Committee is apparently holding our organizer's Progressive Caucus party line, it would be unfair for the conference call to not be moderated by two persons, one from each caucus. For that matter, even three, a progressive, an independent, and a conservative (maybe we can lure the very fair-minded Stephen Erickson back). By the way, reformers have more in common with each other, than we do with our partisan brethren. And, speaking as a independent centrist member of the Reform Caucus, and to get to the crux of the matter, Ending Corporate Personhood is a deal breaker. And since it appears near or at the top of the list on the website, it needs to be addressed. There is no evidence that ECP has vast supermajority support among Americans. In fact, I doubt it would poll 10%. I'm a semi-professional policy wonk, and I had to spend four hours of research to understand it. But we can still address the smallest common denominators of too much corporate control of government, and agree on a ton of really great stuff! If the final RoG polls nationally 80 percentile, or even a 9 handle, the CC2 could be the greatest development in democracy since the suffragette movement. If it polls 10%, why did we all put ourselves through this? The fundamental vision of the CC2 is at stake and should be debated on a conference call before Philly. There are all sorts of biases that need to be aired. I just aired mine. What are yours?
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 15, 2012 9:31:13 GMT -5
The inclusiveness of conservatives is part of the reason I left the local Occupy group. In the earlier days of it, we had a very wide ideological range within the group; however, as certain actions/causes were supported, the group shifted more and more to the left.
Now, mind you, I'm a little left of the center, but I believe we require a message that carries weight regardless of ideological backgrounds. The need to consistently slide towards the left in all things Occupy/Petition related leaves me boggled.
I'd have to agree with Jon that we need to air out all of our ideological laundry, get our biases and beliefs out in the open so that we can focus on those issues upon which we readily agree. Given the spread of beliefs we have between all of us and those who will be joining us, the points where we agree are those that would have the best support from the general public.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 15, 2012 20:14:47 GMT -5
Matt - that "need to slide to the left" may just be a gut level response the very obvious need to jump as far right as possible exhibited by the GOP (I mean, they've literally gone so far right they've damn near made a full circle - and won't they be surprised when they find themselves on the left of the "left", lol). Jon - I consider myself a progressive. In fact, I'm a proud Liberal with a capital L. However, I agree with you about the words "End Corporate Personhood". Despite my several long posts describing all the ways that a corporation can NEVER be equal to a human being, I do understand the reason for the legal "fiction" of a corporate "person". However, that does NOT mean that a corporation should have ALL the same rights as a human being. The creation of the corporate "person" was never intended to make it equal to humans either - it was only intended to make it possible for a corporation to conduct certain legal and administrative functions, like entering into a contract, filing a lawsuit, opening a bank account, etc. So, while I agree that the language of that grievance does not work for our purposes, we DO, in my opinion, need to specify that while we recognize that a corporation has certain legal rights, the right to influence our elections by using corporate money to fund campaigns, PACS, or advertising is NOT one of those rights. In the alternative, there are ways to make that corporate "personhood" issue irrelevant. One way is through campaign finance reform in the form of creating a central fund where all campaign donations are kept - and then distributing the money in that fund EQUALLY to all candidates (from all political parties), so that those who make large donations have no hold over a certain candidate if they are elected. In this way, a company like Exxon Mobil can contribute $20 million to the Presidential Campaign Fund (as an example) - and each candidate for that office would get an equal share of that money, so that no matter who wins, they are not any more beholden to Exxon than they are to the old lady in Topeka who sent in $10. This is just an example, of course. And my main point was, no matter how we label ourselves, we can not only agree on some issues, but perhaps find ways to achieve the desired result without hitting anyone's "hot buttons".
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 15, 2012 20:31:20 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone took minutes of the last 2 SC meetings or not. I asked someone to take them on the meeting before last but haven't seen them posted. I can probably put some minutes together from my notes. I agree that minutes should be posted to the forum but that is just me.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 15, 2012 20:34:15 GMT -5
The problem with trying to do a conference call is since there doesn't appear to be a list of delegates private email, there is no good way to let everyone know of the call. I can ask MP to do an email blast like he has been doing but I have been told that a lot of people don't get those.
|
|