RE: Future of SF Green party - November 19
A) Matt Gonzalez has offered to meet with the local Green Party. I think this offer meshes perfectly with a meeting to discuss the future of the party that Charles is organizing for November 19. The Transportation Working Group is trying to build a campaign to get behind the following three points regarding transportation in Mid-Market: 1) There should be no more than .25 parking spaces per housing unit, and we ask that you seriously consider going lower, with the greatest share of parking spaces used for car-share vehicles; 2) There should be no above-ground parking spaces other than the minimum required for the operation of the buildings and the safety of building occupants; 3) The redevelopment plan should include funds specifically dedicated to expanding the bicycle lane network, engineering the Market Street bike lanes, and pedestrian improvements such as countdown signals at all corners within the plan area; The three points are part of a longer letter that also addresses housing issues and mentions "redevelopment," but the SF Green Party can work on the transportation aspects of the letter whether or not the Board of Supervisors and the mayor approve redevelopment in Mid-Market. Matt is a former legislator and knows something about writing legislation and getting it passed, and his advice could be invaluable in helping the Green Party to organize a grassroots campaign in support of legislation that begins to transform Mid-Market into a truly transit-first part of the city. If we are successful, it is something that we will be able to own and advertize and it will be a model for future campaigns. B) I would also like to work on a fundraiser to get some seed money to just put in the bank and keep there. According to Micheas, Studio Z has said we can use their space for a fundraiser. We could have our high profile Greens speak, and we could have our Green talent -- Terry Baum, Lines in Analog Sound, judy b., and so on -- perform. And co-chairs of each working group could explain briefly what we are working on.
For a change, I've been reading this thread rather than writing to it. The Green Party has three (or more) basic classes of functions that it has to carry out at various times: 1. Election Campaigns -Candidate -Ballot Measure 2. Issue Advocacy -BofS -SFUSD -Commissions and Boards 3. Infrastructure -Office -Fundraising As we move through the election cycles, there are different demands placed on each of these classes of function. Sometimes, candidate campaigns dominate. This happened in 2003 and 2004 with Matt and Ross/Renee. We almost quit doing policy advocacy or infrastructure. The task for us is to figure out how to "fire on all cylinders," sorry for the internal combustion metaphor, all the time even when events push us otherwise. The Green Party in my conception serves as a collaborative skill-share where folks can develop expertise in politics and work together to bring the 10KV to the light of day. That collaborative is like a toolkit, that contains different, complimentary tools that we use to do our three main classes of function. In order for us to move past our current malaise, we have to expand not only our toolkit to tools we don't currently have (fundraising, infrastructure, etc) but to bring in more, new people to use them as we are getting burned out with our relatively small numbers. So I would differ with Charles' idea that we agree on a campaign and do what Rob and Steve have done so well with Voter Owned Elections. I have never seen 30+ progressives sitting patiently at an Ethics Commission meeting before. As an alternative, we need to do an inventory assessment, agree on what is missing, and devise plans to make up for them. -marc
Marc, I like your analysis. Charles, again, you ROCK for putting this meeting together. thanks again. I would add a few things to Marc's list, I think it goes in #3 or add a #4: -Communication and Media (this is the email update and lists, our website, and possibly revival of a print version of our newsletter, plus press outreach) We need to develop a message around what we do. If we are doing things, we need to broadcast them proactively to both our supporters and the press. If we are getting trashed in the media, then we need to be able to respond in a way that does not look defensive. In any case, more folks need to know what we are all about, once we figure this out. We also need clear policy on how we do things, so non-insiders can figure out how to work with us. CIWG is working on drafting our best practices for our endorsements to get those policies drafted to be affirmed by the GM. It would be helpful to know what other kinds of info people would find useful- for instance: how to get an item on the agenda, how to get a Green Party endorsement for your organization/event/campaign, how to become an active member We need to make our party more accessible to folks, providing clear info on how we do what we do (as well as what we do), is a good step. peace, susan
For a change, I've been reading this thread rather than writing to it.
The Green Party has three (or more) basic classes of functions that it has to carry out at various times:
1. Election Campaigns -Candidate -Ballot Measure
2. Issue Advocacy -BofS -SFUSD -Commissions and Boards
3. Infrastructure -Office -Fundraising
As we move through the election cycles, there are different demands placed on each of these classes of function. Sometimes, candidate campaigns dominate. This happened in 2003 and 2004 with Matt and Ross/Renee. We almost quit doing policy advocacy or infrastructure.
The task for us is to figure out how to "fire on all cylinders," sorry for the internal combustion metaphor, all the time even when events push us otherwise.
The Green Party in my conception serves as a collaborative skill-share where folks can develop expertise in politics and work together to bring the 10KV to the light of day. That collaborative is like a toolkit, that contains different, complimentary tools that we use to do our three main classes of function.
In order for us to move past our current malaise, we have to expand not only our toolkit to tools we don't currently have (fundraising, infrastructure, etc) but to bring in more, new people to use them as we are getting burned out with our relatively small numbers.
So I would differ with Charles' idea that we agree on a campaign and do what Rob and Steve have done so well with Voter Owned Elections. I have never seen 30+ progressives sitting patiently at an Ethics Commission meeting before.
As an alternative, we need to do an inventory assessment, agree on what is missing, and devise plans to make up for them.
-marc
participants (3)
-
marc -
Susan King -
susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com