Hi all- In the spirit of honest navel-gazing, here are some personal observations. Take or leave them as you will. IMHO, the SFGP is entirely too self-referential and hell bent on process. From the perspective of someone who has focused mostly on getting things done *outside* of the Green Party, it is disheartening to see meetings that stretch into many hours, meetings dominated by cranky, disaffected voices, and interminable process. The SFGP as a whole seems to gravitate towards all kinds of conflict: between mere shades of progressive ideology, minor differences in strategy, and loads of interpersonal conflict. The vision of what we are all working for seems to not get focused on ~ instead there seems to be conflict cropping up for some of the most minor inconsequential items. Personally, I can't deal with this much "drama", and I imagine that other folks get burnt out on it, too. As a party, we need to support each other in working to achieve a common vision we want to see happen around us. Theory is great, but let's not let it keep us from making real political progress. In City Hall, remaining politically "pure" won't get you very far. Let's make sure that the work we do as a party remains true to our 10 core beliefs, and let's also be willing to compromise on strategy to get the incremental change that will eventually get us to the vision we want. In an ideal world, people shouldn't burn out, but it does happen in politics and activism. The real tragedy is when people burn out NOT from doing the work they care passionately about for too long, but because some of the people they are working with are driving them batty. If we agree on the common vision, then we need to work together. If there are voices that continue to dominate and be unreasonable, we do NOT need to suffer fools. By constantly suffering fools, we lose activists with dedication and passion. This is a real loss. I think the FAQ sheet will be helpful for outsiders to have. As somebody who has been somewhat involved with the SFGP over the years, I don't know most of the answers to many of those questions that will be covered in the FAQ sheet. Anything the SFGP can do to open its doors to new voices, fresh blood, and different perspectives will strengthen us as a party. The SFGP can feel a bit cliqueish to an outsider ~ if we want to make folks feel welcome and feel ownership, we need to make sure that they know how things work, and are empowered to take ownership in the party. Congrats on taking a look within! I hope my observations won't get me flamed ~ just wanting to offer a mirror (albeit biased) for the process. Best, Emily Emily Drennen Executive Director, Walk San Francisco 415-431-9255 office/fax www.walksf.org 1095 Market Street #502, SF, CA 94103 Advisory Council Member, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Citizen's Advisory Committee Member, Metropolitian Transportation Agency Past Chair, SF Bicycle Advisory Committee --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
I appreciate Emily's comments, but the principles of organization of the SFGP are open to all and democratic. The groups with which Emily works are not open to all and thus not quite as democratic--nonprofit daytime coffee clatch decisionmaking that has no place for most constituents and by extension most San Franciscans. When you get to choose the people with whom you work, then you can eliminate dissention and foster the illusion of cohesion and consensus. But the SFGP does not get to do this and we must tolerate all comers. In the case where another party sets up shop within the Green party, there can be conflicts, but the same could be said if the Democrats set up shop within the Repulican Party. The converse of that, of course, has already happened with the Democrats sitting by idly as their party has been taken over by corporate hacks. At the Bicycle Advisory Committee back in 2002, on which both Emily and I served, committee members affiliated with the transporation nonprofits torpedoed the committee because they did not want to deal with community voices that they disagreed with when they feared losing their majority. In the real world, you have to work with all comers eventually and cannot cherry pick forever, assuming the points of unity are the same. All BAC members shared points of unity to make cycling better in SF while the Left Party and the ISO are organized around wholly different principles. The SFBC or Walk SF can organize amongst themselves, mostly with staff or board members, and reach consensus. But as far as getting things done goes, I'd posit that the SFGP, scattershot and all, has matched productivity as the transportation nonprofits over the past few years. There are many ways to *get things done,* and preserving relationships with City staff by accomodating their unreasonable objections has its costs on the accomplishments end. The difference is between folding early and often and holding out for the best deal. As the SFBC and WalkSF settled for a mere $8m out of $200+m Prop B really speaks to this tendency. The facts are that as the transportation nonprofits have risen in stature, the conditions on the streets for peds and cyclists have actually gotten much worse. The California Vehicle Code remains unenforced. Basic systems like streets are unmaintained and dangerous--hand signals are risky on rough pavement, cascading impacts of irresponsible stewardship of public resources. Auto incumbency remains. Advocates are AWOL on getting bike lanes for Market included in Mid Market's SFRA plan. Hell, Christina, Ross and I are having to carry the ball on CEQA/LOS because the SFBC can't or won't. There are many approaches to getting things done, there no firm evidence that proves one is any better or worse than another. And we all know that there are tradeoffs with each decision. The point of this post is that we need to encourage a diversity of techniques and that comparisons between apples and oranges diminish in their utility quickly. Let 1,000 flowers bloom? -marc Emily Drennen wrote:
Hi all-
In the spirit of honest navel-gazing, here are some personal observations. Take or leave them as you will.
IMHO, the SFGP is entirely too self-referential and hell bent on process. From the perspective of someone who has focused mostly on getting things done *outside* of the Green Party, it is disheartening to see meetings that stretch into many hours, meetings dominated by cranky, disaffected voices, and interminable process.
The SFGP as a whole seems to gravitate towards all kinds of conflict: between mere shades of progressive ideology, minor differences in strategy, and loads of interpersonal conflict. The vision of what we are all working for seems to not get focused on ~ instead there seems to be conflict cropping up for some of the most minor inconsequential items. Personally, I can't deal with this much "drama", and I imagine that other folks get burnt out on it, too.
As a party, we need to support each other in working to achieve a common vision we want to see happen around us. Theory is great, but let's not let it keep us from making real political progress. In City Hall, remaining politically "pure" won't get you very far. Let's make sure that the work we do as a party remains true to our 10 core beliefs, and let's also be willing to compromise on strategy to get the incremental change that will eventually get us to the vision we want.
In an ideal world, people shouldn't burn out, but it does happen in politics and activism. The real tragedy is when people burn out NOT from doing the work they care passionately about for too long, but because some of the people they are working with are driving them batty. If we agree on the common vision, then we need to work together. If there are voices that continue to dominate and be unreasonable, we do NOT need to suffer fools. By constantly suffering fools, we lose activists with dedication and passion. This is a real loss.
I think the FAQ sheet will be helpful for outsiders to have. As somebody who has been somewhat involved with the SFGP over the years, I don't know most of the answers to many of those questions that will be covered in the FAQ sheet. Anything the SFGP can do to open its doors to new voices, fresh blood, and different perspectives will strengthen us as a party. The SFGP can feel a bit cliqueish to an outsider ~ if we want to make folks feel welcome and feel ownership, we need to make sure that they know how things work, and are empowered to take ownership in the party.
Congrats on taking a look within! I hope my observations won't get me flamed ~ just wanting to offer a mirror (albeit biased) for the process.
Best, Emily
Emily Drennen Executive Director, Walk San Francisco
415-431-9255 office/fax www.walksf.org 1095 Market Street #502, SF, CA 94103
Advisory Council Member, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Citizen's Advisory Committee Member, Metropolitian Transportation Agency Past Chair, SF Bicycle Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/>
Marc- Personal attacks are out of line. I am not going to reply to your accusations because they are so off the mark. It is exactly this kind of personal slamming, name-calling, and denigrating that I was referring to in my post. Knock it off. Emily marc <marc@cybre.net> wrote: I appreciate Emily's comments, but the principles of organization of the SFGP are open to all and democratic. The groups with which Emily works are not open to all and thus not quite as democratic--nonprofit daytime coffee clatch decisionmaking that has no place for most constituents and by extension most San Franciscans. When you get to choose the people with whom you work, then you can eliminate dissention and foster the illusion of cohesion and consensus. But the SFGP does not get to do this and we must tolerate all comers. In the case where another party sets up shop within the Green party, there can be conflicts, but the same could be said if the Democrats set up shop within the Repulican Party. The converse of that, of course, has already happened with the Democrats sitting by idly as their party has been taken over by corporate hacks. At the Bicycle Advisory Committee back in 2002, on which both Emily and I served, committee members affiliated with the transporation nonprofits torpedoed the committee because they did not want to deal with community voices that they disagreed with when they feared losing their majority. In the real world, you have to work with all comers eventually and cannot cherry pick forever, assuming the points of unity are the same. All BAC members shared points of unity to make cycling better in SF while the Left Party and the ISO are organized around wholly different principles. The SFBC or Walk SF can organize amongst themselves, mostly with staff or board members, and reach consensus. But as far as getting things done goes, I'd posit that the SFGP, scattershot and all, has matched productivity as the transportation nonprofits over the past few years. There are many ways to *get things done,* and preserving relationships with City staff by accomodating their unreasonable objections has its costs on the accomplishments end. The difference is between folding early and often and holding out for the best deal. As the SFBC and WalkSF settled for a mere $8m out of $200+m Prop B really speaks to this tendency. The facts are that as the transportation nonprofits have risen in stature, the conditions on the streets for peds and cyclists have actually gotten much worse. The California Vehicle Code remains unenforced. Basic systems like streets are unmaintained and dangerous--hand signals are risky on rough pavement, cascading impacts of irresponsible stewardship of public resources. Auto incumbency remains. Advocates are AWOL on getting bike lanes for Market included in Mid Market's SFRA plan. Hell, Christina, Ross and I are having to carry the ball on CEQA/LOS because the SFBC can't or won't. There are many approaches to getting things done, there no firm evidence that proves one is any better or worse than another. And we all know that there are tradeoffs with each decision. The point of this post is that we need to encourage a diversity of techniques and that comparisons between apples and oranges diminish in their utility quickly. Let 1,000 flowers bloom? -marc Emily Drennen wrote:
Hi all-
In the spirit of honest navel-gazing, here are some personal observations. Take or leave them as you will.
IMHO, the SFGP is entirely too self-referential and hell bent on process. From the perspective of someone who has focused mostly on getting things done *outside* of the Green Party, it is disheartening to see meetings that stretch into many hours, meetings dominated by cranky, disaffected voices, and interminable process.
The SFGP as a whole seems to gravitate towards all kinds of conflict: between mere shades of progressive ideology, minor differences in strategy, and loads of interpersonal conflict. The vision of what we are all working for seems to not get focused on ~ instead there seems to be conflict cropping up for some of the most minor inconsequential items. Personally, I can't deal with this much "drama", and I imagine that other folks get burnt out on it, too.
As a party, we need to support each other in working to achieve a common vision we want to see happen around us. Theory is great, but let's not let it keep us from making real political progress. In City Hall, remaining politically "pure" won't get you very far. Let's make sure that the work we do as a party remains true to our 10 core beliefs, and let's also be willing to compromise on strategy to get the incremental change that will eventually get us to the vision we want.
In an ideal world, people shouldn't burn out, but it does happen in politics and activism. The real tragedy is when people burn out NOT from doing the work they care passionately about for too long, but because some of the people they are working with are driving them batty. If we agree on the common vision, then we need to work together. If there are voices that continue to dominate and be unreasonable, we do NOT need to suffer fools. By constantly suffering fools, we lose activists with dedication and passion. This is a real loss.
I think the FAQ sheet will be helpful for outsiders to have. As somebody who has been somewhat involved with the SFGP over the years, I don't know most of the answers to many of those questions that will be covered in the FAQ sheet. Anything the SFGP can do to open its doors to new voices, fresh blood, and different perspectives will strengthen us as a party. The SFGP can feel a bit cliqueish to an outsider ~ if we want to make folks feel welcome and feel ownership, we need to make sure that they know how things work, and are empowered to take ownership in the party.
Congrats on taking a look within! I hope my observations won't get me flamed ~ just wanting to offer a mirror (albeit biased) for the process.
Best, Emily
Emily Drennen Executive Director, Walk San Francisco
415-431-9255 office/fax www.walksf.org 1095 Market Street #502, SF, CA 94103
Advisory Council Member, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Citizen's Advisory Committee Member, Metropolitian Transportation Agency Past Chair, SF Bicycle Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Emily Drennen Executive Director, Walk San Francisco 415-431-9255 office/fax www.walksf.org 1095 Market Street #502, SF, CA 94103 Advisory Council Member, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Citizen's Advisory Committee Member, Metropolitian Transportation Agency Past Chair, SF Bicycle Advisory Committee --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
We've got to get past this pathology that political disagreements are personal attacks. There are many different styles of organizing. Nonprofits do their thing. Trotskyites do their thing. Greens do our own. The trot model has had few concrete successes; nonprofits and Greens have had complimentary successes. Neither is perfect. Each model has its own strengths and weaknesses. If Green practice is to be criticized in comparison, then it should be compared to other, like minded efforts. There are many navels worth gazing at, and if we're going to gaze at the Greens' critically in a way that highlights its differences with the nonprofit model, then discussion of those models and their historical practice is in scope. I should have used the word "one" instead of the word "you" for clarity sake as English is bad that way. -marc
At 08:39 AM 11/17/05 -0800, marc wrote:
we must tolerate all comers.
Would be nice.... "><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>" Organizing is Sorting in to smaller piles, Then dealing with them. Wonder why you can't? It is always best practice To ask how you can. "The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever." Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations" Don Eichelberger Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse http://www.energy-net.org San Francisco Green Party http://www.sfgreenparty.org California State Green Party Issues Working Group Co-coordinator http://cagreens.org/giwg/ Green Community/GreenWorks project for sustainable small businesses http://www.sfgreenworks.org 2940 16th St., #309 San Francisco, CA 94103 phone 415-861-0592 or 415-567-4577 done@energy-net.org done@greens.org done@ispwest.com
participants (3)
-
Don Eichelberger -
Emily Drennen -
marc