I've been largely off email the past few days, and just catching up on this thread, all of which is news to me. (A big thank you to Jim, as well as Leon, Bill and Jonathan, for copying me on the messages on which I have been "cc'd".) While I'll echo the appreciation for Janine's activism and am glad she's interested in volunteering for the state party, it seems to me that folks have raised some valid questions/concerns about this proposed arrangement. Particularly troubling is the suggestion that the position might be in some sense for sale (i.e. tied to the continued donations of a major donor). It's not clear to me whether this is based on solid information, or is merely speculation, but I hope Executive Committee members understand the importance of avoiding even the appearance of such.
Kevin Duewell makes a good suggestion in seeking to have the executive director -- no matter who that may be -- report to the Executive Committee rather than strictly to the chair. We've been trying a "strong chair" system recently, in which the ExCom as a whole (not to mention ordinary members and grassroots activists) was often out of the information loop, and as I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone, it hasn't been working very well! Reporting to the ExCom as a whole will facilitate better flow of information than just reporting to the chair.
And speaking of information/communication, I also have a question: Why has there been no announcement to the membership that we have an open position we are seeking to fill? Even if the position is (for now??) unpaid as far as the party is concerned, other activists might be interested in an arrangement whereby they essentially continue their current activism, as well as engaging in unspecified executive and administrative activities with the approval of the chair, in exchange for a high-profile title without pay but also without being subject to the strings and obligations of being an LPC employee.
As a matter of fact, I might well be interested in such a position myself! Or in some other official LPC title in exchange for some level of volunteer commitment. It seems to me however that the proper way to go about this would be for the Executive Committee to first decide what tasks they want done, then create a position or positions and decide what responsibilities go with the title(s), and only then put out a call for volunteers to fill the position(s) -- not just create a custom position for a particular individual with no open or competitive process, no matter how well qualified s/he may be. Will I, and any others who may be interested, be given an opportunity to apply for any open position(s) on an equal basis?
Knowing how comments like these can be (and have been) misinterpreted, I want to reiterate that my concerns here are about process and structure in our party, not personal!
Last but by no means least...
Now that we have some new leadership, can we *finally* get some transparency on these Executive Committee discussions that *doesn't* depend on the chance that one may happen to be "cc'd" by an individual member? I.e. a leadership discussion list to which ordinary members can at least subscribe, if not post? As well as advance notice of any teleconferences, for those who may wish to call in?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))