[Wpfw-lsb] FromThe Heart
luzette_king at justice.com
Tue Apr 6 17:56:23 PDT 2004
In my awkward way am trying to establish something that
would help us focus our collective energies much in the
same way as you described the Shiites and the Sunnis.
If I read your e-mail correctly, you are agreeing with
me when you suggest we should find ways to work
together and not against for that which is good for the
station. Factionalism is something we can't avoid..I
find myself in different factions at different times
and for different reason. I am sure for those looking
in on Pacifica, we would be seen as a faction when
placed against the 3 K's of Pacifica. If in doubt,
just try to get us in a meeting of a different kind you
will see how much alike we will all be.
What do you think about us getting information from the
iGM through the Chair? Is this a divisive tactic?
Look forward to your response.
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:36:25 -0400, "mark berman" wrote:
> Just as the Sunnis and Shiites,( not formerly,
> "friends",)are about to
> unite to fight the occupation of their country, we
> don't all have to be
> "friends" to unite to fight for a better, more
> effective WPFW as it fights
> the Military, Industral, Prison Complex. The evidence
> of factionalism among
> us serves only reactionary forces. We are a coalition
> of 25 good people
> and in coalitions there's a helluva lot of give and
> take. There isn't a
> single one of us who has THE ANSWER. Each of us is
> 4% of the whole.
> But , "no voice is wholly lost that is the voice of
> many". Over the many
> years as part of the left and far left-progressive
> movement, I have seen
> factionalism destroy or make ineffective the larger
> goals. I think we all
> need to take a deep breath and show some faith in the
> process, painful and
> frustrating though that may be.
> MARK BERMAN
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Luzette King <luzette_king at justice.com>
> > To: <wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org>
> > Date: 4/6/2004 8:40:36 PM
> > Subject: [Wpfw-lsb] FromThe Heart
> > The more I listen and read the more am convinced
> > we should suspend all board meetings until we get
> > training. We are too diverse in our thinking and
> > wary to deal with the issues for which we were
> > Dare I say it there are far too many voices on
> > that should be dealt with by the Chair.
> > First of all, I did not ask for any meetings. I
> > for information that I believe is necessary and
> > be available in any well managed organization. As a
> > matter of fact most of it is required by law and it
> > out of deference that I am going through the Chair.
> > Yet very few of us seem to care about it. And if
> > is not so then why the diversion about which
> > should be separated in two parts.
> > For the life of me I cannot understand the logic in
> > thinking that anyone who sits on the Management
> > Assessment and Search Committee will have a conflict
> > interest when recruiting staff. Do correct me if I
> > wrong but are we suggesting that by sitting on one
> > committee of an organization there is a conflict of
> > interest when sitting on another? If that is so
> > we should all just serve on one committee and allow
> > more of the non-elected candidates a chance.
> > I know this is not the intention but I am getting
> > suspicious about this idea of conflict of interest
> > this particular committee. What about the others?
> > sincerely hope that we don�t waste time
> > motion when we have so many other crucial things
> > which to deal. I hope the chair will rules this one
> > out of order too�.
> > Secondly, I was made to understand that a list of
> > volunteers to committees was obtained at the last
> > meeting. Am I so far off the mark to think that
> > was intended to expedite the process of us getting
> > work? If so, then why is it necessary to stall the
> > process at this stage and for another meeting? And,
> > decide what? I agree with Billy Ray that the
> > committees should meet. As a matter of fact, he
> > not be the one to call for this especially since
> > committees have been established.
> > Just as an aside, I think we place far too much
> > emphasis on how we say things and not what is said.
> > understand Tom Gomez every time he posts and quite
> > frankly I am comforted by the thought that I know
> > exactly from where he comes. The other person is
> > Ray and am trying to be like them ..candid in my
> > dealings with others. And Tom, you are so right
> > you say we are not all friends and am sure this
> > be denied if we are true to ourselves. However,
> > in no way should get in the way of us working
> > Back to the matter in hand�I think Warren
> > important question of the Chair: �What is
> > WPFW and Pacifica and how are you/we going to make
> > happen?�. I would suggest that in response
> > question, the Chair should prepare something along
> > these lines for the next, meeting. I also look
> > to him facilitating the process for us to get the
> > information I am seeking for the benefit of all of
> > who vowed to work for the better of the station. Or
> > rather we should go around the table again to have
> > of us restate our vision for the station�I
> > prefer this type of discussion than decided where
> > is conflict of interest where there is none.
> > Luzette
> > _________________________________________________
> > FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> > http://www.FindLaw.com
> > Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> > http://mail.Justice.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wpfw-lsb mailing list
> > Wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
> > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/wpfw-lsb
> > free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
More information about the Wpfw-lsb