From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:24:01 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: [Mpls] Micromanaging Identity G roup Screenings
Megan -The purpose behind the ratification by the board is to be able to address any possible improprieties in the screening process.
A couple of questions:
1) Why are Saturday's Stonewall recommendations subject to ratification at a
meeting in Northfield since these are local races?
2) How does "Acceptable" status differ from "Endorsed" status in Stonewall
parlance?
Acceptable is a way of saying that the candidate in question is a friend of the Caucus and GLBT community. Endorsement is the statement of who we think people should vote for. Acceptable candidates are listed on our website and other materials as such. Endorsed candidates also have access to our membership list and are highlighted in materials.
3) How many Stonewallers participated in Saturday's screenings?With all the comings and going I would say we probably had somewhere around 100 people. I don't have the exact figure.
Self-selected. When a member checked in there was a schedule with who was screening in what room and the member decided where they wanted to be. People were free to move between rooms if they wanted to hear people in a particular race. The facilitators were the highest ranking board members in the room. In room A that was our endorsements director (I facilitated twice in that room at his request) and in room b that was the Associate Chair of the Caucus.
4) Since not all local Stonewallers attending Saturday's screenings screened
all candidates, on what basis were screeners assigned to a group? Ie.,
random, self-selected, assigned? How were chairs/facilitators selected for
each group?
The assignments were determined before the day of the meeting. Our endorsements Director determined who went in what room. We scheduled candidates for particular races in groups so all the candidates for say ward x would be screening in the same room and one after the other.
5) How were the wards assigned to the groups?
Yes. The Mayoral candidate screening was actually done as a panel discussion with a q & a session that all the candidates participated in.
6) Did one set of screeners interview and deliberate on the mayoral
candidates?
Personal Opinion: while I agree with you I also find it interesting that other group endorsements are not put up to this type of scrutiny. For example, I don't recall a flood of questions about the process used by the AFL-CIO, there were criticisms of the decision but I do not recall people asking for this type of detail. Why are some group's processes held up to a microscope while other are accepted and go unchallenged? I am not saying there should be no questions about any group's process, I just wonder why there is the difference.
We talk a lot about the desire for "transparency" in government - and I think
it's valuable for those interested in the screenings to know what processes
supported the outcome.
Megan Thomas
Chair, Stonewall DFL
Just a poor St. Paul girl wondering how she got sucked into Minneapolis politics
