From: Andrew Phelps <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [s-acc] quack report
Date: Sat 11/03/12 12:03 PM
Thank you for "quacking back."
Just so you are aware. The NCMHR arose from an organizing process generated in the 2002-07 national organizing (NO) process which was deeply networked with the polity of the Social Accountability Work Group. We used a list called NO-DESK. Here's a comment from our 2005 Phoenix meeting HERE FYI. We sought to develop an "inclusionary" process but instead the alternate modality won out and our work was discarded when (what is now) the NCMHR was pulled together.
On Sat Nov 3 8:34, Cgk sent:
The off-site NC meeting WAS held, but it was a closed meeting for Organizational members only. (not an open meeting as it has been in the past) They did send out 10 pages of minutes to all members if I recall correctly. They have had some swelling upheavals recently, with a number of board members & others resigning because of a perception of a top-down management approach rather than a true grassroots, community-driven org as they represent themselves to be, which I tend to agree with. I thought those who resigned made an eloquent & pro-active position statement but am not sure how NC plans to address those issues, although I know they have said they will. I also am not sure what the plans of those who resigned are, if there are any.
The quack here is that the "grassroots, community-driven" approach being dismissed was what we identified as the polity being excluded when the organization formed. In my comment, I tried to display the fact that our historical advocacy was picking up "quacks" in Portland.
ABO "Andrew Behavior Object"