July 2014 strategic planning
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Milan
Jul 15, 2014, 9:23:53 PM7/15/14
to toron...@googlegroups.com
On the 27th of this month, we are planning to have a strategic planning discussion that will run for about four hours and where the main intention is to discuss our priorities for the 6-12 months ahead.
At previous such discussions, we chose pipelines (especially Line 9) and divestment as our priority areas.
One big question for this meeting will be whether we want to stick to those two and, if so, how we can be most effective on each.
=== Pipelines ===
Regarding pipelines, it's certainly problematic that the National Energy Board isn't considering climate change when making decisions about oil sands pipelines. It makes sense to call for the inclusion of upstream and downstream impacts that will necessarily accompany their construction and use.
At the same time, the NEB process is ultimately controlled by a federal government that is fully in support of all pipelines. It doesn't seem likely that anything we can do will alter the kind of recommendations the NEB makes. At the same time, focusing on a fairly technical process issue (what factors are considered in particular pipeline review processes) may make it hard to engage the interest of the public and the media.
One great strength of the Energy East pipeline map is how it reveals the municipalities and First Nations that will be affected by the pipeline. To me, it seems a lot more likely that these groups will actually be able to effectively stop the pipeline - so we may want to develop a strategy for supporting them, alongside whatever we decide to do with the NEB.
=== Divestment ===
On divestment, we are obviously still waiting for the ad hoc committee at U of T to begin its work. If people are willing to bottom-line divestment campaigns elsewhere (other schools, churches, etc), it seems like Toronto350.org could probably provide some measure of support for those campaigns.
At U of T, it would be great if we could secure more energetic involvement from individuals who are active on campus: people who will be comfortable engaging with the committee and with members of the Governing Council. I would also be very grateful if we could find some people willing to help research and write the supplement to the brief, catching the committee up on the relevant information that has come out since March.
There are lots of useful things we could be doing: securing support from alumni, cultivating media contacts, organizing physical events on campus, etc. What we need most of all are volunteers who are willing to help organize and carry those things out.
=== New York ===
It probably makes sense to consider this as a third major commitment of the group, since it doesn't overlap particularly closely with either divestment or pipelines (especially Energy East, since that is an internal Canadian matter as far as law, bureaucratic process, and decision-making goes). It may make sense to create a New York committee, if we want to stick with the committee structure overall.
We also probably want to have a serious discussion about financial and other risks. It's generous for Stu to be willing to take on paying the deposit for the buses, but it's not especially desirable or sustainable to use that as the general funding model for a trip like this.
I think we should also discuss the planning process for New York. Partly because people have been out of town or have schedules incompatible with our meeting time, it seems like a lot of the New York planning has been happening in private within a small subset of the executive. Furthermore, it hasn't been especially openly communicated by email or other means. That doesn't strike me as compatible with how Toronto350.org has generally functioned to date. Members of the executive and committee chairs do have some legitimacy on the basis of being elected, but our planning meetings have always been the locus for discussion and decision-making within the group.
=== Institutional innovation ===
To me, the big question right now seems to be what powers we accord to the board and to the executive, respectively. At the very minimum, the board would do all the mandatory things for an incorporated entity, like producing financial statements and minutes for formal meetings. At the maximum, we could scrap the executive and move to an all-board structure.
In between there are many options. Whatever we choose, we need to be clear about what powers each body has. We need to do a lot of thinking about what sort of conflicts could arise between the two and how they might be managed. Finally, we need to think about what aspirations and expectations we have for the future and how that fits with these major institutional decisions.
As ever, I am worried that all the process and paperwork involved with becoming and running a corporation will detract from our ability to do substantive work. That being said, since we have committed to incorporation, I think we need to put in the effort to establish things in a sensible and durable way that reflects the culture and values of the organization.
In any case, I thought it would be a good idea to raise some of the major subjects for discussion early, so we can think things through a bit online before the in-person meeting on the 27th.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts,
Milan
At previous such discussions, we chose pipelines (especially Line 9) and divestment as our priority areas.
One big question for this meeting will be whether we want to stick to those two and, if so, how we can be most effective on each.
=== Pipelines ===
Regarding pipelines, it's certainly problematic that the National Energy Board isn't considering climate change when making decisions about oil sands pipelines. It makes sense to call for the inclusion of upstream and downstream impacts that will necessarily accompany their construction and use.
At the same time, the NEB process is ultimately controlled by a federal government that is fully in support of all pipelines. It doesn't seem likely that anything we can do will alter the kind of recommendations the NEB makes. At the same time, focusing on a fairly technical process issue (what factors are considered in particular pipeline review processes) may make it hard to engage the interest of the public and the media.
One great strength of the Energy East pipeline map is how it reveals the municipalities and First Nations that will be affected by the pipeline. To me, it seems a lot more likely that these groups will actually be able to effectively stop the pipeline - so we may want to develop a strategy for supporting them, alongside whatever we decide to do with the NEB.
=== Divestment ===
On divestment, we are obviously still waiting for the ad hoc committee at U of T to begin its work. If people are willing to bottom-line divestment campaigns elsewhere (other schools, churches, etc), it seems like Toronto350.org could probably provide some measure of support for those campaigns.
At U of T, it would be great if we could secure more energetic involvement from individuals who are active on campus: people who will be comfortable engaging with the committee and with members of the Governing Council. I would also be very grateful if we could find some people willing to help research and write the supplement to the brief, catching the committee up on the relevant information that has come out since March.
There are lots of useful things we could be doing: securing support from alumni, cultivating media contacts, organizing physical events on campus, etc. What we need most of all are volunteers who are willing to help organize and carry those things out.
=== New York ===
It probably makes sense to consider this as a third major commitment of the group, since it doesn't overlap particularly closely with either divestment or pipelines (especially Energy East, since that is an internal Canadian matter as far as law, bureaucratic process, and decision-making goes). It may make sense to create a New York committee, if we want to stick with the committee structure overall.
We also probably want to have a serious discussion about financial and other risks. It's generous for Stu to be willing to take on paying the deposit for the buses, but it's not especially desirable or sustainable to use that as the general funding model for a trip like this.
I think we should also discuss the planning process for New York. Partly because people have been out of town or have schedules incompatible with our meeting time, it seems like a lot of the New York planning has been happening in private within a small subset of the executive. Furthermore, it hasn't been especially openly communicated by email or other means. That doesn't strike me as compatible with how Toronto350.org has generally functioned to date. Members of the executive and committee chairs do have some legitimacy on the basis of being elected, but our planning meetings have always been the locus for discussion and decision-making within the group.
=== Institutional innovation ===
To me, the big question right now seems to be what powers we accord to the board and to the executive, respectively. At the very minimum, the board would do all the mandatory things for an incorporated entity, like producing financial statements and minutes for formal meetings. At the maximum, we could scrap the executive and move to an all-board structure.
In between there are many options. Whatever we choose, we need to be clear about what powers each body has. We need to do a lot of thinking about what sort of conflicts could arise between the two and how they might be managed. Finally, we need to think about what aspirations and expectations we have for the future and how that fits with these major institutional decisions.
As ever, I am worried that all the process and paperwork involved with becoming and running a corporation will detract from our ability to do substantive work. That being said, since we have committed to incorporation, I think we need to put in the effort to establish things in a sensible and durable way that reflects the culture and values of the organization.
In any case, I thought it would be a good idea to raise some of the major subjects for discussion early, so we can think things through a bit online before the in-person meeting on the 27th.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts,
Milan
Katie Krelove
Jul 15, 2014, 11:53:53 PM7/15/14
to toron...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for doing this Milan, you raise a lot of good points and issues, and set out a good beginning for a framework for the strategic planning discussion. I think further development for how issues will be framed/discussed at the meeting would be good in advance. For example, will we have open discussion of each issue/topic as decided by the group in advance (for example, through this thread)? Small group discussions? rotations? Will someone lead/moderate discussion etc.
Katie
Milan
Jul 16, 2014, 4:05:55 PM7/16/14
to toron...@googlegroups.com
One parallel tactic we could use on Energy East is a pledge of opposition or resistance that we could try to get communities to endorse. We could draft some text about the upstream damage from oil sands extraction, the downstream harm from climate change, and the local dangers of spills and contamination. We could then try to get town councils, mayors, and First Nations groups to publicly endorse the pledge - marking which communities are opposed on the map.
That would make a ready story for the media - akin to the similar efforts that have been undertaken for the Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C.
That would make a ready story for the media - akin to the similar efforts that have been undertaken for the Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C.
thugsb
Jul 16, 2014, 10:23:57 PM7/16/14
to toron...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for getting this started.
The coming months have a lot going on, with a lot of inter-connecting pieces. I am certainly struggling to think about how we can structure the evening.
Maybe each of the areas that Milan outlines could have 5 minutes for someone (committee chair?) to present where we're at, and a very brief overview of what that person anticipates happening in that area in the future (although the strategy session could also be useful for brainstorming that).
Regarding the Peoples Climate Intervention, I am now aware of a larger strategy behind it, and would encourage people to consider the full proposal before making a decision. I will present it at the next meeting on Tuesday.
The New York committee is the re-purposed Campus Engagement committee, although maybe that re-purposing was not appropriate. There is both that email list, and the nyc@ email list. Much has gone out on the nyc list, although there has also been a lot of organizing done behind the scenes in shared google docs and such. Many of the early organizers went away, leaving a somewhat fractured group. I admit that I perhaps haven't involved people as much as I'd have liked. I think the financial risk is minimal, as I just received the coach invoice today which states: "Cancellation policy at least two weeks before the trip for deposit refund." The cost of coaches dwarfs all other costs in this project.
I'm not convinced that the committee structure we have now is working, in that I don't see it encouraging increased engagement. We may wish to revisit that structure.
I think you're right about Innovation Milan. I appreciate the input I've received on the by-laws, and as I committed to, I will redraft them. Soon. I also think we need to start thinking about movement building: after NYC we are likely to have a much larger group. When we reach 20/wk over the winter our meetings became unmanageable. I think it's fair to say that we can expect those kinds of numbers again, if not more, and that we should try to prepare to handle this growth. We are, after all, trying to "build the climate movement", and doing so will require a lot more organizers than we have now...
Milan
Jul 17, 2014, 3:38:24 PM7/17/14
to toron...@googlegroups.com
=== IIC / committees ===
As I see it, the two purposes of committees were organizing volunteers efficiently into doing tasks and providing oversight and information to the whole group about what sub-units are doing. Neither purpose seems to have been served especially well so far.
In many weekly meetings, committee reports have been absent, and nobody informed about the activities of committees has been present to provide updates. Even somebody attending every meeting and reading every mem...@toronto350.org and exec...@toronto350.org wouldn't always have had a great sense of what the group has been up to.
If switching which night on the week meetings happen would help key organizers attend, I definitely think we should consider doing so.
In terms of volunteers and tasks, at least in terms of the AECom, the existence of committees doesn't seem to have done much to bring people forward as volunteers, match them to tasks, and then see that those tasks got completed. I know it's super-hard for a volunteer-based organization to get people to take on the more boring and unpleasant tasks - and to maintain accountability in terms of people actually doing what they say they will. Still, if we are going to be effective as an organization, we need to find ways to do both of those things.
Perhaps we could switch to a campaign-focused system (with pipelines, divestment, and New York as the campaigns) and then ask all active volunteers to volunteer specifically for one of the three campaigns. We could replace committee chairs with campaign coordinators, who would take on the responsibility for informing planning meetings about the activities within their campaign, as well as bringing matters for discussion and decision by the group at large.
As I see it, the two purposes of committees were organizing volunteers efficiently into doing tasks and providing oversight and information to the whole group about what sub-units are doing. Neither purpose seems to have been served especially well so far.
In many weekly meetings, committee reports have been absent, and nobody informed about the activities of committees has been present to provide updates. Even somebody attending every meeting and reading every mem...@toronto350.org and exec...@toronto350.org wouldn't always have had a great sense of what the group has been up to.
If switching which night on the week meetings happen would help key organizers attend, I definitely think we should consider doing so.
In terms of volunteers and tasks, at least in terms of the AECom, the existence of committees doesn't seem to have done much to bring people forward as volunteers, match them to tasks, and then see that those tasks got completed. I know it's super-hard for a volunteer-based organization to get people to take on the more boring and unpleasant tasks - and to maintain accountability in terms of people actually doing what they say they will. Still, if we are going to be effective as an organization, we need to find ways to do both of those things.
Perhaps we could switch to a campaign-focused system (with pipelines, divestment, and New York as the campaigns) and then ask all active volunteers to volunteer specifically for one of the three campaigns. We could replace committee chairs with campaign coordinators, who would take on the responsibility for informing planning meetings about the activities within their campaign, as well as bringing matters for discussion and decision by the group at large.
thugsb
Jul 22, 2014, 11:29:45 AM7/22/14
to toron...@googlegroups.com
Another thing to consider is whether we should have a "New Proposals" committee, that considers new projects, works out what would likely be required, and then either takes them on, or presents them to the relevant committee. Or it could just be a "Local Movement Building" committee, whose mandate is to put on activities (such as the candidate's debate) that don't necessarily relate to a campaign.
I tried to get people to only sign up to one committee from the start (although I myself signed up to multiple) so that we could do committee break-outs. We may wish to start doing them again, once we have more people coming. Maybe even have the majority of a meeting be for break-outs and committee work.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages