Collab Session For Establishing Affiliate Points Of Contact

This discussion seems to circle around the real issue:
how the party makes sure people are heard, informed, and supported across the state.
I will be on the call Monday, April 27th.
I look forward to the discussion. I remain open-minded to others’ thoughts,
and I’m genuinely interested in hearing everyone’s feedback as we work through this.
In preparation, I want to share some of my thoughts on this.

TLDR:
We give the at-large SLEC structure a real chance to work the way the convention intended,
- AND we work to operationalize this new structure, strategically and intentionally -
so the party delivers integrated services to all party stakeholders.


BACKGROUND:
I do not support informally recreating geographic representation by assigning SLEC members to sets of counties,
because that starts to blur the line between at-large oversight and local leadership.

The biggest reason for my position is that County Chairs and County Executive Committees are not symbolic.
County Chairs and County Executive Committees are the durable local governance node of this party, and
SLEC claiming geographic representation — particularly as it is now set up —
could weaken local-level representation where it matters most.

To enable the whole leadership structure to work together clearly and predictably,
I propose that SLEC can serve as a compact, statewide board focused on:
- guidance/advisory/oversight for candidate-level & county-level matters,
- strategy,
- transparency, and
- accountability,

while County Affiliates remain central to sustainable local growth.

This approach does not mean anyone will be - or, should feel - cut off from SLEC.
My aim is to determine how we can establish methods and set expectations,
so that the different parts of the party function together, effectively and dependably.

So that the party gets access to SLEC, follow-up from SLEC, and awareness of what SLEC is doing,
SLEC can commit to visible, consistent communication.

What this looks like, specifically, would be determined from discussion and considerations
...I expect that Monday will bring some clarity to this, too.


Looking forward to the call!
Please don't hesitate to reach out to me on Discord in the interim if you want to discuss further.
 
Candice gives a nice summary of where the conversation stands at this point, but I would not agree that we have been "circl[ing] around the real issue", and I think it's important to reframe this before we go into Monday's meeting.

Here's what we have so far:

Everybody on SLEC is aware (or should be) that there are people in the party, primarily some that are or have been involved in county leadership, who are concerned that the new SLEC structure will not be as conducive to their 'having representation' or 'being heard' (different phrases are used that mean approximately the same thing) as the old structure was, when they had a dedicated District Representative assigned to them.

The first pass at a solution was the suggestion we assign specific counties to specific at-large members to re-create that one-to-many assignment we're familiar with; different mechanisms were proposed for doing that.

It was pointed out by several people that the new structure taken together with the new 'duties of SLEC' description didn't really support that solution.

Ginny then volunteered to be a central point of contact for anyone having a specific inquiry or suggestion, either handling it herself or directing the inquiring/suggesting person to the appropriate SLEC member for engagement.

She volunteered further to put together a brief article for the newsletter each month describing the past month's activity and forecasting the upcoming month's projects, completing the two-way communication loop between state and county leadership. Her proposal also included her sending out a group email soon to let everyone know this is the plan and to call her if there are any questions about it.

To me that sounds like a Good Enough solution to the problem, and we should go into Monday's meeting with the mindset that the bar has been set at a certain level, and alternative proposals need to be demonstrably better in some specific way to be worth considering.

I'm not saying we should call off the meeting—we need to present this to the people who are most concerned (who show up) and get their feedback and possibly their suggestions. But we also need to be conservative of volunteer time and attention (a resource as scarce and valuable as our donor dollars), and not downplay or ignore the progress we've made on this since convention.

Looking forward to the meeting Monday. (y)
 
Great call tonight. Great attendance on the call too (about 25% of the convention attendance).

For those who didn't have the pleasure of joining us tonight, this was my digest of how to solve the issues/concerns presented and ensure we see improved communication and cohesion:

  • Affiliate department continues to make their monthly calls to chairs (that was never in question)
  • A SLEC Switchboard team including Ginny, Jessi, and one other as yet unvolunteered person will handle incoming questions/concerns/needs and make sure that SLEC specific information is compiled to be included in the newsletter every month.
    • Who wants to volunteer for this?
  • Start doing quarterly calls ahead of SLEC meetings open to known affiliate members
    • This means anybody LPTexas knows has completed an Oath of Affiliation, so if a county affiliates new people after convention and doesn't tell us, they won't be on the list.
    • Is arranging that call going to be part of the regular meeting planning and therefore handled by SLEC, handled by the Switchboard, or something else? I'm happy to volunteer since I've done the last few calls, but I'm not married to it either.
  • Create a Chain of Command/FAQ document that can direct people to who to reach out to when they have questions, concerns, or a burning need to increase their involvement/donate.
    • Anyone wanna tackle this?
  • Send an email to known affiliate members including the contact information for SLEC members
    • Emails are already established, but we need to check with membership first to see who is ok with including their phone numbers in that info.
    • Who wants to put this together and send it out?
  • Add the SLEC contact info list to the onboarding package for new county chairs along with an explanation of what SLEC is/does.
For anyone who was there, did I miss anything crucial?
 

A Thought on Process Before This Hardens Into Precedent​

I want to raise one concern plainly:

It feels like we went from discussing ideas on the call to acting on a new function before defining:
  • what that function actually is,
  • what exact problem(s) it is meant to solve, and
  • how it fits into the structure we already have.

That is the part I think we need to slow down and fix.

I support better communication.
I support making sure members and affiliates feel heard, informed, and able to reach the right people.

What I do not think we should do is operationalize a new SLEC-facing role
before we have named it, classified it, and scoped it.


Right now, it is not clear whether what is happening is:
  • an informal volunteer effort,
  • a change to the volunteer organizational structure, or
  • a SLEC committee / subcommittee.
Those are not the same thing, and
I think treating them like they are is where the confusion starts.

Why I Think This Matters​

As I read our governing documents, SLEC was reorganized into a smaller at-large body with an oversight role.

At the same time:
  • county governance still lives in the county chair / county executive committee structure, and
  • we already have established functions in Affiliate Support and Communications.

So the party already has a structure here, even if we want to improve how clearly it works in practice.

My concern is not that we are trying to improve things.
My concern is that, without a clearer definition,

we risk creating a new shadow function that:
  • starts being treated as official before SLEC has formally defined it,
  • blurs the line between county leadership and state leadership,
  • overlaps with existing functions in Affiliate Support and Communications, and
  • bundles several different issues into one role that may be too broad to work well.

To me, those issues include at least (4) separate things:
  • county-chair support,
  • general member access to SLEC,
  • newsletter / public-facing communication, and
  • issue-routing / follow-up.
These are related, but not identical, and they likely are responsibilities for different roles.

​

What I Think We Should Do​

I do not think the answer is to scrap everything or pretend no risk exists.

I think the answer is to bring some order to what is already in motion.

The following paths forward seem workable to me:

1. Keep it informal for now​

Treat what is happening as an informal outreach effort only, and avoid presenting it as an official SLEC function until SLEC has acted on it.

​

2. Formally define it​

If the intent is for this to continue as an actual function, then let’s classify it at the next SLEC meeting.

For example:
  • if it is a volunteer-structure change, let’s say so plainly and review it that way;
  • if it is a SLEC committee or subcommittee, let’s create it that way and give it a proper name, scope, reporting line, and limits.

​

3. Separate the functions​

Instead of bundling everything together, we could separate the lanes a little more clearly:

  • member-facing updates and visibility in a communications lane,
  • county-chair support tied clearly to Affiliate Support and county leadership,
  • and any SLEC-specific intake or follow-up function kept narrow enough that it does not turn SLEC into a switchboard or create confusion about representation.

​

Questions That Do Need Answers​

Before this hardens into precedent,
I think SLEC should answer a few essential questions:
  • What problem(s), specifically, are we solving?
  • What is the name of the POC function now being organized?
    • Is it informal, volunteer-structured, or a SLEC committee?
    • Who does it report to?
    • What is in scope?
    • What is out of scope?
    • How does it supplement rather than overshadow county chairs, Affiliate Support, and existing channels like Ask SLEC?
    • When do we review whether it is working?

​

I’m raising this because
I want us to succeed under the structure that the convention adopted,
not to create friction.

A smaller at-large SLEC can absolutely work well.
But I think it will work best if we are disciplined about
process, role clarity, and respect for existing parts of the organization.


If something new is going to exist,
I think we should define it before it defines us.
 
I appreciate your thoughts on this to no end. It is not wrong that these things should be done, but it is not SLEC’s job to do it unless we are asked by staff for help.
It is my opinion that we already have communications established. The chair has identified a role he wants in place. Unless that costs money or violates LP Texas’ function, goals, or objectives; I say let him run his business.
Let’s say I’m a laissez-faire kind of guy until I have reason to act differently.
 
Candice, I can appreciate the time and attention you've spent on this, but I believe we have a serious culture clash here.

Let me start here:
Right now, it is not clear whether what is happening is:
  • an informal volunteer effort,
  • a change to the volunteer organizational structure, or
  • a SLEC committee / subcommittee.
Click to expand...
It is clear to me, anyway, that the answer is this is an informal volunteer effort. As such, it's not going to require a lot of process around it to make it work.

A concern was expressed by several people at convention that our new smaller structure would leave them without representation on SLEC. Anastasia took the initiative to address those concerns by hosting the 'town hall' call. Ginny volunteered to ensure that people in our party are kept informed and have a specific person they can call if they're not familiar with the other SLEC members. Jessi volunteered to help Ginny with that as needed. The comments on the call confirmed that this is a step in the right direction, worth trying and then modifying as needed, if needed. That is a gift-wrapped package with a bow on it.

My strong recommendation to everyone at this point is to give this solution a chance to work, and then let's see if there are any actual problems with the way it's actually working.
 
Thanks, Andrew, that clarification does help.
From where I was sitting, this had started to look more formal than “an informal volunteer effort.”

I absolutely appreciate the people who are putting time into improving communication and follow-up, and I fully support giving this a chance and seeing how it works in practice.

Glad we cleared that up and can move forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top