August 17, 1990
The Los Angeles District Committee (LADC) upholds the right of the L.A. CNM Community Section Committee (LA CNM CSC) [or any individuals or groups] to submit opinions, criticisms, etc. to the Congress Papers.
At the same time, the LADC has no desire to become embroiled in an endless “paper war” or exchange of memos. We are compelled to write this brief response only because we believe that the 4 proponents of the LA CNM CSC memo missed the point of our criticism entirely: In an attempt to refute the criticism of factionalizing, the memo focused on denying that “meetings” took place in the technical sense. The essence (and the exact wording) of the L.A.D.C.’s criticism was that there was “a preplanned maneuver by a handful of people which created a tone of suspicion and distrust,” not that “meetings” were held to plan the maneuver. (Some in the minority flatly denied that minority meetings ever took place prior to the July 22 district-wide meeting; others in the minority denied only that pre-planned maneuvers were the subject of any meetings; still others frankly admitted that there were minority meetings.)
We can go back and forth in an effort to resolve a factual dispute. But we believe the more important thing for the minority to grasp is that their proposal to have “co-chairs” representing various factions for the “sake of democracy and fairness” was objectively factional and (according to the overwhelming majority of those who attended the meeting) created a tone of suspicion and distrust. The LADC still feels that it was wrong.
For the record, the criticisms were raised to the minority more than once prior to the circulation of the LADC memo. What is disheartening is that, to this day, none of the participants (except one) has accepted any responsibility or self-criticisms for taking part in these activities.
As the LA CNM CSC memo acknowledges, this pre-Congress period has been difficult for many people. The LADC is pleased that the memo urges everyone to be “constructive, productive and inclusive.” In the final analysis, practice is still the criterion of truth. What we stand for and how we conduct ourselves during this period is a part of that criterion.
Our hope is that everyone strives to be principled and mutually respectful as we discuss our future.