A straw poll is I guess fine but it would be nice to know if all agree with:
1.
Rhonda’s comment that travel / hotel assistance not be extended to this group due to the lateness of the proposal (I
agree with this).
2.
Jim’s comment that it be time limited and placed adjacent to a lunch hour (while I do not like bumping others speakers
around, which this will do, I can agree with this).
3.
Lastly, just a suggestion, I think Jim ought to call Leo for two reasons. One to clarify for him that our call for proposals
ended 11.5 months ago, and he is incorrect in feeling he made his submission on time. And two, he should be asked to scale it back to a max of 6 persons including himself so as to comply with the time allocation as suggested by Jim.
So a straw poll is fine, but it would be nice to know if people concur with the above points.
Paul
As I see it, we don’t have a good way of making decisions like this in between regular in-person meetings. However, I think we should settle for a
less-than-ideal process in this case; I don’t think whether or not to accept this very late proposal for a panel is a critical issue.
I’d be OK with a straw poll, and I think the other committee members who’ve expressed an opinion so far are on the same page, except for Paul Moist
(I hope I haven’t missed someone). Paul, is this something you feel strongly about?
Cheers,
David
David Camfield
Coordinator, Labour Studies Program
Associate Professor of Labour Studies & Sociology
116 Isbister Building
183 Dafoe Road
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg
Manitoba
R3T 2N2
phone: 204-474-6160
fax: 204-474-7869
I’m FOR a straw poll, avoiding a meeting, and accepting this panel. I am worried though about how it will suck away attendance from other (submitted
on time) panels scheduled at the same time, however. I don’t think this is fair. So hopefully Jim and Julie – in what I agree should be their last go at the schedule (we should accept no more panels) – can fit this in somehow to mitigate this effect. Maybe
it could run over a lunch as a special session?
Also, I think we need to make it clear that because this came in (so) late, we can’t pay for participant travel costs, in case this is their expectation
and shifts anyone’s ability to come.
Hi All:
It might be possible to take a straw poll by email rather than meet again so soon after the last meeting. Jim M and I are setting aside time tomorrow to work
on revising the program again, and if we can find a way to fit in a large panel, that might be useful information upon which we can evaluate whether to accept a large and attractive but extremely late panel.
I suggest, however, that in the interest of not completing wearing out the program committee, we all agree that we will accept no more panels, however attractive.
When revising the panels – and fielding many emails about new proposals -- begins to take up many (research) hours every week, your program committee members start to wonder whether they can continue in that role or if they should hand the task over to someone
else. I am sure no one wants to take advantage of committee members’ willingness to serve by overloading them with work that is essentially invisible.
Best,
julie
Hi all,
I agree with most of Paul’s sentiments: it is annoying when it came in, and it is a very good session. I’m strongly of the opinion that we should
not say no to it. It would be a huge draw.
But the issue now is whether we should meet to discuss it. If so, it should be this weekend. Perhaps people could weigh in on both issues: the
session, and whether we should meet.
Jim
Hi everyone.
I would like to suggest we meet to discuss this. I agree with others that it is an attractive proposal, the issues I would like a face to face discussion on
include:
- We set a deadline of February 2018. I recall being advised we had to do this in order to attract funding
from various sources.
- I don’t know where Leo got that we are continuing to receive submissions for panels? We just published
a jam-packed agenda and our call for proposals of a year ago I am certain made it to him and others on his list.
- We have a practical problem that I don’t think should be decide by e-mail. We have a proposal for a 10
person panel which will need at least 90 to 120 minutes. At this juncture there is no space in our agenda, which is already pretty full.
- I propose we have a meeting and that we have a published agenda in advance.
Lastly, while this is an attractive proposal I expect it won’t be the last in terms of last minute suggestions. We need to discuss how we deal with these given
the commitments we have made to dozens of folks who took the time to apply by our deadline. Again, I like the content of the Panitch proposal but I think given the 2.5 years we have donated to pulling this conference together that we not just say ok and leave
the details to be worked out later.
Paul
Hi Paul:
I understand your confusion.
Our deadline of February 2018 was unusually early, and either Leo assumed we had made a mistake on the date or is pretending he thought that. As it happens, in
reality, we had no firm deadline. We continue to accept proposals as they arrive.
julie
Jim, is his comment correct that we have a February 2019 deadline for panel submissions? I thought the deadline was February 2018??
Paul
From: Brandon University 1919strikeconference
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:34 PM
To: '1919 conference organizing committee' <1919-conference@lists.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: FW: proposal for panel
Importance: High
Hi everyone,
Well, here’s something out of the blue!!!
It is, of course, annoying getting this now. But I do have to say, it’s attractive. Indeed, it’s the type of thing that I had hoped to solicit
from the beginning but didn’t know how. It would also be a very big draw for Winnipeggers. I await your comments. We should try to discuss this, as much as possible, on the listserv rather than wait until our Feb. 9 meeting to address it.
Jim
Dear James Naylor,
A rather large group of us have consulted and would all very much like to come to the conference, for which are proposing the following panel. It would be in the format of a round
table with each participants addressing the theme outlined below with an opening 5 minute statement followed by discussion.
The Legacy
What was the legacy the 1919 strike in terms of the political culture it spawned for those who grew up in the following decades? Winnipegers and ex-Winnipegers who were born
and grew up there in diverse circumstances and different parts of the city from the 20 to 60s (some of whom still live there, some long since in exile) will discuss what propelled them - through their various experiences with the contradictory class, institutional
and cultural nature of that legacy (including not only that of the ILPers, CCFers, CPCers or the labour movement but also the specific ethnic and gendered dimensions of that political culture) - into doing the various kinds of work they subsequently engaged
in so as to try to build on but also get beyond those limits and contradictions.
Participants:
Greg Albo, political economist, York University, co-editor
The Socialist Register, co-author of In and Out of Crisis: The Financial meltdown and Left Alternatives
Meyer Brownstone, former Deputy Minister, Saskatchewan CCF/NDP governments, emeritus professor University of Toronto, Chair Emeritus Oxfam Canada
Lawrie Cherniak, former Winnipeg city councillor, lawyer, yiddish oral historian, author of
Rebel without a Pause
Cy Gonick, founder and editor of
Canadian Dimension, emeritus professor University of Manitoba, author of
Canada Since 1960: A People's History
Sam Gindin, former Research Director CAW, co-author of
The Making of Global Capitalism and The Socialist Challenge Today
Melanie Panitch, School of Disability Studies, Office of Social Innovation, Ryerson University, author,
Disability. Mothers and Organization: Accidental Activists
Jim Silver, Urban & Inner-City Studies, Merchants Hotel Campus, University of Winnipeg, co-author of Indians Wear Red: Colonialism,
Resistance and Aboriginal Street Gangs
Gail Singer, Filmmaker,
True Confections, first feature film on growing up in Winnipeg; documentary You Can't Beat a Woman on the culture of violence
screened PBS and CBC
Donald Swartz, emeritus professor Carleton University, co-founder Ottawa Committee for Labour Action, co-author of
From Consent to Coercion:The Assault on Trade Union Freedoms
Chair, Leo Panitch, emeritus professor York University, co-editor
The Socialist Register, author of Crisis of Working Class Politics and
Renewing Socialism
We hope you will be as excited about this as we are. We really appreciated the online deadline of early February for panel submissions which made it possible to take the time
to get a group like this on board. We see the panel's importance not only in terms of discussing the limited "diversity" of Anglo, Italian and Jewish communities in a radical political culture from which indigenous people were largely excluded or at least
marginalized, but also the contradictions of growing up with prominent labour leaders (e.g. Donald Swartz, the grandson of John Blumberg) as well as the contradictory experiences with disability and gender discrimination in the context of a working class,
trade union and socialist culture that could be positively built on yet also needed to be transcended.
Looking forward to hearing from you. I will be happy to take on the responsibility of making sure everyone gets registered in good time. Since you already have a draft program
up so much ahead of that deadline, I hope you will to be able to indicate, especially for those of us having to make flight arrangements, when this session would be slotted into the program.
Thanks so much for taking on the hard work of organizing this terrific conference.
Best regards,
Leo Panitch