[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy

Wed Feb 21 02:25:30 PST 2018

Now that June Brashares has clarified that the proposed endorsement process
does not have to be exclusive, the debate over this process is every more
clearly a proxy fight for other conflicts. Which is frustrating, if
predictable.

TL;DR: Specious arguments being made by all sides in the dispute over
whether we should have an endorsement process and why, as well as what the
outcome of the process should be, and its legitimacy. Generally, not a good
look for the party, and a vast waste of energy (as usual).

My personal take, at this point is that:

a) I see nothing wrong with an endorsement process that is fair and open,
and at least theoretically, could result in multiple endorsements; even
this process, though it is late, is clearly open, and it is as "fair" as
any process, in the context of an internal split in the party, can be. All
the candidates, and their advocates, are going to have an equal opportunity
to obtain an endorsement, or to work for a "no endorsement" decision, or
for endorsement of only a single candidate, or to simply abstain from the
process (at minimal harm to their candidacy, in my opinion). If one
candidate or another prevails or fails to prevail as the result of various
members of the SGA and their associated county level organizations being
committed to endorsing only one candidate, either on principle, or on based
on the merits of the various candidates as presented, or as a proxy for
other disputes, that's a political outcome, and as "legitimate" as any
other. Being out organized by another faction happens.

b) I see plenty wrong with the arguments being made for endorsing only a
single candidate:

1. At least for the June 2018 primary, the 2% threshold is not necessary
for us to retain our ballot status. That's unequivocal in my opinion. If
our registration numbers should fall drastically enough for that threshold
to be meaningful, we've probably got bigger things to worry about. Further,
specifically in this context, we historically gain higher percentages of
the vote on down ticket races, most of which are not contested by multiple
candidates.

2. Endorsing a single candidate (especially at this late date) does not,
under top 2, and will not in the future (no matter when it happens),
prevent multiple candidates from running under the Green Party banner
(although an earlier process might lead some candidates to run under
another party's banner, or not run at all), and thus will not prevent
"splitting" of the vote. Thus, should our registration numbers have fallen
to the point where the 2% threshold is significant in the future, it does
not provide meaningful protection against loss of ballot status.

3. An endorsement offers minimal benefits, at this point, to the endorsed
candidate (and indirectly, the party), given the limited resources
available from the state party, and the limited number of individuals an
endorsement would influence. If we're being honest with ourselves, it is
clear that the the vast majority of our support at the ballot box,
historically, based on relative results vs. registration numbers, has come
from non-Green voters, and that large numbers of those folks are probably
voting based on the Green Party "brand", so to speak, rather than the
merits or demerits of our individual candidates (aside from names and
genders, women, for example, tending to run slightly stronger historically,
especially when they're the only one running for a seat), especially in the
down ballot races which receive minimal coverage in the media and elsewhere.

My personal opinion is that the endorsement process should not be
"politicized" and made into a proxy for other conflicts. We should endorse,
all qualified candidates who've clearly expressed a commitment to the Ten
Key Values, and not endorse those who haven't. We should also exercise a
reasonable level of discretion about only endorsing those candidates who
can serve as positive and credible spokespeople for our party. In my view,
this is in alignment with Green values of consensus and collaboration over
competition, and avoids unnecessary grievances and disputes. But then, I'm
an idealist. Which is why I'm still a Green, after 28 years. :)

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:07 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Also very concerning throughout this thread is the latest argument of
> "what if nazis run as greens?" This fear-mongering to pass a proposal has
> no place in our pillars & values.
>
> So. Um. Let's design a way for a small group of individuals decide who is
> "good" and "bad?" Does this mean we call opposition "Hillary Supporter" and
> GPCA will issue a statement of opposition? Where is the line drawn there?
> How do we feel about Bernie supporters, then?
>
> On Feb 20, 2018 7:59 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem GP Sac is making the argument that having multiple
>> candidates is a good thing. We also did not vote as a county party to
>> endorse/oppose this proposal, so please do not address GP Sacramento
>> members in a general way.
>>
>> ENDORSING one over others who have all been campaigning this whole time
>> is the problem. Starting this process NOW, after candidates qualified,
>> without anyone expecting an endorsement vote is a problem.
>>
>> "Multiple candidates don’t help build the party. Good candidates help
>> build the party. "
>>
>> Define "good." This is subjective. If you were concerned about
>> concentrating support behind single candidates, this could have been
>> strategically avoided by running for an office in which another Green had
>> not filed intent for so it makes no sense for you to be arguing in favor of
>> this now.
>>
>> -N
>>
>> P.S. Your recollections of social media posts are inaccurate. Please
>> cease your libelous statements of others and myself and please consider
>> choosing your words very carefully as they reflect on the entire state
>> party.
>> On Feb 20, 2018 7:32 PM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wait... all of a sudden having multiple candidates is a good thing? I
>>> thought Green Party of Sacramento members were the ones taking to social
>>> media and listserves claiming that my candidacy for Secretary of State was
>>> an attempt to “split the vote” and “running Greens against Greens”, etc.
>>>
>>> I recall Nicole Castor, James Clark calling me a “highjacker” along with
>>> Jacob Bloom in a FB Group called “Annoying Rats That Eat Holes in Erik
>>> Rydberg GPCA Spokesperson”. A couple months ago they said I was an
>>> inexperienced candidate compared to the long time establishment candidate
>>> Mike Feinstein.
>>>
>>> Now multiple candidates is a good thing and multiple candidates help
>>> build the party?
>>>
>>> Multiple candidates don’t help build the party. Good candidates help
>>> build the party.
>>>
>>> This endorsement process helps us indentify good candidates. If I were
>>> to get an endorsement from GPCA that would not make me an “establishment
>>> candidate.“ Surly a member of the Young Greens of the United States
>>> couldn’t be an establishment candidate over a “Co-Founder” of the Green
>>> Party of California?
>>>
>>> If you can’t garner support from Delegates appointed by County Councils
>>> in the amount of a 2/3rds vote. Your probably not a good candidate and the
>>> Green Party of California’s Delegates don’t have faith in you to win or to
>>> appropriately represent GPCA.
>>>
>>> Nobody can stop you from running... but you don’t get to run around
>>> saying whatever you want like the Green Party of California supports  you.
>>> If we don’t create this process then racists and Trump supporters can run
>>> on the Green Party ballot and we’ll have no way to distance ourselves or
>>> voice our disapproval.
>>>
>>> Do we want Hillary/Trump supporters running on our ballot and everybody
>>> thinking we support them?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:40 PM Dee See <artaed at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, Sadie. Onward to a better world!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this
>>>>> proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic."
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying
>>>>> the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this
>>>>> listserv are the people opposed to this proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular
>>>>> arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our
>>>>> movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic
>>>>> opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could
>>>>> make a concrete difference in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the
>>>>> road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at
>>>>> the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has
>>>>> attended one can attest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Namaste.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this
>>>>>> proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having
>>>>>> delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away
>>>>>> from registered greens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle,
>>>>>> yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides
>>>>>> the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The
>>>>>>> County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The general Green population of a county does not have the power to
>>>>>>> replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA,
>>>>>>> so are voting on internal structure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cagreens.org/ga
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates
>>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <
>>>>>>> lauren_mauricio at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county,
>>>>>>>> then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their
>>>>>>>> "constituents" so to speak).  So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent
>>>>>>>> strategy for reaching more Greens across the state.  Unless you think the
>>>>>>>> SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to
>>>>>>>> the Greens in their county.  In which case, the Greens in their county have
>>>>>>>> the power to replace them.  But it makes no sense to fault someone
>>>>>>>> for running a smart campaign.  In fact, we should be encouraging it if we
>>>>>>>> want to win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lauren Mauricio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>> *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org> on behalf of
>>>>>>>> james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM
>>>>>>>> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key
>>>>>>>> value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would
>>>>>>>> centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their
>>>>>>>> super delegates?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've
>>>>>>>> spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign,
>>>>>>>> yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens,
>>>>>>>> including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea
>>>>>>>> such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they
>>>>>>>> were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures
>>>>>>>> needed to be placed on the ballot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA
>>>>>>>> did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the
>>>>>>>> delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their
>>>>>>>> petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates
>>>>>>>> would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this
>>>>>>>> proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other
>>>>>>>> candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our
>>>>>>>> inner circles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working
>>>>>>>> as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new
>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris at bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good afternoon fellow Greens,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am
>>>>>>>> posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At
>>>>>>>> this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to
>>>>>>>> accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates
>>>>>>>> are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from
>>>>>>>> all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked
>>>>>>>> choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3
>>>>>>>> majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to
>>>>>>>> endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of
>>>>>>>> grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of
>>>>>>>> our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is
>>>>>>>> no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils
>>>>>>>> and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of
>>>>>>>> unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are all greens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate
>>>>>>>> for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by
>>>>>>>> this forum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God bless,
>>>>>>>> Christopher Carlson
>>>>>>>> 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people
>>>>>>>> opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller
>>>>>>>> corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering
>>>>>>>> running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and
>>>>>>>> limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an
>>>>>>>> Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Green Party is the  only Socialist party big enough to run
>>>>>>>> candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our
>>>>>>>> structure and we need their  Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some
>>>>>>>> puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing
>>>>>>>> about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or
>>>>>>>> very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we
>>>>>>>> can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table
>>>>>>>> and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while
>>>>>>>> simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the
>>>>>>>> most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are
>>>>>>>> also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984.
>>>>>>>> They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that
>>>>>>>> our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes
>>>>>>>> Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on
>>>>>>>> corporate-free  Parties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive
>>>>>>>> Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed
>>>>>>>> a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <
>>>>>>>> lauren_mauricio at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though.  I was a
>>>>>>>> Berniecrat.  I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie
>>>>>>>> Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her
>>>>>>>> platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%.  So I voted Green and never looked
>>>>>>>> back.  If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted
>>>>>>>> for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day.
>>>>>>>> I know a lot of people who share the same story.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lauren Mauricio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tulare County
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>> *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org> on behalf of
>>>>>>>> Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement
>>>>>>>> for Governor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anthony & Others,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that this process should have been started at least six
>>>>>>>> months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the
>>>>>>>> work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one
>>>>>>>> Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point,
>>>>>>>> actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates
>>>>>>>> reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits
>>>>>>>> by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms
>>>>>>>> which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is
>>>>>>>> useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win
>>>>>>>> it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely
>>>>>>>> disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering
>>>>>>>> to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which
>>>>>>>> compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering
>>>>>>>> has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we
>>>>>>>> should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than
>>>>>>>> we really do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly
>>>>>>>> supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not
>>>>>>>> reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive"
>>>>>>>> democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP
>>>>>>>> moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to
>>>>>>>> a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that
>>>>>>>> we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve
>>>>>>>> their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their
>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this
>>>>>>>> point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is
>>>>>>>> proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Nicole Castor
>>>>>>>> GP Sacramento County
>>>>>>>> On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <
>>>>>>>> chefkrzywicki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base.  We
>>>>>>>> need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out
>>>>>>>> and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point?  We have a
>>>>>>>> such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split
>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so
>>>>>>>> we could already be backing a unified candidate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the
>>>>>>>> voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It
>>>>>>>> seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote
>>>>>>>> for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the
>>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some
>>>>>>>> time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <
>>>>>>>> jmc at sfgreens.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
>>>>>>>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow
>>>>>>>> through with
>>>>>>>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a
>>>>>>>> process it
>>>>>>>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot
>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and
>>>>>>>> division,
>>>>>>>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot?  If
>>>>>>>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in
>>>>>>>> and who is out.  I agree that we should not make an endorsement
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about
>>>>>>>> all the Green candidates running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JMC
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc at sfgreens.org)
>>>>>>>> http://sfgreens.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Anthony J. Krzywicki,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator
>>>>>>>> Ventura County Green Party County Council*
>>>>>>>> www.venturacountygreenparty.com
>>>>>>>> greenpartyvc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> instagram: greenpartyvcc
>>>>>>>> facebook group: Ventura Green Party
>>>>>>>> facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in
>>>>>>>> our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is
>>>>>>>> to desist from harming them. *
>>>>>>>> -Dali Lama
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Erik Rydberg *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> 530-781-2903
>>>>>>>> <(530)%20781-2903> *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 cagreens.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Erik Rydberg *
>>>
>>> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
>>>
>>>
>>> *erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com>530-781-2903
>>> <(530)%20781-2903>*
>>>
>>>                 cagreens.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>
>>>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180221/bc0d3494/attachment.html>