[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office

Wed Mar 28 21:43:18 PDT 2018

Why do i keep hearing mentioning of “LEADERS?” We don’t need to be leaders
of an emerging coalition... the idea of “natural leaders” is a myth. I
don’t want to get into it.

We’re decentralized. We are fully capable of working cooperatively with
like-minded people to accomplish certain important tasks.

This proposal has nothing to do with such things. It diminishes the
significance of being a distinct party by making an open policy for
endorsements. This weakens our party identity, which is probably why other
parties do not have their policies written in this way.

I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the
proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain.
Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the
arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling
reasons. I already voted NO.

-N

Ps Anarchist ideology doesn’t support the concept of “leaders.” Js

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 8:28 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Fear isn't an insult. It's an observation. Many people were "worried" that
> it would do this that or the other and undermine the Party. It seems to
> strengthen our position within the greater progressive movement. That's not
> an emotional attachment or assessment but an observable fact. Greens
> participating in conversations and those groups endorsing our candidates
> does exactly the same, it strengthens our position AS LEADERS of an
> emerging coalition. It does not take the responsibility of endorsing
> candidates off the ENTIRE body through the GA. It's a good thing. And
> naysayers won't stop us ffmrom becoming the natural leaders we are.
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:38 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks, I’m stepping in here to ask **both** sides of this debate to take
>> a step back from making it too personally directed at individuals.
>>
>> Please try to speak more generally about the proposal and its strengths
>> and weaknesses rather than commenting (justified or not) on the personal
>> motives, assumptions, or actions, of others.
>>
>> Let’s keep this discussion on the substance, and off of each other.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Brooks
>> SGA Vote Administrator
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Erik
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:31 PM
>> *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148,
>> 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
>>
>>
>>
>> Top Two is not a temporary circumstance. Belittling the work of others
>> who took the time to assess the very real problems the Green Party of
>> California faces is necessary. People took time and combed through the
>> bylaws to find the restrictive portions, rewrote them and went through the
>> trouble to propose them... it was not a rash, impulsive, naive or emotion
>> based process. It took months. Don't demean others work. Respect and
>> courtesy please. Even if you disagree.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Re Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and
>> straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear”
>> comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion
>> that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems
>> like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The
>> arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively
>> enthusiastic about the possible outcomes.
>>
>>
>>
>> The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in
>> reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at
>> the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to
>> promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to
>> grasp.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting
>> period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good
>> candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate
>> political party.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception?  It seems to
>> be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to
>> know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never
>> intended to be  our main objective and I don't believe it is written as
>> such.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Steven & others,
>>
>>
>>
>> What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open
>> for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having
>> our main objective to be to support greens except in specific
>> circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is
>> how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political
>> party.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Nicole. Right now We CAN  NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We
>> are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE
>> BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate
>> in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY
>> obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic
>> decision.
>>
>> What in the language makes you think otherwise?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris at bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
>>
>> We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And
>> it might even be in their ballot statement.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional
>> Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect
>> and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that
>> possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to
>> empower an effective organizing coalition.
>>
>> The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize
>> with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
>>
>> That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
>>
>> Eric Brooks
>> SF, CA
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org
>> <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM
>> *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148,
>> 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on
>> passing along with other parties right now?
>>
>>
>>
>> If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional
>> Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
>>
>>
>>
>> Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our
>> bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to
>> Proportional Representation?
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts
>> to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between
>> endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented
>> through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
>>
>>
>>
>> -N
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change
>> because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace &
>> Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of
>> groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right
>> now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s
>> length.
>>
>> Eric Brooks
>>
>> SF, CA
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Nicole Castor
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM
>> *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148,
>> 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
>>
>>
>>
>> It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional
>> representation to sell this proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain
>> time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass
>> specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition
>> for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific
>> office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no
>> direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a
>> People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning
>> into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses
>> its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations,
>> “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot”
>> because of respect to diversity and differences.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
>>
>>
>>
>> http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises
>> which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in
>> the process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party
>> takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically
>> instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve
>> mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it
>> and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this
>> which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political
>> party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> -N
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Erik,
>>
>>
>>
>> The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to
>> provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform
>> (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political
>> alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both
>> capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of
>> voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other
>> than self-defense, both fascism and the
>>
>> violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are
>> myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct
>> differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes
>> manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion)
>> between Green and conventional "left" politics.
>>
>>
>>
>> I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist
>> who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let
>> alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with
>> conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where
>> ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state
>> violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for
>> existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
>>
>>
>>
>> Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one
>> single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens
>> upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have
>> historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have
>> gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that
>> combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral
>> representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes
>> sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the
>> distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical
>> allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away
>> from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is.
>> The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own
>> ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
>>
>>
>>
>> On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party,
>> nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist
>> left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly
>> have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and
>> factionalized American statist left doing so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thomas Leavitt
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
>>
>>
>>
>> The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The
>> GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for
>> both.
>>
>>
>>
>> Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp
>> is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing
>> Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the
>> only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our
>> doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install
>> Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free
>> to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true
>> multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
>>
>>
>>
>> For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than
>> you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist
>> Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and
>> Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African
>> People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for
>> a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all
>> these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat.
>> Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is
>> currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support
>> such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an
>> NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party
>> endorsement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political
>> pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad
>> variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those
>> from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources
>> that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party
>> candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional
>> situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party
>> endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to
>> approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens,
>> simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
>>
>>
>>
>> Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist
>> Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party
>> specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are
>> anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed
>> to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to
>> attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our
>> banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are
>> incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image
>> problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thomas Leavitt
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image
>> problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent
>> or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party
>> dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to
>> endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another
>> left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on
>> actual policy or on perception of viability.
>>
>> I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People
>> already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are
>> running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice
>> dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion
>> either!!  i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is
>> better able to  articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate
>> donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the
>> incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard
>> enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this
>> will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could
>> leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their
>> own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small
>> party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not
>> give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
>>
>> Linda Piera-Avila
>>
>> Santa Monica
>>
>> PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal
>> on my own!
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion
>> that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA
>> ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
>>
>> Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green
>> candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate
>> donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform,
>> items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for
>> those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
>>
>> I hope this clears up any confusion.
>>
>> Eric Brooks
>> SGA Vote Administrator
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org
>> <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM
>> *To:* gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy
>> Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
>>
>>
>>
>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>*
>>
>>
>>
>> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
>>
>> Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for
>> General Election Candidates*
>>
>> Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura
>> Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
>>
>> Discussion  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
>>
>> Voting  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
>>
>> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
>>
>>
>>
>> *Background*
>>
>>
>>
>> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing
>> candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the
>> GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on
>> endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name
>> in the public eye.  The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates,
>> even in races where we have no candidate.  For instance, the Peace and
>> Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and
>> federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom
>> candidates.  The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party
>> Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate
>> running in the race.  The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between
>> good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate
>> money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system.
>> The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not
>> prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party
>> is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of
>> grassroots interest.  The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the
>> pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble
>> party-building efforts in California.
>>
>>
>>
>> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to
>> implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party
>> system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we
>> will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse
>> candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party
>> affiliations.  As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the
>> ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied
>> organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get
>> an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not
>> be the best candidate.  Moreover, given that there are many public
>> perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being
>> marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t
>> win,” the endorsement area is one we can control.  We can avoid
>> marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label
>> “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary
>> folks in the nation and certainly in California.
>>
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even
>> in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to
>> like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We
>> need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to
>> switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude.
>> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures
>> make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent”
>> for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like
>> we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow
>> “sectarian” view of how change happens.
>>
>>
>>
>> Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement
>> Policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Proposal*
>>
>>
>>
>> That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> That the policy be amended from its current text:
>>
>>
>>
>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the
>> GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election
>> candidates who are not Green Party members.
>>
>>
>>
>> To read as follow:
>>
>>
>>
>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept
>> corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that
>> accepts corporate campaign contributions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green
>> Party of Yolo County.
>>
>>
>>
>> Full details will be available at:
>> http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
>>
>>
>>
>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> <gpca-votes at 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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*
>>
>>
>>                 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/20180329/64e31d1f/attachment.html>