<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Apparently Mike Feinstein's emails from several hours ago are not
being allowed through to the SGA list. I don't know why.....<br>
<br>
So I am forwarding them so delegates have the benefit of reading
them</p>
<p>Linda</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>From:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mike Feinstein
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mfeinstein@feinstein.org"><mfeinstein@feinstein.org></a><br>
</span>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Subject:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes]
Discuss ID 156: Bylaws Amendment: Procedures for Recall</b><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Date:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;">March 30, 2018 at 10:05:22
AM PDT<br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>To:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;">GPCA Discussion List for
SGA Votes <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org"><gpca-votes@sfgreens.org></a><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>
<div>Dear Greens<br class="">
<br class="">
This is thinly veiled attempt to further the internal faction
fight in our state party, to make it easier to get eliminate
candidates elected under proportional representation, who do
not agree with the current Coordinating Committee majority and
those who support them.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Background<br class="">
<br class="">
Current recall procedures reserve the right to initiate and
approve recall petitions to county councils, rather than
county organizations themselves. This is an obstacle to
fuller participation in party governance by the GPCA, as
defined in Bylaw 3-1.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
This is not true. Actually County Councils are the one party
of party governance that is subject to all registered Greens,
because any registered Greens can run and when the race is
contested, any Green can vote. In other words, County
Council elections are the one place open to the fullest
participation in the GPCA.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">In addition to promoting
clarity by complying with Bylaws 4-1 and 4-4, revising this
provision would also ensure that the GPCA’s own procedures
for encouraging oversight and good governance of the party
organization are more consistent with two of the party’s 10
Key Values: decentralization and grassroots democracy.<br
class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
This is stated without substantiation.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
Actually this proposal centralizes power, by moving it away
from the county parties who represent a broad base of Greens
around the state, to a potentially much smaller group of
people who may happen to attend an in-person GA at any given
point in time (as explained below).<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">This proposal also removes an
inconsistency found elsewhere in the bylaws regarding the
duties and responsibilities of both the General Assembly
(GA) and Standing General Assembly (SGA) (cf., GPCA Bylaw
7-6.2(g)).<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Actually this text confuses the issues, as explained below.<br
class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
Proposal<br class="">
<br class="">
That GPCA Bylaw Article 8-5.2 be amended as follows:<br
class="">
<br class="">
That Article 8-5.2 be amended from its current text:<br
class="">
<br class="">
8-5.2 A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for
removal, be approved by County Councils representing 35% of
the total number of General Assembly delegate seats, and
must be received by the Coordinating Committee before it can
be forwarded to the General Assembly for a vote. The written
basis for recall must be based upon substantial
malperformance of the duties of the Coordinating Committee
as defined in these Bylaws.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Again, the reason that this rule is based upon County
Councils, is that the county parties are elected bodies on the
county level and hence are the building blocks of the state
party. County Councils are also places where considered
discussion can occur on such a serious issues. The way the new
rule is written, it just become a petition drive effort, as
described below.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">to read as follows:<br
class="">
<br class="">
8-5.2 A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for
removal, be approved by 35% of the total number of General
Assembly or Standing General Assembly delegates,<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
I don’t know if this text was submitted to the GPCA Bylaws
Committee for review as required under GPCA Bylaws, but this
text now entirely confuses the process and can produce
unintended consequence - and given that, the Bylaws Committee
had a responsibility to identify that to the sponsor and send
it back for more work, and the Bylaws Committee failed us.<br
class="">
<br class="">
The current text "A Recall Petition must contain the written
basis for removal, be approved by County Councils representing
35% of the total number of General Assembly delegate seats “<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
is based upon the total number of General Assembly DELEGATE
SEATS, because that is a number defined in the party bylaw by
a given formula<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">7-1.2 The total number of
delegates and the number of delegates per county shall be
the total of two sums:<br class="">
<br class="">
7-1.2(a) Each active County Organization shall have at least
one delegate seat, for a total of 58 if County Organizations
are active in all of California's counties.<br class="">
<br class="">
7-1.2(b) Each active County Organization shall have an
additional number of delegates seats out of an additional
100 seats, equal to its percentage of registered Greens from
within the county, compared to the total number of
registered Greens in all counties, with a minimum of 1%
required for one seat, times 100.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
By trying to change this to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
"A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for removal,
be approved by 35% of the total number of General Assembly or
Standing General Assembly delegates”<br class="">
<br class="">
creates several problems.<br class="">
<br class="">
The first is that it creates an uncertain number, by changing
the definition from SEATS to DELEGATES. The number of SGA
DELEGATES can change from time to time during the course of a
year , so the number of delegates needed to support a recall
petition would change! Furthermore this rule doesn’t state at
what time that number of delegates is defined. This is sloppy
work on behalf of the sponsors (unless it was intentional) and
the GPCA Bylaws Committee needed to have caught this and sent
it back for correction.<br class="">
<br class="">
In fact this rule would then incentive county parties to play
games with how many people are their appointed SGA delegates
at any one time, in order to affect the total number needed
for such a recall petition.<br class="">
<br class="">
Second, by introducing " General Assembly or Standing General
Assembly DELEGATES” instead of SEATS, this is sly backdoor
method to change the entire threshold for a recall, from a 35%
of a large number of defined seats, to 35% of a smaller number
of random people who show up at a General Assembly.<br
class="">
<br class="">
So now under this proposal, all that has to happen is that we
have a modestly attended GA in one part of the state, where
Greens from another part of the state can’t easily attend, and
then 35% of that MUCH SMALLER number of delegates in
attendance (compared to the defined number of SEATS) can move
a recall process ahead. It could even theoretically happen
late on a Sunday afternoon at a GA, when only a small people
were left, that arguably could say 35% of those people
remaining would be enough to start a recall! <br class="">
<br class="">
Under the current GPCA rules, recalls are NOT mean to be easy.
The reason for this is that our CC elections are held under
proportional representation, to ensure diverse representation,
including of minority factions in the party.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
The recall rule is not supposed to be used for internal party
faction fights, but instead is meant to be in place in that
rare case where it is abundantly obvious to a very large
number of Greens that something must be done.<br class="">
<br class="">
Third, with County Councils, there is a clear APPROVAL PROCESS
where County Councils take a vote and have minutes. Now what
is going to happen? Now there is no ‘approval process’ in
place. Are we supposed to have a change.org petition going
around? Who is going to verify who supported such a petition?
There is nothing in this rule that describes such a process -
again another reason that it should have been sent back by the
GPCA Bylaws Committee for more work. In fact as is, this
proposal is not actually implementable and is thus infirm.<br
class="">
<br class="">
In sum, this proposal is poorly written, not implementable as
written, and is a thinly-veiled effort to aid faction
fighting. Really quite sad that something like this has
advanced this far.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
For all of these reasons, I am voting no<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
Mike Feinstein<br class="">
SGA Delegate<br class="">
GPLAC</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>