- Delegates - list.sfgreens.org

Consent calendar item
by ErikaSF＠aol.com 12 Jun '07

12 Jun '07

Hi all, Does anyone remember a consent calendar item from our plenary a few weeks ago involving the Post Carbon Institute? The proposal had to do with peak oil, but it also stipulated that we would specifically support the work of the Post Carbon Institute. Was anyone in the room when the consent calendar item was passed? Thanks, Erika ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Plenary wrapup
by John-Marc Chandonia 28 May '07

28 May '07

Overall, I think this was a pretty successful plenary for the SFGP. Thanks to everybody who volunteered, especially Susan for organizing it and both Susan and Erika who stepped in as emergency facilitators to try to fix the LA problems. As Marc mentioned, Jim also played a constructive (although unsuccessful) role in trying to get some action on LA. The main good points were that enough people attended that we should have made some money (I hope Susan will give us an estimate), and that we got some positive news coverage. I put a copy of the TV news story on my website (http://sfgreens.org/070526_plenary_news.mpg; warning-- it's a 22M file), in which Charlene, Erika, Micheas, and our banner and buttons are all featured. Luke Thomas also took a lot of pictures, although I haven't seen coverage in FCJ yet. Ross gave a good speech at lunch, at Matt also made a brief appearance. The low point was that we spent about 6 hours on LA and failed to solve it, thus guaranteeing another year of GPCA dysfunctionality before we have another opportunity at the next northern CA plenary (it will not be solved at the Riverside plenary because almost all constructive input on LA comes from SF, Alameda, and Sacramento, and not enough delegates from those counties attend SoCal plenaries). About 4 of the 6 hours were not spent actually discussing LA, but on discussion of whether to discuss LA, whether we had quorum to discuss whether to discuss LA, or how to choose a facilitator to facilitate a quorum count to then discuss a proposal to pick another facilitator to have a discussion of whether or not we might pursue any of the above options. I also have constructive criticism for future GPCA delegates. The original agenda put all the LA discussion (less than 2 hrs) at the end of the 1st day, when it was guaranteed to run out of time without any action being taken. At the beginning of the plenary, I tried to make an ammendment to change the schedule, to take 4-5 hours from other items (proposals that clearly had no consensus, or were otherwise lower priority than solving LA), and move the resulting 6 hours on LA right to the beginning of the plenary after the consent calendar. My proposal failed by 2 votes, with several SF delegates voting in favor of the original agenda instead. As it turned out, none of the proposals I had tried to get rid of passed, and we merely wasted precious time that should have been spent working on the LA problem. Several were withdrawn due to lack of time, and others went down in flames to cries of "bullshit" (in one case, the presenter even tried to change the proposal after it was voted down, so it would retroactively pass). If my proposed scheduling change had passed, we would have gotten just as much GPCA business accomplished, and we might have also succeeded on LA. One proposal (the "CC reboot") failed by just 2 votes, with all SF delegates voting in favor. If we'd introduced that proposal on Saturday instead of Sunday morning, we might have had time to introduce changes that would have gotten something passed. Most delegates didn't realize that by the time they belatedly supported changes to the agenda (after it had passed on Saturday morning), it was too late and the status quo crowd was able to use procedural manipulation to run out the clock. We really blew a golden opportunity on the first vote of the meeting. I hope that in the future, SF delegates should be more organized and sit together so we can caucus and back each other up on important votes like this one. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

2 1

Re: [Delegates] [SFGP-A] discussion of plenary proposals
by Christina Olague 26 May '07

26 May '07

I would be happy to share ...let's talk sometime Ray.... Ray Tobey <green(a)bionictoad.com> wrote: susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > I would like some very specific examples of what members of the CC > have done that is somewhat arrogant. Christina, I wrote carefully trying to answer Sue's question while hoping to offend as few people as possible. I tried to describe one specific action that both offended me and caused perception consequences that I think apply to the entire organization. I turned it on myself because I did not want to imply that my interpretation should be Sue's or anyone else's. I used Marc's name because in answering Sue I quoted his words. I also did not want to offend you or Bruce. It seems I failed miserably. For that, I apologize. You might find it surprising that I argue with Jo more regularly than I do with you folks in SF. Though my arguments with her are respectful, I don't think she'd consider me part of hers or any faction. She has mentioned that she'd like more of my help in San Mateo, but I prefer to go where there is opportunity to make a difference. When Matt and then Ross ran, that was SF. A year ago, it was Oakland. I was able to make peace with Aimee's opponents because they taught me about congruence and led me to another doorway of knowledge beyond. Before that, they listened to what I said. I don't think I hate Marc. I do think that the things he frequently says and the way he says them does grievous damage to the party. I tried to discuss the subject with him quietly, one on one and face to face, two years ago. Just six weeks ago, I requested arbitration with the SFGP interpersonal dispute resolution board, but Marc did not want to participate. I'll admit to being at wit's end with him. When I think the leaders of our organization are making a mistake, should I remain silent? That would be very difficult for me. Is there anything else I could try? Are my disagreements with Marc the only reason why you think I'm a plant? If I'm doing something else you think is wrong, I'm happy to hear it. If you'd rather be done with me, please just say so. I will happily move on if even a few think that will help. I am sincerely trying to answer all your questions, and I hope I have not offended you again. - Ray Christina Olague wrote: > Ray, > I find you pretty divisive when are you going to turn > the critique on yourself, daily I am becoming > convinced that you are plant for San Mateo convince me > that I am wrong ! > > Why can you walk over to the Aimee Allison's opponent > and make peace and yet you can't make peace within > your own ranks ? Why do you hate Marc so much why > don't you try to make peace with him and practice what > you preach right here right now in the SF Green Party > ? _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

1 0

Re: [Delegates] [SFGP-A] discussion of plenary proposals
by Christina Olague 26 May '07

26 May '07

Ray, I find you pretty divisive when are you going to turn the critique on yourself, daily I am becoming convinced that you are plant for San Mateo convince me that I am wrong ! Why can you walk over to the Aimee Allison's opponent and make peace and yet you can't make peace within your own ranks ? Why do you hate Marc so much why don't you try to make peace with him and practice what you preach right here right now in the SF Green Party ? --- Ray Tobey <green(a)bionictoad.com> wrote: > susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > > I resent the suggestion that I am part of a cadre > and that I engage in > > extolling and demonizing because of the political > cadre that you seem > > to think I belong to. When I am critical of > someone it is with reason > > and I do not withhold my criticism because someone > is an elected > > Green. And I'm curious -- what makes you think > that we think we are > > that important? I would like some very specific > examples of what > > members of the CC have done that is somewhat > arrogant. > > I am an American citizen. As such, I help choose our > leader and I share > responsibility for what he says and does. This is > why I'm deeply ashamed > of my country's recent actions, even though I've > tried everything I > could to stop those actions. It is our duty not only > to try to prevent > wrongful acts by our country, it is our > responsibility to succeed. > > The Good German is the citizen who believes his duty > is to stay loyal no > matter what his leader does. The Good German remains > silent in the face > of wrongful acts. I believe such a citizen shares > even more > responsibility than those attempting to prevent the > acts, but that does > not reduce the responsibility of the opposition. > > An elected representative is called a servant, as in > public servant, > because of this shared responsibility. When we > instruct the servant to > act in our name, we assume responsibility and he is > burdened with duty. > > A key piece to understand is that my own perception > of responsibility > doesn't matter. People around the world may come to > hate America, and > me, regardless of whether I supported or opposed the > wrongful act. > > Here's what I think Dave was talking about: We are > voluntary > participants in the SFGP general membership. > Collectively, we elected > representatives whose duty it is to speak in our > name to other Greens > around the state. If our CC representative "engages > in extolling and > demonizing," as Dave put it, then it reflects on us > and it is our > responsibility to correct it. Among many things our > representative Marc > Salomon has said, is this: > > > "*a crazy muthafucka like *Mike F has..." > > "Peter Camejo and Jo Chamberlain *from a gang > called Greeniggas with > > attitude* have..." > > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/private/gpca-cc/2007-May/016186.html > > Because of the relationship between elector and > representative, I am > appalled to find that those words are now mine. As > described, I believe > that I am now part of a cadre that engages in > extolling and demonizing. > It seems that Donna Warren believes this of me also: > > > If you guys can't see what an idiot and a racist > Marc is, you are all > > sick! Apparently, you don't want blacks in the > green party. The sheets > > are off this guy but my question is, are you > wearing sheets too? Sorry > > but if you don't oppose Marc's vehement ranting, > you are guilty "by > > silence" and prove you are also wearing those > white sheets too! > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/private/gpca-cc/2007-May/016336.html > > Then again, maybe this is not what Dave was talking > about. > - Ray > > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >

1 0

Re: [Delegates] [SFGP-A] discussion of plenary proposals
by Christina Olague 26 May '07

26 May '07

Who made you an authority on what makes a person racist? Since you have sooooo much experience as a person of color ? Where do you get off ? ! --- Ray Tobey <green(a)bionictoad.com> wrote: > susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com wrote: > > I resent the suggestion that I am part of a cadre > and that I engage in > > extolling and demonizing because of the political > cadre that you seem > > to think I belong to. When I am critical of > someone it is with reason > > and I do not withhold my criticism because someone > is an elected > > Green. And I'm curious -- what makes you think > that we think we are > > that important? I would like some very specific > examples of what > > members of the CC have done that is somewhat > arrogant. > > I am an American citizen. As such, I help choose our > leader and I share > responsibility for what he says and does. This is > why I'm deeply ashamed > of my country's recent actions, even though I've > tried everything I > could to stop those actions. It is our duty not only > to try to prevent > wrongful acts by our country, it is our > responsibility to succeed. > > The Good German is the citizen who believes his duty > is to stay loyal no > matter what his leader does. The Good German remains > silent in the face > of wrongful acts. I believe such a citizen shares > even more > responsibility than those attempting to prevent the > acts, but that does > not reduce the responsibility of the opposition. > > An elected representative is called a servant, as in > public servant, > because of this shared responsibility. When we > instruct the servant to > act in our name, we assume responsibility and he is > burdened with duty. > > A key piece to understand is that my own perception > of responsibility > doesn't matter. People around the world may come to > hate America, and > me, regardless of whether I supported or opposed the > wrongful act. > > Here's what I think Dave was talking about: We are > voluntary > participants in the SFGP general membership. > Collectively, we elected > representatives whose duty it is to speak in our > name to other Greens > around the state. If our CC representative "engages > in extolling and > demonizing," as Dave put it, then it reflects on us > and it is our > responsibility to correct it. Among many things our > representative Marc > Salomon has said, is this: > > > "*a crazy muthafucka like *Mike F has..." > > "Peter Camejo and Jo Chamberlain *from a gang > called Greeniggas with > > attitude* have..." > > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/private/gpca-cc/2007-May/016186.html > > Because of the relationship between elector and > representative, I am > appalled to find that those words are now mine. As > described, I believe > that I am now part of a cadre that engages in > extolling and demonizing. > It seems that Donna Warren believes this of me also: > > > If you guys can't see what an idiot and a racist > Marc is, you are all > > sick! Apparently, you don't want blacks in the > green party. The sheets > > are off this guy but my question is, are you > wearing sheets too? Sorry > > but if you don't oppose Marc's vehement ranting, > you are guilty "by > > silence" and prove you are also wearing those > white sheets too! > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/private/gpca-cc/2007-May/016336.html > > Then again, maybe this is not what Dave was talking > about. > - Ray > > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >

1 0

discussion of plenary proposals
by John-Marc Chandonia 25 May '07

25 May '07

Hi, There is some discussion of plenary proposals on the grns-cal-forum listserv, for people who are subscribed there. You can subscribe at this URL: http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum It looks like we're not going to get a chance to meet in person prior to the plenary (unless tomorrow night), so let's discuss any plenary proposals on the "delegates" and "active" lists. I'm still of the opinion that we should reject all agenda topics other than a reorganization, with decentralization of power and funds from the GPCA to the locals. I think this is the only effective solution to stop the GPCA infighting--leave them no substantial decision-making authority or budget to fight over. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

3 5

Re: [Delegates] [SFGP-A] discussion of plenary proposals
by John-Marc Chandonia 25 May '07

25 May '07

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 01:08:30PM -0700, Ray Tobey wrote: > I think there are Greens out there who believe the SFGP is proud, > obstructionist, and unwilling to listen. I would expect that our last CC delegation (Bruce and Marc) would come across to Greens around the state as obstructionist, because that's what we sent them there to do. I think we were quite clear on that in May 2006 when they were elected, as we spent many hours in discussion of the situation at the time, and decided obstruction was the appropriate response. However, most Greens who have been involved in state politics for more than the last year would recognize the long history of constructive engagement by many SFGP members, including Susan, Erika, Don, and others. Our recent obstructionist phase didn't come about in a vacuum--it's a response to increasing abuse of authority (and of volunteers such as myself) on the part of the GPCA CC. I was in the middle of it all from 2001-2006, so I'm familiar with most of the relevant history and the failure of all attempts to solve the problems during that time and since. > I am not impressed with the two agendas I've seen, but constructive > input is possible. My input was meant to be constructive. I think that the GPCA cannot survive as an organization without structural changes, and therefore it would be crazy to spend rare face time on things like updating our platform while there are much more serious issues to discuss. That would be fiddling while Rome burns. Coming to consensus on a solution will require a lot of thought, and the input of as many dedicated activists as possible. I'll try to draft some specific suggestions, but this will require much broader input. Vicki and others will be able to contribute even if they don't know the whole story of the current conflict. I'd also like to hear if you have any constructive, specific ideas for how to solve the GPCA's problems? JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [Delegates] [SFGP-A] discussion of plenary proposals
by vicki leidner 25 May '07

25 May '07

i do not feel i could add anything constructive to the plenary. much as i appreciate being elected an alternate, please find someone else better versed in these issues. respectfully, vicki Ray Tobey wrote: > I think there are Greens out there who believe the SFGP is proud, > obstructionist, and unwilling to listen. If we "reject all agenda topics > other than..." and say, "this is the only effective solution," then I > suspect we will reinforce some expectations. > > I am not impressed with the two agendas I've seen, but constructive > input is possible. Further, there are people who are sincerely trying to > help, even though I think their proposals may be a waste of time. If we > simply dismiss their efforts, we do a disservice to all, even ourselves. > > - Ray > > John-Marc Chandonia wrote: > >> Hi, >> There is some discussion of plenary proposals on the grns-cal-forum listserv, for people who are subscribed there. You can subscribe at this URL: >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum >> >> It looks like we're not going to get a chance to meet in person prior to the plenary (unless tomorrow night), so let's discuss any plenary proposals on the "delegates" and "active" lists. >> >> I'm still of the opinion that we should reject all agenda topics other than a reorganization, with decentralization of power and funds from the GPCA to the locals. I think this is the only effective solution to stop the GPCA infighting--leave them no substantial decision-making authority or budget to fight over. >> >> JMC >> > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active > > >

3 2

Re: [Delegates] [SFGP-A] discussion of plenary proposals
by Christina Olague 25 May '07

25 May '07

"I think there are Greens out there who believe the SFGP is proud, obstructionist, and unwilling to listen", I don't think that someones perception of us should prohibit us from doing the right thing. Ray Tobey <green(a)bionictoad.com> wrote: I think there are Greens out there who believe the SFGP is proud, obstructionist, and unwilling to listen. If we "reject all agenda topics other than..." and say, "this is the only effective solution," then I suspect we will reinforce some expectations. I am not impressed with the two agendas I've seen, but constructive input is possible. Further, there are people who are sincerely trying to help, even though I think their proposals may be a waste of time. If we simply dismiss their efforts, we do a disservice to all, even ourselves. - Ray John-Marc Chandonia wrote: > Hi, > There is some discussion of plenary proposals on the grns-cal-forum listserv, for people who are subscribed there. You can subscribe at this URL: > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum > > It looks like we're not going to get a chance to meet in person prior to the plenary (unless tomorrow night), so let's discuss any plenary proposals on the "delegates" and "active" lists. > > I'm still of the opinion that we should reject all agenda topics other than a reorganization, with decentralization of power and funds from the GPCA to the locals. I think this is the only effective solution to stop the GPCA infighting--leave them no substantial decision-making authority or budget to fight over. > > JMC _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

1 0

Re: [Delegates] [SFGP-A] discussion of plenary proposals
by Christina Olague 25 May '07

25 May '07

Yes.christina nancy lewis <lucretiam2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Dear John-Marc, ALthough I'm not a delegate, you spoke my mind as a Green. Nancy lucretiam2000(a)yahoo.com --- John-Marc Chandonia wrote: > Hi, > There is some discussion of plenary proposals on > the > grns-cal-forum listserv, for people who are > subscribed there. You > can subscribe at this URL: > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum > > It looks like we're not going to get a chance to > meet in > person prior to the plenary (unless tomorrow night), > so let's discuss > any plenary proposals on the "delegates" and > "active" lists. > > I'm still of the opinion that we should reject all > agenda > topics other than a reorganization, with > decentralization of power and > funds from the GPCA to the locals. I think this is > the only effective > solution to stop the GPCA infighting--leave them no > substantial > decision-making authority or budget to fight over. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active > _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

1 0