- Delegates - list.sfgreens.org

Plenary rideshares and homestays
by John-Marc Chandonia 30 May '05

30 May '05

(forwarded) This is a message from your Host committee, the San Fernando Valley Greens. We are sending you this website where you can let others know that you have a ride to share, or are looking for one to the plenary. You can also post requests for Homestays and offer to share hotel space or a couch at your house if you live near the plenary site. http://www.spaceshare.com/cagreens If you have questions or requests for table space or other needs regarding the plenary please contact the Host com representative: Ellen Maisen (818)886-4867 or SFVGreens(a)Utla.net snail mail: 9351 Rhea Ave Northridge Ca 91324 See you on May 21! Saturday eve will be a picnic in the park. Requesting $10.00 for food costs, but will accept potluck dish to serve 6-10 people. (forwarded from the San Fernando Valley Greens) Please send to your locals/members! ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

5 4

my opinions about the plenary proposals
by John-Marc Chandonia 20 May '05

20 May '05

Hi Delegates, Here are my concerns/suggested ammendments regarding the proposals. Also, please note my endorsements (linked from my sig). Consent Items - fine LA Rep (p.13) - 1) Yes, their election was valid under their current (flawed) bylaws, and their 3 elected reps should be seated. 2) Yes, see my recommendations regarding LA (linked from my sig) 3) Decertify LA county and region, and not re-certify them until they've reorganized into something decentralized and democratic (as in #2) Finance (p.15) - Abandon efforts. Delegates should also be aware that the co-chairs of Finance recently proposed spending up to $15000 on an independent audit of the Treasurer's Office in response to some baseless mouthing- off by John Morton. I asked that both (Craig Peterson and Jo Chamberlain) step down for making this proposal, which was both unprofessional and fiscally irresponsible. Finance (p.19) - no concerns Voting Threshold (p.22) - I favor high thresholds (75/80%) for policy decisions, but those who want to make everything 2/3 have a good point (would cause fewer fights over what's policy). Internal Democracy and Ethics - no concerns GDI #1 (p. 27) - I would accept this if the presenters accept a friendly ammendment to apply the same principles within California (substituting "county" for "state" and "GPCA" for "GPUS"). By these standards, SF is currently under- represented on the GPCA CC, and not represented on any other GPCA leadership body (such as the Finance or Bylaws Committees). It would be hypocritical for us to hold the GPUS to standards the GPCA doesn't live up to. GDI #2 (p. 29) - Friendly ammendment: each candidate submits an ordered list of approved delegates at the time they submit their name to be on our primary ballot. Delegates are chosen to go to the National Nominating Convention in order from the candidates' lists, according to the percentages each receives in the primary. Delegates who can't go are replaced by those lower down the list, in order. If the candidate doesn't submit enough delegates, or the list runs out, the GPCA CC will appoint the candidate's remaining delegates WITHOUT input from the candidate (but presumably from among the candidate's supporters). If this FA is not accepted, I would definitely block this proposal: post-election vetting of the delegates by the candidate would allow a candidate to subvert the will of their own voters. GDI #3 - I have concerns that this would set a bad precedent for locals, and would need to be overturned in very rare cases at the state level (i.e. an endorsement against a Green in Name Only candidate). Suggest a Friendly Ammendment that it apply ONLY at the national level (i.e., for presidential candidates), and that we be prohibited from endorsing any non-Green candidate. I also have concerns about the language "in any way assist" since, for example, the GPCA's media press releases mentioning any legislator (e.g., Sheila Kuehl) could be interpreted as assisting that candidate in their next race. Fair Wage - No concerns as long as the funds for this are raised specifically for that purpose. Union Platform - remove A.14, C.3 as fiscally nutty. Concerns about costs of implementing D.2. Health Care Platform - no concerns JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) My GPCA Endorsements (May 2005): http://sfgreens.org/jmc/

1 0

Re: [Delegates] GPCA Treasurer Nomination Process Report is available
by Christina Olague 17 May '05

17 May '05

Thank you John for your explanation. The local challenges pale in comparison to this stuff. Christina --- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: > This report might make interesting reading to those > who are interested > in what the GPCA has been wasting our time on for > the last couple of > months. > > Delegates should know that I raised a concern about > inflamatory > language in the Majority Report (the two paragraphs > attributing > disingenuous motives to people who disagreed with > the actions of the > leadership), and asked that the language be removed. > My ammendment > was rejected by Jo Chamberlain, one of the > co-authors of the report. > I then called for the signers of the report who > disagreed with this > attack to withdraw their signatures. I'm not aware > of any who did. > I think knowing what kind of people we're dealing > with here is > important background info, especially for those of > you who are going > as delegates. > > JMC > > ----- Forwarded message from Gerry Gras > <gerrygras(a)earthlink.net> ----- > > From: Gerry Gras <gerrygras(a)earthlink.net> > To: coordinating committee <gpca-cc(a)cagreens.org> > Subject: [GPCA-CC] Treasurer Nomination Process > Report available > Reply-To: gpca-cc(a)cagreens.org > Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:39:28 -0700 > > > The final report is now available for all CA Greens > at: > > http://cagreens.org/plenary/review/treasurer/ > > Sharon has sent the county contacts list notice to > Ginny and Jim, so it should be out soon. > > Gerry > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > My GPCA Endorsements (May 2005): > http://sfgreens.org/jmc/ > _______________________________________________ > Delegates mailing list > Delegates(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/delegates >

3 2

GPCA Treasurer Nomination Process Report is available
by John-Marc Chandonia 17 May '05

17 May '05

This report might make interesting reading to those who are interested in what the GPCA has been wasting our time on for the last couple of months. Delegates should know that I raised a concern about inflamatory language in the Majority Report (the two paragraphs attributing disingenuous motives to people who disagreed with the actions of the leadership), and asked that the language be removed. My ammendment was rejected by Jo Chamberlain, one of the co-authors of the report. I then called for the signers of the report who disagreed with this attack to withdraw their signatures. I'm not aware of any who did. I think knowing what kind of people we're dealing with here is important background info, especially for those of you who are going as delegates. JMC ----- Forwarded message from Gerry Gras <gerrygras(a)earthlink.net> ----- From: Gerry Gras <gerrygras(a)earthlink.net> To: coordinating committee <gpca-cc(a)cagreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-CC] Treasurer Nomination Process Report available Reply-To: gpca-cc(a)cagreens.org Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:39:28 -0700 The final report is now available for all CA Greens at: http://cagreens.org/plenary/review/treasurer/ Sharon has sent the county contacts list notice to Ginny and Jim, so it should be out soon. Gerry ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) My GPCA Endorsements (May 2005): http://sfgreens.org/jmc/

1 0

new delegates added
by John-Marc Chandonia 14 May '05

14 May '05

Last night, the CC added 2 delegates (1 alternate): Nicole (runner-up in the election, who will replace me in the delegation since I can't go) and Caty (as an alternate for Ross). I've added both to this list. Anybody can email this list, delegates(a)sfgreens.org. The CC also put 1/2 hour on the agenda at the end of next week's GM to discuss the proposals to be decided on at the plenary. The SFGP traditionally doesn't bind delegates to a particular voting position, but this meeting should be informative so that delegates can more effectively represent our active membership. I hope you can all attend the GM next Wednesday. I want to remind you of the plenary packet, which you can download from here: http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/ You need to enter "gpca" and "10greatyears" to get it. Since the PDF is about 100 pages long, Bruce Wolfe has volunteered to copy the text of the key proposals onto the staff list for further discussion (so hopefully people will read them prior to next week's meeting). You can also register online at the link above, which I think will be cheaper than registering at the door. I will submit our list of delegates so the GPCA knows who we are sending. I also want to call attention to my plenary endorsements, in the link in my signature. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) My GPCA Endorsements (May 2005): http://sfgreens.org/jmc/

5 4

Re: Best Candidates at the Upcoming LA State Plenary - Please RSVP
by John-Marc Chandonia 06 May '05

06 May '05

John, I've copied SF's delegates on my reply to your endorsement request (see below), but we traditionally don't bind their votes. I also don't agree with most of your choices. Let me explain who I'm endorsing and why. First, I completely agree with your assessment about an "old guard" creating an undemocratic conditions on the GPCA CC. The obvious remedy for this is to implement term limits, as Christina first suggested. The fact that her proposal went nowhere, while proposals favored by the "old guard" are quickly agendized, is an example of how business is currently conducted in the GPCA. As another example, I tried to propose a bylaws change about 3 years ago on behalf of SF that would prevent the GPCA from endorsing or nominating a non-Green for president in future elections. I was given the runaround and sent to various committees and working groups, where I was told that due to limited Plenary time, SF wouldn't be able to even present the proposal for several years. Compare this to the treatment Camejo got when he recently placed an almost identical proposal on the agenda. In addition, the "old guard" makes up bylaws as they go along (e.g., the delegate credentialing procedure, or the minimum standards for county elections). That being said, I can't ally myself with the "opposition" either. Both the "old guard" and the "opposition" have extremely unpleasant individuals who engage in petty attacks and name calling on the email list (even while sometimes maintaining a veneer of professionalism), and who generally create an atmosphere that makes it nearly impossible to get anything useful done. From my perspective, the "opposition" has actually behaved worse in this regard: several people within this faction allied themselves with the Left Party last year and spent a lot of time attacking decisions made by the SFGP as well as attacking me personally as the bearer of those decisions. Thus, my endorsements: For CC at-large members, I think Laura Wells and Cat Woods are the best choices. Primarily, this is because I think the CC would function better with more female leadership (especially new leadership). Cat has especially impressed me as one of the most level-headed people on the CC in actually trying to work out a compromise in the LA situation (I didn't agree with her proposal, and think the only solution is for the GA to decertify the LA region until they get their shit together, but at least she tried). I have nothing against Chuck; I just don't think he'd be as helpful as Laura and Cat in resolving the CC's current problems. I don't think Ellen Maisen or any other LA Greens should be on the CC until the county's internal problems are resolved: their participation will simply magnify the factional infighting. For GPUS Delegates, I endorse Ron Dicks and Leslie Bonett. Ron has done great work with the SFGP, and Leslie has been a valuable ally. Both would add much-needed diversity to the delegation. For Treasurer, I endorse Mike Wyman. Although he's seen as a member of the "old guard", he's always been truly professional and competent. There are problems on the finance committee (especially their decision to fund lavish strategy sessions), but I suggest replacing all the other committee members rather than Wyman. JMC On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:53:19AM -0700, John Morton wrote: > Dear Fellow Greens, > > Most of you are aware that our state party "leadership > body", the GPCA Coordinating Committee, needs > significant improvement. We have a major opportunity > in this regard at the upcoming May 21-22 state plenary > meeting in Los Angeles. > > A number of us around the state believe that the best > candidates in the upcoming election are Laura Wells > and Chuck Reutter for At-large state CC members, and > Kenny Mostern for state Treasurer. Greg will be > getting you more material about this soon. > > Right now though, we have three quick questions: > > 1. Will you be able to ask your county to endorse the > Wells-Reutter-Mostern slate for the May 21-22 plenary > at your next county meeting? Is your county meeting > likely to be "advisory", or will you likely "mandate" > delegates to support certain candidates? > > 2. Given the choices of candidates, would you be > willing to be included on a list of Greens supporting > Laura Wells and Chuck Reutter for At-large state CC > members, and Kenny Mostern for state Treasurer? > (Besides Laura and Chuck: Ellen Maisen and Cat Woods > are running for At-large state CC member, and besides > Kenny: Mike Wyman is running for Treasurer). Note: > if you're not quite ready to be included on the list, > what questions might you have, etc.? (We're trying to > put together this list as soon as possible!). > > 3. If your region is due to replace its CC rep or alt > this year (if so, bylaws require a regional election > in the first plenary of the year, unless your region > has filed an alternative plan with the CC)? If you > are, do you have candidate(s) for your regional seat > who would be independent of the "old guard" power > bloc, and work to democratize the CC? > > Let us know the above asap, so we can begin to > coordinate our efforts. Thanks for your help! > > John Morton (510-610-1773) > Greg Jan > Magali Offerman > > PS - below is a short explanation of what is happening > on the CC now that I recently emailed to the Greens > Forum list. > > ************* > > Greens, > > I appreciate Tian's and others' efforts to find a way > to overcome the growing disintegration of the CC. > After nearly a year as a regional rep to the CC, > however, I am convinced that only a structural change > will be able to alter the culture of personal power > and confrontation that has grown up there. > > I am suggesting a remedy that includes both term > limits on CC/GPUS reps, and a limit on the number of > internal elected/rep/coco positions that any > individual can hold at one time. > > The reason that there is a deadlock on the CC now is > not difficult to understand. While a small group of > "old guard" Greens, who have certainly made > contributions to the party in the past, continue to > try to force their agenda on the rest of the > committee, another group of "independents" has decided > to fight back. The "old guard", which has over time > gained control of the bylaws, finance, and plenary > agenda committees, considers any resistance as > tantamount to mutiny, and will use every method they > can to stop it. This is why, for example, you will > find a plenary discussion for changing to simple > majority voting in the GPCA, because the 2/3 0r 80% > consensus fallback vote can no longer be easily won on > questionable proposals in the CC. > > As to limits, I realize that there are drawbacks to > limiting service of our volunteers, but I think we can > live with those, and we may even find that more people > will come forward to fill the gaps. What we can no > longer live with, and still call ourselves Greens, is > the centralization of decision-making increasingly > moving into the hands of a few self-selected people. > > John Morton > > > > > > "You who govern public affairs, what need have you to employ punishments? Love virtue, and the people will be virtuous." > -- Lao Tsu, quoted in "Walden" > > -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

[mswyman@comcast.net: [GPCA-CC] FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PLENARY DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES]
by John-Marc Chandonia 04 May '05

04 May '05

----- Forwarded message from "Michael S. Wyman" <mswyman(a)comcast.net> ----- FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PLENARY DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES The State Green Party is providing financial support to low-income delegates and alternates attending the plenary in San Fernando Valley May 20-22. The support is in addition to the sliding scale for registration and meals, and the homestays and carpools being organized for attendees who wish to keep their costs low. If delegates or alternates from your county wish to take advantage of the financial support that is available, please have them notify the Treasurers office or the Financial Committee by email or phone. See you at the plenary! Mike Wyman Treasurer mswyman(a)comcast.net 415-785-3448 Jo Chamberlain joc(a)pobox.com Craig Peterson compmail(a)pacbell.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

plenary proposals ready
by John-Marc Chandonia 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

Hi, The plenary proposals are available for download at: http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/ Email me for the password and username (the usual ones) if you didn't get them at the meeting. I've also added our 8 delegates to a mailing list, delegates(a)sfgreens.org, for discussion of transportation and other logistics. I'm still not sure if I'll be able to attend or be too busy, but I'll plan on driving at the last minute if I go. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Live from Milwaukee: support David Cobb and a safe state strategy?
by dan＠testpattern.org 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

Hi fellow Greens, I'm here in Milwaukee, in between the Presidential Candidate Forum and the CA Delegation Meeting and wanted to share this with you. I met Austin King and Louie Mercer from Madison, Wisconsin. Austin is a 23- year old Alderman, elected when he was 21 by running on raising the minimum wage. He beat his opponent 2-1 even though he was outspent by nearly 3-1. It didn't hurt that his opponent was 32 ("an old fogy"), not a Badger, and wanted to raise taxes on beer kegs! http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/council/District08/index.html Austin is one of several people I've met here who are genuinely concerned about Peter Camejo's decision to run with Ralph Nader on an Independent/Reform/Green/ Left ticket. Austin said that "Nader is the reason why I'm in politics," but believes that our choice of a candidate this weekend is ultimately a referendum on the party. Are we a political party or an advocacy group? Austin believes the answer is that we are a party, and for this reason should support Cobb as our candidate, and oppose a move to give Nader/Camejo our endorsement. There will be two ballots cast to select our nominee. I'd bet that most votes on the first ballot will go to Cobb or Nader/Camejo, but neither will get a majority. What happens on the second ballot is anyone's guess. Will those who voted NOTA or for other candidates pick Cobb or Nader? Austin is now working to form a bloc of voters who: * support David Cobb, NOTA or are uncommitted * want to defeat Bush in November * support a safe state strategy His proposal is that we coordinate our efforts and vote as a bloc, to whom we're bound on the first and for Cobb on the second. I'd like your thoughts and promise to pass them along to other delegates in attendance who aren't checking their email. I've posted some audio from tonight's presidential candidate forum. From top to bottom, you'll hear Salzman, Mesplay, Camejo and Cobb. http://www.testpattern.org/sanfrancisco Peace, Dan

3 4

Re: [Delegates] Re: Live from Milwaukee: support David Cobb and a safe state ..
by PabloQ＠aol.com 26 Jun '04

26 Jun '04

Don, Ralph Nader was indignant at the notion that he might have to run in a contested primary for the Green nomination, and therefore decided not to run in our primaries. Now he wants to come out of the convention on equal footing with a candidate who ran in the primaries and won a plurality of delegates. It's not a compromise Nader is after, it's a coup. This isn't about whether we're a movement or a party, it's about whether we uphold the principles of grassroots democracy, responsibility, and future focus, or we don't. Nader supporters want to thumb their noses at the democratic process--just as Ralph has. If they succeed, we will be neither a movement nor a party; we will be moribund because we will have surrendered our commitment to our principles. Our party is barely hanging on to ballot status in California. Our greatest appeal is that we have been a *party* of principle. If we aren't that, we probably shouldn't be surprised if we lose ballot status and start losing local elections we could have and should have won. Most of us don't need the Green Party to make us activists, or to express our displeasure with the parties. We need the Green Party to sustain our hope that we can exercise political power to build a better world. We need the Green Party to build a non-corporate alternative to the corporate parties. I hope my hope is still alive at this time tomorrow. Paul Quick

1 0