Well, I am ambivalent either way. I do not want to be relegated to chump change by the state party and have us not be taken seriously especially when we made many fine points of process regarding noncompliance of the bylaws that went unresolved or even acknowledged. I did speak to Mike Wyman and asked if a recount was taken and he said, no. I asked why to get a response that he was told it was final. Folks, do WE ever settle for anything less than a recount when the spread is only one vote in any election? I would think not. This guy is not our attorney, I think. He is mounting this effort on his own and asking for partners in it. Marc, if you become a plaintiff, then you share the burden of the costs. Think of Kathy and Steve in the GG Park Prop J effort. If we do not stick it to them in some way then they continue to operate as usual with impunity and without accountability. We end up being the paper tiger not them. I do not think the GPCA has an opportunity to move forward. I know that we do but not them. It will be business as usual and we will be on the ass end of oppression. I would rather have this discussion in person so there can be a flow of dialog. Can we meet on this after WED? Bruce Nicole Walter wrote:
Marc, normally I'm all for charging in, but I'm going with Susan on this one- it's too much over the top, it's bad press, and we don't want to get too lawsuit-happy. I say we save our lawyer for something more urgent, like getting a restraining order against Chris Finn to keep him from slandering us at the pleneries. As for the plenery, anyone up for doing a skit about it at the next GM to blow off some steam? And I'm still looking into the t-shirts. ;) Nicole
"I am an unlimited person sadly living in a limited world." -Harlan Ellison
From: Susan King <funking@mindspring.com> To: marc <marc@cybre.net>, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> CC: delegates@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [Delegates] sue the gpca? Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:14:16 -0700
Two words: DON'T ENGAGE.
We have had enough distractions and petty arguments over the last four years, Marc. We now have an opportunity to move forward, so let's focus on this opportunity and not jump down any more rabbit holes.
peace, susan
From: marc <marc@cybre.net> Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 08:43:47 -0700 To: John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> Cc: delegates@sfgreens.org Subject: [Delegates] sue the gpca?
A. Gregory Wonderwheel is a Green attorney who is upset that the treasurer election was not conducted per the bylaws. They state that the GPCA CC is to nominate a treasurer subject to approval/confirmation by the plenary.
He has asked me if I'd be a plaintiff to a lawsuit against the GPCA to overturn that. My response was that I am agnostic on the treasurer's race but was disgusted at the cavalier attitude wielded by the CC and facilitation team towards the bylaws and would consider his office.
It might serve as an object lesson to take the state party to court to ask that the Sylmar plenary be deemed illegal for several violations of the bylaws. This might end the regime of fast and loose interpretations as well as on the fly agenda changes. Since GDI did not get 80%, the CC is reporting the numbers to the national so that "they can speak for themselves." Again, that option was not before the plenary.
My first instinct was to take the temperature of the SFGP delegation on whether proceeding would be a good idea or not. Any thoughts?
-marc _______________________________________________ Delegates mailing list Delegates@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/delegates
_______________________________________________ Delegates mailing list Delegates@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/delegates
_______________________________________________ Delegates mailing list Delegates@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/delegates
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 5/27/2005