Marc, you're an insider. You are connected to major "progressive" politicians in the city and are a member of a powerful political club, the SF Green Party. You've got it all, so I'm surprised you'd waste your time responding, especially so quickly without even a little thought or reflection, assuming it was even worth your time to read. You've already alienated me like the dozens and dozens of others you've alienated over the years who have vowed never to work with you or the local Green Party again, many of whom were excited to get involved after Matt switched parties or after he ran against the mayor in 2003. They didn't meet some sort of standards (that I never quite understood anyway) and so you and others you work most closely with made sure they felt unwelcomed - you have an unenviable skill in that category - and many have told me they will never be back, which is too bad for the local Green Party in my opinion. As I've said before, I haven't talked to Matt in well over a year - it's probably closer to two years now - and he doesn't need me to defend against your veiled attacks against him 9and including his "preferences" - how hateful is that Marc? (And for the record, I actually think Chris is a better choice to go against the mayor this year, but I'll send a campaign contribution to whoever emerges as the "people's choice" after next weekend's progressive meeting - if they'll accept my meager contribution - and will volunteer on their campaign if asked by their campaign staff.) I'm late for work, and anyway I've resolved not to respond to people's personal attacks of me or others, especially attacks from people like yourself who are so connected to SF politics and its politicians. But I will respond to this part for now: Marc wrote: The past three elections for Governor have proven as incontrovertibly false the notion that we build the party by running candidates in quixotic races for impossibly high office. One of my best friends from grad school, who currently lives nearby in Lafayette with his family and works as a labor lawyer for Kaiser in Oakland, recently said to me that he heard Peter speak during the California recall race from a couple of years back. He felt Peter was speaking to the important state-wide issues much more than Gray Davis or Arnold S. He is from a demographic that votes *and* actually cares about the world around him, a 3rd generation immigrant of Jewish heritage who grew up "middle class," in Brooklyn and then Long Island before moving to Oakland in his mid-20's to go to grad school. He said that after hearing Peter speak on the campaign trail and hearing more about his positions he could see himself voting Green, and indeed, said he voted for Peter. I suspect there are thousands or tens of thousands of people across the state, who feel the same way, even if they didn't ultimately vote for him then. That kind of political influence is huge, and the fact that you don't see it is one of the few flaws in your otherwise very smart mind. I've said before that I'm not a fan - by any means - of Peter personally, but I surely understand that as campaigner for the state party he has a positive, forceful message that people will listen to and understand, just the opposite of most of us connected to the local SF party. To build anything takes talents of many different kinds. Successful organizations have figured this out, and build around people's skill sets and not whether other people in an organization like a person or not. I suspect this is why businesses are so successful and most political groups are not - the latter seem to either have a built-in "purity threshold" or some of the people involved are inherently anti-social in character that naturally limits the number of other people who will ever get involved with their organization. dw marc <marc@cybre.net> wrote: David Wilbur wrote:

All of the important political and economic issues that affect people's lives are based on state (and federal) laws - housing affordability and availability; taxes; education; criminal justice; water; energy; land use (which they egregiously delegate to counties); regional transportation; etc.

Okay, I'm with you so far.

A group that purports to be a "political party," but doesn't define how it stands on these issues in a clear and meaningful way that the common public can understand, I don't believe is a credible organization worthy of two seconds of consideration.

What good does defining a position go us if there is not the organizational capacity to push those positions forward into policy? The Green Party of California...changing the world one press release at a time?

And it seems a bit arrogant and self-important for a local group of "greens" to usurp the name of the "Green Party," which has been built up over a couple of decades of work by people all over the world, and use it as a marketing tool to elect their favored politicians at the local level. This approach leads to part of the problem we have in San Francisco - politicians and other "leaders" who are either extolled or demonized, depending on the cadre of people who are "elected" or appointed to the County Council or who become "active". It's absurd to think that such a small group of people can think they should have such importance to those of us living "regular" lives and ride the "Green Wave" phenomena much as our mayor has done.

Ross was one of the founders of the Green Party, as was Nancy Marmol, Barbara Blong and Betty Traynor. I'd doubt you'd get more than one of those founders to fully agree with your thesis. The Green Party has a key value of personal and global responsibility. Many have held me to a high standard on that KV. Are you suggesting that candidates be held to a different standard? When candidates screw their grassroots bases, are you suggesting that the grassroots base just sit there and take it? Feminism is another key value of the Green Party that cannot be allowed to be swept under the rug for expedience. Would you expect women who do not match the "profile," "hips of a cub scout," to be treated like second hand citizens or those who do as sex objects for one's gratification? Do you expect people to warmly welcome and support a candidate who has spent the past 3.5 years nuking his base and closing in his circle to the few true believers, from such winners as Carlos Petroni through to Todd Chretien? Isn't that what did in Ammiano 4 years ago and caused his campaign to implode? Isn't that why Gonzalez was unable to field a team when he tried earlier this year? Does anyone really feel comfortable working on a campaign where Jim Dorenkott and David Sloane would be the gatekeepers?

More importantly, I couldn't disagree more with John-Marc's suggestions about the State Party, especially his suggestion that there should be a massive resignation of the state representatives. In my opinion such a maneuver would seriously decapitate the state party for many years to come - which would be great for the Democrats and the Status Quo!

The state party is already body-less, a worthless husk of bureaucracy process that cannot produce. Where would the head go onto the GPCA if we were going to decapitate it? There is no state party because it is not organized according to Green Values which would support bottom-up grassroots organizing as the only reliable way to build a statewide organization capable of anything more than holding a meeting. The past three elections for Governor have proven as incontrovertibly false the notion that we build the party by running candidates in quixotic races for impossibly high office. If we can't just show up with good ideas and carry the day, then we need to organize to put power behind our ideas to carry the day.

And the suggestion to reduce the state party to more of an "administrative role" would effectively mean there was no Green Party in the largest state in the country, which also happens to be the world's 5th or 6th largest economy, and would lead to random autonomous groups using the name for their own political purposes. I think this only leads to the fixation on personalities and fascination with power politics, and has nothing to do with changing the economic status quo, which is why I'm involved with politics.

The GPCA-CC is supposed to be the administrative body that facilitates the operations of the party between general assemblies. So much is already policy. Members of the Chamberlain/Camejo faction have taken the apparatus to be a base for their personal political power and jihads/fatwas against their designated opponents.

As I say as many Green meetings, "What does the Green Party stand for? What kind of housing system are they proposing? What kind of tax system are they proposing? What kind of criminal justice system are they proposing? Do I get to own a home in a Green world? Do I get safe streets and will I be able to earn a living to support my family in a Green world?" This is why I believe we need a strong national and state party - to answer these important questions.

The answers to those questions are much easier than electing people to make them happen. We have proven that we can work with candidates to win here. We have proven that we can bring the 10KV to bear on public policy here. We have proven that we can put the 10KV into ballot measures and organize winning campaigns around them. Few have proven that they can elect partisan legislators. We can talk about acting at the state level all we want, but until we can bring sufficient power to bear to elect candidates to move our agenda, we're talking out our asses.

Besides, the local Green movement in San Francisco may actually not be such a good thing - lots of "green sympathizers" have moved into the Mission, Lower Haight and Western Addition in droves in the past decade - many of them like me who are fairly homogeneous in income (higher than the median), college education and are often socially liberal or "alternative." Great. The Mission and Western Addition and Lower Haight are cool, vibrant neighborhoods. But where do the poorer, often Latino, African American and other nationalities live or get to own a home to raise their families after the cool people all move in because they can afford the higher housing costs that San Francisco commands? Tracy? Manteca? Dixon? Gilroy? Modesto?

Christina and I are working on those very issues.

I think many of us would agree that just because people have to move from San Francisco and don't live around us any more, that we shouldn't be concerned with the land use in those areas, or the energy use, or the crime, or the taxes people pay, or the pollution or transportation costs associated with their living situation.

If the consensus of the current CC and "active" SF Green Party members is to support a weakened state party, then I hope they at least have the decency to start using another name besides "Green" in their local political club name.

The current state of affairs has the GPCA almost paralyzed due to infighting and one faction trying to "win." What would you have us do, keep a structure that we know does not work and is manipulable by factionalists and opportunists with too much time or money on their hands, or try to improve on the first cut of GPCA, towards something more in like with the 10KV? -marc

dw

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

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:41:15AM -0700, David Wilbur wrote:

More importantly, I couldn't disagree more with John-Marc's suggestions about the State Party, especially his suggestion that there should be a massive resignation of the state representatives.

Actually, that specific suggestion came from somebody else. I'm in favor of reorganizing the state party to transfer most power and money to the counties, leaving only the essential elements. These "essential elements" would need to be defined, as Ray suggested, and this discussion will require a lot of plenary time. At a minimum, I would include: 1) elements required to maintain state ballot status (Treasurer, SoS liason) 2) elements required to facilitate inter-county communication (plenaries) 3) elements required to be a part of the GPUS (national delegates) 4) fundraising, since it's a net positive (making ~$50k on $7k spent) The reason I suggest having a long discussion at the GPCA is that others might disagree on what functions are better decentralized and which ones are essential to perform in the context of the GPCA. When I said "block all other agenda items" I didn't mean that literally, since a few of the other items (e.g., choosing a treasurer) are required for the minimal elements I describe above.

And the suggestion to reduce the state party to more of an "administrative role" would effectively mean there was no Green Party

I never used the phrase, so be careful with your attribution. I also think you misinterpreted my call to scale back the GPCA to mean I want to get rid of it completely.

If the consensus of the current CC and "active" SF Green Party members is to support a weakened state party,

My intent is to create a more effective GPCA by decentralizing many of its functions, thus hopefully ending the current paralysis. Much of the money raised by the GPCA could be more effectively spent by the counties. Take a close look at the GPCA budget and see if you don't come to the same conclusion. For example, it's nice to have a $6k/year press secretary issuing press releases (and governing by press release seems to work for Newsom), but that's probably not where the SFGP would prioritize spending our 8-10% share of that money if it were to be divided among the counties. A decentralized GPCA might look weaker on paper, but the reality of the current GPCA is that it's ineffective and paralyzed by infighting. Stop by the office tonight for the GPCA CC meeting, and see for yourself. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/