February 2018 - gpca-votes - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by shane que hee 25 Feb '18

25 Feb '18

1 0

Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by GPCA Votes 24 Feb '18

24 Feb '18

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>* Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates* Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time *Background* The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. *Proposal* That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

15 34

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by gdjohnson2＠juno.com 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

In Orange County, we require any candidate seeking endorsement, Green, independent, or otherwise, to submit a written statement of which parts of the GPCA platform they agree or disagree with, and their reasoning for any disagreements. This keeps the casuals from wasting our time, and gives us something on paper that we can wave in their faces if they end up violating our principles when in office. --GJ On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:01:04 -0800 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> writes: Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate. Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have an example: Bernie Sanders On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> wrote: I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc. Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow(a)socal.rr.com> wrote: I?m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide. On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes(a)gmail.com> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party?s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to ?throw their hat in the ring? and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as ?spoilers? or ?third-party? candidates who ?can?t win,? the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label ?Green Party,? not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you?ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to ?team Green Party,? while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an ?umbrella party? or ?big tent? for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive ?third? party with a narrow ?sectarian? view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes ____________________________________________________________ How To Remove Eye Bags & Lip Lines Fast (Watch) Fit Mom Daily http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5a8f35da6d1535d93f74st01vuc

2 1

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by james clark 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

I would support the friendly amendment to add "and supports the 10 key values" to the proposal. While I agree with Nicole about the allocation of time, I also believe that building a coalition of non corporate party's and independent candidates can help us grow into a more formidable force. It would also help our candidates gain support in the future. On the international level, these coalitions we're essential to greens taking office. On Feb 22, 2018 12:01 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> wrote: Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate. Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's > part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of > support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow. > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have an example: Bernie Sanders >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for >>> putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in >>> our struggles for political reforms, etc. >>> >>> Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote >>> the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources >>> helping others who may or may not help us in return. >>> On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow(a)socal.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against >>>> politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. >>>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions >>>>> against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be >>>>> presented to registered voters to decide. >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>> <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>* >>>>>> >>>>>> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 >>>>>> Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements >>>>>> for General Election Candidates* >>>>>> Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura >>>>>> Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck >>>>>> Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 >>>>>> Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 >>>>>> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time >>>>>> >>>>>> *Background* >>>>>> >>>>>> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing >>>>>> candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the >>>>>> GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on >>>>>> endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name >>>>>> in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, >>>>>> even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and >>>>>> Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and >>>>>> federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom >>>>>> candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party >>>>>> Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate >>>>>> running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between >>>>>> good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate >>>>>> money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. >>>>>> The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not >>>>>> prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party >>>>>> is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of >>>>>> grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the >>>>>> pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble >>>>>> party-building efforts in California. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to >>>>>> implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party >>>>>> system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we >>>>>> will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse >>>>>> candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party >>>>>> affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the >>>>>> ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied >>>>>> organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get >>>>>> an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not >>>>>> be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public >>>>>> perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being >>>>>> marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t >>>>>> win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid >>>>>> marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label >>>>>> “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary >>>>>> folks in the nation and certainly in California. >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and >>>>>> even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to >>>>>> like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We >>>>>> need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to >>>>>> switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. >>>>>> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures >>>>>> make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” >>>>>> for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like >>>>>> we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow >>>>>> “sectarian” view of how change happens. >>>>>> >>>>>> Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA >>>>>> Endorsement Policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Proposal* >>>>>> >>>>>> That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> That the policy be amended from its current text: >>>>>> >>>>>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by >>>>>> the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election >>>>>> candidates who are not Green Party members. >>>>>> >>>>>> To read as follow: >>>>>> >>>>>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept >>>>>> corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that >>>>>> accepts corporate campaign contributions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green >>>>>> Party of Yolo County. >>>>>> >>>>>> Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s >>>>>> ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations >>>>>> >>>>>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>> <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>* >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>> >>>> -- >>> gpca-votes mailing list >>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>> >> > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes > > -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

2 2

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership
by Eric Brooks 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

I would add that we need to get beyond the simple concept of male/female gender parity. I would like to see us put a lot of thought into putting forward a really sound proposal for gender *spectrum* parity that we could vote on in the next SGA or GA. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Leavitt Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:30 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership That would require a separate proposal, I think, rather than an amendment to this one. I know that, generally, the GPUS aims for gender balance among committee and Caucus co-chairs (although that target gets a little bit more complex when you're dealing with gender diversity in a non-binary world; the usual simplification is no more than one cisgender male); I think this should be a goal of every committee, with a specified tolerance for deviation from absolute balance for the sake of flexibility, and to incorporate non-binary identities while still achieving "balance" (so that an eight member committee with a non-binary individual and three cisgender men could be considered balanced, as well as one with a non-binary person and three cisgender women, for example). Thomas On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Marnie Glickman <marnie.glickman(a)gmail.com<mailto:marnie.glickman@gmail.com>> wrote: Greetings from San Rafael. I’ve often dreamed of requiring gender parity on our committees. Marnie Glickman Curtis On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:22 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt(a)gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm ambivalent, as I've seen plenty of gamesmanship on committees, and qourums make it that more difficult--but committees that are non-functional for extended periods due to lack of quorum is a major liability as well, and can be a "game" all its own. I'm curious as to why simply reducing the size of committees to be more realistic considering resources available was not considered instead? Fear that quorum requirements would be even harder to meet, even with less people required in absolute terms? FYI, the way the GPUS Platcom handles this is dynamically setting quorum based on "active membership" (responses to quorum calls and posts to the mailing list). That prevents inactive members from impairing the committees ability to get things done, while imposing a minimal set of expectations for engagement, and letting people tune in and out as they feel able. Is there an obstacle within our bylaws to adopting an approach like this? Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Feb 21, 2018 3:16 PM, "Nassim Nouri" <nassim1nouri(a)gmail.com<mailto:nassim1nouri@gmail.com>> wrote: I strongly support this decision. We are all busy and it's understandable that committee members can’t make every call, every month. However this fact shouldn't bring the critical work of our organization to a halt. The current quorum requirements have already proven unrealistic based on the level of participation we have. Nassim Nouri Green Party of Santa Clara County Clearinghouse Committee Co-Coordinator On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:26 AM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove(a)gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> wrote: To address your concern, James, committees, WG, etc are all responsible to the GA. When mundane b.s. can't be addressed month after month because of chronic absences we have to be willing to recognize that a party is an organization that exists to do work. This is a simple solution. Also in this proposal is clarification for meetings that are regularly scheduled don't require notice. This is because the problem has been noted as people not being in meetings and having an unrealistic quorum that castrated the committee. Now there's no excuse. I support this proposal. On Feb 21, 2018 9:27 AM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: This proposal was brought forth by members of GPCA Members who actually sit on Committees. We need our Committees to be functional. Please vote yes. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:49 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: For our many small committees even the current quorum of 50% +1 is really problematic. Half of our committees can’t make quorum because there are just not enough people serving on committees. Committees are generally made up of 8 people and that forces us to make sure 5 show up to reach quorum. This is too high a bar, and 4 is much more manageable. And bear in mind that if a committee makes poor decisions, those can be overruled by the GA/SGA, so a 2/3rds supermajority is not needed for specialized committees. We badly need this amendment so that we can get our committees properly functioning again. Eric Brooks SF, CA GPCA Media Committee Co-Coordinator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of james clark Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership A quorum should be no less than 66.66% of voting members. Having a smaller quorum leaves to much room for members to be excluded from important votes and decisions. On Feb 15, 2018 12:45 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes(a)gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #157 Ranked Choice Vote Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background This proposal has been brought forth because in recent years a number of standing committees of the Green Party of California (GPCA) have been unable to conduct any business for lengthy periods of time due to failure to reach quorum. This state of affairs has often impeded the GPCA Coordinating Committee (CC) from fulfilling its own responsibilities per GPCA Bylaw 8-1.7 (“Request and receive reports from Committees and Working Groups, refer matters to them, and monitor and assist their work”). GPCA standing committees are capped, for gender balance, at an even number of members, and currently establish quorum at a majority of voting members. This proposed amendment would establish the minimum quorum at least 50% of standing committees’ voting membership. This proposal would also clarify an ambiguity in notice requirements for calling meetings. The language of GPCA Bylaw 9-3.1 is silent regarding notice requirements for standing committees that establish regular meeting schedules. In practice, most if not all standing committees establish regular meeting schedules for their work year. The proposed language would make explicit that two weeks’ notice is required for meetings that fall outside a standing committee’s regular meeting schedule, should one be set. Proposal That GPCA Bylaw Article 9-3 be amended as follows: That Article 9-3 be amended from its current text: Section 9-3 Meetings 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives outlined in its work plan. Meetings must be called with a minimum of two weeks notice to committee members. 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum is a majority of the committee's voting membership. To read as follows: Section 9-3 Meetings 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives outlined in their work plans. Meetings outside any regular meeting schedule shall be called with a minimum of two weeks notice to committee members. 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum shall be at least 50% of the committee's voting membership. Sponsors: The proposed amendment has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Butte County and the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&…] cagreens.org<http://cagreens.org/> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

1 0

Electing SGA Delegates (was RE: Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor)
by Eric Brooks 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

In San Francisco we select our SGA delegates by consensus. I would assume all of the other counties have a similar process to consense on, or at least vote for, their SGA delegates. The SGA is really just an electronic GA. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Genevieve Marcus Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:07 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA. Genevieve Marcus On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean(a)gmail.com<mailto:lordwandajean@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Nassim, For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here. However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t. Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not. I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago. And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane). ☺ Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri(a)gmail.com<mailto:nassim1nouri@gmail.com>> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Date: Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties. Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well. It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate. Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative? If so, why participate in votes as delegates? Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens. On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria(a)extragalactic.net<mailto:gloria@extragalactic.net>> wrote: I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria > On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac(a)yahoo.com<mailto:sbohac@yahoo.com>> wrote: > > If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status. > > Sean Bohac > (619) 218-3192<tel:%28619%29%20218-3192> > > "We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin > > > On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris(a)bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: > > > Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc, > > Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this. > > "One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot." > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: > Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in?? > > On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt(a)gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: > I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates. > > Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office... > > If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. > > It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc. > > Regards, > Thomas Leavitt > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki(a)gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: > In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: > Anthony & Others, > > I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. > > If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. > > I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. > > There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. > > I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. > > -Nicole Castor > GP Sacramento County > > On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki(a)gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: > Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? > > Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: > One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. > > On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01(a)gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: > Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. > > Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If > that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in > and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before > then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about > all the Green candidates running. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > -- > Anthony J. Krzywicki, > Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California > Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council > www.venturacountygreenparty.co<http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co> m > greenpartyvc(a)gmail.com<mailto:greenpartyvc@gmail.com> > instagram: greenpartyvcc > facebook group: Ventura Green Party > facebook group: Ventura County Green Party > > It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. > -Dali Lama > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > -- > Anthony J. Krzywicki, > Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California > Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council > www.venturacountygreenparty.co<http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co> m > greenpartyvc(a)gmail.com<mailto:greenpartyvc@gmail.com> > instagram: greenpartyvcc > facebook group: Ventura Green Party > facebook group: Ventura County Green Party > > It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. > -Dali Lama > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

5 4

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
by Nicole Castor 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

Also very concerning throughout this thread is the latest argument of "what if nazis run as greens?" This fear-mongering to pass a proposal has no place in our pillars & values. So. Um. Let's design a way for a small group of individuals decide who is "good" and "bad?" Does this mean we call opposition "Hillary Supporter" and GPCA will issue a statement of opposition? Where is the line drawn there? How do we feel about Bernie supporters, then? On Feb 20, 2018 7:59 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It doesn't seem GP Sac is making the argument that having multiple > candidates is a good thing. We also did not vote as a county party to > endorse/oppose this proposal, so please do not address GP Sacramento > members in a general way. > > ENDORSING one over others who have all been campaigning this whole time is > the problem. Starting this process NOW, after candidates qualified, without > anyone expecting an endorsement vote is a problem. > > "Multiple candidates don’t help build the party. Good candidates help > build the party. " > > Define "good." This is subjective. If you were concerned about > concentrating support behind single candidates, this could have been > strategically avoided by running for an office in which another Green had > not filed intent for so it makes no sense for you to be arguing in favor of > this now. > > -N > > P.S. Your recollections of social media posts are inaccurate. Please cease > your libelous statements of others and myself and please consider choosing > your words very carefully as they reflect on the entire state party. > On Feb 20, 2018 7:32 PM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Wait... all of a sudden having multiple candidates is a good thing? I >> thought Green Party of Sacramento members were the ones taking to social >> media and listserves claiming that my candidacy for Secretary of State was >> an attempt to “split the vote” and “running Greens against Greens”, etc. >> >> I recall Nicole Castor, James Clark calling me a “highjacker” along with >> Jacob Bloom in a FB Group called “Annoying Rats That Eat Holes in Erik >> Rydberg GPCA Spokesperson”. A couple months ago they said I was an >> inexperienced candidate compared to the long time establishment candidate >> Mike Feinstein. >> >> Now multiple candidates is a good thing and multiple candidates help >> build the party? >> >> Multiple candidates don’t help build the party. Good candidates help >> build the party. >> >> This endorsement process helps us indentify good candidates. If I were to >> get an endorsement from GPCA that would not make me an “establishment >> candidate.“ Surly a member of the Young Greens of the United States >> couldn’t be an establishment candidate over a “Co-Founder” of the Green >> Party of California? >> >> If you can’t garner support from Delegates appointed by County Councils >> in the amount of a 2/3rds vote. Your probably not a good candidate and the >> Green Party of California’s Delegates don’t have faith in you to win or to >> appropriately represent GPCA. >> >> Nobody can stop you from running... but you don’t get to run around >> saying whatever you want like the Green Party of California supports you. >> If we don’t create this process then racists and Trump supporters can run >> on the Green Party ballot and we’ll have no way to distance ourselves or >> voice our disapproval. >> >> Do we want Hillary/Trump supporters running on our ballot and everybody >> thinking we support them? >> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:40 PM Dee See <artaed(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you, Sadie. Onward to a better world! >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> "The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this >>>> proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic." >>>> >>>> There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying >>>> the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this >>>> listserv are the people opposed to this proposal. >>>> >>>> I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular >>>> arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our >>>> movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic >>>> opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could >>>> make a concrete difference in the world. >>>> >>>> I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the >>>> road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at >>>> the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has >>>> attended one can attest. >>>> >>>> Namaste. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this >>>>> proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having >>>>> delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away >>>>> from registered greens. >>>>> >>>>> Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, >>>>> yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides >>>>> the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters. >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The >>>>>> County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents." >>>>>> >>>>>> The general Green population of a county does not have the power to >>>>>> replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so >>>>>> are voting on internal structure. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://cagreens.org/ga >>>>>> >>>>>> http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates >>>>>> On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" < >>>>>> lauren_mauricio(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then >>>>>>> it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their >>>>>>> "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent >>>>>>> strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the >>>>>>> SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to >>>>>>> the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have >>>>>>> the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone >>>>>>> for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we >>>>>>> want to win. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lauren Mauricio >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces(a)sfgreens.org> on behalf of >>>>>>> james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM >>>>>>> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value >>>>>>> of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would >>>>>>> centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their >>>>>>> super delegates? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've >>>>>>> spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, >>>>>>> yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, >>>>>>> including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such >>>>>>> a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were >>>>>>> campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed >>>>>>> to be placed on the ballot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did >>>>>>> so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. >>>>>>> Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from >>>>>>> outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be >>>>>>> unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but >>>>>>> would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put >>>>>>> forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as >>>>>>> a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris(a)bestofbroadway.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good afternoon fellow Greens, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am >>>>>>> posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At >>>>>>> this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to >>>>>>> accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates >>>>>>> are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from >>>>>>> all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked >>>>>>> choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 >>>>>>> majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to >>>>>>> endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of >>>>>>> grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our >>>>>>> campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no >>>>>>> foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and >>>>>>> coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of >>>>>>> unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are all greens. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate >>>>>>> for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by >>>>>>> this forum. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> God bless, >>>>>>> Christopher Carlson >>>>>>> 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people >>>>>>> opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller >>>>>>> corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering >>>>>>> running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and >>>>>>> limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an >>>>>>> Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run >>>>>>> candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our >>>>>>> structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some >>>>>>> puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing >>>>>>> about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or >>>>>>> very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we >>>>>>> can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table >>>>>>> and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while >>>>>>> simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the >>>>>>> most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are >>>>>>> also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. >>>>>>> They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that >>>>>>> our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes >>>>>>> Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on >>>>>>> corporate-free Parties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive >>>>>>> Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed >>>>>>> a golden opportunity that we may never recover from. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < >>>>>>> lauren_mauricio(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a >>>>>>> Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie >>>>>>> Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her >>>>>>> platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked >>>>>>> back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted >>>>>>> for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. >>>>>>> I know a lot of people who share the same story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lauren Mauricio >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tulare County >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces(a)sfgreens.org> on behalf of >>>>>>> Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement >>>>>>> for Governor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anthony & Others, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree that this process should have been started at least six >>>>>>> months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the >>>>>>> work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one >>>>>>> Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, >>>>>>> actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates >>>>>>> reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits >>>>>>> by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms >>>>>>> which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is >>>>>>> useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win >>>>>>> it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely >>>>>>> disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering >>>>>>> to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which >>>>>>> compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering >>>>>>> has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we >>>>>>> should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than >>>>>>> we really do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly >>>>>>> supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not >>>>>>> reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" >>>>>>> democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP >>>>>>> moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to >>>>>>> a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that >>>>>>> we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve >>>>>>> their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their >>>>>>> values. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this >>>>>>> point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is >>>>>>> proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Nicole Castor >>>>>>> GP Sacramento County >>>>>>> On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" < >>>>>>> chefkrzywicki(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We >>>>>>> need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out >>>>>>> and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. >>>>>>> Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a >>>>>>> such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split >>>>>>> that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so >>>>>>> we could already be backing a unified candidate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the >>>>>>> voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It >>>>>>> seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote >>>>>>> for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the >>>>>>> ballot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some >>>>>>> time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < >>>>>>> jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >>>>>>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow >>>>>>> through with >>>>>>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a >>>>>>> process it >>>>>>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot >>>>>>> access >>>>>>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and >>>>>>> division, >>>>>>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >>>>>>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in >>>>>>> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about >>>>>>> all the Green candidates running. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JMC >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) >>>>>>> http://sfgreens.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Anthony J. Krzywicki, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura >>>>>>> County Green Party County Council* >>>>>>> www.venturacountygreenparty.com >>>>>>> greenpartyvc(a)gmail.com >>>>>>> instagram: greenpartyvcc >>>>>>> facebook group: Ventura Green Party >>>>>>> facebook group: Ventura County Green Party >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our >>>>>>> daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to >>>>>>> desist from harming them. * >>>>>>> -Dali Lama >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Erik Rydberg * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com> 530-781-2903 >>>>>>> <(530)%20781-2903> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cagreens.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>> >>>> -- >>> gpca-votes mailing list >>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>> >> -- >> >> *Erik Rydberg * >> >> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* >> >> >> *erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com>530-781-2903 >> <(530)%20781-2903>* >> >> cagreens.org >> >> >> >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >> >>

2 1

Counties Directing Their SGA Delegates (was RE: Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor)
by Eric Brooks 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

Yes, this point is a really important point. Delegates are *delegates* who are supposed to represent their *county* decisions. In San Francisco our county membership vets and decides on all SGA vote items and our delegates are strictly required to all vote as directed by the county. This is why the GPCA gives more than a month for discussion on SGA votes so that all counties can be assured of having time to meet about the SGA ballot items and decide how they wish to vote on them. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Admin From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nassim Nouri Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:04 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties. Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well. It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate. Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative? If so, why participate in votes as delegates? Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens. On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria(a)extragalactic.net<mailto:gloria@extragalactic.net>> wrote: I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria > On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac(a)yahoo.com<mailto:sbohac@yahoo.com>> wrote: > > If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status. > > Sean Bohac > (619) 218-3192<tel:%28619%29%20218-3192> > > "We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin > > > On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris(a)bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: > > > Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc, > > Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this. > > "One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot." > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: > Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in?? > > On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt(a)gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: > I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates. > > Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office... > > If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. > > It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc. > > Regards, > Thomas Leavitt > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki(a)gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: > In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: > Anthony & Others, > > I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. > > If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. > > I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. > > There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. > > I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. > > -Nicole Castor > GP Sacramento County > > On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki(a)gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: > Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? > > Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: > One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. > > On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01(a)gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: > Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. > > Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If > that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in > and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before > then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about > all the Green candidates running. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > -- > Anthony J. Krzywicki, > Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California > Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council > www.venturacountygreenparty.co<http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co> m > greenpartyvc(a)gmail.com<mailto:greenpartyvc@gmail.com> > instagram: greenpartyvcc > facebook group: Ventura Green Party > facebook group: Ventura County Green Party > > It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. > -Dali Lama > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > -- > Anthony J. Krzywicki, > Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California > Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council > www.venturacountygreenparty.co<http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co> m > greenpartyvc(a)gmail.com<mailto:greenpartyvc@gmail.com> > instagram: greenpartyvcc > facebook group: Ventura Green Party > facebook group: Ventura County Green Party > > It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. > -Dali Lama > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes > > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

4 4

Please Read Now: GPCA Email Rules of Decorum
by Eric Brooks 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

EVERYONE: Please Read Now Several people on both sides of the debate about the decision on whether to have an internal Green Party SGA 'Primary' have violated the GPCA email Rules of Decorum during the debate. Each has been contacted privately, and some have toned it down. However some have not, especially in regard to some repeating the same arguments over-and-over again - and some targeting comments directly at others, thereby personalizing, and encouraging conflict. Please all, read the rules below in full, and please follow them. Thanks in advance. GPCA Email Rules of Decorum http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum These Email Rules of Decorum are designed to govern GPCA email list conduct. They are based upon the premise that people participate in order build the Green Party and advance the Ten Key Values, and are meant to promote a productive, transparent and respectful environment for this to occur. Participants are encouraged to state their views, inform one another and discuss issues in a manner that enables energy to be focused on productive work. Good faith disagreement over issues and ideas should be honored as an expected part this process, and not considered a disruption or impediment. At the same time, the Green Party's consensus-seeking orientation reminds us to seek and build upon commonalities. By subscribing to a GPCA email list, one agrees to follow these Rules of Decorum. GPCA email lists are open only to GPCA members. Subscribers who are no longer GPCA members are expected to unsubscribe immediately. Participants who break these rules willfully and repeatedly will be given reminders/warnings and may be subject to suspension for a period of time. Subscribers have the right to appeal their suspension to the state Coordinating Committee. GPCA Email Rules of Decorum 1. No anonymity. All subscribers must truthfully identify themselves at the time of subscription and in each message. 2. Address the group. Messages must be addressed to the entire group of subscribers. Side conversations and personal interactions must be taken to one-to-one email. 3. No "personality-based" discussion. Speculation or accusations about another's motives, thought processes, or beliefs is off-charter. A focus on 'issues rather than personalities' should be the participants' guiding light. Personal attacks, verbal threats and/or harassment can be grounds for loss of subscription. 4. No misrepresentation of another's work. Participants shall not misrepresent the work of others and shall make a good faith effort to be factually correct. 5. No prejudicial, biased, or offensive language, with respect to race, gender, ethnicity, physical ability, spirituality, sexuality, or age. These are well-established principles of basic respect for each other in a healthy society. 6. No insulting, disparaging, degrading, or demeaning language or any other ad hominem attacks. It's never necessary to label others in order to discuss their ideas and activities. Chronic, hurtful sarcasm, or giving people vengeful nicknames, or any other disrespectful treatment of fellow activists, is grounds for loss of subscription. It is never necessary to compare people to historical war criminals or other reviled figures. 7. No flooding, repetition or crossposting. No double posting to other lists. A message posted to GPCA email lists must have no other recipients except the list address in its To:, Cc:, or Bcc: lines. 8. No off-charter material. There are thousands of Internet mailing lists about issues of interest to Greens. Nobody can read them all, and each of us must be free to set our own priorities. One can repost a message from elsewhere, but must introduce it by explaining where it came from and how it relates to the list description, even if the relevance seems obvious. 9. Accurate, substantial subject lines. The "Subject:" line must truthfully identify the topic, so that people can decide whether to read your message, before they read it. Therefore, It is seldom appropriate to name another person in a Subject line. In particular, messages with Subjects such as "Joe Green" or "Joe Green's post" are inappropriate, as are messages with no Subject line. 10. Limit message size. When replying to a specific discussion thread, it's not necessary to quote the entire email each time. This helps servers run faster too. ###

1 0

Please Read Now: GPCA Email Rules of Decorum
by Eric Brooks 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

EVERYONE: Please Read Now Several people on both sides of the debate about the decision on whether to have an internal Green Party SGA 'Primary' have violated the GPCA email Rules of Decorum during the debate. Each has been contacted privately, and some have toned it down. However some have not, especially in regard to some repeating the same arguments over-and-over again - and some targeting comments directly at others, thereby personalizing, and encouraging conflict. Please all, read the rules below in full, and please follow them. Thanks in advance. GPCA Email Rules of Decorum http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum These Email Rules of Decorum are designed to govern GPCA email list conduct. They are based upon the premise that people participate in order build the Green Party and advance the Ten Key Values, and are meant to promote a productive, transparent and respectful environment for this to occur. Participants are encouraged to state their views, inform one another and discuss issues in a manner that enables energy to be focused on productive work. Good faith disagreement over issues and ideas should be honored as an expected part this process, and not considered a disruption or impediment. At the same time, the Green Party's consensus-seeking orientation reminds us to seek and build upon commonalities. By subscribing to a GPCA email list, one agrees to follow these Rules of Decorum. GPCA email lists are open only to GPCA members. Subscribers who are no longer GPCA members are expected to unsubscribe immediately. Participants who break these rules willfully and repeatedly will be given reminders/warnings and may be subject to suspension for a period of time. Subscribers have the right to appeal their suspension to the state Coordinating Committee. GPCA Email Rules of Decorum 1. No anonymity. All subscribers must truthfully identify themselves at the time of subscription and in each message. 2. Address the group. Messages must be addressed to the entire group of subscribers. Side conversations and personal interactions must be taken to one-to-one email. 3. No "personality-based" discussion. Speculation or accusations about another's motives, thought processes, or beliefs is off-charter. A focus on 'issues rather than personalities' should be the participants' guiding light. Personal attacks, verbal threats and/or harassment can be grounds for loss of subscription. 4. No misrepresentation of another's work. Participants shall not misrepresent the work of others and shall make a good faith effort to be factually correct. 5. No prejudicial, biased, or offensive language, with respect to race, gender, ethnicity, physical ability, spirituality, sexuality, or age. These are well-established principles of basic respect for each other in a healthy society. 6. No insulting, disparaging, degrading, or demeaning language or any other ad hominem attacks. It's never necessary to label others in order to discuss their ideas and activities. Chronic, hurtful sarcasm, or giving people vengeful nicknames, or any other disrespectful treatment of fellow activists, is grounds for loss of subscription. It is never necessary to compare people to historical war criminals or other reviled figures. 7. No flooding, repetition or crossposting. No double posting to other lists. A message posted to GPCA email lists must have no other recipients except the list address in its To:, Cc:, or Bcc: lines. 8. No off-charter material. There are thousands of Internet mailing lists about issues of interest to Greens. Nobody can read them all, and each of us must be free to set our own priorities. One can repost a message from elsewhere, but must introduce it by explaining where it came from and how it relates to the list description, even if the relevance seems obvious. 9. Accurate, substantial subject lines. The "Subject:" line must truthfully identify the topic, so that people can decide whether to read your message, before they read it. Therefore, It is seldom appropriate to name another person in a Subject line. In particular, messages with Subjects such as "Joe Green" or "Joe Green's post" are inappropriate, as are messages with no Subject line. 10. Limit message size. When replying to a specific discussion thread, it's not necessary to quote the entire email each time. This helps servers run faster too. ###

1 0