February 2018 - gpca-votes

Fwd: Re: Resignation of SGA Delegacy
by C. A. B. 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

For some reason my email did not get sent out before, though I am clearly on this list as I'm getting everyone else's emails. Can someone please make sure this one gets sent? -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:57:07 -0800 From: C. A. B. <cabouldin(a)msn.com><mailto:cabouldin@msn.com> To: gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> I agree with James' arguments regarding this issue. I think it does smack of elitism to have a small cadre of Greens, many of whom happen to be on the coordinating committee who voted in favor of this decision without prior notice to the party-at-large or even the SGA, now decide who gets endorsed and who does not. It would have made more sense for the SGA to vote on whether or not to vote on endorsing candidates vs. allowing the voters to decide, than for the coordinating committee to decide that the SGA vote on which candidates to endorse. I have already said I believe it is a very divisive process and agree with James that it mirrors some of the undemocratic process in which the Democratic Party has engaged. These kinds of decisions that allow for more centralization by the few and less participatory democracy by the many are not in line with Green values. On 2/20/2018 1:39 PM, james clark wrote: No party has a primary in California due to top two. It doesn't just effect us. That argument does not validate creating an establishment pick, without letting our voters decide. We should instead be focusing on how to get more registered voters, thus improving our chances in the future. This process does not help with gaining more registered greens, and instead waists valuable time and resources. Instead of campaigning outside of our inner circle, this causes candidates to compete with each other in an effort to get the inner circles support. Several candidates have already stated that they don't even want the endorsement because they would rather not participate in such a divisive process. Then there is the fact that this is a centralization of power in the hands of a few. That means this violates our key values of both Grass Roots democracy, and decentralization. I fear this will hurt the party in the long run. On Feb 20, 2018 1:29 PM, "Ann Menasche" <aemenasche(a)gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't believe our little Party has the resources to hold our own primary of all registered Greens. We have been put into a bind not of our own making because of Top Two. And we are obviously not in the same situation of those representing the two party duopoly. We have neither their money nor their power. I support holding a vote for endorsement based on active Greens (the SGA) under these less than ideal circumstances so we can focus our energies. If we are serious about reinstating primaries and protecting the rights of registered Greens, there is something we can do now. Counties can get involved in the effort to put an initiative on the ballot to repeal Top Two. We only have a little over a month to gather signatures. Please help with the petitioning effort! https://www.stoptop2.com/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stopt…> Contact the campaign and they will send petitions to you. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 12:16 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@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<mailto:nmcastorsilva@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<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.o…> http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.o…> On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio(a)hotmail.com<mailto:lauren_mauricio@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<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@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<mailto:chris@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<tel:%28916%29%20704-0058> On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@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<mailto:lauren_mauricio@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<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@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<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/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfgreens.o…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ventur…> 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-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:%28530%29%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&…] cagreens.org<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.o…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgr…>

1 0

Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
by GPCA Votes 20 Feb '18

20 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 #145 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Governor* Number of Seats: 1 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 The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

26 82

Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State
by GPCA Votes 20 Feb '18

20 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 #147 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State * Number of Seats: 1 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 The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

14 18

SGA election February 12th to April 1st - SAVE THIS EMAIL
by GPCA Votes 19 Feb '18

19 Feb '18

Hello Standing General Assembly Delegate, Welcome to the Green Party of California Standing General Assembly (SGA) email list: gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org Please keep this email message handy, and make note of the informational webpage: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_general_info This email and other forthcoming emails, plus the webpage, will provide you with information you need to know about this SGA election. The SGA election begins on Monday, February 12th, with a 6-week discussion period. A one-week voting period follows, beginning on Monday, March 26th and ending on Sunday, April 1st. There are a total of 25 votes divided into 4 sections: *1) GPCA Elections (3 items)* *http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_gpca_elections <http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_gpca_elections> * *2) Ballot Measures (5 items)* *http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_ballot_measures <http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_ballot_measures> * *3) Statewide Races (9 items)* *http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races <http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races> * *4) Bylaws Interpretations and Bylaws Amendments (8 items)* *http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations <http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations> * The six-week discussion will take place starting today on the email list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org and the one-week voting period will begin on Monday, March 26, when you will receive instructions on how to cast your votes. The full list of votes is below. In the next couple of days the full text of each vote will be posted except for statewide races which will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot. Thank you for your participation in the Standing General Assembly. SGA Vote Administrators Victoria Ashley, Solano County Brian Good, Santa Clara County Laura Wells, Alameda County SGA Alternate Vote Administrators Eric Brooks, San Francisco County Mike Goldbeck, San Diego County *1) GPCA Elections and Minutes Approval (3)* ID #136 - Election: Coordinating Committee, unscheduled vacancy, one male seat, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019 (secret ballot) ID #137 - Election: GPUS Delegation, unscheduled vacancy, three alternates, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019 (secret ballot) ID #138 - Approval: Minutes, General Assembly, June 10-11, 2017 *2) Ballot Measures (5)* ID #139 - GPCA position on Prop 68: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 ID #140- GPCA position on Prop 69: Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures: appropriations limit ID #141- GPCA position on Prop 70: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund ID #142 - GPCA position on Prop 71: Ballot measures: effective date ID #143- GPCA position on Prop 72: Property tax: new construction exclusion: rain water capture system. *3) Statewide Races (9)* ID #144 - GPCA endorsement for US Senate ID #145 - GPCA endorsement for Governor ID #146 - GPCA endorsement for Lt. Governor ID #147 - GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State ID #148 - GPCA endorsement for Controller ID #149 - GPCA endorsement for Treasurer ID #150 - GPCA endorsement for Attorney General ID #151 - GPCA endorsement for Insurance Commissioner ID #152 - GPCA endorsement for Superintendent of Public Instruction *4) Bylaws Interpretations and Bylaws Amendments (8)* ID #153 - Bylaws Interpretation: Election of GPUS Delegation Alternate seats ID #154 - Bylaws Interpretation regarding GPCA Endorsements of candidates in statewide races in June 2018 Primary Election ID #155- Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates ID #156- Bylaws Amendment: Procedures for Recall ID #157- Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership ID #158- Bylaws Amendment: Changing References to Standing Green Assembly to Standing General Assembly ID #159- Bylaws Amendment: Elections Eligibility and Timing for Coordinating Committee ID #160- Bylaws Amendment - Elections Timing/Eligibility/Venue for GPUS Delegation (conditional posting)

2 1

Discuss ID 154: Bylaws Interpretation regarding GPCA Endorsements of candidates in statewide races in June 2018 Primary Election
by GPCA Votes 18 Feb '18

18 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 #154 Ranked Choice Vote* Bylaws Interpretation regarding GPCA Endorsements of candidates in statewide races in June 2018 Primary Election* 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* Since the implementation of the Top Two primary system in California in 2012, political party primaries have been eliminated. In response, the GPCA has begun to make endorsements for Greens running in statewide races. The endorsements have been made via the Standing General Assembly (SGA) voting page, beginning with the statewide elections in 2014. The Coordinating Committee on its February 5th, 2018, teleconference approved the following statement of findings / bylaws interpretation for the Standing General Assembly to determine endorsements of Green candidates in statewide races for the June 2018 Primary. Green candidates running for statewide offices in California who have officially qualified to be candidates on the CA primary ballot by the time of the SGA vote (voting period starting March 26th), will be on the SGA ballot for endorsement. “No position” will be an option. The endorsement process will be voided if the SGA votes against this bylaws interpretation. *Proposal* That the Standing General Assembly confirm the following Bylaws Interpretation / Statement of Findings as approved by the Coordinating Committee on February 5, 2018, establishing the endorsement process for the Standing General Assembly (SGA), to determine endorsements of Green candidates in statewide races for the June 2018 Primary. Bylaws Interpretation to Establish Process for GPCA endorsements in June 2018 primary Whereas the June 2018 primary elections are operating under the Top Two primary system for statewide office, a system under which it is highly unlikely that any Green Party candidate (or candidate from any other smaller, ballot-qualified party) will appear on the statewide general election ballot; and Whereas the existing GPCA procedures governing endorsements in statewide races were passed at the June 2006 Ventura General Assembly ( http://www.cagreens.org/elections/endorsement-procedures) and were designed for general election endorsements under the prior system, under which the Green Party primary election winner automatically appeared on the general election ballot; and Whereas at the same time, these same procedures governing endorsements state that in special circumstances, the Coordinating Committee can approve a statement of findings to clarify under which special circumstances a primary election endorsement should be held, and that "an endorsement procedure would be brought before the GPCA."; and Whereas while existing GPCA rules governing endorsements permit endorsing in Green Party primaries in special circumstances (http://www.cagreens.org/ elections/endorsement-procedures), under the Top Two primary system, there is no longer a Green Party primary (or other party primary) but only a single non-partisan primary with candidates from all parties running against each other, meaning there will be no primary election held among Green Party members to choose the party's nominees; and Whereas the criteria for awarding Campaign Support Funds ( http://www.cagreens.org/committees/campaign-support/criteria) includes a requirement that any candidate to be considered for such fund must be endorsed by their county party (for a non-statewide race) or the state party (for a statewide race); and Whereas endorsements of statewide candidates are made by the Standing General Assembly, according to GPCA Bylaws 7-6.2 Decision Items ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-6_ Standing_General_Assembly ) which state "The following decision items shall automatically be placed before the Standing General Assembly": 7-6.2(b) Endorsements of statewide candidates (secret ballot); and Whereas GPCA Bylaws 7-4 Endorsements ( http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-4_Endorsements ) state that "A GPCA position to endorse or oppose shall require 2/3."; and Therefore the Coordinating Committee approves this statement of findings and interprets GPCA Bylaws under 13-3 (http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Article_13-3_Bylaws_Interpretation ) that the findings above establish the special circumstances under which the GPCA should make endorsements in the statewide races in the June 2018 Top Two primary election, and Whereas there are no existing party rules governing specifically how and which candidates shall be placed before the Standing General Assembly for endorsement; and Whereas in the case of the party's presidential preference primary ballot - which is not a Top Two primary - under GPCA Rules and Procedures 1-5 ( http://www.cagreens.org/rules#Section_1-5_Decision-Making) the GPCA's GPUS Delegation and the GPCAs Campaigns and Candidates Working Group (CCWG) may make recommendations to the GPCA General Assembly for approval by the General Assembly for recommendation to the California Secretary for State for inclusion on the GPCA's presidential primary ballot up to ten days before the General Assembly; and Whereas the CCWG on January 28th approved a proposal that the endorsement process state that “all Green candidates who have officially qualified to be candidates on the CA primary ballot by the time of the SGA vote be on the SGA ballot for endorsement”; and Therefore, the Coordinating Committee finds that it is appropriate for both the Coordinating Committee and the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group to have the authority to recommend consideration of endorsement by the Standing General Assembly for all Green Party candidates who have officially qualified to be on the June 2018 Primary ballot for any/all 2018 statewide offices; and Whereas an upcoming Standing General Assembly is scheduled to begin its discussion period on Monday February 12 running through Sunday, March 25, with the voting to begin Monday, March 26 and run through Sunday, April 1; and Whereas the viable candidates for statewide office (those who officially qualify to appear on the Primary ballot) will be determined after the discussion period begins; Therefore the endorsement process 6 week SGA discussion period will be timed to the upcoming Standing General Assembly beginning on Monday February 12 and running through Sunday, March 25, and during the discussion period the eligible candidates will be narrowed down from all declared candidates to only those Green Party candidates who will have officially qualified to be on the June Primary ballot by the time of the SGA voting to begin Monday, March 26 and run through Sunday, April 1. Resources None References GPCA Bylaws 7-4 Endorsements http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-4_Endorsements 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>*

8 11

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
by Thomas Leavitt 17 Feb '18

17 Feb '18

Erik, I agree that the Green Party's organizational capabilities far exceed that of what has been realized to date; it would be highly beneficial to our movement to have a state level party with the resources to credibly engage in the public sphere. That said, I don't see why this requires us to pick and choose among credible candidates for statewide public office. Taking a neutral position of endorsing all qualified candidates does not prevent the party from vigorously promoting, encouraging votes, or donations to our candidate(s). It also puts the state party in the position of being at odds with our leading candidate. If we endorse one candidate, and another winds up earning far more votes for whatever reason, the state party is going to look foolish (at best). That said, if we had a formal, grassroots process including a series of debates and appearances by candidates across the state, analogous to what the GPUS attempts to do with the Presidential nomination, that would be different. Newer folks might not realize this, but the SGA and the centralization of decision making power at the state level is a relatively new thing. It used to be the case that policy decisions were made in a decentralized fashion via direct democracy at the local level: proposals would be circulated to recognized county level locals, considered at monthly local Green Assembly meetings conducted via consensus with fallback to super majority votes as defined by local rules, then considered adopted once a sufficient number of locals had endorsed them. This process properly enshrined decision making power in the locals, in "the body of the whole" and ensured that all active participants in the Green Party were aware of, and engaged in, the policy making process, and that the state level organization was properly accountable to the locals as the source of institutional authority. No SGA was required. This process, by the way, also fostered a vibrant and active statewide Green Party that regularly produced relative successful candidacies such as the Camejo campaigns, Laura Wells' record breaking campaign for state controller, etc. Thomas Leavitt On Feb 16, 2018 4:27 PM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com> wrote: GPCA could be a fundraising power house that sends out thousands of donation asks and puts on events for candidates. I am not willing to accept GPCA in its current state of do nothingness. If we aren’t helping our candidates win then why do we even have a state party? The point is being missed by many in this thread. Our Primaries were taken from us by capitalists that wanted to limit their competition in General Elections. Our response has been to do nothing and make no preparations to organize prior to the primaries. The “Primaries” are our new “General Election” and we need to start treating it as such because if we don’t get into the Top Two the election cycle is over for us. We need a pre-primary process to organize otherwise we will continue to lose even when we have great candidates because our state party doesn’t lift a finger to help them. This is bigger than the 2018 Elections. We need this process for the future if we want to win statewide elections. I am going to do everything in my power to turn this party into a functioning political party that actually wins state seats. We’ve proven we can win on the local level. It’s time to step our game up and change with the modern times. Doing nothing as a state party is the worst thing we can do. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Also note, that several candidates had been putting out the word since > last year, building networks, campaigning, strategizing etc. Do you have > any policy ideas? Maybe you and Feinstein should have a public debate prior > to any vote on endorsement takes place? I would love to help facilitate one > here in Sacramento if the two of you are up for it. > > To claim that people haven't been doing work, just because they haven't > done it for you is disingenuous, and ignores the teamwork it took to get > these candidates in the ballot. Instead of putting candidates against each > other, why not support each other, as I'm seeing several candidates doing? > > Further such a process should have been done prior to candidates getting > their names on the ballot. Once there they are there. There's no changing > that, thus making this process meaningless. Not to mention having a small > group of deligated decide for the party who will run violates the value of > decentralization. > > My big question though, if splitting the vote is such a concern, why are > late to the game candidates trying for offices we already have candidates > for?? > > On Feb 16, 2018 2:36 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit(a)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> 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> 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> >>>> 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> >>>>> 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 CaliforniaCo-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 >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anthony J. Krzywicki, >>>> >>>> *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-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 >>> >>> -- > 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

1 0

Discuss ID 160: (Conditional) Bylaws Amendment - Elections Timing/Eligibility/Venue for GPUS Delegation
by GPCA Votes 15 Feb '18

15 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 #160 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment - Elections Timing/Eligibility/Venue for GPUS Delegation (*Conditional)* 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 ***Please note: Currently, the final results of the vote to send this item to the SGA are in dispute, meaning this item may be removed from the SGA election if it is found not to have met the relevant vote threshold.* *Background* This is proposal that the Delegation would send to the GPCA Standing General Assembly. The proposal is primarily a housekeeping proposal with four objectives, which would be accomplished by related changes in the GPCA Bylaws. Some of the changes are motivated by the fact that this section of GPCA Bylaws was not updated when the GPCA Standing General Assembly (SGA) was created. Before the SGA, the Delegation was elected at a General Assembly (GA). Since then, it is elected via the SGA. But the Delegation Bylaws still refer to the GA. The same thing applies about filling unscheduled vacancies in the Delegation. In the old days, they were filled at a GA. Now they are filled by the SGA. The Delegation bylaws should be updated to reflect this. Note in both these cases, the proposed language in this proposal uses the same language that is already currently used in GPCA Bylaws to describe SGA elections for the Coordinating Committee, that would be used here to describe SGA elections for the Delegation. This ensures consistency in language throughout our party rules, so there is no confusion on how what our processes are. Third, the Delegation section of the GPCA Bylaws has abbreviations that now are spelled out in the rest of GPCA Bylaws as of the 2013 changes. This proposal would make the spelling in the Delegation Bylaws consistent with the rest of the GPCA Bylaws. Finally, this proposal would clarify that one needs to be a Green Party member to file to run for the Delegation. Here are those four changes explained in more detail, with appropriate links to current documents as reference: The first objective of this proposal would remove a contradiction in the Bylaws between 7-6.2 (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-6_ Standing_General_Assembly , most recently updated on 7/3/2016), which requires that elections for both the GPCA state Coordinating Committee and the GPCA's GPUS Delegation be conducted by the Standing General Assembly, and 12-4 (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_12-4_Elections, most recently updated 10/3/06, written before the advent of the Standing General Assembly ) which specifies that elections to the GPUS Delegation be conducted at the General Assembly. In practice since the advent of the Standing General Assembly, elections for the GPUS Delegation have been conducted via the Standing General Assembly, in compliance with 7-6.2. Therefore this new proposal would remove the old language about the GPUS Delegation elections being conducted at the General Assembly and change that to the Standing General Assembly.. The second objective of this proposal would add consistency in how unscheduled, mid-term vacancies are filled for seats on the GPCA's GPUS Delegation. Currently there is language in the Bylaws 8-4.5 ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-4_Elections) specifying the process for filling such vacancies on the Coordinating Committee via the Standing General Assembly, while the language for filling such vacancies on the GPUS Delegation still refers to filling them at the General Assembly. This proposal would amend that to provide for the same Standing General Assembly text for the Delegation process as for the Coordinating Committee process. The third objective of this proposal would address provide for consistency in abbreviations and capitalization in Article 12, as compared to the rest of the bylaws. When the Bylaws were amended in 2013, abbreviations were eliminated except when referring to the GPCA (Green Party of California) and the GPUS (Green Party of the United States), such that committee names and other internal organs of the GPCA were spelled out in full and capitalized in their first letter. This proposal would apply that same formatting to Article 12 for the Delegation. The fourth objective is to clarify that to be eligible to run for the GPCA's GPUS Delegation, one must be a Green Party member in the state of California as defined in Article 3 of the GPCA Bylaws ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Article_3._Membership) both at the time of application for the position and to remain so through the conclusion of the election. This is accomplished by amending Article 12 Delegates to the Green Party of the United States to specify this condition of eligibility. Why reference Article 3 in this clarification? Note that GPCA Bylaws 3-2 specifies that only registered Green Party members in the state of California may serve on the Coordinating Committee, whereas other GPCA members as defined in 3-1 may serve as members of the GPCA's GPUS Delegation ("County Organizations may also extend GPCA membership to county residents who are not otherwise eligible to register to vote in California, but who affirm in writing the Ten Key Values and the GPCA's purpose, and meet other criteria established by the GPCA and/or the county organization. For such membership to be valid within the parameters defined in these bylaws, the County Organization must forward minutes to the Coordinating Committee of the meeting at which such membership was extended.”). Therefore referencing Article 3 here removes any confusion over whether being on the Delegation is only restricted to registered Greens, or it also includes other Greens as defined in the party’s bylaws. *Proposal* That GPCA Bylaw Article 12 be amended as follows: Part 1: That Article 12-4 be amended from its current text 12-4.1 Regular Elections At each GA, delegates and alternates shall be elected for two-year terms. Elections shall be by 7-1.8 Choice Voting. The delegation may recommend candidates to the GA. Recommendations shall be made with attention to gender, ethnic, and geographic balance. 12-4.2 Filling Unscheduled Vacancies If delegate and alternate seats become vacant in the middle of a term the GA may elect replacements at its first meeting following the vacancy and at subsequent meetings until the end of the term. Elections shall be by 7-1.8 Choice Voting and those elected in this manner shall serve the remainder of the term. to read as follows 12-4.1 Regular Elections Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option. There shall be a six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. 12-4.2 To be eligible, candidates must submit an application to the Coordinating Committee by the last Monday of April, be a Green Party in the state of California as defined in Article 3 at the time of application for the position and remain so through the conclusion of the election. Any candidate who fails to remain a member of the Green Party in the state of California during this period shall be removed from the ballot prior to the commencement of the voting period, should their membership in the Green Party as define in change prior to the commencement of the voting period; and should their registration from Green Party change during the voting period, the votes shall be calculated without inclusion of said candidate. 12-4.3 Filling Mid-Term Vacancies Upon a mid-term vacancy occurring on the Delegation (but not a vacancy occurring as a result of any seats not being filled during an annual regular election), the Coordinating Committee shall publish a Notice of Vacancy and Call for Candidate Submissions to the active County Organizations, for candidates seeking to fill the remainder of the vacated term. The Notice shall contain the timing of the submission, discussion and election process, and the time remaining in the term for which a vacancy has occurred. The Notice shall be published within two days of the vacancy occurring. The submission deadline shall be 21 days from the publishing of the Notice. The discussion period shall begin on the first Monday after the close of the submission period. No vacancy shall be noticed to be filled if from the resultant timeline above, the seat would be filled after the first Monday of the April before the end of the vacated term. Part 2: That Article 12 be amended such that every place where the Coordinating Committee is referred to as the 'CC', that 'CC' be replaced by the full two words 'Coordinating Committee'; that where the word 'delegation' is written in lower case, that it be replaced by 'Delegation'; that where the GPUS National Committee is referred to as 'NC', that it be replaced by National Committee; and that where the General Assembly is referred to as 'GA', that it be replaced by 'General Assembly'. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations *Please send your comments to gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org <gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org>.*

1 0

Discuss ID 159: Bylaws Amendment: Elections Eligibility and Timing for Coordinating Committee
by GPCA Votes 15 Feb '18

15 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 #159 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment: Elections Eligibility and Timing for Coordinating Committee* 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 two objectives, which would be accomplished by two changes in the GPCA Bylaws. The first objective is to clarify that to be eligible to run for GPCA state Coordinating Committee, one must be a registered Green Party member in the state of California as defined in Article 3 of the GPCA Bylaws (http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Article_3._Membership) at the time of application for the position and remain so through the conclusion of the election. This is accomplished by amending Article 8 Coordinating Committee to specify this condition of eligibility. Why reference Article 3 in this clarification? Because GPCA Bylaws 3-2 specifies that only registered Green Party members in the state of California may serve on the Coordinating Committee. The second objective of this proposal addresses timing for Standing General Assembly elections in months where there are five Mondays in May instead of four, by amending 8-4.2, 12-4 and 7-6.3(a) http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2013-06-23#Section_7-6_Standing_General_Assembly ). The current bylaw provides for the discussion period for the annual spring Coordinating Committee (and GPUS Delegation elections) to begin on the first Monday of May. This timing was originally designed to allow for the six weeks discussion period and the one week voting period to end as late as possible in June, so that the GPCA could hold its spring budget General Assembly during this period. The reason for this was to ensure that candidates for the Coordinating Committee and the GPUS Delegation elections could have the opportunity to speak in person to the spring budget General Assembly. For that reason GPCA Bylaw 8-4.4 reads "Candidates shall be given time to present themselves and respond to questions on a Standing General Assembly teleconference during the Standing General Assembly discussion period in 7-6.3. Where General Assemblies or Gatherings occur after the close of the submission date in 8-4.2, and before the close of the voting period in 7-6.3, candidates shall be given time to present themselves to any General Assembly or Gathering occurring this period. (http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2013-06-23#Section_8-4_Elections ) However in approving 7-6.3(a) and 8-4.4, it was not considered that in some years there are either five Mondays in May or in June. In that case, starting the spring Standing General Assembly discussion period on the first Monday of May could cause the voting period to conclude before the spring budget General Assembly. Since the new Coordinating Committee and the GPUS Delegation terms would not start until the ensuing July 1 of that year, regardless whether the election concluded a week early, the net effect of an early election only would potentially deprive the General Assembly from hearing the candidates. This proposed amendment would account for this by adding the following language to the end of Bylaw 7-6.3(a) as per below in the Proposal section: ", except that in years where there are either five Mondays in May or in June, the discussion period shall begin on the second Monday of May." A earlier version of this proposal that was submitted to the SGA in 2016 to address this issue would have changed the submission date for candidate applications along with the change in date to begin the Standing General Assembly (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/propresult?pid=120) potentially creating confusion for potential applicants on when they can apply depending upon the year. This proposal would leave the submission date the same (the last Monday of April) each year in order to eliminate any such confusion, while also adding clarity that the deadline would be 11:59pm on that last Monday. *Proposal* Part 1: That Article 8 be amended from its current text 8-4.1 Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. 8-4.2 Candidates must submit an application to the Coordinating Committee by the last Monday of April to be eligible. Applications must include a biography and what they wish to accomplish on the Coordinating Committee. to read as follows 8-4.1 Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option. There shall be a six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter, except that in years where there are either five Mondays in May or in June, the discussion period shall begin on the second Monday of May. 8-4.2 To be eligible, candidates must submit an application to the Coordinating Committee by the last Monday of April, be registered as a member of the Green Party in the state of California at the time of application for the position and remain so through the conclusion of the election. Any candidate who fails to remain registered as a member of the Green Party in the state of California during this period shall be removed from the ballot prior to the commencement of the voting period, should their registration from Green Party change prior to the commencement of the voting period; and should their registration from Green Party change during the voting period, the votes shall be calculated without inclusion of said candidate. Part 2: Part 3: That Article 7 be amended from its current text 7-6.3(a) The discussion period for Proposals and Elections shall be six weeks, beginning on a Monday at 12:01 am and ending on a Sunday at 11:59pm. The discussion period for Coordinating Committee and GPUS Delegation elections shall begin on the first Monday of May. to read as follows 7-6.3(a) The discussion period for Proposals and Elections shall be six weeks, beginning on a Monday at 12:01 am and ending on a Sunday at 11:59pm. The discussion period for Coordinating Committee and GPUS Delegation elections shall begin on the first Monday of May, except that in years where there are either five Mondays in May or in June, the discussion period shall begin on the second Monday of May. Resources None References None 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>*

1 0

Discuss ID 158: Bylaws Amendment: Changing References to Standing Green Assembly to Standing General Assembly
by GPCA Votes 15 Feb '18

15 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 #158 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment: Changing References to Standing Green Assembly to Standing General Assembly* 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* Successive revisions of the GPCA Bylaws since the creation of what is currently known as the Standing General Assembly (SGA) have left previous references to “Standing Green Assembly” and “Standing Green Delegates” incorrect. This proposal will replace all references to “Standing Green” to “Standing General” as appropriate, utilize the abbreviation “SGA” as appropriate, and clarify nomenclature for delegates currently referred to colloquially as “SGA Delegates.” This revision will ensure clarity and consistency in all references to the SGA. *Proposal* That GPCA Bylaw Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 be amended as follows: That Article 7-6 be amended from its current text: Section 7-6. Standing Green Assembly To read as follows: Section 7-6. Standing General Assembly That Article 7-6.1(a) be amended from its current text: Delegates to the Standing Green Assembly shall be called Standing Delegates, shall be appointed by active County Organizations and shall serve for one year terms, with no term limits. Terms shall run concurrent with the GPCA's Fiscal Year. To read as follows: Delegates to the Standing General Assembly (SGA) shall be called Standing Delegates, shall be appointed by active County Organizations and shall serve for one year terms, with no term limits. Terms shall run concurrent with the GPCA's Fiscal Year. That Article 7-6.3(c) be amended from its current text: Proposals may be amended at any time during the discussion period by the proposal's sponsor(s), except that the final amended version must be placed before the Standing Green Assembly no later than on a Monday at 12:01 am preceding the end of the discussion period. To read as follows: Proposals may be amended at any time during the discussion period by the proposal's sponsor(s), except that the final amended version must be placed before the Standing General Assembly no later than on a Monday at 12:01 am preceding the end of the discussion period. That Article 8-1.2 be amended from its current text: Forward proposals to the Standing Green Assembly. To read as follows: Forward proposals to the Standing General Assembly. That Article 8-4.1 be amended from its current text: Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. To read as follows: Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing General Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. That Article 8-4.3 be amended from its current text: The election as it is posted to the Standing Green Assembly shall include: To read as follows: The election as it is posted to the Standing General Assembly shall include: That Article 8-5.3 be amended from its current text: Upon receipt of such Recall petition, the Coordinating Committee shall schedule a vote of the General Assembly. If an in-person General Assembly is scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the petition to the Standing Green Assembly at the next regular starting date. The individual subject to a Recall Petition shall have the right to submit a written response to the petition for inclusion with the agenda item, when the agenda item is released. To read as follows: Upon receipt of such Recall petition, the Coordinating Committee shall schedule a vote of the General Assembly. If an in-person General Assembly is scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the petition to the Standing General Assembly at the next regular starting date. The individual subject to a Recall Petition shall have the right to submit a written response to the petition for inclusion with the agenda item, when the agenda item is released. That Article 9-5.2 be amended from its current text: The Bylaws Committee shall consist of eight members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Bylaws Committee co-coordinators. The other Bylaws Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Bylaws Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Bylaws Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Bylaws Committee shall consist of eight members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Bylaws Committee co-coordinators. The other Bylaws Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Bylaws Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Bylaws Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 9-6.2 be amended from its current text: The Clearinghouse Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinators. The other Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Clearinghouse itself. Eligible appointees to the Clearinghouse Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Clearinghouse Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinators. The other Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Clearinghouse itself. Eligible appointees to the Clearinghouse Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 9-11.2 be amended from its current text: The Media Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Media Committee co-coordinators. The other Media Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Media Committee itself. In addition, GPCA spokespersons shall be ex-officio non-voting members, who may participate in the deliberations of the committee, but not vote. Eligible appointees to the Media Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Media Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Media Committee co-coordinators. The other Media Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Media Committee itself. In addition, GPCA spokespersons shall be ex-officio non-voting members, who may participate in the deliberations of the committee, but not vote. Eligible appointees to the Media Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 9-12.2 be amended from its current text: The Platform Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Platform Committee co-coordinators. The other Platform Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Platform Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Platform Committee must have attended at least one General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Platform Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Platform Committee co-coordinators. The other Platform Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Platform Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Platform Committee must have attended at least one General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 13-3 be amended from its current text: In cases of ambiguity or procedural disagreement, the General Assembly shall decide for itself the meaning of its governing documents, the appropriate procedure to be followed and what amendments are necessary to resolve any further ambiguity or disagreement. Between General Assembly meetings, the Coordinating Committee shall decide these questions and the Bylaws Committee is charged with assisting with the Coordinating Committee in this process by providing analysis. Such Coordinating Committee determinations are subject to a 2/3 confirmation by the General Assembly. If the Coordinating Committee makes such a determination within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda, and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the decision for confirmation by the Standing Green Assembly for an on-line discussion and vote at the next available starting date for on-line proposals, as defined in these bylaws. To read as follows: In cases of ambiguity or procedural disagreement, the General Assembly shall decide for itself the meaning of its governing documents, the appropriate procedure to be followed and what amendments are necessary to resolve any further ambiguity or disagreement. Between General Assembly meetings, the Coordinating Committee shall decide these questions and the Bylaws Committee is charged with assisting with the Coordinating Committee in this process by providing analysis. Such Coordinating Committee determinations are subject to a 2/3 confirmation by the General Assembly. If the Coordinating Committee makes such a determination within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda, and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the decision for confirmation by the Standing General Assembly for an on-line discussion and vote at the next available starting date for on-line proposals, as defined in these bylaws. Sponsors: The proposed amendment has been endorsed and sponsored by the GPCA Bylaws Committee. 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>*

1 0

Discuss ID 136 - Election: Coordinating Committee, unscheduled vacancy, one male seat, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019 (secret ballot)
by GPCA Votes 14 Feb '18

14 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 #136 Ranked Choice Vote *Election: Coordinating Committee, unscheduled vacancy, one male seat, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019* Number of Seats 1 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 election is to fill one unscheduled vacancy for one male seat on the GPCA Coordinating Committee http://www.cagreens.org/committees/coordinating, resulting from the resignation of Paul Larudee, elected in June 2017 http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/irvdetail?pid=125 , to serve the remainder of the two year term running from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The Coordinating Committee's Duties and Authority are found here http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-1_Duties_and_Authority . When such unscheduled vacancies occur, the Coordinating Committee shall publish a Notice of Vacancy and Call for Candidate Submissions to the active County Organizations, as per GPCA Bylaws 8-4.5 http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-4_Elections . This was sent on February 15, 2015. According to GPCA Bylaws 8-2.1, "The Coordinating Committee shall be composed of up to 24 voting members, with 12 men and 12 women. Six men and six women shall be elected each year to serve staggered, two year terms" http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-2_Membership and 8-4.1 "Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter" http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-4_Elections . 8-4.3(b) adds that the election as it is posted to the Standing Green Assembly shall include: "A full and detailed explanation of Ranked Choice Voting, an explanation of the No Other Candidate option, and an encouragement that delegates make their choices seriously and a reminder that they do not have to fill all seats unless they feel there are enough qualified candidates." Ranked Choice Voting is explained here http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/choice-voting • http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting • http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=876 • http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv. Ranking 'No Other Candidate' (NOC) means once NOC passed the approval threshold, no further candidates will be elected, other than those (if any) who have already been elected before NOC reached the threshold. *Candidates:* Randy Hicks Josh Jones James Lauderdale No Other Candidate *Bio and Statement - Randy Hicks* My name is Randy Hicks. I am a proud member of the Sacramento Green Party and of the state and national Green Party chapters. The reason that I joined the Green Party was due to the Democratic candidate for governor choosing to support the death penalty during the 2002 recall election. I have been involved in politics for 32 years supporting campaigns for various candidates who supported progressive causes. I also believe that after working for the Democratic party till the 2002 election, we need a 3rd party such as the Green Party that endorses and supports progressive causes such as Single Payer Health Care and Instant Runoff elections. I was born and raised in an progressive area of Iowa, which is a very conservative state. I moved to Minnesota, where I received my Associates of Art degree in Sales and Marketing. I used my degree to promote progressive Green Party causes. I moved to California, where I continued to support progressive causes. I had the opportunity to join Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., where I became active in supporting disability rights. I was then appointed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to sit on the Disability Advisory Commission. As a member of the DAC, I learned to run meetings and Robert's Rules of Order. In addition, I have supported many other causes such as, environmental and economic justice, the Older Women's League. Health Care for All California, America Civil Liberties Union, LGBTQ rights, and introduced legislation on all of these causes to the California State Senate and Assembly. As a member of LGBTQ community, I have worked with the Democratic party on LGBTQ causes. The Democratic party has only supported the LGBTQ community when they need our votes or are forced to support LGBTQ causes. For future generations of the LGBTQ community, the Green Party supports their causes. As a proud member of the Sacramento Green Party, I believe that I can represent the key values of the party at the local and state levels. In addition, I ran for the Green Party council and won the seat. I am one of the few Green Party members who are currently sitting on an appointed or elected seat in Sacramento County. What do I wish to accomplish on the Coordinating Council? I am running for the Green Party Coordinating Council with new progressive ideas and bring a sense of order to the GPCA. As a member of the Coordinating Council, I also want to endorse the causes that serve all of our Green Party members at the local, state, national levels. I also wish to uphold all of the 10 key values of the Green Party. As someone who has sat on the Sacramento Green Party Council and has ran successfully as a candidate for the Sacramento County Green Party Council, I have served all of the counties of California as a Green Party delegate in order bring change, progress, and viability to the Green Party. I also believe that as a member of various county and state non profits and boards, I understand the processes needed to run a successful and organized campaign that represents and serves the interests of members of these organizations. As a volunteer for various local and state government organizations who has ran successful campaigns for elected seat, I believe that I have the knowledge, experience, and knowhow to help the Green Party to be the party of the future. I would be proud to represent the Green Party of California at the local and state levels. *Bio and Statement - Josh Jones* I have been active in political organizing for many years. Though a Californian, in 2008 I canvassed door to door for weeks in Reno, NV. In 2009 I advocated for Single Payer Healthcare, writing a letter of support to all of the U.S. Congress, the vice President and President - I was appalled when the ACA essentially became the Heritage Foundation proposal. I was in Occupy Davis in the winter of 2011, and was frequently on the news dismantling the concepts of "trickle down" and "corporate personhood". I protested at Monsanto headquarters in 2012. Some of my friends are now known as the Monsanto 10, and I've gone to support them in court - I think they will prevail! During July 2015 I noticed a person named Bernie Sanders running for President. His lefty rhetoric appealed to me and I threw in with that campaign. I knew he was probably shilling for the Democrats, but the opportunity to pull the masses to the left was too good to pass up! I founded Davis for Bernie and eventually got 300 volunteers. Our local campaign won Yolo for Bernie with $5000, to the Dems $130,000 - with a lefty message for the people and people power. After campaigning in Reno, NV in Oct and Nov, before the campaign, and Utah, helping run the Caucus there, I was asked by the campaign to be Convener of the Congressional District 3 Bernie Delegate election on May 1st 2016. After the ill-fated primary, we went to protest at the DNC. "Jill not Hill!" was the rallying cry. I attended the Green Party rally for Dr. Jill Stein in Davis, and immediately asked, "Is there an active Yolo County Green Party?" The answer was, "No." Then let's start it! As a result I was a founding member of Yolo Green Party County Council. Though through frustration l dipped my toe into the Dem Party with the ADEMs, recruited 10 lefties to invade the Dem Party(where we got 10x voter turn-out), became a Dem Party leader for 3 months, disgusted with obvious cheating and moving-the-goal-post, I returned to the Green Party stronger and with much learned experience. I am now a member of the Yolo Green Party County Council. I have always been a strong advocate of sustainable energy, and worked for 4 years as a photovoltaic large array designer, as Lead Designer, at a solar electric engineering firm. In 2010 I created the industry standard for distributed energy generation, known on engineering plan sets as a "W" sheet - the discipline designation. "W" stands for wind, water, and sun, in comparison to "S" for structural sheets, or "P" for plumbing. I worked on a committee of 113 top building industry people to do this, with, for example, a Major in the Army Corps of Engineers, and an owner of an architectural firm in Chicago, et al. I hope, with all of us, that sustainable energy will prevail - I know it will. I am a 4th generation Californian and have lived in California my entire life. I understand our state's diverse biomes and places, and the many types of folks who dwell here. There are many kinds of people here, both newcomers and people of many generations; mountain folk, desert folk, beach folk, and agricultural folk, both city people and countryside people, poor people and rich people, scientists and corporate owners, as well as Miwok, Pomo, and Chicanos who are often Aztlan. I think it's important to talk to everyone: to understand their perspectives, needs, and solutions to their experienced problems. I think and feel that the Green Party is the party to defeat the Duopoly. I view the Green Party as the party with the most moral basis; that it it's the party of human rights, workers rights, labor rights, and environmental rights. I would be honored to be elected to the Coordinating Committee of the California Green Party. I ask that you to vote for me - to advocate for the people. *Bio and Statement - James Lauderdale* I am 69 years old and retired. I live with my wife of 30 years in the San Gabriel Valley near Los Angeles in the 22nd State Senatorial District. We are both active in the East LA Greens. I have been a registered Green since 2004, where I supported Peter Camejo in his several State and Federal election efforts. I had known Peter for over forty years. We had met and been associated in the revolutionary socialist movement beginning in the 1960’s. Before retiring in 2014, I worked for seventeen years at various configurations of SEIU (Service Employees International Union, the largest union of public employees in the City and County of Los Angeles) in the capacity of organizer, and then doing administrative litigation. This latter was as lead senior civil service advocate, defending workers who were facing disciplinary action in the civil service system covering blue collar workers in the City of Los Angeles as well as thirteen other cities in LA County; I also handled disciplinary and contract violations that I litigated through the arbitration process. In the mid nineties I was the chief negotiator for the Registered Nurses (SEIU) bargaining unit in Los Angeles County. I also worked as the Arbitration Director and Negotiator for Local 132, Utility Workers Union at Southern California Gas. I was a delegate for three years to the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. Prior to the union staff positions, I worked as Journeyman Union Carpenter for sixteen years in Colorado and California. I attended college at the University of Colorado but was thrown out for antiwar activity during the 1970 Cambodia Invasion. I became politically active around the Cuban Revolution and civil rights movement. I belonged to the Denver chapter of SNCC in 1964. I have been a militant, revolutionary socialist since I was fifteen. I am from Boulder Colorado. The work of building a ballot status, organizing party is difficult and extremely time consuming. It requires rethinking what it means to organize, and what it means to run and, occasionally, win. Our job is not to convince those who rule that we are trustworthy and competent, but rather to convince our newly emerging political base that those who rule are neither trustworthy or competent. Politics in this country is about the social alliances that are wound together to create and enable class rule. We need to stitch together a new social coalition the enables the transition to a new rule by a new class, the class of wage earners. Millions of these newly politicized people were energized and emerged out of the Sanders campaign, as well as new issues that have arisen and continue to arise. We need to organize them and enable them to exert an new and different kind of political power. We need to register thousands more Green voters across the state to open up the California Green Party to being a truly statewide party. Our electoral campaigns need to see this registration process as central. We need to fashion a national Party out of 50 statewide parties. We need to be an electoral vehicle for the movements that are emerging. We need to see the Green Party as a crucial but initial part of a process of building a party that can lead and activate millions. We have work to do. Full details will be available shortly at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_cc_vacancy_male *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

2 1