February 2018 - gpca-votes

Discuss ID 137 - Election: GPUS Delegation, unscheduled vacancy, three alternates, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019
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 #137 Ranked Choice Vote *Election: GPUS Delegation, unscheduled vacancy, three alternates, 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* According to the Delegate Apportionment Formula in Section 8-6 of GPUS Rules and Procedures Article VIII National Committee Size and Delegate Allocation (http://gpus.org/rules-procedures/#08 ), the Green Party of California (GPCA) is entitled to 25 delegates on the 150 member National Committee of the Green Party of the United States. According to GPCA bylaws, the GPCA elects its GPUS delegates and alternates to staggered, two-year terms via the Standing General Assembly, during the same time period as elections to the GPCA Coordinating Committee ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-2_Membership ). This election is for 12 alternate seats on the GPUS Delegation, for two year terms running from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The election is conducted by Ranked Choice Voting. 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* Rodolfo Cortes Barragan Timeka Drew Adam Siegel Jesse Townley No Other Candidate *Bio and Statement - Rodolfo Cortes Barragan* (1) Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Bellflower, LA County (2) I would like to apply for GPCA GPUS Alternate Delegate because I am committed and involved in growing the Green Party in California so that the Greens may achieve national victory over the two party system. I will collaborate with all Greens who want to help the effort to achieve a Green New Deal. (3) I am the Campaign Manager for the Recall Rendon campaign. I am in charge of making sure we succeed in triggering an election to replace Anthony Rendon, who has blocked SB 562 and thereby deprived Californians of guaranteed healthcare. The recall will be a key test of the Democratic establishment's "blue wall" in the heart of Latinx Los Angeles. Previously, I helped with the campaign to elect Kenneth Mejia to the U.S Congress. Before that, I was involved with the Jill 2016 campaign, joining the Green Party after Bernie spoke at the DNC. *Bio and Statement - Timeka Drew* (1) My name is Timeka Drew and I live in the city of Los Angeles located within Los Angeles county. (2) My vision for serving as an alternate GPUS delegate is to bring my passion for convergence and cooperation to my state Green Party that I have been supporting as a voting member, but am now committed to doing more to help not only build and grow the party by recruiting newcomers, but to also focus on strengthening the party from within. I have been a dedicated member of the party since serving as Media Coordinator for the Cheri Honkala campaign for Sheriff of Philadelphia in 2011 and I look forward to serving this party for years to come. (3) I am currently the National Director of the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, of which many prominent Greens serve as Board Members and Fellows - our mission is to support the grassroots democracy movement. I have been a climate democracy and democracy movement organizer nationally since 2014, beginning with the Global Climate Convergence campaign of which I was the lead organizer. This year, we sponsored and were the lead organizers of the Democracy Convention, which brought together dedicated democracy organizers and activists across different areas of focus, building across conferences to create unity and cohesion within our movement. I am a long time member of the Poor Peoples Economic Human Rights Campaign and am a member of the LA Tenant's Union. I am a mother who believes in inter-generational movement building and the importance of integrating the youth perspective and leadership into our organizing and strategies. *Bio and Statement - Adam Siegel* (1) Adam Siegel, Davis, Yolo County (2) I would like to serve as a GPUS alternate delegate because I am passionately committed to continuing to advance the building of the Green Party as a serious political force in the United States at a time when this country finds itself at a true turning point (i.e., crisis). I intend to faithfully reflect the will of California Greens and the GPCA while serving as an alternate delegate, and will be transparent and forthright in representing and expressing the views of California Greens and their party. (3) After decades of registering NPP (despite voting Green as far back as 1996), I re-registered Green in 2016. Since becoming active in the GPCA, I helped reactivate the Yolo County Organization in the fall of 2016, and currently serve on the Yolo County Council. I served as a delegate for the 2017 Kern General Assembly and attended the 2017 Ventura GA. I currently serve as a 2017-2018 SGA delegate. I was appointed to the GPCA Byaws Committee last year, and was recently elected Co-Co. I also currently serve as a GPCA member of the GPUS Platform Committee. As a Green activist, I helped organize last year's Central Regional Gathering in Davis. Outside my Green life, I have been a delegate for a number of statewide organizations over the years: California Federation of Teachers, Sacramento Central Labor Council, and the Librarians Association of the University of California. I have worked for the University of California for many years (as a librarian), and am a dual card (IWW/UC-AFT) rank-and-file shop steward. *Bio and Statement - Jesse Townley* I am applying to continue to be a delegate for the California Green Party. I and 1 other long-time Greens, John Selawsky, was re-elected to the Berkeley Rent Board in a city-wide election in November 2014 and my current term as an elected official ends in November 2018. I was elected as a National Delegate in 2011. Over the past years of serving as a member of the National Committee as a Delegate from California, I have attended the 2012 ANM & Presidential Convention in Baltimore, the 2013 Annual National Meeting. Iowa City, IA, and the 2014 Annual National Meeting in St. Paul, MN I have served on the Coordinated Campaign Committee, and currently serve as a non-NC member of the Platform Committee and the Dispute Resolution Committee. I have also been an active participant on the National list-servs and done my best to be a level-headed participant. I was part of an ad-hoc group who are working on moving the NC to communicate via a message board. I worked with other California Greens in bringing forward a proposed Platform plank that was not added to the National Platform, as well as worked with California and Georgia delegates on Platform planks that were added to the National Platform. On the CCC, we instituted a fascinating series of teleconference trainings for current and prospective Green candidates open to any US Green. I’ve taken part in these trainings and led one about campaign strategy based on my experience as an activist, a candidate and an elected official. I have been a registered Green since 1992. I spent 2 decades volunteering at 924 Gilman Street, the all-ages volunteer-run music and art collective that- in the mid-1990s- suddenly had to learn how to advocate for itself and its mixed use/industrial neighborhood. It was a rude awakening to local politics for all of us Gilman volunteers, and ultimately successful. I realized that I loved the intricacies and details necessary to navigate local government. 17 years ago, Green City Councilmember Dona Spring encouraged and inspired me to jump into local Berkeley politics. I knew her through my work at various non-profits and paratransit companies, including Easy Does It Disability Services where I served as Executive Director & Vice-President of the Board of Directors. (At the time of this application, I am wrapping up a second stint as Interim Executive Director of EDI) My entry into city politics was a combination of her encouragement and my epiphany that, a, no one in power was as young as me (I was 30 then), and, b, that none of them understood how important a counter-cultural landmark like 924 Gilman was in the world-wide punk, indie, & art scenes. (Later on the successes of Gilman alumni Green Day & their Broadway show, "American Idiot" [which started at the Berkeley Rep] clued everyone in on Gilman's importance to music & art, even though the collective has concentrated on more underground acts than Green Day) She appointed me to a city commission, the Disaster & Fire Safety Commission (then called the Disaster Council), and a year later I ran for City Council in 2004. While I lost in a 3-way race for an open seat, I gained a lot of experience and name recognition. I raised $18,000 via mostly non-traditional methods, including on-line and through art, spoken word, and music events. In 2005 I was the Volunteer Coordinator for Green Party member & later KPFA Morning Show host Aimee Allison's first Oakland City Council campaign. Throughout these years I worked with Dona, fellow City Councilmember Kriss Worthington, and many local Greens & clean election advocates on getting Alameda County to implement Instant Runoff Voting, which finally arrived in 2010. I have also served as the Chair & Vice-Chair of the Disaster & Fire Safety Commission and the Chair of the Alameda County Disaster Preparedness For Pets ad hoc group, which we formed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to plan for post-earthquake animal care. After a minor 2006 kerfluffle between Berkeley Greens and the Alameda County Council, I helped re-start the Berkeley chapter of the Green Party, which had lain moribund for 12 years. We updated the by-laws, held community events, endorsed candidates, and generally increased public awareness of the Berkeley chapter for 2 years. Eventually those of us who helped rejuvenate the chapter needed to step back, and the chapter took a break until fall 2010, when it again began election work. Since I was running for reelection, I was only slightly involved, serving as the moderator for the Berkeley Greens e-mail list (which I still administer). All of this community work raised my political profile to the point where I was able to join with other tenant-friendly community candidates chosen by the Rent Board Convention to run and be elected to the Rent Board in 2008. The Rent Board Convention is a community-run, grassroots process that allows prospective progressive Rent Board candidates to be vetted by a panel of Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party, progressive Democrats, Grey Panthers, Cal Dems, and other Berkeley groups & activists, and then voted upon by a public convention held each summer before a Rent Board election. All of us incumbents went through the same process in 2010, showing our clear connections to the grassroots. I served as Chair of the Rent Board for 2 years- December 2014-December 2016. I want to continue to bring my grassroots electoral experience and grassroots fundraising expertise (I've also served on the Board of Independent Arts & Media, a San Francisco non-profit supporting independent voices, since 2007) to the state-wide Green Party in an effort to elect more Greens to public office. I strongly believe that to effect political change, we must amass political power at the local level. This will naturally lead to state-wide power, and the ability to apply the Ten Key Values across our state. Since it's one of the largest economies on the planet, this will further Green values exponentially. Thank you for considering my application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or comments. Full details will be available shortly at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_vacancy_gpus_delegate_alternate *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

1 0

New address
by Chris 07 Feb '18

07 Feb '18

Is this a separate forum that I need to subscribe to as a delegate from Sacramento? Thank you Chris Sent from my iPhone

2 2

How to subscribe to the GPCA-Forum general discussion email list (was RE: Note Of Subject Header Change For This Email List)
by Eric Brooks 06 Feb '18

06 Feb '18

Hi again all, FYI: To subscribe to the GPCA-Forum general discussion email list, go to: http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org Etic Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brooks Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:13 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Note Of Subject Header Change For This Email List Hi again all, I've just changed the lead text for the subject header of this email list to: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] I did this to make more clear that this list is just for discussion of directly *SGA* related votes and issues. So that we can avoid burning anyone out with non list related discussions, please take all discussions of *other* Green Party issues to our Forum discussion list at the email address below. gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-forum@lists.cagreens.org> thanks, Eric Brooks

7 16

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Imminent CC vote regarding Statewide offices (Healing the CA Green Party from within)
by Jane Jarlsberg 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

Dear Coordinating Committee members, We are two long-time Green Party members - Carol Bouldin since the GPCA’s founding ballot drive in 1990-1991 and Jane Jarlsberg since right after that. We are both deeply concerned about the internal divisions in our party - and specifically about a proposal you are considering soon at your monthly teleconference , which we only learned about by chance when it was posted to SGA email list. W e believe this proposal will only make it worse by putting us through an unnecessary and divisive endorsement process over statewide Green candidates . We want to share with you our experience with two Greens both seeking the same statewide office. Both each came separately to speak to our county council in San Bernardino County. One candidate came and spoke positively about the issues and didn’t mention the other candidate. The other candidate had little to offer about the issues, but spent most of his time trashing the other candidate seeking that same office. On one hand, we were shocked to see this direct personal attack at a formal Green Party meeting. But on the other, it helped us see first-hand what was behind some of our party's internal divisions - the worst divisions either of us are aware of as a state party, since we both got involved - and bringing our party down at exactly the moment we should be taking advantage of, where so many people seeking an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans ! Now the Coordinating Committee wants to exaggerate that internal conflict by putting it to a formal vote by proxy, by having both of those candidates placed before the Standing General Assembly for endorsement. To both of us, such a path is long on divisiveness and short on benefit. The last thing we need during these next few months is to be spending time fighting over candidates, when we should simply be campaigning for the candidates of our choice in order to advance Green issues and build the Green Party. Furthermore we don’t believe the state party should be making endorsements in the primary. Instead we should leave it to our party’s members to select among all the Greens running for state office. That is in keeping with our Key Value of Grassroots Democracy. We also believe that we should allow each candidate to appeal to as many other voters, without the st igma of a non-endorsement. For all of these reasons, we implore you not to make the internal divisions in our party worse by putting forward a process forcing us to chose among Greens running for statewide office. If you do that, you will be simply pitting party members against each other, making things even worse than they are now. At this time of troubling internal divisions, we need leadership from the Coordinating Committee to find ways to bring us together, not tear u s apart. Sincerely and peacefully, Jane Jarlsberg and Carol A. Bouldin, Green Party of San Bernardino County

1 0

Important: How To Reduce Emails On This List By Choosing The 'Digest' Option
by Eric Brooks 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

Hi again all, There is a really powerful feature on this and many other email lists which allows you to greatly reduce the number of emails that you receive. That feature is called the ‘Digest’ option. Once you have been set to receive a ‘Digest’ of your list emails you will be delivered multiple emails all packaged into *one* email so that your email box is spammed far less, and you will normally receive a digest just once per day (unless there is particularly high list traffic during SGA election time announcements and discussions). If any of you decides you want to switch to the Digest option, email one of the following list moderators and ask them to turn on the Digest option for you. (Note: If you know how to log in to your email list account, you can also set this Digest option yourself. Instructions for accessing your list account are sent out once a month under the heading “sfgreens.org mailing list memberships reminder”.) Victoria Ashley: victronix01(a)gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com> John-Marc Chandonia: jmc(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org> Maxine (Mica) Daniel: maxine.daniel(a)gmail.com<mailto:maxine.daniel@gmail.com> Laura Wells: laurawells510(a)gmail.com<mailto:laurawells510@gmail.com> Eric Brooks: brookse32(a)hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Treating Each Other With Respect (was Re: SGA Vote Administrator procedures)
by Eric Brooks 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

Hi Wanda, all, Ok. Keep in mind that because you are a delegate, later down the road you will need to be re-added so that you will be able participate in the discussion and vote. What we’ve been doing for people who have asked to be removed is checking their ‘No Mail’ option so that for now they don’t receive list emails. So that’s what I’ll do in your case. Everyone else, I would urge patience. Once in a while there are flare ups on email lists. And we have been quick to take action on this one. Bear with us. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Admin From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Wanda Jean Lord Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 9:17 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Cc: Nadia Nouri <nnnumber1(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Treating Each Other With Respect (was Re: SGA Vote Administrator procedures) Hi Eric, I was raised with the saying that “some people like to talk just to hear their heads rattle”. Please take the same action for me and remove me from this email list for the same reasons Nadia is pointing out. Thank you ☺ Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of <nnnumber40(a)gmail.com<mailto:nnnumber40@gmail.com>> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 7:49 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Cc: Nadia Nouri <nnnumber1(a)yahoo.com<mailto:nnnumber1@yahoo.com>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Treating Each Other With Respect (was Re: SGA Vote Administrator procedures) Hi Eric Then seems like this is not a forum for me and a waste of my time reading f finger pointing, divisive and pointless emails. Please remove me from the mailing list ASAP Thanks Nadia Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2018, at 1:47 AM, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi Nadia, all, I totally understand an empathize with your frustration, but it is also very important to remember that the Green Party has very good and strong Rules of Decorum for interaction on our email lists – and that even when someone violates those rules, it is both not ok, and makes the problem worse, to respond in a way that also violates them. Particularly important are the rules against targeting others with personal insults and demonization. I’ll post a follow-up email in just a bit with the links to our Green Party email Codes of Conduct and SGA email list rules so that everyone has those to read, reference, and respect. thanks Eric Brooks SGA Vote Admin From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of nnnumber40(a)gmail.com<mailto:nnnumber40@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 9:56 PM To: bob(a)marsh.name<mailto:bob@marsh.name>; GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] [Gpca-votes] Fwd: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures Me too Bob, people please stop wasting all our times. Read your emails. It is your responsibility to read your emails and respond. Enough dividing. Nadia Sent from my iPhone On Jan 31, 2018, at 9:09 AM, Bob Marsh <bob(a)marsh.name<mailto:bob@marsh.name>> wrote: Nicole has wasted enough of my time (and all of yours as well, I'm sure) so I'm giving her a coveted spot on my "delete immediately" email list... poof! gone. cheers, Bob On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: What evidence is this exactly? That someone sent a request? I see no reply explaining a refusal to comply. How are we to know phone calls weren't made or that SGA admins other than Laura weren't contacted separately? It is my understanding that Brian Good was contacted, although this could be wrong. If there is no actual evidence to indicate the claims which have been stated, the argument should cease. This still does not address my original concern that the statistics of the SGA vote are not valid. The reason for this is that the voting was not completed since some SGA delegates were cut off three hours prior to the deadline. It makes no difference whether or not these delegates "agreed" to forfeit their votes. The point is- it affects the percentages in the results. Therefore, if someone out there was citing these percentages for whatever reason- the numbers would not be accurate. I wish i had mentioned it when it happened, but i mention now because we are approaching a new voting period and it is my hope, as it should be for all others as well, that this next vote reflects more integrity in the values we claim to uphold. -N On Jan 31, 2018 7:36 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com<mailto:sadie.fulton@gmail.com>> wrote: The attached email is evidence of the new SGA administrators reaching out to the outgoing ones, requesting access and training. This is direct evidence against Nicole's claim that outreach was made in the other direction and refused. No response was ever received for this email. If the claim that Tim and Mike were willing to train the new SGA administrators back in September when the request was made is to hold any water henceforth, let's see your evidence. Sadie ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Laura Wells <laurawells510(a)gmail.com<mailto:laurawells510@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 11:34 Subject: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc(a)lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-cc@lists.cagreens.org>> Cc: Tim Laidman <timlaidman(a)yahoo.com<mailto:timlaidman@yahoo.com>>, Brian Good <snug.bug(a)hotmail.com<mailto:snug.bug@hotmail.com>> [This list of questions is going especially to long-time SGA Vote Administrators Mike Feinstein and Tim Laidman; to all CC members; and to Brian Good, a newly elected admin who is not on the CC.] Hello all — Now that we have a roster of 5 new SGA Vote Administrators (Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells), and 2 alternates (Eric Brooks and Mike Goldbeck), we need to get trained and up-to-speed. Please reply with whatever help you can provide. Here is a starter list of questions that will allow us to create procedures, a process for gaining access to the system, and training needed by the incoming SGA Vote Administrators. The last question applies to almost all of the others: who performs each of the tasks now, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the processes? (1) How is the list of SGA delegates updated? http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13 (2) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA email list, gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@cagreens.org> (or gpca-votes(a)lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@lists.cagreens.org>)? (3) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA voting pages/voting system? (4) How do proposal pages get published on the website? (5) How do candidate lists get published on the website? How do candidate applications/bios get published and updated? (6) How are the SGA announcements set up? Announcements include the beginning of the discussion and voting periods, the upcoming end of the voting period, and the ending of the voting period. (7) How are the results announced for yes/no votes and for ranked choice votes? (8) Who does each of the above, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the above? (9) What else should be included on this list of questions? NOTE that in researching the GP-US voting system, it appears that “Vote Administrators” are called “Floor Managers” and the job rotates among the Steering Committee members, with some duties performed by the Secretary of the Steering Committee. The system was described as a process of filling out (“plugging in”) the software forms online: checking boxes for kind of vote, discussion period, listing candidates; and pasting in proposals, background, resources required, references. It’s possible that the CA system, which apparently was originally based on the same system as the national, may have become more complicated over the years, but still do-able by people who are not necessarily highly technical. Thank you all. Laura Wells CC member and one of the newly-elected SGA Vote Administrators _______________________________________________ gpca-cc mailing list gpca-cc(a)lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-cc@lists.cagreens.org> http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-cc_lists.cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

1 0

Standing General Assembly (SGA) Email Lists - IT Committee Protocols
by Eric Brooks 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

Standing General Assembly (SGA) Email Lists - IT Committee Protocols (Note: These are a bit long and wonky but will show you how the SGA list admins moderate the email list. You can find the full IT email protocols for all groups at: http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol#email-lists ) Section 4-5 Standing General Assembly (SGA) Email Lists (added October 2016) 4-5.1 The GPCA General Assembly and IT committee, under direction of the Coordinating Committee, establish the email list for the Standing General Assembly (SGA) for the purposes described herein. Subscription automatically implies acceptance of the GPCA Email Rules of Decorum, and the procedures described in this Article. 4-5.2 List membership is limited to: 4-5.2(a) Delegates appointed by County Councils to the SGA; 4-5.2(b) Voting page and list administrators; and, 4-5.2(c) SGA list moderators as defined in 4-5.8. 4-5.3 The membership list of all GPCA email lists shall be available for review by all subscribers. Anonymous subscriptions are not permitted. 4-5.4 The purpose of the SGA Email list is to facilitate communication for the purposes of SGA decision-making. 4-5.5 Posting to the SGA Email list shall be limited to messages relating to: 4-5.5(a) decision-making items before the SGA as provided for in GPCA Bylaws, Rules and Procedures and Fiscal Policy, including proposals, elections, platform amendments, and positions on State propositions; and 4-5.5(b) making good faith efforts to state clarifying questions and concerns, and to bring forward relevant information, during the discussion period for SGA decision-making. 4-5.6 Delegates are considered the primary persons to post to the SGA Email list. Posting privileges are limited to Delegates and SGA List moderators. Section 4-5.7 Posting and formatting Guidelines 4-5.7 (a) All posts shall be signed at the bottom of every message with the first and last name of the author, and their county; 4-5.7 (b) Subject lines should accurately describe or reference the topic of the post. When quoting other messages, the person quoted should be properly cited, and extraneous text (including headers, footers, irrelevant text to the section being responded to) should be deleted. Short, non-substantive replies and one-on-one discussion belong off-list. Delegates are strongly encouraged to post responses to the original discussion thread for that decision-making item, rather than changing the title and starting separate and parallel discussions that bifurcate the discussion; 4-5.7 (c) Forwarding private messages without the expressed written permission of the author is prohibited; 4-5.7 (d) Copyrighted material (newspaper articles, website content, etc.) and other items forwarded should be accompanied by, where applicable, a source URL, the name(s) of the author(s), and the originating source (if a publication); 4-5.7 (e) SGA list members retain their personal copyright for their original messages, but through use of these lists grant other members the right to publicly quote portions of their message in any medium, and the right to forward messages in their entirety to others so long as the author's name and web address is cited or linked; and 4-5.7 (f) SGA list members shall familiarize themselves with the GPCA Rules of Decorum and act in accordance with the GPCA Email Rules of Decorum. Section 4-5.8. SGA List Moderators 4-5.8 (a) The Coordinating Committee shall nominate a minimum of five individuals (with gender balance), subject to 3/5 approval by the Coordinating Committee using ranked choice voting in accordance with 7-2.4(a) of the GPCA bylaws, with the three highest ranked serving as SGA list moderators to serve simultaneous two-year terms as SGA list moderators; and the next two ranked individuals to serve as Alternate SGA moderators for the same term. Terms shall run from September 1 to August 31 in even-numbered years. (For 2016 only, the CC will vote to approve the SGA list moderators and alternates at the next monthly meeting of the Coordinating Committee after adoption of this provision.) 4-5.8 (b) All nominees must be Green Party members and be recommended to the Coordinating Committee by their county council to be eligible. It is recommended but not required that SGA moderators have training and/or experience in meeting facilitation and/or dispute resolution. A call for SGA Moderator applicants shall be sent to the GPCA Inform, GPCA Forum and SGA Votes Email lists by the IT Committee at the direction of the Coordinating Committee, within the first 15 days of July of each even-numbered year. For 2016 only, the call for SGA Moderator applicants and alternates shall be sent within three (3) calendar days after adoption of this provision.) 4-5.8 (c) In the event that an SGA Moderator or Alternate seat is not filled by rank choice vote, the Coordinating Committee shall conduct an on-line vote to fill the seat(s). 4-5.8 (d) In the event of an SGA Moderator mid-term vacancy, an Alternate of the same gender, if possible, shall fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. If both alternates are the same gender, the Coordinating Committee shall select one at either their next regular meeting or with an online vote. The Coordinating Committee shall [conduct an on-line vote/re-nominate] to fill the Alternate seat(s) in a gender-balanced manner. 4-5.8 (e) SGA list moderators may be recalled by a 2/3 vote of the SGA. The vote will be placed in the SGA voting queue with expedited process with a two week discussion and one week voting period upon request to the Coordinating Committee by three different SGA delegates from three different counties. 4-5.8 (f) The threshold for SGA list Moderator decision-making shall be 2/3 and no fewer than two moderators in agreement for Compliance Advisories, Notices of Violations, Moderation of Posts, and Read-Only Status as described in this Article. If a moderator is not available an Alternate Moderator may participate in the decision making in their place. Quorum for all decisions shall be two. Section 4-6 SGA Email List Moderator Compliance and Enforcement 4-6.1 SGA moderators shall carry out their responsibilities in an informative, pro-active manner to promote general compliance with the posting guidelines and Email Rules of Decorum; and shall post periodic reminders of these to each list, citing the relevant text. 4-6.2 SGA moderators shall pro-actively take special notice of, document and respond to examples of egregious and/or multiple violations of the Posting Guidelines and Email Rules of Decorum. 4-6.3 Other list members may file complaints about non-compliance privately in writing directly to the SGA moderators, but shall not post them to the lists established in this Article. Complaints shall quote the post(s) of concern and the relevant Posting Guideline(s) and/or Email Rules of Decorum. 4-6.4 In response to examples of egregious and/or multiple violations of the Posting guidelines and Email Rules of Decorum, based upon their own initiative or in response to complaints filed by list members, SGA moderators may send Compliance Advisories to individuals, with a copy to the county they represent. SGA moderators shall respond to complaints in a uniform fashion. Such advisories shall quote the post(s) of concern and the relevant Posting Guidelines and/or Email Rules of Decorum; and suggest ways of compliance. Compliance Advisories shall also cite the steps described in this Article if non-compliance continues. 4-6.5 If two Compliance Advisories are issued within 120 days, upon further non-compliance within 120 days of the second such Compliance Advisory, the SGA moderators may send a Notice of Violation to the individual, with a copy to the county they represent, quoting the post(s) of concern and the relevant Posting Guideline(s) and/or Email Rules of Decorum being violated. Concurrently, the SGA moderators may place the participant upon moderation for up to forty-five days. 4-6.6 The county represented by the participant shall be notified immediately of the participant's moderation status, and may appeal it in writing to the Steering Committee, as may the participant, during which time the participate will remain on moderation. Requests for appeal must be submitted to the Coordinating Committee according to the same timeline as for proposals under GPCA Rules and Procedures Article VI. Upon a timely submission of the appeal, the Coordinating Committee shall consider the appeal at its next regularly scheduled meeting, and may overturn the decision of the SGA moderators by a two-thirds vote. This appeals process applies to all determinations of moderation status, as well as to determinations of read-only status. 4-6.7 Under moderation, the SGA moderators shall review all submissions from the participant and may withhold any post(s) they find are not in compliance with the Posting Guidelines and Email Rules of Decorum. The SGA moderators shall cite the relevant text in the Posting Guidelines and Email Rules of Decorum to the participant, explaining any posts moderated. Such review shall be done in a prompt manner to ensure that compliant posts are not detained unreasonably. 4-6.8 After the maximum of forty-five-day period of moderation, there shall be a probation period of 90 days, during which upon issuance of an additional Notice of Violation, the SGA moderators may place the participant under moderation again for up to 90 days. 4-6.9 After the maximum of ninety-day period of moderation, there shall be a probation period of 180 days, during which upon issuance of an additional Notice of Violation, the SGA moderators may place the participant under read-only status for up to 90 days. 4.6.10 If a list administrator feels that immediate action must be taken to halt the posts of a list member who is being extremely abusive or disruptive, that list moderator may unilaterally place the list member on temporary moderation, which shall not last more than three days, during which time the list administrator must seek the concurrence of one or more other list administrators in order to place the list member on longer term moderation, or in order to take other corrective action. 4-6.11 SGA moderators shall maintain an electronic archive of all complaints filed, all advisories and notices of violations sent and all subsequent communications with the recipient. The SGA moderators shall post quarterly reports to the SGA Email list detailing their activities, and include the number of advisories, and notices of violations. Upon request by one or more SGA list members, SGA moderators must provide references to the records of advisories and notices of violations sent to particular individuals for violating list procedures. ###

2 2

Re-Posted: All Please Read & Bookmark - GPCA Email Rules of Decorum
by Eric Brooks 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

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

1 0

Treating Each Other With Respect (was Re: SGA Vote Administrator procedures)
by Eric Brooks 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

Hi Nadia, all, I totally understand an empathize with your frustration, but it is also very important to remember that the Green Party has very good and strong Rules of Decorum for interaction on our email lists – and that even when someone violates those rules, it is both not ok, and makes the problem worse, to respond in a way that also violates them. Particularly important are the rules against targeting others with personal insults and demonization. I’ll post a follow-up email in just a bit with the links to our Green Party email Codes of Conduct and SGA email list rules so that everyone has those to read, reference, and respect. thanks Eric Brooks SGA Vote Admin From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of nnnumber40(a)gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 9:56 PM To: bob(a)marsh.name; GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] [Gpca-votes] Fwd: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures Me too Bob, people please stop wasting all our times. Read your emails. It is your responsibility to read your emails and respond. Enough dividing. Nadia Sent from my iPhone On Jan 31, 2018, at 9:09 AM, Bob Marsh <bob(a)marsh.name<mailto:bob@marsh.name>> wrote: Nicole has wasted enough of my time (and all of yours as well, I'm sure) so I'm giving her a coveted spot on my "delete immediately" email list... poof! gone. cheers, Bob On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: What evidence is this exactly? That someone sent a request? I see no reply explaining a refusal to comply. How are we to know phone calls weren't made or that SGA admins other than Laura weren't contacted separately? It is my understanding that Brian Good was contacted, although this could be wrong. If there is no actual evidence to indicate the claims which have been stated, the argument should cease. This still does not address my original concern that the statistics of the SGA vote are not valid. The reason for this is that the voting was not completed since some SGA delegates were cut off three hours prior to the deadline. It makes no difference whether or not these delegates "agreed" to forfeit their votes. The point is- it affects the percentages in the results. Therefore, if someone out there was citing these percentages for whatever reason- the numbers would not be accurate. I wish i had mentioned it when it happened, but i mention now because we are approaching a new voting period and it is my hope, as it should be for all others as well, that this next vote reflects more integrity in the values we claim to uphold. -N On Jan 31, 2018 7:36 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com<mailto:sadie.fulton@gmail.com>> wrote: The attached email is evidence of the new SGA administrators reaching out to the outgoing ones, requesting access and training. This is direct evidence against Nicole's claim that outreach was made in the other direction and refused. No response was ever received for this email. If the claim that Tim and Mike were willing to train the new SGA administrators back in September when the request was made is to hold any water henceforth, let's see your evidence. Sadie ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Laura Wells <laurawells510(a)gmail.com<mailto:laurawells510@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 11:34 Subject: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc(a)lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-cc@lists.cagreens.org>> Cc: Tim Laidman <timlaidman(a)yahoo.com<mailto:timlaidman@yahoo.com>>, Brian Good <snug.bug(a)hotmail.com<mailto:snug.bug@hotmail.com>> [This list of questions is going especially to long-time SGA Vote Administrators Mike Feinstein and Tim Laidman; to all CC members; and to Brian Good, a newly elected admin who is not on the CC.] Hello all — Now that we have a roster of 5 new SGA Vote Administrators (Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells), and 2 alternates (Eric Brooks and Mike Goldbeck), we need to get trained and up-to-speed. Please reply with whatever help you can provide. Here is a starter list of questions that will allow us to create procedures, a process for gaining access to the system, and training needed by the incoming SGA Vote Administrators. The last question applies to almost all of the others: who performs each of the tasks now, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the processes? (1) How is the list of SGA delegates updated? http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13 (2) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA email list, gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@cagreens.org> (or gpca-votes(a)lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@lists.cagreens.org>)? (3) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA voting pages/voting system? (4) How do proposal pages get published on the website? (5) How do candidate lists get published on the website? How do candidate applications/bios get published and updated? (6) How are the SGA announcements set up? Announcements include the beginning of the discussion and voting periods, the upcoming end of the voting period, and the ending of the voting period. (7) How are the results announced for yes/no votes and for ranked choice votes? (8) Who does each of the above, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the above? (9) What else should be included on this list of questions? NOTE that in researching the GP-US voting system, it appears that “Vote Administrators” are called “Floor Managers” and the job rotates among the Steering Committee members, with some duties performed by the Secretary of the Steering Committee. The system was described as a process of filling out (“plugging in”) the software forms online: checking boxes for kind of vote, discussion period, listing candidates; and pasting in proposals, background, resources required, references. It’s possible that the CA system, which apparently was originally based on the same system as the national, may have become more complicated over the years, but still do-able by people who are not necessarily highly technical. Thank you all. Laura Wells CC member and one of the newly-elected SGA Vote Administrators _______________________________________________ gpca-cc mailing list gpca-cc(a)lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-cc@lists.cagreens.org> http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-cc_lists.cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

3 3

All Please Read & Bookmark: GPCA Email Rules of Decorum
by Eric Brooks 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

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

1 0