February 2018 - gpca-votes

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. ###

1 0

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 Codes of Conduct for interaction on our email lists – and that even when someone violates those codes of conduct, it is both not ok, and makes the problem worse, to respond in a way that also violates those rules. 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

1 0

[Gpca-votes] Fwd: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures
by Sadie Fulton 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

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> Date: Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 11:34 Subject: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc(a)lists.cagreens.org> Cc: Tim Laidman <timlaidman(a)yahoo.com>, Brian Good <snug.bug(a)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 (or gpca-votes(a)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 http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-cc_lists.cagreens.org

13 20

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Strategy For Statewide Green Candidates Around Our Pending SGA 'Primary'
by Eric Brooks 04 Feb '18

04 Feb '18

Hi Christopher and all, We definitely don’t want to discourage any Green candidates for state level office, and my advice to all of you is to stick to your plan and move forward if you are serious about running. The discussion period is scheduled to end in the first week of March, so we will have three weeks after mid February to discuss all of the candidates whether they have qualified yet or not. The voting period will last until March 26, so that will leave the 29th as the only and final filing deadline that could potentially occur after SGA voting closes. However, because you have raised this issue, I will talk to the Vote Admins about jiggering the dates a bit and see how they feel about doing so, in order to catch that last filing deadline. I can’t promise, but I *will* seek admin consensus on this. We will also consider how we will ensure that the vote will go smoothly even if there are SGA votes for candidates who don’t end up qualifying. The bottom line is that anyone who wants to can wait at least until after the second to last filing deadline to vote; and perhaps even after the third and final deadline. We’ll announce how we’ve decided to address all this in about 10 days, when the three week *discussion* period is scheduled to start. In the meantime, keep campaigning! peace Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Carlson Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 4:27 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Strategy Sorry, it sent by a strange stroke of my left hand. Thank you for your patience, keep reading... -process, and procedures of the party. If between March 29th and June 5th, there is enough time for the mature campaigns of each statewide candidates to impress themselves upon green voters directly, I support that method of natural, versus artificial selection. Basically, tl;dr The SGA just became a committee of superdelegates, and that vote will have a major impact on the outreach and presence of the party in the state for generations to come. I acknowledge that as a candidate myself, I have a conflict of interest. I wish I hadn't sent this in raw form. Lastly, I have total faith and trust in this process, and the people running it. I want not to pull anyone up by the shoots, until their leaves have flowered and we can see what they got! Especially in the case of Veronika Fimbres. I am very proud of Josh Jones and the work he has done across the state so far with such limited means. I don't wish to spend my time in negatively analysing other greens. I have supported Josh and Veronika in many of my posts. I may have filed first for candidacy with the state, I may have held my tongue until I had my words arranged clearly, and still wish Erik Rydberg had run with us, though he is doing well in his candidacy for SOS. ULTIMATELY I encourage all SGA delegates to endorse EACH candidate for statewide office. ENDORSE EVERYONE. If we should fatigue in accomplishing our campaigns, we can all support one another. But no single one of us can really do this alone. We are still a young party, and need outreach more than any other form of engagement this election cycle. The best way to do that is to authorise as many party agents as possible. Thank you Chris On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Christopher Carlson <chris(a)bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: Hello, SGA. In a number of days, you will be called upon to cast a couple of votes. Because these votes matter, I hope everyone knows 1. What measures, specifically, will be voted upon. 2. When exactly the vote will be taking place. If these cannot be provided 10 days before the vote occurs, I would like for them to be provided 7 days before the vote occurs. Or 5 days before the vote occurs. I would like to see the ballot language explicitly stated as it will appear on the ballot. Specifically because it will effectively terminate three statewide campaigns, and our votes will either approve or oppose this action at this time. Because voting is imminent, I want to be clear that the state deadlines for candidates to qualify for the ballot have not yet passed. Feb 7, Feb 14th, March 9th, and March 29th. At each of these junctures, any of the viable candidates can be eliminated by process. While I do not oppose an SGA vote on this issue, it comes between the Green Candidates and thousands of Green Voters who are unaffiliated with the central party councils, process, and

2 2

Fwd: My Regret
by Christopher Carlson 03 Feb '18

03 Feb '18

To the members of the SGA Discussions list, This is a retraction of my previous message. This forum is for proposals only, and my accident was uninformed. Please accept my earnest apology. Attached is my message to the Coordinating Committee, And a second apology for this message as well. Thank you, Chris 916.704.0058 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Guber the Candidate <guberthecandidate(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 11:58 AM Subject: Fwd: My Regret To: chris(a)bestofbroadway.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Guber the Candidate <guberthecandidate(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 11:54 AM Subject: My Regret To: gpca-cc(a)cagreens.org Greetings to the Coordinating Committee, As a candidate for statewide office, I want to acknowledge an error I have made. First, in that I sent an email proposing an "endorse all" option to the SGA mailing list. My error was that the email was intended for the GPCA forum, and was intended to be drafted, edited, and sent today, after contacting you. I acknowledge that I am attracting attention to and representing Greens in my campaign, and am moving forward by typing emails with the recipients field blank, so as not to release any unproofed work. I am grateful for the response of Mx. Brooks with his assurance that the Voting period will be extended. Even in my sloppiness, they were gracious with my concern. I will be posting in the GPCA thread shortly with an apology to the SGA. I really want to emphasize that Mx. Jones and Mx. Fimbres both declined invitations to moderated "debates" in accordance with the idea that we are each green in our own way, and to pick one another apart would be counterproductive to the party, and weaken one another's campaign. I speak for myself when I posit that not a single one of us wishes to contribute further to divisiveness within the party, and that the sum of our parts is a TRIPLE EDGED SWORD fighting for our values. We can set an example to the state of what happens when a party comes together and does not allow itself to be divided. That our consensus is to listen with elephant ears to peoples ideas and channel the best ones into the main stream. With gratitude for your time and energy in keeping this whole project from falling apart, our continued growth (which is also in our improvement) and lastly, I propose an election window of March 29-April 4. That is a full week's vote, after the official list of candidates is certified with the Secretary of State. After so much effort and momentum has been applied amongst our peers and families, on behalf of the party's mission and values, I feel that a lack of endorsement two days before the deadline in, what has been for me a process that started in 2015, led me to stand at a table in Sacramento's Lavender district for Jill for 90 days, would not be a deterrent to any other candidates campaign. As a teacher, it would be equivalent to giving a student a D grade three days before the final. Lastly, the vote of no confidence would apply a certain doom and distance to the work performed by all of these statewide candidates in their tireless efforts to gather their own signatures, travel across the state, and put their personal reputations on the chopping block. These people all could have chosen to run as NPP or Dems, but for some reason, they still want to stand up for us. With apologies, and for your patience, Thank You all. Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>

1 0

Correction: Re: Strategy For Statewide Green Candidates Around Our Pending SGA 'Primary'
by Eric Brooks 03 Feb '18

03 Feb '18

Hi again all, I just found out that I was incorrect on the discussion timeline below. Discussion is much longer, beginning on February 12, and ending on March 25 with the SGA vote taking place in *one* week from Monday, March 26th to Sunday, April 1st. This means that we will know during the SGA vote, all candidates who have qualified for the 2018 election ballot. Eric Brooks From: Eric Brooks Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 11:07 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: RE: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Strategy For Statewide Green Candidates Around Our Pending SGA 'Primary' Hi Christopher and all, We definitely don’t want to discourage any Green candidates for state level office, and my advice to all of you is to stick to your plan and move forward if you are serious about running. The discussion period is scheduled to end in the first week of March, so we will have three weeks after mid February to discuss all of the candidates whether they have qualified yet or not. The voting period will last until March 26, so that will leave the 29th as the only and final filing deadline that could potentially occur after SGA voting closes. However, because you have raised this issue, I will talk to the Vote Admins about jiggering the dates a bit and see how they feel about doing so, in order to catch that last filing deadline. I can’t promise, but I *will* seek admin consensus on this. We will also consider how we will ensure that the vote will go smoothly even if there are SGA votes for candidates who don’t end up qualifying. The bottom line is that anyone who wants to can wait at least until after the second to last filing deadline to vote; and perhaps even after the third and final deadline. We’ll announce how we’ve decided to address all this in about 10 days, when the three week *discussion* period is scheduled to start. In the meantime, keep campaigning! peace Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Carlson Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 4:27 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Strategy Sorry, it sent by a strange stroke of my left hand. Thank you for your patience, keep reading... -process, and procedures of the party. If between March 29th and June 5th, there is enough time for the mature campaigns of each statewide candidates to impress themselves upon green voters directly, I support that method of natural, versus artificial selection. Basically, tl;dr The SGA just became a committee of superdelegates, and that vote will have a major impact on the outreach and presence of the party in the state for generations to come. I acknowledge that as a candidate myself, I have a conflict of interest. I wish I hadn't sent this in raw form. Lastly, I have total faith and trust in this process, and the people running it. I want not to pull anyone up by the shoots, until their leaves have flowered and we can see what they got! Especially in the case of Veronika Fimbres. I am very proud of Josh Jones and the work he has done across the state so far with such limited means. I don't wish to spend my time in negatively analysing other greens. I have supported Josh and Veronika in many of my posts. I may have filed first for candidacy with the state, I may have held my tongue until I had my words arranged clearly, and still wish Erik Rydberg had run with us, though he is doing well in his candidacy for SOS. ULTIMATELY I encourage all SGA delegates to endorse EACH candidate for statewide office. ENDORSE EVERYONE. If we should fatigue in accomplishing our campaigns, we can all support one another. But no single one of us can really do this alone. We are still a young party, and need outreach more than any other form of engagement this election cycle. The best way to do that is to authorise as many party agents as possible. Thank you Chris On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Christopher Carlson <chris(a)bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: Hello, SGA. In a number of days, you will be called upon to cast a couple of votes. Because these votes matter, I hope everyone knows 1. What measures, specifically, will be voted upon. 2. When exactly the vote will be taking place. If these cannot be provided 10 days before the vote occurs, I would like for them to be provided 7 days before the vote occurs. Or 5 days before the vote occurs. I would like to see the ballot language explicitly stated as it will appear on the ballot. Specifically because it will effectively terminate three statewide campaigns, and our votes will either approve or oppose this action at this time. Because voting is imminent, I want to be clear that the state deadlines for candidates to qualify for the ballot have not yet passed. Feb 7, Feb 14th, March 9th, and March 29th. At each of these junctures, any of the viable candidates can be eliminated by process. While I do not oppose an SGA vote on this issue, it comes between the Green Candidates and thousands of Green Voters who are unaffiliated with the central party councils, process, and

1 0

Strategy
by Christopher Carlson 03 Feb '18

03 Feb '18

Hello, SGA. In a number of days, you will be called upon to cast a couple of votes. Because these votes matter, I hope everyone knows 1. What measures, specifically, will be voted upon. 2. When exactly the vote will be taking place. If these cannot be provided 10 days before the vote occurs, I would like for them to be provided 7 days before the vote occurs. Or 5 days before the vote occurs. I would like to see the ballot language explicitly stated as it will appear on the ballot. Specifically because it will effectively terminate three statewide campaigns, and our votes will either approve or oppose this action at this time. Because voting is imminent, I want to be clear that the state deadlines for candidates to qualify for the ballot have not yet passed. Feb 7, Feb 14th, March 9th, and March 29th. At each of these junctures, any of the viable candidates can be eliminated by process. While I do not oppose an SGA vote on this issue, it comes between the Green Candidates and thousands of Green Voters who are unaffiliated with the central party councils, process, and

1 1

SGA delegates list - Please review and correct!
by Laura Wells 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

Hello SGA delegates, Please review the list of SGA delegates for your county, below, and send any revisions to applications(a)cagreens.org. Please cc: laurawells510(a)gmail.com, so that the state’s Grassroots Organizing Working Group (GROW) can keep track. You can compare the total number of delegates in your county to the delegate allotments, further below. Here is a list of 5 counties that are designated as “active” whose lists of SGA delegates have not yet been received for the term ending June 30, 2018. Please note that SGA members from one year do not automatically "roll over" to the next year. (NOTE: On 10/31/17 before the previous SGA vote, we sent a request to the SGA delegates from the prior year, and we’ll do that again now. Fortunately, some missing counties did submit their new delegations, and we’re hoping for even more success with this request than we got last fall.) County - Allotted Delegates Contra Costa - 4 Mendocino - 2 Napa - 2 Lake - 1 Imperial - 1 Thank you, Laura Wells Co-coordinator of GROW/Grassroots Organizing Working Group SGA Vote Administrator SGA DELEGATES term ending June 30, 2018 First Last County AJ Hill Alameda Bob Marsh Alameda Brett Dixon Alameda Greg Jan Alameda Jan Arnold Alameda Laura Wells Alameda Michael Rubin Alameda Pam Spevack Alameda Samsarah Morgan Alameda Erik Rydberg Butte Steve Breedlove Butte Megan Buckingham Fresno Richard Gomez Fresno Terrance Tovar Fresno David Cobb Humboldt Desiree Davenport Humboldt Ember Hendershot Humboldt Anthony Fuentes Kern Wanda Jean Lord Kern Adia Williams Los Angeles Ajay Rai Los Angeles Angelica Dueñas Los Angeles Annie Goeke Los Angeles Candice Yamaguchi Los Angeles Cordula Ohman Los Angeles Cris Gutierrez Los Angeles Cynthia Santiago Los Angeles Doug Barnett Los Angeles Genevieve Marcus Los Angeles Gwenn Morreal Los Angeles Jeff Sklar Los Angeles Josefina Aranda Los Angeles Justine Bierne-Akley Los Angeles Linda Piera-Avila Los Angeles Lisa Hsu Los Angeles Lisa Taylor Los Angeles Marla Bernstein Los Angeles Matthew Wheeler Los Angeles Michael Powelson Los Angeles Mike Feinstein Los Angeles Sasha Karlik Los Angeles Shane Que Hee Los Angeles Tom Bibiyan Los Angeles Zack Beatty Los Angeles Barbara Bogard Marin Marnie Glickman Marin Mimi Newton Marin Frank Lambert Monterey Hebard Olsen Monterey Michael Gaboury Nevada Sue Roberts Emery Nevada Gloria Bram Orange Gordon Johnson Orange Jeff Lebow Orange RJ Schwichtenberg Orange Susan Sonne Orange Trinidad Castaneda Orange Aleece DePuey Riverside Bob Terry Riverside Greg Varra Riverside Mike Yasmer Riverside Christopher Carlson Sacramento Eric Frame Sacramento Gary Blenner Sacramento James Clark Sacramento Nicole Castor Sacramento Carol Bouldin San Bernardino Jane Jarlsberg San Bernardino Samuel Sera Rodriguez San Bernardino Ann Menasche San Diego David Morrison San Diego Michael Goldbeck San Diego Nicole Montoya San Diego Rick Greenblatt San Diego Rochelle Glickman San Diego Sean Bohac San Diego Eric Brooks San Francisco Jackie Diehl San Francisco John-Marc Chandonia San Francisco Mike Murphy San Francisco Rich Stone San Francisco Yolanda Catzalco San Francisco Colt Gonzales San Joaquin Jennifer Hall San Joaquin Emily Bucchianeri San Luis Obispo Peggy Koteen San Luis Obispo Gloria Purcell San Mateo Lee McKusick San Mateo Andre Gaytan Santa Barbara Leo Raabe Santa Barbara Brian Good Santa Clara Christine Pepin Santa Clara Nadia Nouri Santa Clara Nassim Nouri Santa Clara Sandy Perry Santa Clara Thomas Leavitt Santa Cruz Violet Zitola Santa Cruz Don Yost Shasta Ruscal Cayangyang Solano Victoria Ashley Solano June Brashares Sonoma Stephen Zollman Sonoma Susan Chunco Sonoma Tarik Kanaana Sonoma John Schmit Stanislaus Renic Gunderson Stanislaus Lauren Mauricio Tulare Anthony Krzywicki Ventura Doug Johannes Ventura Tiffany Grande Ventura Adam Siegel Yolo Walter England Yolo COUNTY DELEGATE ALLOTMENTS County Delegate Allotment Alameda 9 Butte 2 Contra Costa 4 Fresno 3 Humboldt 3 Imperial 1 Kern 2 Lake 1 Los Angeles 25 Marin 3 Mendocino 2 Monterey 2 Napa 2 Nevada 2 Orange 6 Riverside 4 Sacramento 5 San Bernardino 4 San Diego 8 San Francisco 6 San Joaquin 2 San Luis Obispo 2 San Mateo 3 Santa Barbara 2 Santa Clara 5 Santa Cruz 3 Shasta 1 Solano 2 Sonoma 4 Stanislaus 2 Tulare 1 Ventura 3 Yolo 2

8 12

[Gpca-votes] State level Green Party
by Thomas Leavitt 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

The inability of this party, at a statewide level, to conduct itself in a functional fashion, without endless bickering, infighting, plotting and conspiracy mongering (justified and otherwise), over the last TWENTY PLUS YEARS, and clearly replicated on this thread, is exactly why so many sane and reasonable party members view engagement with the party at a non-local level with trepidation, and in many cases, as an act of masochism. This is why I have absolutely, regardless of my personal view of various parties and events, abstained from participation in recent votes since being placed on the SGA, and will continue to do so. This is why the biggest Green Party in the country, by numbers, in the biggest state, apparently operates on a budget which doesn't even amount to spare change by any rational standard... all this infighting is over literal pennies. City council candidates in Santa Cruz, a city of 50,000, raise more money for their campaigns than our entire state operates on (based on the figures I've seen). Things that should be of the highest urgency and priority, are left unattended. Look at our budget committee page, it says: "*Current Members (FY2013-2014 budget preparation)*" http://www.cagreens.org/committees/budget I'm sure it would be effortless to find additional examples. Regardless of what recent issues we've had, there is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for this page to be FIVE YEARS out of date. FIVE YEARS. Do you all realize how totally unprofessional and credibility destroying this is to all but the most motivated folks considering alternatives to the duopoly? How can any of us defend this type of performance and collective conduct? I've been formally involved with this party since I arrived in Santa Cruz in 1993, and registered since 1990. Tom Hayden sent me a postcard urging me to re-register as a Democrat when I did. I didn't. That's going on a quarter century. I've known some of you for almost that long, know parties on all sides of various internal divisions, I don't claim to be purely objective, but as someone who has deliberately tried to not emphatically plant myself on any particular faction or individual's side, I'm begging you, on behalf of all the other folks who aren't invested in these disputes, to please, figure this stuff out. Resolve your differences, or at least minimize their fallout on the rest of us. Any sane and objective evaluation, based on simple examination of the last twenty years, should make it clear that no absolute and lasting "victory" of any faction is possible - you all HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE DEALING WITH EACH OTHER. Regards, Thomas Leavitt

6 9