June 2018 - gpca-votes

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Vote on ID #164 is about being inclusive of non-binary Greens
by pkoteen 21 Jun '18

21 Jun '18

Oh boy, I'm actually getting my first SGA email. It is nice to know that my email issue has been resolved. . I wonder how much I've missed in the discussion of the proposals. June, however well intention this proposal 164 is, we really need our 6 week discussion.. The rest of us have not weighed in on the wording, and I certainly would like to hear from those who do not identify as male or female from birth on this issue. And not just one or two people but a variety of opinions. Thamk you for giving us your history of this. I will likely ote no because it is so disconcerting how number 164 has come about. Peggy Koteen Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: June Brashares <june.brashares(a)gmail.com> Date: 6/20/18 18:55 (GMT-08:00) To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Vote on ID #164 is about being inclusive of non-binary Greens For over a year, Greens whose gender identity does not fit the Male / Female binary framework have talked with me and other members of the Coordinating Committee (CC) about addressing the problem of how they are excluded from being candidates when there is an election that is limited to "Male" seats and "Female" seats for the CC. Approving the Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 will mean that we can conduct the CC election in an inclusive and fair manner. A lot has been done over many months that has established expectation for this. At CC meetings in March, April and May, the CC progressively developed and approved this bylaws interpretation and its method for conducting the election. In March, the announcement calling for candidates for the upcoming CC election included the intention to welcome non-binary candidates. The notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period on May 7th re-iterated the aim of the CC as it announced: ID #161 - Election: Coordinating Committee, 12 seats for the term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_coordinating_committee_12_se… The SGA vote administrators prepared the election in accordance to the notice and decisions of the CC. Unintended error and choice for going forward: Then there was an unintended error that this bylaws interpretation was not on the agenda to be voted on by the GA on June 9-10 as it should have been. The bylaws interpretation has been put to this SGA to be voted on June 18-24. Because of the timing, that isn’t consistent with our bylaws. However, the bylaws also state the CC election must be held June 18-24. Changing the CC election process now would create changes to the election timing which would not be consistent with our bylaws.At this point, which ever path we take it will be outside of the bylaws in some way. The GA / SGA is the highest decision-making entity of the Green Party of California. It is appropriate that you/SGA decide which path best reflects the spirit of the bylaws and our Green Party values. In voting yes or no on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 the SGA resolves this and determines which way we go. Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 is about justice for non-binary candidates to be included in our CC elections. As the May 7th notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period stated, “the CC has concluded that the decades-old Green Party of California bylaws were not intended to exclude any Greens who are non-binary.” A vote of NO would return us to the past process of having to conduct the CC election in a way which excludes candidates outside of the Male /Female binary and does not recognize the full spectrum of gender identity of our Green membership. A vote of YES on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 provides a mechanism for conducting this current CC election in an inclusionary way. June Brashares, member of the current CC, candidate for CC term 2018-2020, & Sonoma County SGA delegate

1 0

Vote on ID #164 is about being inclusive of non-binary Greens
by June Brashares 21 Jun '18

21 Jun '18

For over a year, Greens whose gender identity does not fit the Male / Female binary framework have talked with me and other members of the Coordinating Committee (CC) about addressing the problem of how they are excluded from being candidates when there is an election that is limited to "Male" seats and "Female" seats for the CC. Approving the Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> will mean that we can conduct the CC election in an inclusive and fair manner. A lot has been done over many months that has established expectation for this. At CC meetings in March, April and May, the CC progressively developed and approved this bylaws interpretation and its method for conducting the election. In March, the announcement calling for candidates for the upcoming CC election included the intention to welcome non-binary candidates. The notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period on May 7th re-iterated the aim of the CC as it announced: ID #161 - Election: Coordinating Committee, 12 seats for the term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder. com/sga_election_coordinating_committee_12_seats The SGA vote administrators prepared the election in accordance to the notice and decisions of the CC. *Unintended error and choice for going forward:* Then there was an unintended error that this bylaws interpretation was not on the agenda to be voted on by the GA on June 9-10 as it should have been. The bylaws interpretation has been put to this SGA to be voted on June 18-24. Because of the timing, that isn’t consistent with our bylaws. However, the bylaws also state the CC election must be held June 18-24. Changing the CC election process now would create changes to the election timing which would not be consistent with our bylaws. At this point, which ever path we take it will be outside of the bylaws in some way. The GA / SGA is the highest decision-making entity of the Green Party of California. It is appropriate that you/SGA decide which path best reflects the spirit of the bylaws and our Green Party values. In voting yes or no on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> the SGA resolves this and determines which way we go. Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> is about justice for non-binary candidates to be included in our CC elections. As the May 7th notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period stated, “the CC has concluded that the decades-old Green Party of California bylaws were not intended to exclude any Greens who are non-binary.” A vote of NO would return us to the past process of having to conduct the CC election in a way which excludes candidates outside of the Male /Female binary and does not recognize the full spectrum of gender identity of our Green membership. A vote of YES on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> provides a mechanism for conducting this current CC election in an inclusionary way. June Brashares, member of the current CC, candidate for CC term 2018-2020, & Sonoma County SGA delegate

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] [gpca-forum] Fwd: FOR TOMORROW: Energy Committee: **AB 813 OPPOSE** - GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA
by 1 19 Jun '18

19 Jun '18

Sign the petition... https://secure.foodandwaterwatch.org/act/stop-the-dirty-energy-grid On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Wes Rolley via gpca-forum < gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org> wrote: > On 6/1/17, this bill passed in the assembly by a vote of 78 yes, 2 no. I > see no reason that CA Senate will be very much different. > > It seems to me that we need to make opposition much more public than we > have. No one cares about internal acts. State Senate only cares about their > chances for re-election. > > Any comments need to be aimed at tying this to Trump’s unpopular cabinet. > > Wes. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Eric Brooks via gpca-forum < > gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org> wrote: > > Yes. The GPCA opposed AB 813 last year and the CC came to consensus to > continue opposing it this year as well. > > The key with this bill is that every expert that we have consulted has > told us that if AB 813 became law, no matter how well it is worded, Trump’s > Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would be able to legally > override **any** and **all** provisions in the bill. > > Once we give up our state control of our state grid, no clause in AB 813 > will be enforceable. > > Eric Brooks > > SF, CA > > > > > gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org > > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-forum mailing list > Reminder: Please do not "Reply All" or include other addresses in the CC > line -- only use "Reply" > > gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org > >

1 0

Test. GPCA-SGA-Votes]
by pkoteen 17 Jun '18

17 Jun '18

Just a test Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

1 0

Fwd: GP 6/5 Results ?
by 1 07 Jun '18

07 Jun '18

*22 California Greens ran in the June 5th, 2018 elections...* In detail... HOW DID ALL the CANDIDATES DO? Thanks, James Young SGA O.C. & MCM CA GP

1 0