- gpca-votes - list.sfgreens.org

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

Note Of Subject Header Change For This Email List
by Eric Brooks 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

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

1 0

Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time
by james clark 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

No one contacted me to inform me about the voting. Being unhoused I don't always get to check my emails. Thankfully I did check before voting was over. I tend to avoid these threads unless it's urgent due to the arguing, power plays, and lack of transparency. I know this doesn't reflect the party as a whole, but makes trying to see the actual information difficult. Critiques ate often being met with hostility, ableist attacks, etc. This should be addressed in a constructive manner. We have a lot of work to do in order to build or voting block, and continuous infighting, is counterproductive. As is having the spokesperson publicly fighting with other greens, some for standing up for party values, some for valid reasons. These arguments should not be done in public forums, as it will only serve to push people out of the part, and discourage people from getting involved. Let us focus on the work that needs to get done in public, and handle internal disagreement in private. Maybe even finding people to act as mediation teams when that option is available. On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)hotmail.com> wrote: This is incorrect. 1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted. 2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions. 3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates. 4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results. It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the **new** Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list. Eric Brooks *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election, I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote. I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother: *Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections *The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address *A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest *At least one active county was not informed of the SGA *Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately. This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed. If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete. Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation. On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin(a)msn.com> wrote: So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out? On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote: Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Eric, please open the ðŸ—³ vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric, > Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. >> >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. >> >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> Iâ€™ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DONâ€™T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> >> Email me at: brookse32(a)hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844> >> >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman% 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com% 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE: Due to [...] Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor. -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman% 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com% 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

1 0

[Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time
by Eric Brooks 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

Hi again all, The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. Eric Brooks From: Eric Brooks Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight Hi all, I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. I'll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON'T SEE IT). *TO CONTACT ME* Email me at: brookse32(a)hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com> and /or call me at: 415-756-8844 Eric Brooks

11 29

[Gpca-votes] Reminder: GPCA Email Rules of Decorum
by Eric Brooks 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

Hi all, Since we have recently been getting into an email conversation with some disagreement between commenters, I want to take a moment to remind all of the members of the GPCA-Votes list of the GPCA Email Rules of Decorum, which can be found at the following link: http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum *Specifically, please take note of the following clauses and please all follow them, so that we can have a respectful dialog.* 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. 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... Thanks all, Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator

4 3