- gpca-votes - list.sfgreens.org

RESULTS
by James Lauderdale 01 Apr '18

01 Apr '18

How do I obtain the results from yesterday’s vote? Sent from my iPhone James Lauderdale

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
by lindap_a＠verizon.net 01 Apr '18

01 Apr '18

I agree with you, Nicole! So, 155 proposes that we may endorse candidates who support Green values and who don't take corporate donations even if they are not registered Green. Everyone seems to assume that automatically excludes endorsing a Democrat as they are a "corporate party." But then, what if said independent candidate, endorsed by the Green Party, in turn endorses a Democrat instead of a Green? Where is our integrity? How do we reconcile this inconsistency? Aren't we then indirectly endorsing a Democrat, a corporate party candidate? What message does that send to left leaning voters? Also, again, we Greens "give up" an endorsement to a non Green who in turn does not reciprocate, but instead endorses a Democrat. I don't see how that is building our Green Party, nor promoting our values; in fact, it seems to do the opposite. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 4:10 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Re Steve I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes. The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove(a)gmail.com> wrote: Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such. On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> wrote: Steven & others, What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove(a)gmail.com> wrote: Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision. What in the language makes you think otherwise? On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris(a)bestofbroadway.org> wrote: We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)hotmail.com> wrote: There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition. The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them. That’s what this Bylaws change is all about. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now? If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal? Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation? Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal. If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation. Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences. https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process. Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties. If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose. There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt(a)gmail.com> wrote: Erik, The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics. I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique. Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally. As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances. On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com> wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both. Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation) For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche(a)gmail.com> wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt(a)gmail.com> wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove(a)gmail.com> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg(a)gmail.com> wrote: I agree withLinda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a(a)verizon.net> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice VoteEndorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates 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 The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments togpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com 530-781-2903 cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

6 5

Never received my voting instruction email
by Annie Goeke 01 Apr '18

01 Apr '18

I have been prepared to vote but noticed didn't get email with instructions and password. Please resend. Thank you Green blessings and peace from Annie Earth Rights Institute Office +1 310.403.6693 www.earthrightsinstitute.org "Doing what we do best- building models of sustainability in communities that want to rise out of poverty"

8 16

Reminder Of Information Links For This GPCA SGA Vote
by Eric Brooks 01 Apr '18

01 Apr '18

Hi all, This is just a reminder of the links for you to follow, to learn about each item on our SGA ballot. The main link is: https://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_general_info At that link you will find the following information and links to information on the various ballot sections: SGA Vote General Information The SGA election begins on Monday, February 12th, with a 6-week discussion period. A one-week voting period follows, beginning on Monday, March 26th and ending on Sunday, April 1st. There are a total of 25 votes divided into 4 sections: 1) GPCA Elections (3 items) [Coordinating Committee, GPUS Delegates, Minutes Approval] http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_gpca_elections 2) Ballot Measures (5 items) http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_ballot_measures 3) Statewide Races (9 items) http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races 4) Bylaws Interpretations and Bylaws Amendments (8 items) http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please remember to vote by 11:59pm this Sunday, April 1. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator

7 8

SGA - list of delegates who have voted as of Friday, March 30, 10:30 pm
by GPCA Votes 31 Mar '18

31 Mar '18

3 2

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
by Jason Kishineff 31 Mar '18

31 Mar '18

It sends the message that we are open minded and don't necessarily follow the march in lockstep, the way the corrupt parties do. If we endorsed an independent or P&F candidate for, let's say State Treasurer, since there is no Green on the ballot for that office, and that candidate happened to know the Congressional candidate in some district was a Green in name only (can I SAY GINO? lol ) and preferred endorsing a progressive Dem, I don't personally find offense in that. I mean, we've all heard of that Republican in Montana that ran as Green, and I know he was the exception, but are you implying that he should have automatically received all the Montana Greens' endorsements? I hope not! If someone saw through his act, I would have hoped they endorsed someone else. There ARE progressive Dems that don't take corporate money that want to work toward the same goals that we all do.

1 0

Discuss ID 146: GPCA endorsement for Lt. Governor
by GPCA Votes 31 Mar '18

31 Mar '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 #146 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Lt. Governor* Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

6 6

All Please Read & Bookmark: GPCA Email Rules of Decorum
by Eric Brooks 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

Hi all, Please read and bookmark these Email Rules of Decorum, and please do not forward emails for others which may break these rules. 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

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 146: GPCA endorsement for Lt. Governor
by Linda Piera-Avila 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

Still another email from Mike Feinstein that hasn't gotten through to this list Linda > *From:*Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein(a)feinstein.org> > *Subject:**Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 146: GPCA endorsement for > Lt. Governor* > *Date:*March 30, 2018 at 10:58:02 AM PDT > *To:*GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> > > First of all, none of these so-called ‘endorsements’ of non-Greens are > valid, because the rule change that would effectuate this is not in > place now, and hence there is no basis for the SGA administrators to > place non-Greens on the current SGA ballot. There is just no way > around that. So we are all wasting our time voting on any race that > isn’t the Gov and SoS race, where at least there are Greens running. > > Second, one of the ironies with the proposal that would change the > endorsement rules, is that it says that the GPCA could not endorse any > candidates that are members of parties that take corporate donations - > yet Gayle Mclaughlin has done just that, endorsing a Democrat in the > 2018 SoS race. > > That endorsement isn’t meaningless. In fact it could cost the GPCA its > ballot status. > > The SoS race is where the GPCA is most likely to get 2%, as there are > 28 candidates in the Gov race, but only eight for SoS. > > The McLaughlin campaign is targeting people who are our base, and is > emailing to them aggressively, including her endorsement of a Democrat > in the SoS race. > > So while she is only reaching a small percent of the electorate with > her campaign, she is reaching a much larger percent of people likely > to vote Green. > > If we do not get 2% in the SoS race, in 2020 the Sanders prez campaign > (or whomever else is the lesser evil in the D primary) will again > aggressively pursue registered Greens to unregister Green to vote in > the D primary. > > We lost 30% of our membership to the Sanders campaign in 2016. If we > lose another 30% in 2020, and we don’t get 2% in a statewide race in > 2018, we’ll be off the ballot. > > Great alliance building, huh? > > Mike Feinstein > SGA Delegate, GPCA > > >> On Mar 25, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, and Gayle McLaughlin will be on our SGA ballot when it goes out >> this week. >> >> Eric Brooks >> SGA Vote Administrator >> >> >>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Mike Feinstein >>> <mfeinstein(a)feinstein.org> wrote: >>> >>> No Green has qualified for the ballot for Lt. Governor. This item >>> should be deleted from the voting software. Has it been? >>> >>> Mike Feinstein >>> Santa Monica >>> GPLAC SGA Delegate

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership
by Linda Piera-Avila 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

More of Mike Feinstein's emails that are not being sent through to this list, despite being sent hours ago Linda > *From:*Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein(a)feinstein.org> > *Subject:**Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: > Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For > Standing Committees’ Voting Membership* > *Date:*March 30, 2018 at 10:17:02 AM PDT > *To:*GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> > > There is no reason to require less than a majority of committee > members in place to conduct committee business, especially since > on-line votes are available for ALL committee members to participate > in a decision, including those who may not be able to make a > particular teleconference. > > Again, this is a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate power in fewer > and few hands. > > I am really disappointed we keep seeing so many rule changes mean to > reward infighting, and so little actual electoral strategy in the party. > >> >> Background >> >> This proposal has been brought forth because in recent years a number >> of standing committees of the Green Party of California (GPCA) have >> been unable to conduct any business for lengthy periods of time due >> to failure to reach quorum. This state of affairs has often impeded >> the GPCA Coordinating Committee (CC) from fulfilling its own >> responsibilities per GPCA Bylaw 8-1.7 > > This is NOT true. The CC has not had a quorum issue. > >> (“Request and receive reports from Committees and Working Groups, >> refer matters to them, and monitor and assist their work”). GPCA >> standing committees are capped, for gender balance, at an even number >> of members, > > This is yet another case where the sponsors don’t know what they are > talking about. GPCA standing committees are NOT capped to promote > gender balance. Only the CC has a gender balance requirement. All > other committees do not. > >> and currently establish quorum at a majority of voting members. This >> proposed amendment would establish the minimum quorum at least 50% of >> standing committees’ voting membership. > > This is just a move for the other committees to have a lower > participation threshold, to make it easier for a smaller number of > people to push things through when others aren’t on a particular > teleconference. > >> >> This proposal would also clarify an ambiguity in notice requirements >> for calling meetings. The language of GPCA Bylaw 9-3.1 is silent >> regarding notice requirements for standing committees that establish >> regular meeting schedules. In practice, most if not all standing >> committees establish regular meeting schedules for their work year. >> The proposed language would make explicit that two weeks’ notice is >> required for meetings that fall outside a standing committee’s >> regular meeting schedule, should one be set. > > If people think establishing regular meeting schedules is appropriate, > THAT is what should have been submitted here, not this rule change. > > For all these reasons, I am voting no > > Mike Feinstein > SGA Delegate, GPLAC > >> >> Proposal >> >> That GPCA Bylaw Article 9-3 be amended as follows: >> >> That Article 9-3 be amended from its current text: >> >> Section 9-3 Meetings >> >> 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on >> teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives >> outlined in its work plan. Meetings must be called with a minimum of >> two weeks notice to committee members. >> >> 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that >> described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum is a majority of >> the committee's voting membership. >> >> To read as follows: >> >> Section 9-3 Meetings >> >> 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on >> teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives >> outlined in their work plans. Meetings outside any regular meeting >> schedule shall be called with a minimum of two weeks notice to >> committee members. >> >> 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that >> described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum shall be at least >> 50% of the committee's voting membership. >> >> Sponsors: The proposed amendment has been endorsed and sponsored by >> the Green Party of Butte County and the Green Party of Yolo County. >> >> Full details will be available at: >> http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations >> >> Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org

1 0