- gpca-votes - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 156: Bylaws Amendment: Procedures for Recall
by Linda Piera-Avila 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

Apparently Mike Feinstein's emails from several hours ago are not being allowed through to the SGA list. I don't know why..... So I am forwarding them so delegates have the benefit of reading them Linda > *From:*Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein(a)feinstein.org> > *Subject:**Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 156: Bylaws Amendment: > Procedures for Recall* > *Date:*March 30, 2018 at 10:05:22 AM PDT > *To:*GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> > > Dear Greens > > This is thinly veiled attempt to further the internal faction fight in > our state party, to make it easier to get eliminate candidates elected > under proportional representation, who do not agree with the current > Coordinating Committee majority and those who support them. > >> Background >> >> Current recall procedures reserve the right to initiate and approve >> recall petitions to county councils, rather than county organizations >> themselves. This is an obstacle to fuller participation in party >> governance by the GPCA, as defined in Bylaw 3-1. > > This is not true. Actually County Councils are the one party of party > governance that is subject to all registered Greens, because any > registered Greens can run and when the race is contested, any Green > can vote. In other words, County Council elections are the one place > open to the fullest participation in the GPCA. > >> In addition to promoting clarity by complying with Bylaws 4-1 and >> 4-4, revising this provision would also ensure that the GPCA’s own >> procedures for encouraging oversight and good governance of the party >> organization are more consistent with two of the party’s 10 Key >> Values: decentralization and grassroots democracy. > > This is stated without substantiation. > > Actually this proposal centralizes power, by moving it away from the > county parties who represent a broad base of Greens around the state, > to a potentially much smaller group of people who may happen to attend > an in-person GA at any given point in time (as explained below). > >> This proposal also removes an inconsistency found elsewhere in the >> bylaws regarding the duties and responsibilities of both the General >> Assembly (GA) and Standing General Assembly (SGA) (cf., GPCA Bylaw >> 7-6.2(g)). > > Actually this text confuses the issues, as explained below. > >> >> Proposal >> >> That GPCA Bylaw Article 8-5.2 be amended as follows: >> >> That Article 8-5.2 be amended from its current text: >> >> 8-5.2 A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for removal, >> be approved by County Councils representing 35% of the total number >> of General Assembly delegate seats, and must be received by the >> Coordinating Committee before it can be forwarded to the General >> Assembly for a vote. The written basis for recall must be based upon >> substantial malperformance of the duties of the Coordinating >> Committee as defined in these Bylaws. > > Again, the reason that this rule is based upon County Councils, is > that the county parties are elected bodies on the county level and > hence are the building blocks of the state party. County Councils are > also places where considered discussion can occur on such a serious > issues. The way the new rule is written, it just become a petition > drive effort, as described below. > > >> to read as follows: >> >> 8-5.2 A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for removal, >> be approved by 35% of the total number of General Assembly or >> Standing General Assembly delegates, > > I don’t know if this text was submitted to the GPCA Bylaws Committee > for review as required under GPCA Bylaws, but this text now entirely > confuses the process and can produce unintended consequence - and > given that, the Bylaws Committee had a responsibility to identify that > to the sponsor and send it back for more work, and the Bylaws > Committee failed us. > > The current text "A Recall Petition must contain the written basis > for removal, be approved by County Councils representing 35% of the > total number of General Assembly delegate seats “ > > is based upon the total number of General Assembly DELEGATE SEATS, > because that is a number defined in the party bylaw by a given formula > >> 7-1.2 The total number of delegates and the number of delegates per >> county shall be the total of two sums: >> >> 7-1.2(a) Each active County Organization shall have at least one >> delegate seat, for a total of 58 if County Organizations are active >> in all of California's counties. >> >> 7-1.2(b) Each active County Organization shall have an additional >> number of delegates seats out of an additional 100 seats, equal to >> its percentage of registered Greens from within the county, compared >> to the total number of registered Greens in all counties, with a >> minimum of 1% required for one seat, times 100. > > By trying to change this to > > "A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for removal, be > approved by 35% of the total number of General Assembly or Standing > General Assembly delegates” > > creates several problems. > > The first is that it creates an uncertain number, by changing the > definition from SEATS to DELEGATES. The number of SGA DELEGATES can > change from time to time during the course of a year , so the number > of delegates needed to support a recall petition would change! > Furthermore this rule doesn’t state at what time that number of > delegates is defined. This is sloppy work on behalf of the sponsors > (unless it was intentional) and the GPCA Bylaws Committee needed to > have caught this and sent it back for correction. > > In fact this rule would then incentive county parties to play games > with how many people are their appointed SGA delegates at any one > time, in order to affect the total number needed for such a recall > petition. > > Second, by introducing " General Assembly or Standing General Assembly > DELEGATES” instead of SEATS, this is sly backdoor method to change the > entire threshold for a recall, from a 35% of a large number of defined > seats, to 35% of a smaller number of random people who show up at a > General Assembly. > > So now under this proposal, all that has to happen is that we have a > modestly attended GA in one part of the state, where Greens from > another part of the state can’t easily attend, and then 35% of that > MUCH SMALLER number of delegates in attendance (compared to the > defined number of SEATS) can move a recall process ahead. It could > even theoretically happen late on a Sunday afternoon at a GA, when > only a small people were left, that arguably could say 35% of those > people remaining would be enough to start a recall! > > Under the current GPCA rules, recalls are NOT mean to be easy. The > reason for this is that our CC elections are held under proportional > representation, to ensure diverse representation, including of > minority factions in the party. > > The recall rule is not supposed to be used for internal party faction > fights, but instead is meant to be in place in that rare case where it > is abundantly obvious to a very large number of Greens that something > must be done. > > Third, with County Councils, there is a clear APPROVAL PROCESS where > County Councils take a vote and have minutes. Now what is going to > happen? Now there is no ‘approval process’ in place. Are we supposed > to have a change.org petition going around? Who is going to verify who > supported such a petition? There is nothing in this rule that > describes such a process - again another reason that it should have > been sent back by the GPCA Bylaws Committee for more work. In fact as > is, this proposal is not actually implementable and is thus infirm. > > In sum, this proposal is poorly written, not implementable as written, > and is a thinly-veiled effort to aid faction fighting. Really quite > sad that something like this has advanced this far. > > For all of these reasons, I am voting no > > Mike Feinstein > SGA Delegate > GPLAC

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by Linda Piera-Avila 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

Apparently Mike Feinstein's emails from several hours ago are not being allowed through to the SGA list. I don't know why..... So I am forwarding them so delegates have the benefit of reading them Linda > *From:*Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein(a)feinstein.org> > *Subject:**Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy > Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates* > *Date:*March 30, 2018 at 9:26:03 AM PDT > *To:*GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> > > Dear fellow Greens > > I am voting no on this proposal for several reasons, as explained below. > >> Background >> >> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing >> candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: > > This is not true. Many Green Party members who are candidates “have > good Green values” and “take no corporate money”. On the county > level, they have been endorsed by county Green Parties in down-ticket > races. > > On the state party level, they used to win our primaries when we had > partisan primaries, and since Top Two came in, the GPCA endorsed a > slate of such candidates for statewide in 2014. (more about that later) > > Clearly the explanatory text for this background text is sloppily > written. Presumably it is meant to say “The GPCA is currently > prohibited from endorsing candidates WHO ARE NOT GREEN PARTY MEMBERS > AND who have good Green values and who take no corporate money” > > So IF that was what was meant, then there should have been some > analysis about this point, that is actually grounded in party facts > and past reasoning, to understand why the current policy is what it > is, and then argue why it should be changed. > > The facts are that under the current policy, many county Green Parties > have their own rules about endorsement. This is a very controversial > issue, because giving away the Green Party endorsement creates a > disincentive for candidates to run as Greens. For that reason some > county Green Parties have decided to endorse down ticket candidates > from other parties, and some county parties have not. > > One of the reasons the GPCA has left it up to the county parties on > this question, is that those races don’t directly affect the GPCA’s > ballot status. > > But on the state party level, one of the two ways the GPCA retains > ballot status is to receive at least 2% in a statewide race - in the > general election before Top Two and in the primary election since Top > Two. Because of this, it is in the GPCA’s interest has not been to > give away its endorsement to non-Green candidates that don’t help the > party receive that 2%; but instead to recruit viable, credible > candidates for as many of those seats as possible, in order to give > the party the best chance at receiving 2%. > >> 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. > > By itself, this is not reason to change the party’s statewide > candidate endorsement policy. There are dozens if not hundreds of > ways of publicizing the GPCA, that don’t have the downsides of > discouraging people from running as Greens. > >> The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races >> where we have no candidate. > > There is nothing in our party rules or documents that states this. > >> For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green >> Party candidates in state > > Examples? This is an incredibly reckless and FALSE assertion. The > Peace and Freedom Party has NEVER endorsed a statewide Green Party > candidate. This was confirmed today to me by a few long time P&F leaders. > > Yet this is what this proposal is based upon????? > >> 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. > > So what? > >> 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. > > So that is the GPCA’s primary responsibility? > > Again, we have left this option for endorsement for down-ticket races, > but one reason we don’t get into this on the state party level is that > we need credible candidates to run Green to get our 2%. > >> The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not >> prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state >> party is; > > That is not confusing, it is a statement of fact. Obviously the > author’s of this proposal were not confused, as they were able to > state what the current rule is. > >> in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of >> grassroots interest. > > Yes, because party delegates decided 43-6-2 that it was a bad idea to > endorse statewide candidates from other parties, again in part because > it is a disincentive to run as a Green if you can get the party’s > support without it. > >> The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two >> era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building >> efforts in California. > > This is said without substantiation. Another case of reckless > rhetoric in what should be a factually-based background to this proposal. > >> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to >> implement Proportional Representation > > Huh? There is no substantiation for this whatsoever. It is just said > in thin air. . > > The reality is that the GPCA, Peace & Freedom Party and the > Libertarian Party already work together to advance 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 > > This betrays a lack knowledge of GPCA history with P&F and the > Libertarians. For several years, in addition to supporting > proportional representation, the three parties have worked together to > take common positions and negotiate with the state legislature on > several bills, including those that have affected county central > committees, and how ballot status is retained under Top Two. > > In other words, where we’ve had common interest, we already get > together. In June 2013 there was even a joint meeting of reps from > the three parties that followed the Napa GA. > > Additionally many individual Greens work with candidates of other > parties, and on the grassroots level that coalition-work speaks for > itself. > >> and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose >> other political party affiliations. > > Which is a disincentive for them to run Green. If you can get the > milk for free, you won’t buy the cow. > >> As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and >> yet who have no track record with the Green Party > > Yes, that has happened in the Governor’s race this year with the two > individuals who have made it on the ballot as Greens. > > Does that mean we should endorse Delaine Eastin instead? She > apparently is anti-corporate, as many of the Berniecrat groups have > endorsed her. Why isn’t she on the GPCA SGA ballot? > >> 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. > > This reasoning shows an even further lack of knowledge of GPCA > history, which is not surprising since it was sponsored by a county > party full of people who have no history with the GPCA. > > In every election year since 1994 - EXCEPT THIS YEAR - where the > statewide constitutional offices were up for election, the GPCA > (through the CCWG) conducted an organized outreach plan to identify in > advance of the filing period, a credible slate of candidates for > statewide office. Then we would go into the primary season united > around that slate, and as a result did not have contested primaries > for statewide constitutional office, with only one exception (Gov > 2010, when Deacon Alexander ran against Laura Wells, who was the > ‘slate choice’). > > Under Top Two , the one time we had the statewide constitutional > offices up for election before 2018 was in 2014. Now we we were > looking at additional challenges, because the ballot-qualification > rules changed under Top Two, making it much harder for Greens to get > on the ballot. > > The GPCA endorsement process in 2014 was not only predicated on > finding a credible slate of Greens for statewide races in general, but > doing so in advance of the signature-gathering period so that we could > unite around them during the signature-gathering period, get more > signatures for each and reduce the cost for them to get on the ballot, > and also leave more funds for them to purchase their candidate > statements in the Voter Information Guide. Furthermore the early > endorsement would then also make them eligible for GPCA Campaign > Support Funding, so they could use that to help purchase more words > for their candidate statement in the Voter Information Guide. > > http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2013-06/2014-election-strategy > > Now what has happened for 2018 is that for the first time in our > party’s history, the GPCA has failed this most basic task to have a > proactive process to recruit serious candidates (the blame for this > colossal failure lies directly with the CCWG and the CC) and instead > is opening the door to a policy that will discourage serious > candidates from running as Greens, because they can get the Green > endorsement anyway. > > This is a doubling-down on the party’s 2017 failure to plan for 2018. > >> 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. > > So the authors of this proposal are now arguing that we should be > endorsing non-Greens over Greens? > > Apparently they want us to pass a policy that encourages people to not > run as Greens in the first place, then use that to endorse non-Greens > over the people that do choose to run as Greens? > > This would be an ideal strategy for someone who wanted to cause the > GPCA to lose its ballot status. > >> 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. > > The reason we started the Green Party in the United States was that > there were millions of people who had green values, but not a > political party based upon them. We want candidates to decide this is > a party worth running in. It is hard enough already to get viable, > credible candidates to decide to run as Greens. This strategy > undermines the reason for people to run as Greens in races where we > keep ballot status. > >> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, > > Seriously????? The intellectual foundation of this proposal is based > upon social media ‘likes’???? > >> 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. > > We are a welcoming party to anyone who embraces the Ten Key Values. > >> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement >> procedures > > I have been involved with this party since 1988, have registered > thousands of people as Greens, have been the state party clearinghouse > coordinator, have answered the party’s phones and emails, and have > been a party spokesperson and an elected Green to public office. In > all of those roles and more, I don’t recall a single example of a > person saying they were interested in the Green Party who asked about > our endorsement policy for non-Greens, and/or for whom that was a > ‘deal breaker’ in any sense of the word. > >> 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. > > NGOs like the Sierra Club or the League of Conservation Voters (or > others) are big tents for people with green values. Political parties > are different organs, they are partisan and have to do with electoral > strategy. People who are green values are found in many political > parties, for various different strategic reasons. Unless we convince > people to be registered Greens and run as Green candidates, we fall > off the ballot and are no longer an option for people with green > values. This proposal to change our party’s endorsement procedure > makes it easier for people to get a Green Party ‘seal of approval’ and > not join our party and not run as Greens. > > If I wanted to infiltrate the Green Party and disembowel it from > within, this is one strategy I would pursue. > > For all the reasons above, I am voting no. > > Mike Feinstein > SGA Delegate > GPLAC

1 0

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Discuss *ID 157*: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership
by Eric Brooks 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

Proposed Amendment to Item 157 – Resetting Quorum and Noticing for Committees. Hi all, and to the proposers of Item 157, I have a proposed amendment to solve a particular technical problem we have specifically for the Media Committee. Currently the Bylaws state that our two GPCA spokespersons can be ex officio members of the Media Committee, but cannot count toward quorum and vote on the committee. This has effectively made it impossible for the Media Committee to reach quorum. Since the Media Committee has been active, and as long as I have been on it, it has always made decisions by full consensus – and two votes out of a quorum of four does not allow the spokespersons to carry any potential vote by themselves. And regardless the GA/SGA can always override any committee if it ever does make mistakes or show any bias. So I am asking the proposers to amend this proposal to: Make the two Green Party spokespersons voting members of the Media Committee. thanks Eric Brooks SF, CA Media Committee From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:45 PM To: gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #157 Ranked Choice Vote Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership 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 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 (“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, 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 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. 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<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>

7 8

Discuss ID 156: Bylaws Amendment: Procedures for Recall
by GPCA Votes 30 Mar '18

30 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 #156 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment: Procedures for Recall* 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* Current recall procedures reserve the right to initiate and approve recall petitions to county councils, rather than county organizations themselves. This is an obstacle to fuller participation in party governance by the GPCA, as defined in Bylaw 3-1. In addition to promoting clarity by complying with Bylaws 4-1 and 4-4, revising this provision would also ensure that the GPCA’s own procedures for encouraging oversight and good governance of the party organization are more consistent with two of the party’s 10 Key Values: decentralization and grassroots democracy. This proposal also removes an inconsistency found elsewhere in the bylaws regarding the duties and responsibilities of both the General Assembly (GA) and Standing General Assembly (SGA) (cf., GPCA Bylaw 7-6.2(g)). *Proposal* That GPCA Bylaw Article 8-5.2 be amended as follows: That Article 8-5.2 be amended from its current text: 8-5.2 A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for removal, be approved by County Councils representing 35% of the total number of General Assembly delegate seats, and must be received by the Coordinating Committee before it can be forwarded to the General Assembly for a vote. The written basis for recall must be based upon substantial malperformance of the duties of the Coordinating Committee as defined in these Bylaws. to read as follows: 8-5.2 A Recall Petition must contain the written basis for removal, be approved by 35% of the total number of General Assembly or Standing General Assembly delegates, and must be received by the Coordinating Committee before it can be forwarded to the General Assembly or Standing General Assembly for a vote. The written basis for recall must be based upon substantial malperformance of the duties of the Coordinating Committee as defined in these Bylaws. References: GPUS 10 Key Values, GPCA Bylaws 3-1, 4-1, 4-4, 7-6.2(g). 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 <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

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 Eric Brooks 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

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<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement 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 to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>

24 68

REMINDER from OpaVote with your SGA Voting Link
by GPCA Votes 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

REMINDER email was sent to everyone who had not yet voted: FROM: OpaVote Voting Link <noreply(a)opavote.com> SUBJECT: [REMINDER] GPCA Standing General Assembly (SGA) March 2018 Election DATE: Thursday, March 29, about 5:30 pm Note that you might have to check your SPAM/JUNK folder. In the email, click on the blue VOTE button, and that will take you directly to the instructions and the voting page. If you have any questions or problems, we will be happy to help. SGA Vote Administrators Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells and Alternate Eric Brooks

1 0

Mana Talk with James (Youtube) Guest: Danielle St. John
by 1 29 Mar '18

29 Mar '18

About 830'ish PST... Hope to see you all there! Mahalo, James Young SGA O.C.

2 1

Discuss ID 150: GPCA endorsement for Attorney General
by GPCA Votes 27 Mar '18

27 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 #150 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Attorney General* 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>*

10 9

VERY IMPORTANT: Please Disregard Any SGA Vote Instructions That Are Not From OpaVote
by Eric Brooks 27 Mar '18

27 Mar '18

Hi all, Shortly after midnight, some emails that falsely appear to be sent out for our SGA election were sent to the following old SGA email address: gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@cagreens.org> If you are on that old list please disregard any draft voting instructions sent to it. They are not the final voting instructions. The official final voting instructions will be sent out from the OpaVote system later today and will give each of you a separate link for each election item. Thanks, Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator

2 1

SGA Voting has begun: Voting Period is Monday, March 26 through Sunday April 1
by GPCA Votes 27 Mar '18

27 Mar '18

Hello Standing General Assembly Delegates, Voting has begun for the current SGA election. Please see the email sent to you from "OpaVote Voting Link < noreply(a)opavote.com>" on Monday, March 26, at about 5:00 pm, subject "GPCA Standing General Assembly (SGA) March 2018 Election." (Please CHECK SPAM if you cannot find it.) The voting period ends on Sunday, April 1, at 11:59 pm, just before midnight. For more information about the votes, see http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_general_info. The "Vote" button in the OpaVote email is your exclusive entry into the voting system. Your vote needs to be cast by clicking the “Vote” button. That link passes your email address to the system. You will only be able to vote once. After you cast your votes, you cannot go back later and change them. If you have any questions, please direct them to gpca.sga(a)gmail.com. Thank you for your participation in the Standing General Assembly. SGA Vote Administrators Victoria Ashley, Solano County Brian Good, Santa Clara County Laura Wells, Alameda County SGA Alternate Vote Administrator Eric Brooks, San Francisco County

1 0