- gpca-votes - list.sfgreens.org

Discuss ID 154: Bylaws Interpretation regarding GPCA Endorsements of candidates in statewide races in June 2018 Primary Election
by GPCA Votes 18 Feb '18

18 Feb '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 #154 Ranked Choice Vote* Bylaws Interpretation regarding GPCA Endorsements of candidates in statewide races in June 2018 Primary Election* 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* Since the implementation of the Top Two primary system in California in 2012, political party primaries have been eliminated. In response, the GPCA has begun to make endorsements for Greens running in statewide races. The endorsements have been made via the Standing General Assembly (SGA) voting page, beginning with the statewide elections in 2014. The Coordinating Committee on its February 5th, 2018, teleconference approved the following statement of findings / bylaws interpretation for the Standing General Assembly to determine endorsements of Green candidates in statewide races for the June 2018 Primary. Green candidates running for statewide offices in California who have officially qualified to be candidates on the CA primary ballot by the time of the SGA vote (voting period starting March 26th), will be on the SGA ballot for endorsement. “No position” will be an option. The endorsement process will be voided if the SGA votes against this bylaws interpretation. *Proposal* That the Standing General Assembly confirm the following Bylaws Interpretation / Statement of Findings as approved by the Coordinating Committee on February 5, 2018, establishing the endorsement process for the Standing General Assembly (SGA), to determine endorsements of Green candidates in statewide races for the June 2018 Primary. Bylaws Interpretation to Establish Process for GPCA endorsements in June 2018 primary Whereas the June 2018 primary elections are operating under the Top Two primary system for statewide office, a system under which it is highly unlikely that any Green Party candidate (or candidate from any other smaller, ballot-qualified party) will appear on the statewide general election ballot; and Whereas the existing GPCA procedures governing endorsements in statewide races were passed at the June 2006 Ventura General Assembly ( http://www.cagreens.org/elections/endorsement-procedures) and were designed for general election endorsements under the prior system, under which the Green Party primary election winner automatically appeared on the general election ballot; and Whereas at the same time, these same procedures governing endorsements state that in special circumstances, the Coordinating Committee can approve a statement of findings to clarify under which special circumstances a primary election endorsement should be held, and that "an endorsement procedure would be brought before the GPCA."; and Whereas while existing GPCA rules governing endorsements permit endorsing in Green Party primaries in special circumstances (http://www.cagreens.org/ elections/endorsement-procedures), under the Top Two primary system, there is no longer a Green Party primary (or other party primary) but only a single non-partisan primary with candidates from all parties running against each other, meaning there will be no primary election held among Green Party members to choose the party's nominees; and Whereas the criteria for awarding Campaign Support Funds ( http://www.cagreens.org/committees/campaign-support/criteria) includes a requirement that any candidate to be considered for such fund must be endorsed by their county party (for a non-statewide race) or the state party (for a statewide race); and Whereas endorsements of statewide candidates are made by the Standing General Assembly, according to GPCA Bylaws 7-6.2 Decision Items ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-6_ Standing_General_Assembly ) which state "The following decision items shall automatically be placed before the Standing General Assembly": 7-6.2(b) Endorsements of statewide candidates (secret ballot); and Whereas GPCA Bylaws 7-4 Endorsements ( http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-4_Endorsements ) state that "A GPCA position to endorse or oppose shall require 2/3."; and Therefore the Coordinating Committee approves this statement of findings and interprets GPCA Bylaws under 13-3 (http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Article_13-3_Bylaws_Interpretation ) that the findings above establish the special circumstances under which the GPCA should make endorsements in the statewide races in the June 2018 Top Two primary election, and Whereas there are no existing party rules governing specifically how and which candidates shall be placed before the Standing General Assembly for endorsement; and Whereas in the case of the party's presidential preference primary ballot - which is not a Top Two primary - under GPCA Rules and Procedures 1-5 ( http://www.cagreens.org/rules#Section_1-5_Decision-Making) the GPCA's GPUS Delegation and the GPCAs Campaigns and Candidates Working Group (CCWG) may make recommendations to the GPCA General Assembly for approval by the General Assembly for recommendation to the California Secretary for State for inclusion on the GPCA's presidential primary ballot up to ten days before the General Assembly; and Whereas the CCWG on January 28th approved a proposal that the endorsement process state that “all Green candidates who have officially qualified to be candidates on the CA primary ballot by the time of the SGA vote be on the SGA ballot for endorsement”; and Therefore, the Coordinating Committee finds that it is appropriate for both the Coordinating Committee and the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group to have the authority to recommend consideration of endorsement by the Standing General Assembly for all Green Party candidates who have officially qualified to be on the June 2018 Primary ballot for any/all 2018 statewide offices; and Whereas an upcoming Standing General Assembly is scheduled to begin its discussion period on Monday February 12 running through Sunday, March 25, with the voting to begin Monday, March 26 and run through Sunday, April 1; and Whereas the viable candidates for statewide office (those who officially qualify to appear on the Primary ballot) will be determined after the discussion period begins; Therefore the endorsement process 6 week SGA discussion period will be timed to the upcoming Standing General Assembly beginning on Monday February 12 and running through Sunday, March 25, and during the discussion period the eligible candidates will be narrowed down from all declared candidates to only those Green Party candidates who will have officially qualified to be on the June Primary ballot by the time of the SGA voting to begin Monday, March 26 and run through Sunday, April 1. Resources None References GPCA Bylaws 7-4 Endorsements http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-4_Endorsements 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>*

8 11

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
by Thomas Leavitt 17 Feb '18

17 Feb '18

Erik, I agree that the Green Party's organizational capabilities far exceed that of what has been realized to date; it would be highly beneficial to our movement to have a state level party with the resources to credibly engage in the public sphere. That said, I don't see why this requires us to pick and choose among credible candidates for statewide public office. Taking a neutral position of endorsing all qualified candidates does not prevent the party from vigorously promoting, encouraging votes, or donations to our candidate(s). It also puts the state party in the position of being at odds with our leading candidate. If we endorse one candidate, and another winds up earning far more votes for whatever reason, the state party is going to look foolish (at best). That said, if we had a formal, grassroots process including a series of debates and appearances by candidates across the state, analogous to what the GPUS attempts to do with the Presidential nomination, that would be different. Newer folks might not realize this, but the SGA and the centralization of decision making power at the state level is a relatively new thing. It used to be the case that policy decisions were made in a decentralized fashion via direct democracy at the local level: proposals would be circulated to recognized county level locals, considered at monthly local Green Assembly meetings conducted via consensus with fallback to super majority votes as defined by local rules, then considered adopted once a sufficient number of locals had endorsed them. This process properly enshrined decision making power in the locals, in "the body of the whole" and ensured that all active participants in the Green Party were aware of, and engaged in, the policy making process, and that the state level organization was properly accountable to the locals as the source of institutional authority. No SGA was required. This process, by the way, also fostered a vibrant and active statewide Green Party that regularly produced relative successful candidacies such as the Camejo campaigns, Laura Wells' record breaking campaign for state controller, etc. Thomas Leavitt On Feb 16, 2018 4:27 PM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com> wrote: GPCA could be a fundraising power house that sends out thousands of donation asks and puts on events for candidates. I am not willing to accept GPCA in its current state of do nothingness. If we aren’t helping our candidates win then why do we even have a state party? The point is being missed by many in this thread. Our Primaries were taken from us by capitalists that wanted to limit their competition in General Elections. Our response has been to do nothing and make no preparations to organize prior to the primaries. The “Primaries” are our new “General Election” and we need to start treating it as such because if we don’t get into the Top Two the election cycle is over for us. We need a pre-primary process to organize otherwise we will continue to lose even when we have great candidates because our state party doesn’t lift a finger to help them. This is bigger than the 2018 Elections. We need this process for the future if we want to win statewide elections. I am going to do everything in my power to turn this party into a functioning political party that actually wins state seats. We’ve proven we can win on the local level. It’s time to step our game up and change with the modern times. Doing nothing as a state party is the worst thing we can do. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Also note, that several candidates had been putting out the word since > last year, building networks, campaigning, strategizing etc. Do you have > any policy ideas? Maybe you and Feinstein should have a public debate prior > to any vote on endorsement takes place? I would love to help facilitate one > here in Sacramento if the two of you are up for it. > > To claim that people haven't been doing work, just because they haven't > done it for you is disingenuous, and ignores the teamwork it took to get > these candidates in the ballot. Instead of putting candidates against each > other, why not support each other, as I'm seeing several candidates doing? > > Further such a process should have been done prior to candidates getting > their names on the ballot. Once there they are there. There's no changing > that, thus making this process meaningless. Not to mention having a small > group of deligated decide for the party who will run violates the value of > decentralization. > > My big question though, if splitting the vote is such a concern, why are > late to the game candidates trying for offices we already have candidates > for?? > > On Feb 16, 2018 2:36 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had >> already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on >> those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green >> values. How do you think they got their signatures in?? >> >> On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one >>> candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, >>> whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards >>> of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of >>> them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party >>> can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council >>> candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual >>> basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last >>> year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year >>> (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial >>> support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be >>> able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our >>> endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could >>> somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small >>> percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even >>> spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach >>> a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of >>> Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to >>> vote for our candidates. >>> >>> Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any >>> one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up >>> and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me >>> that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had >>> two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% >>> of the vote, for any such office... >>> >>> If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal >>> divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? >>> Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking >>> to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against >>> our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run >>> were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme >>> cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and >>> moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the >>> representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, >>> as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have >>> less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. >>> >>> It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to >>> talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of >>> strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide >>> campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why >>> should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks >>> supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on >>> how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion >>> about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays >>> and backroom deals, etc. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Thomas Leavitt >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < >>> chefkrzywicki(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t >>>> having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anthony & Others, >>>>> >>>>> I agree that this process should have been started at least six months >>>>> ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work >>>>> to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green >>>>> candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. >>>>> >>>>> If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, >>>>> actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates >>>>> reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits >>>>> by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms >>>>> which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is >>>>> useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win >>>>> it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely >>>>> disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. >>>>> >>>>> I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to >>>>> so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which >>>>> compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering >>>>> has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we >>>>> should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than >>>>> we really do. >>>>> >>>>> There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly >>>>> supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not >>>>> reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" >>>>> democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP >>>>> moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to >>>>> a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that >>>>> we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve >>>>> their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their >>>>> values. >>>>> >>>>> I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this >>>>> point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is >>>>> proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. >>>>> >>>>> -Nicole Castor >>>>> GP Sacramento County >>>>> On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We >>>>>> need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out >>>>>> and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. >>>>>> Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a >>>>>> such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split >>>>>> that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so >>>>>> we could already be backing a unified candidate. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the >>>>>>> voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It >>>>>>> seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote >>>>>>> for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the >>>>>>> ballot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some >>>>>>>> time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < >>>>>>>> jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >>>>>>>>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow >>>>>>>>> through with >>>>>>>>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a >>>>>>>>> process it >>>>>>>>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot >>>>>>>>> access >>>>>>>>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and >>>>>>>>> division, >>>>>>>>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >>>>>>>>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in >>>>>>>>> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement >>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about >>>>>>>>> all the Green candidates running. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JMC >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) >>>>>>>>> http://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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Anthony J. Krzywicki, >>>>>> >>>>>> *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura >>>>>> County Green Party County Council* >>>>>> www.venturacountygreenparty.com >>>>>> greenpartyvc(a)gmail.com >>>>>> instagram: greenpartyvcc >>>>>> facebook group: Ventura Green Party >>>>>> facebook group: Ventura County Green Party >>>>>> >>>>>> *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our >>>>>> daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to >>>>>> desist from harming them. * >>>>>> -Dali Lama >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anthony J. Krzywicki, >>>> >>>> *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura >>>> County Green Party County Council* >>>> www.venturacountygreenparty.com >>>> greenpartyvc(a)gmail.com >>>> instagram: greenpartyvcc >>>> facebook group: Ventura Green Party >>>> facebook group: Ventura County Green Party >>>> >>>> *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our >>>> daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to >>>> desist from harming them. * >>>> -Dali Lama >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 <erikrydberg34(a)gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>* cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

1 0

Discuss ID 160: (Conditional) Bylaws Amendment - Elections Timing/Eligibility/Venue for GPUS Delegation
by GPCA Votes 15 Feb '18

15 Feb '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 #160 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment - Elections Timing/Eligibility/Venue for GPUS Delegation (*Conditional)* 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 ***Please note: Currently, the final results of the vote to send this item to the SGA are in dispute, meaning this item may be removed from the SGA election if it is found not to have met the relevant vote threshold.* *Background* This is proposal that the Delegation would send to the GPCA Standing General Assembly. The proposal is primarily a housekeeping proposal with four objectives, which would be accomplished by related changes in the GPCA Bylaws. Some of the changes are motivated by the fact that this section of GPCA Bylaws was not updated when the GPCA Standing General Assembly (SGA) was created. Before the SGA, the Delegation was elected at a General Assembly (GA). Since then, it is elected via the SGA. But the Delegation Bylaws still refer to the GA. The same thing applies about filling unscheduled vacancies in the Delegation. In the old days, they were filled at a GA. Now they are filled by the SGA. The Delegation bylaws should be updated to reflect this. Note in both these cases, the proposed language in this proposal uses the same language that is already currently used in GPCA Bylaws to describe SGA elections for the Coordinating Committee, that would be used here to describe SGA elections for the Delegation. This ensures consistency in language throughout our party rules, so there is no confusion on how what our processes are. Third, the Delegation section of the GPCA Bylaws has abbreviations that now are spelled out in the rest of GPCA Bylaws as of the 2013 changes. This proposal would make the spelling in the Delegation Bylaws consistent with the rest of the GPCA Bylaws. Finally, this proposal would clarify that one needs to be a Green Party member to file to run for the Delegation. Here are those four changes explained in more detail, with appropriate links to current documents as reference: The first objective of this proposal would remove a contradiction in the Bylaws between 7-6.2 (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_7-6_ Standing_General_Assembly , most recently updated on 7/3/2016), which requires that elections for both the GPCA state Coordinating Committee and the GPCA's GPUS Delegation be conducted by the Standing General Assembly, and 12-4 (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_12-4_Elections, most recently updated 10/3/06, written before the advent of the Standing General Assembly ) which specifies that elections to the GPUS Delegation be conducted at the General Assembly. In practice since the advent of the Standing General Assembly, elections for the GPUS Delegation have been conducted via the Standing General Assembly, in compliance with 7-6.2. Therefore this new proposal would remove the old language about the GPUS Delegation elections being conducted at the General Assembly and change that to the Standing General Assembly.. The second objective of this proposal would add consistency in how unscheduled, mid-term vacancies are filled for seats on the GPCA's GPUS Delegation. Currently there is language in the Bylaws 8-4.5 ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-4_Elections) specifying the process for filling such vacancies on the Coordinating Committee via the Standing General Assembly, while the language for filling such vacancies on the GPUS Delegation still refers to filling them at the General Assembly. This proposal would amend that to provide for the same Standing General Assembly text for the Delegation process as for the Coordinating Committee process. The third objective of this proposal would address provide for consistency in abbreviations and capitalization in Article 12, as compared to the rest of the bylaws. When the Bylaws were amended in 2013, abbreviations were eliminated except when referring to the GPCA (Green Party of California) and the GPUS (Green Party of the United States), such that committee names and other internal organs of the GPCA were spelled out in full and capitalized in their first letter. This proposal would apply that same formatting to Article 12 for the Delegation. The fourth objective is to clarify that to be eligible to run for the GPCA's GPUS Delegation, one must be a Green Party member in the state of California as defined in Article 3 of the GPCA Bylaws ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Article_3._Membership) both at the time of application for the position and to remain so through the conclusion of the election. This is accomplished by amending Article 12 Delegates to the Green Party of the United States to specify this condition of eligibility. Why reference Article 3 in this clarification? Note that GPCA Bylaws 3-2 specifies that only registered Green Party members in the state of California may serve on the Coordinating Committee, whereas other GPCA members as defined in 3-1 may serve as members of the GPCA's GPUS Delegation ("County Organizations may also extend GPCA membership to county residents who are not otherwise eligible to register to vote in California, but who affirm in writing the Ten Key Values and the GPCA's purpose, and meet other criteria established by the GPCA and/or the county organization. For such membership to be valid within the parameters defined in these bylaws, the County Organization must forward minutes to the Coordinating Committee of the meeting at which such membership was extended.”). Therefore referencing Article 3 here removes any confusion over whether being on the Delegation is only restricted to registered Greens, or it also includes other Greens as defined in the party’s bylaws. *Proposal* That GPCA Bylaw Article 12 be amended as follows: Part 1: That Article 12-4 be amended from its current text 12-4.1 Regular Elections At each GA, delegates and alternates shall be elected for two-year terms. Elections shall be by 7-1.8 Choice Voting. The delegation may recommend candidates to the GA. Recommendations shall be made with attention to gender, ethnic, and geographic balance. 12-4.2 Filling Unscheduled Vacancies If delegate and alternate seats become vacant in the middle of a term the GA may elect replacements at its first meeting following the vacancy and at subsequent meetings until the end of the term. Elections shall be by 7-1.8 Choice Voting and those elected in this manner shall serve the remainder of the term. to read as follows 12-4.1 Regular Elections Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option. There shall be a six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. 12-4.2 To be eligible, candidates must submit an application to the Coordinating Committee by the last Monday of April, be a Green Party in the state of California as defined in Article 3 at the time of application for the position and remain so through the conclusion of the election. Any candidate who fails to remain a member of the Green Party in the state of California during this period shall be removed from the ballot prior to the commencement of the voting period, should their membership in the Green Party as define in change prior to the commencement of the voting period; and should their registration from Green Party change during the voting period, the votes shall be calculated without inclusion of said candidate. 12-4.3 Filling Mid-Term Vacancies Upon a mid-term vacancy occurring on the Delegation (but not a vacancy occurring as a result of any seats not being filled during an annual regular election), the Coordinating Committee shall publish a Notice of Vacancy and Call for Candidate Submissions to the active County Organizations, for candidates seeking to fill the remainder of the vacated term. The Notice shall contain the timing of the submission, discussion and election process, and the time remaining in the term for which a vacancy has occurred. The Notice shall be published within two days of the vacancy occurring. The submission deadline shall be 21 days from the publishing of the Notice. The discussion period shall begin on the first Monday after the close of the submission period. No vacancy shall be noticed to be filled if from the resultant timeline above, the seat would be filled after the first Monday of the April before the end of the vacated term. Part 2: That Article 12 be amended such that every place where the Coordinating Committee is referred to as the 'CC', that 'CC' be replaced by the full two words 'Coordinating Committee'; that where the word 'delegation' is written in lower case, that it be replaced by 'Delegation'; that where the GPUS National Committee is referred to as 'NC', that it be replaced by National Committee; and that where the General Assembly is referred to as 'GA', that it be replaced by 'General Assembly'. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations *Please send your comments to gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org <gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org>.*

1 0

Discuss ID 159: Bylaws Amendment: Elections Eligibility and Timing for Coordinating Committee
by GPCA Votes 15 Feb '18

15 Feb '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 #159 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment: Elections Eligibility and Timing for Coordinating Committee* 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 two objectives, which would be accomplished by two changes in the GPCA Bylaws. The first objective is to clarify that to be eligible to run for GPCA state Coordinating Committee, one must be a registered Green Party member in the state of California as defined in Article 3 of the GPCA Bylaws (http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2016-07-03#Article_3._Membership) at the time of application for the position and remain so through the conclusion of the election. This is accomplished by amending Article 8 Coordinating Committee to specify this condition of eligibility. Why reference Article 3 in this clarification? Because GPCA Bylaws 3-2 specifies that only registered Green Party members in the state of California may serve on the Coordinating Committee. The second objective of this proposal addresses timing for Standing General Assembly elections in months where there are five Mondays in May instead of four, by amending 8-4.2, 12-4 and 7-6.3(a) http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2013-06-23#Section_7-6_Standing_General_Assembly ). The current bylaw provides for the discussion period for the annual spring Coordinating Committee (and GPUS Delegation elections) to begin on the first Monday of May. This timing was originally designed to allow for the six weeks discussion period and the one week voting period to end as late as possible in June, so that the GPCA could hold its spring budget General Assembly during this period. The reason for this was to ensure that candidates for the Coordinating Committee and the GPUS Delegation elections could have the opportunity to speak in person to the spring budget General Assembly. For that reason GPCA Bylaw 8-4.4 reads "Candidates shall be given time to present themselves and respond to questions on a Standing General Assembly teleconference during the Standing General Assembly discussion period in 7-6.3. Where General Assemblies or Gatherings occur after the close of the submission date in 8-4.2, and before the close of the voting period in 7-6.3, candidates shall be given time to present themselves to any General Assembly or Gathering occurring this period. (http://www.cagreens.org/ bylaws/2013-06-23#Section_8-4_Elections ) However in approving 7-6.3(a) and 8-4.4, it was not considered that in some years there are either five Mondays in May or in June. In that case, starting the spring Standing General Assembly discussion period on the first Monday of May could cause the voting period to conclude before the spring budget General Assembly. Since the new Coordinating Committee and the GPUS Delegation terms would not start until the ensuing July 1 of that year, regardless whether the election concluded a week early, the net effect of an early election only would potentially deprive the General Assembly from hearing the candidates. This proposed amendment would account for this by adding the following language to the end of Bylaw 7-6.3(a) as per below in the Proposal section: ", except that in years where there are either five Mondays in May or in June, the discussion period shall begin on the second Monday of May." A earlier version of this proposal that was submitted to the SGA in 2016 to address this issue would have changed the submission date for candidate applications along with the change in date to begin the Standing General Assembly (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/propresult?pid=120) potentially creating confusion for potential applicants on when they can apply depending upon the year. This proposal would leave the submission date the same (the last Monday of April) each year in order to eliminate any such confusion, while also adding clarity that the deadline would be 11:59pm on that last Monday. *Proposal* Part 1: That Article 8 be amended from its current text 8-4.1 Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. 8-4.2 Candidates must submit an application to the Coordinating Committee by the last Monday of April to be eligible. Applications must include a biography and what they wish to accomplish on the Coordinating Committee. to read as follows 8-4.1 Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option. There shall be a six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter, except that in years where there are either five Mondays in May or in June, the discussion period shall begin on the second Monday of May. 8-4.2 To be eligible, candidates must submit an application to the Coordinating Committee by the last Monday of April, be registered as a member of the Green Party in the state of California at the time of application for the position and remain so through the conclusion of the election. Any candidate who fails to remain registered as a member of the Green Party in the state of California during this period shall be removed from the ballot prior to the commencement of the voting period, should their registration from Green Party change prior to the commencement of the voting period; and should their registration from Green Party change during the voting period, the votes shall be calculated without inclusion of said candidate. Part 2: Part 3: That Article 7 be amended from its current text 7-6.3(a) The discussion period for Proposals and Elections shall be six weeks, beginning on a Monday at 12:01 am and ending on a Sunday at 11:59pm. The discussion period for Coordinating Committee and GPUS Delegation elections shall begin on the first Monday of May. to read as follows 7-6.3(a) The discussion period for Proposals and Elections shall be six weeks, beginning on a Monday at 12:01 am and ending on a Sunday at 11:59pm. The discussion period for Coordinating Committee and GPUS Delegation elections shall begin on the first Monday of May, except that in years where there are either five Mondays in May or in June, the discussion period shall begin on the second Monday of May. Resources None References None 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>*

1 0

Discuss ID 158: Bylaws Amendment: Changing References to Standing Green Assembly to Standing General Assembly
by GPCA Votes 15 Feb '18

15 Feb '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 #158 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment: Changing References to Standing Green Assembly to Standing General Assembly* 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* Successive revisions of the GPCA Bylaws since the creation of what is currently known as the Standing General Assembly (SGA) have left previous references to “Standing Green Assembly” and “Standing Green Delegates” incorrect. This proposal will replace all references to “Standing Green” to “Standing General” as appropriate, utilize the abbreviation “SGA” as appropriate, and clarify nomenclature for delegates currently referred to colloquially as “SGA Delegates.” This revision will ensure clarity and consistency in all references to the SGA. *Proposal* That GPCA Bylaw Articles 7, 8, 9, and 13 be amended as follows: That Article 7-6 be amended from its current text: Section 7-6. Standing Green Assembly To read as follows: Section 7-6. Standing General Assembly That Article 7-6.1(a) be amended from its current text: Delegates to the Standing Green Assembly shall be called Standing Delegates, shall be appointed by active County Organizations and shall serve for one year terms, with no term limits. Terms shall run concurrent with the GPCA's Fiscal Year. To read as follows: Delegates to the Standing General Assembly (SGA) shall be called Standing Delegates, shall be appointed by active County Organizations and shall serve for one year terms, with no term limits. Terms shall run concurrent with the GPCA's Fiscal Year. That Article 7-6.3(c) be amended from its current text: Proposals may be amended at any time during the discussion period by the proposal's sponsor(s), except that the final amended version must be placed before the Standing Green Assembly no later than on a Monday at 12:01 am preceding the end of the discussion period. To read as follows: Proposals may be amended at any time during the discussion period by the proposal's sponsor(s), except that the final amended version must be placed before the Standing General Assembly no later than on a Monday at 12:01 am preceding the end of the discussion period. That Article 8-1.2 be amended from its current text: Forward proposals to the Standing Green Assembly. To read as follows: Forward proposals to the Standing General Assembly. That Article 8-4.1 be amended from its current text: Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. To read as follows: Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing General Assembly by secret ballot, using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter. That Article 8-4.3 be amended from its current text: The election as it is posted to the Standing Green Assembly shall include: To read as follows: The election as it is posted to the Standing General Assembly shall include: That Article 8-5.3 be amended from its current text: Upon receipt of such Recall petition, the Coordinating Committee shall schedule a vote of the General Assembly. If an in-person General Assembly is scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the petition to the Standing Green Assembly at the next regular starting date. The individual subject to a Recall Petition shall have the right to submit a written response to the petition for inclusion with the agenda item, when the agenda item is released. To read as follows: Upon receipt of such Recall petition, the Coordinating Committee shall schedule a vote of the General Assembly. If an in-person General Assembly is scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the petition to the Standing General Assembly at the next regular starting date. The individual subject to a Recall Petition shall have the right to submit a written response to the petition for inclusion with the agenda item, when the agenda item is released. That Article 9-5.2 be amended from its current text: The Bylaws Committee shall consist of eight members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Bylaws Committee co-coordinators. The other Bylaws Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Bylaws Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Bylaws Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Bylaws Committee shall consist of eight members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Bylaws Committee co-coordinators. The other Bylaws Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Bylaws Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Bylaws Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 9-6.2 be amended from its current text: The Clearinghouse Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinators. The other Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Clearinghouse itself. Eligible appointees to the Clearinghouse Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Clearinghouse Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinators. The other Clearinghouse Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Clearinghouse itself. Eligible appointees to the Clearinghouse Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 9-11.2 be amended from its current text: The Media Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Media Committee co-coordinators. The other Media Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Media Committee itself. In addition, GPCA spokespersons shall be ex-officio non-voting members, who may participate in the deliberations of the committee, but not vote. Eligible appointees to the Media Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Media Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Media Committee co-coordinators. The other Media Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Media Committee itself. In addition, GPCA spokespersons shall be ex-officio non-voting members, who may participate in the deliberations of the committee, but not vote. Eligible appointees to the Media Committee must have attended at least one in-person General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 9-12.2 be amended from its current text: The Platform Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Platform Committee co-coordinators. The other Platform Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Platform Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Platform Committee must have attended at least one General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing Green Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. To read as follows: The Platform Committee shall consist of eight voting members, appointed by the Coordinating Committee to serve staggered two year terms, including a Coordinating Committee Liaison, who shall serve as one of two Platform Committee co-coordinators. The other Platform Committee co-coordinator shall be elected by the Platform Committee itself. Eligible appointees to the Platform Committee must have attended at least one General Assembly within the last five or be a Standing (SGA) Delegate, demonstrate a working knowledge of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures and apply to the Coordinating Committee for appointment. That Article 13-3 be amended from its current text: In cases of ambiguity or procedural disagreement, the General Assembly shall decide for itself the meaning of its governing documents, the appropriate procedure to be followed and what amendments are necessary to resolve any further ambiguity or disagreement. Between General Assembly meetings, the Coordinating Committee shall decide these questions and the Bylaws Committee is charged with assisting with the Coordinating Committee in this process by providing analysis. Such Coordinating Committee determinations are subject to a 2/3 confirmation by the General Assembly. If the Coordinating Committee makes such a determination within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda, and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the decision for confirmation by the Standing Green Assembly for an on-line discussion and vote at the next available starting date for on-line proposals, as defined in these bylaws. To read as follows: In cases of ambiguity or procedural disagreement, the General Assembly shall decide for itself the meaning of its governing documents, the appropriate procedure to be followed and what amendments are necessary to resolve any further ambiguity or disagreement. Between General Assembly meetings, the Coordinating Committee shall decide these questions and the Bylaws Committee is charged with assisting with the Coordinating Committee in this process by providing analysis. Such Coordinating Committee determinations are subject to a 2/3 confirmation by the General Assembly. If the Coordinating Committee makes such a determination within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda, and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the decision for confirmation by the Standing General Assembly for an on-line discussion and vote at the next available starting date for on-line proposals, as defined in these bylaws. Sponsors: The proposed amendment has been endorsed and sponsored by the GPCA Bylaws Committee. 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>*

1 0

Discuss ID 136 - Election: Coordinating Committee, unscheduled vacancy, one male seat, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019 (secret ballot)
by GPCA Votes 14 Feb '18

14 Feb '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 #136 Ranked Choice Vote *Election: Coordinating Committee, unscheduled vacancy, one male seat, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019* 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 *Background* This election is to fill one unscheduled vacancy for one male seat on the GPCA Coordinating Committee http://www.cagreens.org/committees/coordinating, resulting from the resignation of Paul Larudee, elected in June 2017 http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/irvdetail?pid=125 , to serve the remainder of the two year term running from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The Coordinating Committee's Duties and Authority are found here http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-1_Duties_and_Authority . When such unscheduled vacancies occur, the Coordinating Committee shall publish a Notice of Vacancy and Call for Candidate Submissions to the active County Organizations, as per GPCA Bylaws 8-4.5 http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-4_Elections . This was sent on February 15, 2015. According to GPCA Bylaws 8-2.1, "The Coordinating Committee shall be composed of up to 24 voting members, with 12 men and 12 women. Six men and six women shall be elected each year to serve staggered, two year terms" http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-2_Membership and 8-4.1 "Elections shall be conducted each year by the Standing Green Assembly using Ranked Choice Voting with a No Other Candidate option, with the six week discussion period beginning on the first Monday of May and the one week voting period commencing immediately thereafter" http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-4_Elections . 8-4.3(b) adds that the election as it is posted to the Standing Green Assembly shall include: "A full and detailed explanation of Ranked Choice Voting, an explanation of the No Other Candidate option, and an encouragement that delegates make their choices seriously and a reminder that they do not have to fill all seats unless they feel there are enough qualified candidates." Ranked Choice Voting is explained here http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/choice-voting • http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting • http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=876 • http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv. Ranking 'No Other Candidate' (NOC) means once NOC passed the approval threshold, no further candidates will be elected, other than those (if any) who have already been elected before NOC reached the threshold. *Candidates:* Randy Hicks Josh Jones James Lauderdale No Other Candidate *Bio and Statement - Randy Hicks* My name is Randy Hicks. I am a proud member of the Sacramento Green Party and of the state and national Green Party chapters. The reason that I joined the Green Party was due to the Democratic candidate for governor choosing to support the death penalty during the 2002 recall election. I have been involved in politics for 32 years supporting campaigns for various candidates who supported progressive causes. I also believe that after working for the Democratic party till the 2002 election, we need a 3rd party such as the Green Party that endorses and supports progressive causes such as Single Payer Health Care and Instant Runoff elections. I was born and raised in an progressive area of Iowa, which is a very conservative state. I moved to Minnesota, where I received my Associates of Art degree in Sales and Marketing. I used my degree to promote progressive Green Party causes. I moved to California, where I continued to support progressive causes. I had the opportunity to join Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., where I became active in supporting disability rights. I was then appointed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to sit on the Disability Advisory Commission. As a member of the DAC, I learned to run meetings and Robert's Rules of Order. In addition, I have supported many other causes such as, environmental and economic justice, the Older Women's League. Health Care for All California, America Civil Liberties Union, LGBTQ rights, and introduced legislation on all of these causes to the California State Senate and Assembly. As a member of LGBTQ community, I have worked with the Democratic party on LGBTQ causes. The Democratic party has only supported the LGBTQ community when they need our votes or are forced to support LGBTQ causes. For future generations of the LGBTQ community, the Green Party supports their causes. As a proud member of the Sacramento Green Party, I believe that I can represent the key values of the party at the local and state levels. In addition, I ran for the Green Party council and won the seat. I am one of the few Green Party members who are currently sitting on an appointed or elected seat in Sacramento County. What do I wish to accomplish on the Coordinating Council? I am running for the Green Party Coordinating Council with new progressive ideas and bring a sense of order to the GPCA. As a member of the Coordinating Council, I also want to endorse the causes that serve all of our Green Party members at the local, state, national levels. I also wish to uphold all of the 10 key values of the Green Party. As someone who has sat on the Sacramento Green Party Council and has ran successfully as a candidate for the Sacramento County Green Party Council, I have served all of the counties of California as a Green Party delegate in order bring change, progress, and viability to the Green Party. I also believe that as a member of various county and state non profits and boards, I understand the processes needed to run a successful and organized campaign that represents and serves the interests of members of these organizations. As a volunteer for various local and state government organizations who has ran successful campaigns for elected seat, I believe that I have the knowledge, experience, and knowhow to help the Green Party to be the party of the future. I would be proud to represent the Green Party of California at the local and state levels. *Bio and Statement - Josh Jones* I have been active in political organizing for many years. Though a Californian, in 2008 I canvassed door to door for weeks in Reno, NV. In 2009 I advocated for Single Payer Healthcare, writing a letter of support to all of the U.S. Congress, the vice President and President - I was appalled when the ACA essentially became the Heritage Foundation proposal. I was in Occupy Davis in the winter of 2011, and was frequently on the news dismantling the concepts of "trickle down" and "corporate personhood". I protested at Monsanto headquarters in 2012. Some of my friends are now known as the Monsanto 10, and I've gone to support them in court - I think they will prevail! During July 2015 I noticed a person named Bernie Sanders running for President. His lefty rhetoric appealed to me and I threw in with that campaign. I knew he was probably shilling for the Democrats, but the opportunity to pull the masses to the left was too good to pass up! I founded Davis for Bernie and eventually got 300 volunteers. Our local campaign won Yolo for Bernie with $5000, to the Dems $130,000 - with a lefty message for the people and people power. After campaigning in Reno, NV in Oct and Nov, before the campaign, and Utah, helping run the Caucus there, I was asked by the campaign to be Convener of the Congressional District 3 Bernie Delegate election on May 1st 2016. After the ill-fated primary, we went to protest at the DNC. "Jill not Hill!" was the rallying cry. I attended the Green Party rally for Dr. Jill Stein in Davis, and immediately asked, "Is there an active Yolo County Green Party?" The answer was, "No." Then let's start it! As a result I was a founding member of Yolo Green Party County Council. Though through frustration l dipped my toe into the Dem Party with the ADEMs, recruited 10 lefties to invade the Dem Party(where we got 10x voter turn-out), became a Dem Party leader for 3 months, disgusted with obvious cheating and moving-the-goal-post, I returned to the Green Party stronger and with much learned experience. I am now a member of the Yolo Green Party County Council. I have always been a strong advocate of sustainable energy, and worked for 4 years as a photovoltaic large array designer, as Lead Designer, at a solar electric engineering firm. In 2010 I created the industry standard for distributed energy generation, known on engineering plan sets as a "W" sheet - the discipline designation. "W" stands for wind, water, and sun, in comparison to "S" for structural sheets, or "P" for plumbing. I worked on a committee of 113 top building industry people to do this, with, for example, a Major in the Army Corps of Engineers, and an owner of an architectural firm in Chicago, et al. I hope, with all of us, that sustainable energy will prevail - I know it will. I am a 4th generation Californian and have lived in California my entire life. I understand our state's diverse biomes and places, and the many types of folks who dwell here. There are many kinds of people here, both newcomers and people of many generations; mountain folk, desert folk, beach folk, and agricultural folk, both city people and countryside people, poor people and rich people, scientists and corporate owners, as well as Miwok, Pomo, and Chicanos who are often Aztlan. I think it's important to talk to everyone: to understand their perspectives, needs, and solutions to their experienced problems. I think and feel that the Green Party is the party to defeat the Duopoly. I view the Green Party as the party with the most moral basis; that it it's the party of human rights, workers rights, labor rights, and environmental rights. I would be honored to be elected to the Coordinating Committee of the California Green Party. I ask that you to vote for me - to advocate for the people. *Bio and Statement - James Lauderdale* I am 69 years old and retired. I live with my wife of 30 years in the San Gabriel Valley near Los Angeles in the 22nd State Senatorial District. We are both active in the East LA Greens. I have been a registered Green since 2004, where I supported Peter Camejo in his several State and Federal election efforts. I had known Peter for over forty years. We had met and been associated in the revolutionary socialist movement beginning in the 1960’s. Before retiring in 2014, I worked for seventeen years at various configurations of SEIU (Service Employees International Union, the largest union of public employees in the City and County of Los Angeles) in the capacity of organizer, and then doing administrative litigation. This latter was as lead senior civil service advocate, defending workers who were facing disciplinary action in the civil service system covering blue collar workers in the City of Los Angeles as well as thirteen other cities in LA County; I also handled disciplinary and contract violations that I litigated through the arbitration process. In the mid nineties I was the chief negotiator for the Registered Nurses (SEIU) bargaining unit in Los Angeles County. I also worked as the Arbitration Director and Negotiator for Local 132, Utility Workers Union at Southern California Gas. I was a delegate for three years to the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. Prior to the union staff positions, I worked as Journeyman Union Carpenter for sixteen years in Colorado and California. I attended college at the University of Colorado but was thrown out for antiwar activity during the 1970 Cambodia Invasion. I became politically active around the Cuban Revolution and civil rights movement. I belonged to the Denver chapter of SNCC in 1964. I have been a militant, revolutionary socialist since I was fifteen. I am from Boulder Colorado. The work of building a ballot status, organizing party is difficult and extremely time consuming. It requires rethinking what it means to organize, and what it means to run and, occasionally, win. Our job is not to convince those who rule that we are trustworthy and competent, but rather to convince our newly emerging political base that those who rule are neither trustworthy or competent. Politics in this country is about the social alliances that are wound together to create and enable class rule. We need to stitch together a new social coalition the enables the transition to a new rule by a new class, the class of wage earners. Millions of these newly politicized people were energized and emerged out of the Sanders campaign, as well as new issues that have arisen and continue to arise. We need to organize them and enable them to exert an new and different kind of political power. We need to register thousands more Green voters across the state to open up the California Green Party to being a truly statewide party. Our electoral campaigns need to see this registration process as central. We need to fashion a national Party out of 50 statewide parties. We need to be an electoral vehicle for the movements that are emerging. We need to see the Green Party as a crucial but initial part of a process of building a party that can lead and activate millions. We have work to do. Full details will be available shortly at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_cc_vacancy_male *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

2 1

Discuss ID 137 - Election: GPUS Delegation, unscheduled vacancy, three alternates, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019
by GPCA Votes 14 Feb '18

14 Feb '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 #137 Ranked Choice Vote *Election: GPUS Delegation, unscheduled vacancy, three alternates, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019* 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 *Background* According to the Delegate Apportionment Formula in Section 8-6 of GPUS Rules and Procedures Article VIII National Committee Size and Delegate Allocation (http://gpus.org/rules-procedures/#08 ), the Green Party of California (GPCA) is entitled to 25 delegates on the 150 member National Committee of the Green Party of the United States. According to GPCA bylaws, the GPCA elects its GPUS delegates and alternates to staggered, two-year terms via the Standing General Assembly, during the same time period as elections to the GPCA Coordinating Committee ( http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_8-2_Membership ). This election is for 12 alternate seats on the GPUS Delegation, for two year terms running from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The election is conducted by Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting is explained here http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/choice-voting • http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting • http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=876 • http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv. Ranking 'No Other Candidate' (NOC) means once NOC passed the approval threshold, no further candidates will be elected, other than those (if any) who have already been elected before NOC reached the threshold. *Candidates* Rodolfo Cortes Barragan Timeka Drew Adam Siegel Jesse Townley No Other Candidate *Bio and Statement - Rodolfo Cortes Barragan* (1) Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Bellflower, LA County (2) I would like to apply for GPCA GPUS Alternate Delegate because I am committed and involved in growing the Green Party in California so that the Greens may achieve national victory over the two party system. I will collaborate with all Greens who want to help the effort to achieve a Green New Deal. (3) I am the Campaign Manager for the Recall Rendon campaign. I am in charge of making sure we succeed in triggering an election to replace Anthony Rendon, who has blocked SB 562 and thereby deprived Californians of guaranteed healthcare. The recall will be a key test of the Democratic establishment's "blue wall" in the heart of Latinx Los Angeles. Previously, I helped with the campaign to elect Kenneth Mejia to the U.S Congress. Before that, I was involved with the Jill 2016 campaign, joining the Green Party after Bernie spoke at the DNC. *Bio and Statement - Timeka Drew* (1) My name is Timeka Drew and I live in the city of Los Angeles located within Los Angeles county. (2) My vision for serving as an alternate GPUS delegate is to bring my passion for convergence and cooperation to my state Green Party that I have been supporting as a voting member, but am now committed to doing more to help not only build and grow the party by recruiting newcomers, but to also focus on strengthening the party from within. I have been a dedicated member of the party since serving as Media Coordinator for the Cheri Honkala campaign for Sheriff of Philadelphia in 2011 and I look forward to serving this party for years to come. (3) I am currently the National Director of the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, of which many prominent Greens serve as Board Members and Fellows - our mission is to support the grassroots democracy movement. I have been a climate democracy and democracy movement organizer nationally since 2014, beginning with the Global Climate Convergence campaign of which I was the lead organizer. This year, we sponsored and were the lead organizers of the Democracy Convention, which brought together dedicated democracy organizers and activists across different areas of focus, building across conferences to create unity and cohesion within our movement. I am a long time member of the Poor Peoples Economic Human Rights Campaign and am a member of the LA Tenant's Union. I am a mother who believes in inter-generational movement building and the importance of integrating the youth perspective and leadership into our organizing and strategies. *Bio and Statement - Adam Siegel* (1) Adam Siegel, Davis, Yolo County (2) I would like to serve as a GPUS alternate delegate because I am passionately committed to continuing to advance the building of the Green Party as a serious political force in the United States at a time when this country finds itself at a true turning point (i.e., crisis). I intend to faithfully reflect the will of California Greens and the GPCA while serving as an alternate delegate, and will be transparent and forthright in representing and expressing the views of California Greens and their party. (3) After decades of registering NPP (despite voting Green as far back as 1996), I re-registered Green in 2016. Since becoming active in the GPCA, I helped reactivate the Yolo County Organization in the fall of 2016, and currently serve on the Yolo County Council. I served as a delegate for the 2017 Kern General Assembly and attended the 2017 Ventura GA. I currently serve as a 2017-2018 SGA delegate. I was appointed to the GPCA Byaws Committee last year, and was recently elected Co-Co. I also currently serve as a GPCA member of the GPUS Platform Committee. As a Green activist, I helped organize last year's Central Regional Gathering in Davis. Outside my Green life, I have been a delegate for a number of statewide organizations over the years: California Federation of Teachers, Sacramento Central Labor Council, and the Librarians Association of the University of California. I have worked for the University of California for many years (as a librarian), and am a dual card (IWW/UC-AFT) rank-and-file shop steward. *Bio and Statement - Jesse Townley* I am applying to continue to be a delegate for the California Green Party. I and 1 other long-time Greens, John Selawsky, was re-elected to the Berkeley Rent Board in a city-wide election in November 2014 and my current term as an elected official ends in November 2018. I was elected as a National Delegate in 2011. Over the past years of serving as a member of the National Committee as a Delegate from California, I have attended the 2012 ANM & Presidential Convention in Baltimore, the 2013 Annual National Meeting. Iowa City, IA, and the 2014 Annual National Meeting in St. Paul, MN I have served on the Coordinated Campaign Committee, and currently serve as a non-NC member of the Platform Committee and the Dispute Resolution Committee. I have also been an active participant on the National list-servs and done my best to be a level-headed participant. I was part of an ad-hoc group who are working on moving the NC to communicate via a message board. I worked with other California Greens in bringing forward a proposed Platform plank that was not added to the National Platform, as well as worked with California and Georgia delegates on Platform planks that were added to the National Platform. On the CCC, we instituted a fascinating series of teleconference trainings for current and prospective Green candidates open to any US Green. I’ve taken part in these trainings and led one about campaign strategy based on my experience as an activist, a candidate and an elected official. I have been a registered Green since 1992. I spent 2 decades volunteering at 924 Gilman Street, the all-ages volunteer-run music and art collective that- in the mid-1990s- suddenly had to learn how to advocate for itself and its mixed use/industrial neighborhood. It was a rude awakening to local politics for all of us Gilman volunteers, and ultimately successful. I realized that I loved the intricacies and details necessary to navigate local government. 17 years ago, Green City Councilmember Dona Spring encouraged and inspired me to jump into local Berkeley politics. I knew her through my work at various non-profits and paratransit companies, including Easy Does It Disability Services where I served as Executive Director & Vice-President of the Board of Directors. (At the time of this application, I am wrapping up a second stint as Interim Executive Director of EDI) My entry into city politics was a combination of her encouragement and my epiphany that, a, no one in power was as young as me (I was 30 then), and, b, that none of them understood how important a counter-cultural landmark like 924 Gilman was in the world-wide punk, indie, & art scenes. (Later on the successes of Gilman alumni Green Day & their Broadway show, "American Idiot" [which started at the Berkeley Rep] clued everyone in on Gilman's importance to music & art, even though the collective has concentrated on more underground acts than Green Day) She appointed me to a city commission, the Disaster & Fire Safety Commission (then called the Disaster Council), and a year later I ran for City Council in 2004. While I lost in a 3-way race for an open seat, I gained a lot of experience and name recognition. I raised $18,000 via mostly non-traditional methods, including on-line and through art, spoken word, and music events. In 2005 I was the Volunteer Coordinator for Green Party member & later KPFA Morning Show host Aimee Allison's first Oakland City Council campaign. Throughout these years I worked with Dona, fellow City Councilmember Kriss Worthington, and many local Greens & clean election advocates on getting Alameda County to implement Instant Runoff Voting, which finally arrived in 2010. I have also served as the Chair & Vice-Chair of the Disaster & Fire Safety Commission and the Chair of the Alameda County Disaster Preparedness For Pets ad hoc group, which we formed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to plan for post-earthquake animal care. After a minor 2006 kerfluffle between Berkeley Greens and the Alameda County Council, I helped re-start the Berkeley chapter of the Green Party, which had lain moribund for 12 years. We updated the by-laws, held community events, endorsed candidates, and generally increased public awareness of the Berkeley chapter for 2 years. Eventually those of us who helped rejuvenate the chapter needed to step back, and the chapter took a break until fall 2010, when it again began election work. Since I was running for reelection, I was only slightly involved, serving as the moderator for the Berkeley Greens e-mail list (which I still administer). All of this community work raised my political profile to the point where I was able to join with other tenant-friendly community candidates chosen by the Rent Board Convention to run and be elected to the Rent Board in 2008. The Rent Board Convention is a community-run, grassroots process that allows prospective progressive Rent Board candidates to be vetted by a panel of Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party, progressive Democrats, Grey Panthers, Cal Dems, and other Berkeley groups & activists, and then voted upon by a public convention held each summer before a Rent Board election. All of us incumbents went through the same process in 2010, showing our clear connections to the grassroots. I served as Chair of the Rent Board for 2 years- December 2014-December 2016. I want to continue to bring my grassroots electoral experience and grassroots fundraising expertise (I've also served on the Board of Independent Arts & Media, a San Francisco non-profit supporting independent voices, since 2007) to the state-wide Green Party in an effort to elect more Greens to public office. I strongly believe that to effect political change, we must amass political power at the local level. This will naturally lead to state-wide power, and the ability to apply the Ten Key Values across our state. Since it's one of the largest economies on the planet, this will further Green values exponentially. Thank you for considering my application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or comments. Full details will be available shortly at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_vacancy_gpus_delegate_alternate *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

1 0

New address
by Chris 07 Feb '18

07 Feb '18

Is this a separate forum that I need to subscribe to as a delegate from Sacramento? Thank you Chris Sent from my iPhone

2 2

How to subscribe to the GPCA-Forum general discussion email list (was RE: Note Of Subject Header Change For This Email List)
by Eric Brooks 06 Feb '18

06 Feb '18

Hi again all, FYI: To subscribe to the GPCA-Forum general discussion email list, go to: http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org Etic Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brooks Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:13 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Note Of Subject Header Change For This Email List 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

7 16

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Imminent CC vote regarding Statewide offices (Healing the CA Green Party from within)
by Jane Jarlsberg 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

Dear Coordinating Committee members, We are two long-time Green Party members - Carol Bouldin since the GPCA’s founding ballot drive in 1990-1991 and Jane Jarlsberg since right after that. We are both deeply concerned about the internal divisions in our party - and specifically about a proposal you are considering soon at your monthly teleconference , which we only learned about by chance when it was posted to SGA email list. W e believe this proposal will only make it worse by putting us through an unnecessary and divisive endorsement process over statewide Green candidates . We want to share with you our experience with two Greens both seeking the same statewide office. Both each came separately to speak to our county council in San Bernardino County. One candidate came and spoke positively about the issues and didn’t mention the other candidate. The other candidate had little to offer about the issues, but spent most of his time trashing the other candidate seeking that same office. On one hand, we were shocked to see this direct personal attack at a formal Green Party meeting. But on the other, it helped us see first-hand what was behind some of our party's internal divisions - the worst divisions either of us are aware of as a state party, since we both got involved - and bringing our party down at exactly the moment we should be taking advantage of, where so many people seeking an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans ! Now the Coordinating Committee wants to exaggerate that internal conflict by putting it to a formal vote by proxy, by having both of those candidates placed before the Standing General Assembly for endorsement. To both of us, such a path is long on divisiveness and short on benefit. The last thing we need during these next few months is to be spending time fighting over candidates, when we should simply be campaigning for the candidates of our choice in order to advance Green issues and build the Green Party. Furthermore we don’t believe the state party should be making endorsements in the primary. Instead we should leave it to our party’s members to select among all the Greens running for state office. That is in keeping with our Key Value of Grassroots Democracy. We also believe that we should allow each candidate to appeal to as many other voters, without the st igma of a non-endorsement. For all of these reasons, we implore you not to make the internal divisions in our party worse by putting forward a process forcing us to chose among Greens running for statewide office. If you do that, you will be simply pitting party members against each other, making things even worse than they are now. At this time of troubling internal divisions, we need leadership from the Coordinating Committee to find ways to bring us together, not tear u s apart. Sincerely and peacefully, Jane Jarlsberg and Carol A. Bouldin, Green Party of San Bernardino County

1 0