Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time.

...

...

...

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

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election, I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote. I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother: *Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections *The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address *A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest *At least one active county was not informed of the SGA *Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately. This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed. If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete. Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation. On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com> wrote:

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out?

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system?

Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time.

...

...

...

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

Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844>

...

...

Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman% 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com% 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman% 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com% 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific

candidates. *Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email

clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results. *It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to

switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list. *Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems. *-Nicole

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of

Nicole Castor

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they

be sent out?

...

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org

",

...

...

has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time.

...

...

> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844> > Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre... NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ----------------------

...

...

0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre...

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Jane, all, Please understand that the statements that Nicole is making below, are simply not correct. The new Vote Admins contacted all of the delegates personally to make sure they had full voting information and access, including delegates from Napa. No one was left out. The only big glitch we had was the vote closing 3 hours earlier than we expected. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Jane Jarlsberg Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:47 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time Thank you Nicole for clarifying these points for us 'newbies'! peace, Jane On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote:

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems. *-Nicole

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com<mailto:cabouldin@msn.com>> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out?

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org<http://gateway.dolorespark.org>", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time.

...

...

> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com> >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844<tel:(415)%20756-8844> > Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre... > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net<http://dnsbl.sorbs.net>] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org<http://zen.spamhaus.org>] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre...

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

In response to Eric's "Jane, all" Decide for yourself. -N On Jan 30, 2018 7:36 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

Nassim,

Irrelevant. You already had the permissions when you responded to the test request. Your resonse was to offer your phone number to the requesting party, for a "chat." To my knowledge, nobody gave you such authority to make a decision like that, certainly nobody from my county. Volunteers from specific regions should be directed to their appropriate party, as they had been previously. This goes against decentralization and we have no way of knowing what things are discussed (phone calls have no paper trails, right?) or if the wells are being poisoned. I'm not saying that's the case- I'm saying we have no way of knowing.

I can understand if there's a backlog and I know there was at least one other months-old request that didn't reach us. I had been receiving requests up to a certain point where there were changes of personal feelings toward me- at which point, the requests stopped.

Regardless, on a group email in which this was addressed, Tim Laidman confirmed you had access to the nationbuilder requests and this is evidenced by the fact you responded to the test-request.

-N On Jan 30, 2018 7:09 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Jane, all,

Please understand that the statements that Nicole is making below, are simply not correct.

The new Vote Admins contacted all of the delegates personally to make sure they had full voting information and access, including delegates from Napa.

No one was left out.

The only big glitch we had was the vote closing 3 hours earlier than we expected.

Eric Brooks

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Jane Jarlsberg *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:47 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

Thank you Nicole for clarifying these points for us 'newbies'! peace, Jane

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

...

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same

instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

...

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific

candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

...

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my

email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to

switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

*-Nicole

...

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of

Nicole Castor

...

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will

they be sent out?

...

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "

gateway.dolorespark.org",

...

...

has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. > >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> > Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844> > >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo %2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392 de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------

---

...

...

...

0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org ] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo %2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392 de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Nassim, Please quote the part(s) of the minutes which reference former SGA admins refusing to help train the incoming SGA admins, because I'm not seeing them- and that was the issue which was brought up. Eric Brooks had stated that glitches/ problems with the new voting system were because the old sga refused to turn things over to the new ones. [...] Content analysis details: (5.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 3.0 SPAMPIC_FORGED_CT Forged content-type in mime header 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (nmcastorsilva[at]gmail.com) 2.0 HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH BODY: No description available. 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

...

Does it specifically mention refusal to train the new admins?

Our policy is typically not to *post* detailed notes, just record decisions and votes. I was there, and that's what happened -- they were asked and they refused. There were about 14 other people on the call as well. -- Victoria

Thank you for the clarification. Yolanda ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Jane Jarlsberg <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:46 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time Thank you Nicole for clarifying these points for us 'newbies'! peace, Jane On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote:

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems. *-Nicole

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com<mailto:cabouldin@msn.com>> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out?

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org<http://gateway.dolorespark.org>", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time.

...

...

> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com> >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844<tel:(415)%20756-8844> > Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre... > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net<http://dnsbl.sorbs.net>] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org<http://zen.spamhaus.org>] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre...

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Can someone explain this like I am five? I see SGA, coordinating committee, administrators, and censure. My takeaway is that a bridge was burned before we got all of our stuff back from the people who were disciplined. And that the new system produced unexpected results. Yes? Thank you, Chris Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Adam Siegel <apsiegel@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

Verification is available here (10 July 2017 CC minutes, available here: http://cagreens.org/committees/coordinating/minutes/2017-07-10), see decision (11) and appendix (c):

(11) Decision: Censure for SGA Vote Administrators (25 minutes)

*Sponsor*: Bert Heuer *Proposal*:

Proposal to "censure" the SGA vote administrators for not carrying out the June 5, 2017 Coordinating Committee Decision, which directed the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017:

Whereas an agenda item was submitted to the Coordinating Committee (CC) listserve on or before May 29, 2017, which directed the Standing General Assembly (SGA) vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties, to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017; and

Whereas at least one SGA vote administrator is a member of the above-mentioned CC listserve, and

Whereas the Coordinating Committee (CC) acted upon the above-referenced agenda item and voted at its regular meeting held on June 5, 2017 to direct the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators failed to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page by the June 7 deadline that was specified in the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas on June 7 the above-referenced decision to add those delegates to the SGA voting page was posted to the CC listserve and on June 9 it was sent to all CC, it-help, and IT committee members, and

Whereas on June 14 CC member Laura Wells posted a message to a number of state party listserves, including the SGA 'votes' listserve, which informed delegates (including the SGA vote administrators) about the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators continued to not add the above delegates to the SGA voting page despite the above-referenced messages sent on June 7, June 9, and June 14, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator post a message to the CC listserve or to any other relevant listserve regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator contact CC co-chair Bert Heuer regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas the failure of the SGA vote administrators to carry out the above-referenced June 5 CC decision to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page caused much extra work for a number of CC members and others with whom they consulted with (including making arrangements with Jared Laiti and FairVote so that the votes of the above delegates could get counted), and

Whereas the work of the Green Party of California (GPCA) is severely handicapped when the SGA vote administrators fail to carry out CC decisions and fail to even communicate about CC decisions that they are not carrying out,

Therefore be it resolved that the Coordinating Committee hereby adopts the following:

The current SGA Vote Administrators are hereby censured for deliberately refusing to carry out the properly and clearly expressed will of the Coordinating Committee as to the handling of the most recent Standing General Assembly elections, for failing to communicate their unwillingness to carry out that will, and for their refusal to assist or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead. These refusals caused hardship for the Coordinating Committee, for members of the Standing General Assembly, and for the Liaison to the Secretary of State. Such behavior is unacceptable in persons holding positions of responsibility within our political party.

NOTE:

Bert restated the proposal.

Eric stated that this is not the first time the SGA Vote administrators have ignored the rules in the past. Eric wanted the text altered to include "and in past SGA elections".

Laura stated that she did not feel that including past elections

Ann said "I do support this" and that our party officers and whatnot should follow our rules.

Sanda stated that she

Mica agreed that they should be censured for disobeying direct orders from the CC.

Bert read the proposal

Eric Brooks expressed a concern (given here) and stood aside. "I will stand aside with the concern that I would have preferred that the item censuring the SGA Vote Administrators had also referenced their past actions as SGA Administrators when they 1) improperly interfered with the 2016 Coordinating Committee candidacies of both David Curtis and Ann Menasche, 2) improperly interfered with the 2016 Green Party presidential candidacy of Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry (the only woman of color in the 2016 Green primary, 3) improperly interfered with SGA and other GPCA emails in attempted discussions of all of these cases, and 4) defied the will and decisions of the Coordinating Committee, GA and SGA in all of these cases."

Sanda had an outstanding concern. She is willing to stand aside.

PASSED by consensus.

===================================================================== ========================= Appendix C ================================ ===================================================================== June 14, 2017 email message to the "gpca-votes" listserve from GROW co-coordinator Laura Wells entitled "Adding all SGA delegates now", containing info on SGA delegates not being added to the SGA voting pages:

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:25 PM, Laura Wells wrote: [gpca-votes] Adding all SGA delegates now

Hello everyone,

As GROW (Grassroots Organizing Working Group) co-coordinator and liaison to the CC (state Coordinating Committee), I need to address a matter that affects GROW's mission to support the growth of active county organizations.

We would like to proactively deal with a problem so that it can be understood and handled in the days leading up to this weekend's General Assembly. Our face-to-face time is too valuable to be spent in an unnecessary "floor fight" — as happened so many times in the old days. There are many other crucial things we can be doing to move the Green Party and green values forward.

I will send this email to all people and lists concerned with getting every county-appointed Standing General Assembly (SGA) delegate properly added to the email list, voting pages, and webpage (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13). The affected counties include Ventura, Santa Cruz, and Mendocino, and possibly others. Concerned people and lists include GROW, the CC, SGA, IT Committee, registrants of the General Assemblies, and GPCA-forum (sorry for duplicate emails you may receive!). The intention is to have -- not a flame war or a floor fight -- but rather a result in which the SGA is updated fully and properly.

Here's the proposal that was approved, by consensus with one stand-aside, at the most recent monthly CC teleconference on June 5, 2017. The decision was noticed to all CC members on June 7, and again on June 9 to the CC, it-help, and all IT committee members.

This proposal recommends that the Coordinating Committee direct the SGA Vote Administrators to add the SGA Delegates for the foregoing Counties (Ventura and Santa Cruz) for the remaining 2016/2017 term, as identified above, to the SGA Email List, the SGA Voting Pages and the GPCA Pages identifying SGA Delegates from the Counties by no later than 48 hours after the adoption of this proposal. In addition, the same CC direction applies to other active counties that submit SGA delegates for the 2016/2017 term, including counties in the process of certification such as Mendocino County, and others whose SGA delegation allotment is not currently filled.

THE PROBLEM Despite the CC's decision on June 5 to add the SGA Delegates within 48 hours, the requested changes have not been made. Other changes have been made to the lists since June 5. An important SGA vote is taking place now, including the elections of half of the CC members and half of California's delegates to the national party. The election is in the discussion phase, with voting to occur between Monday, June 19 and Sunday, June 25. The person who appears to be in sole control of making those changes is Mike Feinstein. He is not on the IT Committee, which is charged with providing technical support for GPCA web sites, data bases and email lists. The 8 appointed IT Committee members are: Bert Heuer (co-co and CC liaison), Ajay Rai (co-coordinator), and members Gerry Gras, Nicole Montoya, Sadie Fulton, Sanda Everette, Tim Laidman, and Trini Castaneda. Tim Laidman may also be able make the SGA changes.

THE SOLUTION Add all active county-appointed SGA delegates now so that this does not consume time at the General Assembly. We will then be able to address at the GA the important matters of adopting an annual budget, moving forward on Committee and Working Group projects, being inspired by vital trainings, and hearing about and gaining understanding of success stories from around the state.

ACTION You can help by respectfully (of course!) expressing your opinion on the matter.

Thank you for reading, and for participating in strengthening the Green Party of California.

Another world is possible, Laura Wells GROW co-coordinator and CC liaison

...

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

...

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

...

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

...

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

*-Nicole

...

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out?

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. > >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> > Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844 > >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre... > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre...

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Nassim, Gatekeeping? You mean like screening county's volunteer requests before they're sent to the proper council? So much for decentralization. On Jan 30, 2018 4:28 PM, "Nassim Nouri" <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> wrote:

The issue of gate-keeping in GPCA goes far beyond the SGA admins. The question we need answered is: Have the permissions and access requested weeks ago by the CC (and communicated in an email by Laura Wells) for all of GPCA collateral been granted yet?

If not, we still can not move forward.

Nassim

On Jan 30, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:

Can someone explain this like I am five? I see SGA, coordinating committee, administrators, and censure.

My takeaway is that a bridge was burned before we got all of our stuff back from the people who were disciplined. And that the new system produced unexpected results.

Yes? Thank you, Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Adam Siegel <apsiegel@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

Verification is available here (10 July 2017 CC minutes, available here: http://cagreens.org/committees/coordinating/minutes/2017-07-10), see decision (11) and appendix (c):

(11) Decision: Censure for SGA Vote Administrators (25 minutes)

*Sponsor*: Bert Heuer *Proposal*:

Proposal to "censure" the SGA vote administrators for not carrying out the June 5, 2017 Coordinating Committee Decision, which directed the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017:

Whereas an agenda item was submitted to the Coordinating Committee (CC) listserve on or before May 29, 2017, which directed the Standing General Assembly (SGA) vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties, to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017; and

Whereas at least one SGA vote administrator is a member of the above-mentioned CC listserve, and

Whereas the Coordinating Committee (CC) acted upon the above-referenced agenda item and voted at its regular meeting held on June 5, 2017 to direct the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators failed to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page by the June 7 deadline that was specified in the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas on June 7 the above-referenced decision to add those delegates to the SGA voting page was posted to the CC listserve and on June 9 it was sent to all CC, it-help, and IT committee members, and

Whereas on June 14 CC member Laura Wells posted a message to a number of state party listserves, including the SGA 'votes' listserve, which informed delegates (including the SGA vote administrators) about the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators continued to not add the above delegates to the SGA voting page despite the above-referenced messages sent on June 7, June 9, and June 14, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator post a message to the CC listserve or to any other relevant listserve regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator contact CC co-chair Bert Heuer regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas the failure of the SGA vote administrators to carry out the above-referenced June 5 CC decision to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page caused much extra work for a number of CC members and others with whom they consulted with (including making arrangements with Jared Laiti and FairVote so that the votes of the above delegates could get counted), and

Whereas the work of the Green Party of California (GPCA) is severely handicapped when the SGA vote administrators fail to carry out CC decisions and fail to even communicate about CC decisions that they are not carrying out,

Therefore be it resolved that the Coordinating Committee hereby adopts the following:

The current SGA Vote Administrators are hereby censured for deliberately refusing to carry out the properly and clearly expressed will of the Coordinating Committee as to the handling of the most recent Standing General Assembly elections, for failing to communicate their unwillingness to carry out that will, and for their refusal to assist or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead. These refusals caused hardship for the Coordinating Committee, for members of the Standing General Assembly, and for the Liaison to the Secretary of State. Such behavior is unacceptable in persons holding positions of responsibility within our political party.

NOTE:

Bert restated the proposal.

Eric stated that this is not the first time the SGA Vote administrators have ignored the rules in the past. Eric wanted the text altered to include "and in past SGA elections".

Laura stated that she did not feel that including past elections

Ann said "I do support this" and that our party officers and whatnot should follow our rules.

Sanda stated that she

Mica agreed that they should be censured for disobeying direct orders from the CC.

Bert read the proposal

Eric Brooks expressed a concern (given here) and stood aside. "I will stand aside with the concern that I would have preferred that the item censuring the SGA Vote Administrators had also referenced their past actions as SGA Administrators when they 1) improperly interfered with the 2016 Coordinating Committee candidacies of both David Curtis and Ann Menasche, 2) improperly interfered with the 2016 Green Party presidential candidacy of Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry (the only woman of color in the 2016 Green primary, 3) improperly interfered with SGA and other GPCA emails in attempted discussions of all of these cases, and 4) defied the will and decisions of the Coordinating Committee, GA and SGA in all of these cases."

Sanda had an outstanding concern. She is willing to stand aside.

PASSED by consensus.

===================================================================== ========================= Appendix C ================================ ===================================================================== June 14, 2017 email message to the "gpca-votes" listserve from GROW co-coordinator Laura Wells entitled "Adding all SGA delegates now", containing info on SGA delegates not being added to the SGA voting pages:

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:25 PM, Laura Wells wrote: [gpca-votes] Adding all SGA delegates now

Hello everyone,

As GROW (Grassroots Organizing Working Group) co-coordinator and liaison to the CC (state Coordinating Committee), I need to address a matter that affects GROW's mission to support the growth of active county organizations.

We would like to proactively deal with a problem so that it can be understood and handled in the days leading up to this weekend's General Assembly. Our face-to-face time is too valuable to be spent in an unnecessary "floor fight" — as happened so many times in the old days. There are many other crucial things we can be doing to move the Green Party and green values forward.

I will send this email to all people and lists concerned with getting every county-appointed Standing General Assembly (SGA) delegate properly added to the email list, voting pages, and webpage (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13). The affected counties include Ventura, Santa Cruz, and Mendocino, and possibly others. Concerned people and lists include GROW, the CC, SGA, IT Committee, registrants of the General Assemblies, and GPCA-forum (sorry for duplicate emails you may receive!). The intention is to have -- not a flame war or a floor fight -- but rather a result in which the SGA is updated fully and properly.

Here's the proposal that was approved, by consensus with one stand-aside, at the most recent monthly CC teleconference on June 5, 2017. The decision was noticed to all CC members on June 7, and again on June 9 to the CC, it-help, and all IT committee members.

This proposal recommends that the Coordinating Committee direct the SGA Vote Administrators to add the SGA Delegates for the foregoing Counties (Ventura and Santa Cruz) for the remaining 2016/2017 term, as identified above, to the SGA Email List, the SGA Voting Pages and the GPCA Pages identifying SGA Delegates from the Counties by no later than 48 hours after the adoption of this proposal. In addition, the same CC direction applies to other active counties that submit SGA delegates for the 2016/2017 term, including counties in the process of certification such as Mendocino County, and others whose SGA delegation allotment is not currently filled.

THE PROBLEM Despite the CC's decision on June 5 to add the SGA Delegates within 48 hours, the requested changes have not been made. Other changes have been made to the lists since June 5. An important SGA vote is taking place now, including the elections of half of the CC members and half of California's delegates to the national party. The election is in the discussion phase, with voting to occur between Monday, June 19 and Sunday, June 25. The person who appears to be in sole control of making those changes is Mike Feinstein. He is not on the IT Committee, which is charged with providing technical support for GPCA web sites, data bases and email lists. The 8 appointed IT Committee members are: Bert Heuer (co-co and CC liaison), Ajay Rai (co-coordinator), and members Gerry Gras, Nicole Montoya, Sadie Fulton, Sanda Everette, Tim Laidman, and Trini Castaneda. Tim Laidman may also be able make the SGA changes.

THE SOLUTION Add all active county-appointed SGA delegates now so that this does not consume time at the General Assembly. We will then be able to address at the GA the important matters of adopting an annual budget, moving forward on Committee and Working Group projects, being inspired by vital trainings, and hearing about and gaining understanding of success stories from around the state.

ACTION You can help by respectfully (of course!) expressing your opinion on the matter.

Thank you for reading, and for participating in strengthening the Green Party of California.

Another world is possible, Laura Wells GROW co-coordinator and CC liaison

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

...

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same

instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

...

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific

candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

...

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my

email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to

switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

*-Nicole

...

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of

Nicole Castor

...

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will

they be sent out?

...

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "

gateway.dolorespark.org",

...

...

has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. > >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> > Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844> > >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo %2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392 de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------

---

...

...

...

0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org ] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo %2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392 de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Adam, The minutes you reference have nothing to do with what I brought up. I do not see any reference to former SGA "refusing" to train-in the new admins. There's also no discussion about the reasons why the counties mentioned may have not been added to SGA when that was an issue and it's because that has to do with GROW's faulty recommendations to ask CC to recognize their county activations, while they did not follow bylaws regarding county activations. When CC failed them, I believe they were "certified" at Bakersfield GA. I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure but it seems there was issue with this passing. Then there was the bylaw change which changed the requirements for county councils, despite what CA Elections Codes require. Even still, those counties were added to the referenced SGA vote, regardless. -N PS. Does anyone else notice the line, "Sanda stated..." (blank)? On Jan 30, 2018 4:55 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

Jane, No problem... I'm a "newbie" too, so we're all learning. -N On Jan 30, 2018 4:54 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Nassim, Gatekeeping? You mean like screening county's volunteer requests before they're sent to the proper council? So much for decentralization. On Jan 30, 2018 4:28 PM, "Nassim Nouri" <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The issue of gate-keeping in GPCA goes far beyond the SGA admins. The question we need answered is: Have the permissions and access requested weeks ago by the CC (and communicated in an email by Laura Wells) for all of GPCA collateral been granted yet?

If not, we still can not move forward.

Nassim

On Jan 30, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:

Can someone explain this like I am five? I see SGA, coordinating committee, administrators, and censure.

My takeaway is that a bridge was burned before we got all of our stuff back from the people who were disciplined. And that the new system produced unexpected results.

Yes? Thank you, Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Adam Siegel <apsiegel@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

Verification is available here (10 July 2017 CC minutes, available here: http://cagreens.org/committees/coordinating/minutes/2017-07-10), see decision (11) and appendix (c):

(11) Decision: Censure for SGA Vote Administrators (25 minutes)

*Sponsor*: Bert Heuer *Proposal*:

Proposal to "censure" the SGA vote administrators for not carrying out the June 5, 2017 Coordinating Committee Decision, which directed the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017:

Whereas an agenda item was submitted to the Coordinating Committee (CC) listserve on or before May 29, 2017, which directed the Standing General Assembly (SGA) vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties, to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017; and

Whereas at least one SGA vote administrator is a member of the above-mentioned CC listserve, and

Whereas the Coordinating Committee (CC) acted upon the above-referenced agenda item and voted at its regular meeting held on June 5, 2017 to direct the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators failed to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page by the June 7 deadline that was specified in the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas on June 7 the above-referenced decision to add those delegates to the SGA voting page was posted to the CC listserve and on June 9 it was sent to all CC, it-help, and IT committee members, and

Whereas on June 14 CC member Laura Wells posted a message to a number of state party listserves, including the SGA 'votes' listserve, which informed delegates (including the SGA vote administrators) about the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators continued to not add the above delegates to the SGA voting page despite the above-referenced messages sent on June 7, June 9, and June 14, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator post a message to the CC listserve or to any other relevant listserve regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator contact CC co-chair Bert Heuer regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas the failure of the SGA vote administrators to carry out the above-referenced June 5 CC decision to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page caused much extra work for a number of CC members and others with whom they consulted with (including making arrangements with Jared Laiti and FairVote so that the votes of the above delegates could get counted), and

Whereas the work of the Green Party of California (GPCA) is severely handicapped when the SGA vote administrators fail to carry out CC decisions and fail to even communicate about CC decisions that they are not carrying out,

Therefore be it resolved that the Coordinating Committee hereby adopts the following:

The current SGA Vote Administrators are hereby censured for deliberately refusing to carry out the properly and clearly expressed will of the Coordinating Committee as to the handling of the most recent Standing General Assembly elections, for failing to communicate their unwillingness to carry out that will, and for their refusal to assist or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead. These refusals caused hardship for the Coordinating Committee, for members of the Standing General Assembly, and for the Liaison to the Secretary of State. Such behavior is unacceptable in persons holding positions of responsibility within our political party.

NOTE:

Bert restated the proposal.

Eric stated that this is not the first time the SGA Vote administrators have ignored the rules in the past. Eric wanted the text altered to include "and in past SGA elections".

Laura stated that she did not feel that including past elections

Ann said "I do support this" and that our party officers and whatnot should follow our rules.

Sanda stated that she

Mica agreed that they should be censured for disobeying direct orders from the CC.

Bert read the proposal

Eric Brooks expressed a concern (given here) and stood aside. "I will stand aside with the concern that I would have preferred that the item censuring the SGA Vote Administrators had also referenced their past actions as SGA Administrators when they 1) improperly interfered with the 2016 Coordinating Committee candidacies of both David Curtis and Ann Menasche, 2) improperly interfered with the 2016 Green Party presidential candidacy of Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry (the only woman of color in the 2016 Green primary, 3) improperly interfered with SGA and other GPCA emails in attempted discussions of all of these cases, and 4) defied the will and decisions of the Coordinating Committee, GA and SGA in all of these cases."

Sanda had an outstanding concern. She is willing to stand aside.

PASSED by consensus.

===================================================================== ========================= Appendix C ================================ ===================================================================== June 14, 2017 email message to the "gpca-votes" listserve from GROW co-coordinator Laura Wells entitled "Adding all SGA delegates now", containing info on SGA delegates not being added to the SGA voting pages:

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:25 PM, Laura Wells wrote: [gpca-votes] Adding all SGA delegates now

Hello everyone,

As GROW (Grassroots Organizing Working Group) co-coordinator and liaison to the CC (state Coordinating Committee), I need to address a matter that affects GROW's mission to support the growth of active county organizations.

We would like to proactively deal with a problem so that it can be understood and handled in the days leading up to this weekend's General Assembly. Our face-to-face time is too valuable to be spent in an unnecessary "floor fight" — as happened so many times in the old days. There are many other crucial things we can be doing to move the Green Party and green values forward.

I will send this email to all people and lists concerned with getting every county-appointed Standing General Assembly (SGA) delegate properly added to the email list, voting pages, and webpage (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13). The affected counties include Ventura, Santa Cruz, and Mendocino, and possibly others. Concerned people and lists include GROW, the CC, SGA, IT Committee, registrants of the General Assemblies, and GPCA-forum (sorry for duplicate emails you may receive!). The intention is to have -- not a flame war or a floor fight -- but rather a result in which the SGA is updated fully and properly.

Here's the proposal that was approved, by consensus with one stand-aside, at the most recent monthly CC teleconference on June 5, 2017. The decision was noticed to all CC members on June 7, and again on June 9 to the CC, it-help, and all IT committee members.

This proposal recommends that the Coordinating Committee direct the SGA Vote Administrators to add the SGA Delegates for the foregoing Counties (Ventura and Santa Cruz) for the remaining 2016/2017 term, as identified above, to the SGA Email List, the SGA Voting Pages and the GPCA Pages identifying SGA Delegates from the Counties by no later than 48 hours after the adoption of this proposal. In addition, the same CC direction applies to other active counties that submit SGA delegates for the 2016/2017 term, including counties in the process of certification such as Mendocino County, and others whose SGA delegation allotment is not currently filled.

THE PROBLEM Despite the CC's decision on June 5 to add the SGA Delegates within 48 hours, the requested changes have not been made. Other changes have been made to the lists since June 5. An important SGA vote is taking place now, including the elections of half of the CC members and half of California's delegates to the national party. The election is in the discussion phase, with voting to occur between Monday, June 19 and Sunday, June 25. The person who appears to be in sole control of making those changes is Mike Feinstein. He is not on the IT Committee, which is charged with providing technical support for GPCA web sites, data bases and email lists. The 8 appointed IT Committee members are: Bert Heuer (co-co and CC liaison), Ajay Rai (co-coordinator), and members Gerry Gras, Nicole Montoya, Sadie Fulton, Sanda Everette, Tim Laidman, and Trini Castaneda. Tim Laidman may also be able make the SGA changes.

THE SOLUTION Add all active county-appointed SGA delegates now so that this does not consume time at the General Assembly. We will then be able to address at the GA the important matters of adopting an annual budget, moving forward on Committee and Working Group projects, being inspired by vital trainings, and hearing about and gaining understanding of success stories from around the state.

ACTION You can help by respectfully (of course!) expressing your opinion on the matter.

Thank you for reading, and for participating in strengthening the Green Party of California.

Another world is possible, Laura Wells GROW co-coordinator and CC liaison

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were

contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

...

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same

instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

...

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific

candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

...

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my

email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced

to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

*-Nicole

...

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf

Of Nicole Castor

...

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will

they be sent out?

...

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote: > > Spam detection software, running on the system "

gateway.dolorespark.org",

...

> has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original > message has been attached to this so you can view it or label > similar future email. If you have any questions, see > the administrator of that system for details. > > Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg > Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric, > > Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > > > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again > all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software > closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. > >> >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to > just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already > received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even > if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates > who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will > not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have > your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals > (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight > tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > >> >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. > This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound > to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, > November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: > Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems > voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out > a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive > (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> > >> Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844> > >> >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A %2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpc a-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392de4b22487 c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% 7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvE QBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE: > Due to [...] > > Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required) > > pts rule name description > ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------

---

...

...

> 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only > one external relay; empty or IP helo) > 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in > digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) > 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider > (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) > 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) > 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address > [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] > 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL > [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] > 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message > 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid > 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with > dynamic-looking rDNS > 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid > 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines > 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails > 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays > > The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to > open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, > or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view > it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor. > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A %2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpc a-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392de4b22487 c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% 7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvE QBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Chris, all, That’s essentially what happened. But here’s a little more detail. In 2016 and 2017 there were, successively, a large grassroots movement of Green volunteers working to reform the California Party and make it more inviting and effective, and a large new influx of Greens who were fed up former Democrats and Sanders supporters. All of these newly active volunteers and new Greens got the reform process in gear and then elected a lot of new leadership to the Coordinating Committee, other committees, and as new Standing General Assembly (SGA) email list and SGA vote administrators. The primary reason we replaced the SGA email and vote administrators was that the previous administrators had acted unethically by 1) improperly censoring email conversations to silence communication about a Green Presidential primary candidate who they personally opposed and 2) egregiously attempting to block a duly elected Coordinating Committee member from being elected, by nullifying the votes for her. This problem came to a head later down the road when the former SGA vote and email administrators who had been replaced, took their unethical actions a step further and fully refused to transfer access to the email lists and voting systems to the new administrators. (Their refusal, and the previous unethical actions that I’ve already mentioned, was what resulted in those previous administrators being censured – as noted in Adam’s email below.) So, since we (the new SGA administrators) had no access at all to the established SGA voting and email systems, we had to create new ones so that the SGA would be able to continue holding elections. As often happens when new systems are put in place, there were some bumps in the road. We were able to fully solve all of those problems with the one exception of the problem of the vote closing 3 hours earlier than expected. And now that we know that OpaVote (the election system we were using) goes by East Coast time, we won’t have a repeat of that problem. Hope all of this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:22 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time Can someone explain this like I am five? I see SGA, coordinating committee, administrators, and censure. My takeaway is that a bridge was burned before we got all of our stuff back from the people who were disciplined. And that the new system produced unexpected results. Yes? Thank you, Chris Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Adam Siegel <apsiegel@gmail.com<mailto:apsiegel@gmail.com>> wrote:

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems. Verification is available here (10 July 2017 CC minutes, available here: http://cagreens.org/committees/coordinating/minutes/2017-07-10), see decision (11) and appendix (c): (11) Decision: Censure for SGA Vote Administrators (25 minutes) *Sponsor*: Bert Heuer *Proposal*: Proposal to "censure" the SGA vote administrators for not carrying out the June 5, 2017 Coordinating Committee Decision, which directed the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017: Whereas an agenda item was submitted to the Coordinating Committee (CC) listserve on or before May 29, 2017, which directed the Standing General Assembly (SGA) vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties, to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017; and Whereas at least one SGA vote administrator is a member of the above-mentioned CC listserve, and Whereas the Coordinating Committee (CC) acted upon the above-referenced agenda item and voted at its regular meeting held on June 5, 2017 to direct the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017, and Whereas the SGA vote administrators failed to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page by the June 7 deadline that was specified in the June 5 CC decision, and Whereas on June 7 the above-referenced decision to add those delegates to the SGA voting page was posted to the CC listserve and on June 9 it was sent to all CC, it-help, and IT committee members, and Whereas on June 14 CC member Laura Wells posted a message to a number of state party listserves, including the SGA 'votes' listserve, which informed delegates (including the SGA vote administrators) about the June 5 CC decision, and Whereas the SGA vote administrators continued to not add the above delegates to the SGA voting page despite the above-referenced messages sent on June 7, June 9, and June 14, and Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator post a message to the CC listserve or to any other relevant listserve regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator contact CC co-chair Bert Heuer regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and Whereas the failure of the SGA vote administrators to carry out the above-referenced June 5 CC decision to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page caused much extra work for a number of CC members and others with whom they consulted with (including making arrangements with Jared Laiti and FairVote so that the votes of the above delegates could get counted), and Whereas the work of the Green Party of California (GPCA) is severely handicapped when the SGA vote administrators fail to carry out CC decisions and fail to even communicate about CC decisions that they are not carrying out, Therefore be it resolved that the Coordinating Committee hereby adopts the following: The current SGA Vote Administrators are hereby censured for deliberately refusing to carry out the properly and clearly expressed will of the Coordinating Committee as to the handling of the most recent Standing General Assembly elections, for failing to communicate their unwillingness to carry out that will, and for their refusal to assist or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead. These refusals caused hardship for the Coordinating Committee, for members of the Standing General Assembly, and for the Liaison to the Secretary of State. Such behavior is unacceptable in persons holding positions of responsibility within our political party. NOTE: Bert restated the proposal. Eric stated that this is not the first time the SGA Vote administrators have ignored the rules in the past. Eric wanted the text altered to include "and in past SGA elections". Laura stated that she did not feel that including past elections Ann said "I do support this" and that our party officers and whatnot should follow our rules. Sanda stated that she Mica agreed that they should be censured for disobeying direct orders from the CC. Bert read the proposal Eric Brooks expressed a concern (given here) and stood aside. "I will stand aside with the concern that I would have preferred that the item censuring the SGA Vote Administrators had also referenced their past actions as SGA Administrators when they 1) improperly interfered with the 2016 Coordinating Committee candidacies of both David Curtis and Ann Menasche, 2) improperly interfered with the 2016 Green Party presidential candidacy of Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry (the only woman of color in the 2016 Green primary, 3) improperly interfered with SGA and other GPCA emails in attempted discussions of all of these cases, and 4) defied the will and decisions of the Coordinating Committee, GA and SGA in all of these cases." Sanda had an outstanding concern. She is willing to stand aside. PASSED by consensus. ===================================================================== ========================= Appendix C ================================ ===================================================================== June 14, 2017 email message to the "gpca-votes" listserve from GROW co-coordinator Laura Wells entitled "Adding all SGA delegates now", containing info on SGA delegates not being added to the SGA voting pages: On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:25 PM, Laura Wells wrote: [gpca-votes] Adding all SGA delegates now Hello everyone, As GROW (Grassroots Organizing Working Group) co-coordinator and liaison to the CC (state Coordinating Committee), I need to address a matter that affects GROW's mission to support the growth of active county organizations. We would like to proactively deal with a problem so that it can be understood and handled in the days leading up to this weekend's General Assembly. Our face-to-face time is too valuable to be spent in an unnecessary "floor fight" — as happened so many times in the old days. There are many other crucial things we can be doing to move the Green Party and green values forward. I will send this email to all people and lists concerned with getting every county-appointed Standing General Assembly (SGA) delegate properly added to the email list, voting pages, and webpage (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13). The affected counties include Ventura, Santa Cruz, and Mendocino, and possibly others. Concerned people and lists include GROW, the CC, SGA, IT Committee, registrants of the General Assemblies, and GPCA-forum (sorry for duplicate emails you may receive!). The intention is to have -- not a flame war or a floor fight -- but rather a result in which the SGA is updated fully and properly. Here's the proposal that was approved, by consensus with one stand-aside, at the most recent monthly CC teleconference on June 5, 2017. The decision was noticed to all CC members on June 7, and again on June 9 to the CC, it-help, and all IT committee members. This proposal recommends that the Coordinating Committee direct the SGA Vote Administrators to add the SGA Delegates for the foregoing Counties (Ventura and Santa Cruz) for the remaining 2016/2017 term, as identified above, to the SGA Email List, the SGA Voting Pages and the GPCA Pages identifying SGA Delegates from the Counties by no later than 48 hours after the adoption of this proposal. In addition, the same CC direction applies to other active counties that submit SGA delegates for the 2016/2017 term, including counties in the process of certification such as Mendocino County, and others whose SGA delegation allotment is not currently filled. THE PROBLEM Despite the CC's decision on June 5 to add the SGA Delegates within 48 hours, the requested changes have not been made. Other changes have been made to the lists since June 5. An important SGA vote is taking place now, including the elections of half of the CC members and half of California's delegates to the national party. The election is in the discussion phase, with voting to occur between Monday, June 19 and Sunday, June 25. The person who appears to be in sole control of making those changes is Mike Feinstein. He is not on the IT Committee, which is charged with providing technical support for GPCA web sites, data bases and email lists. The 8 appointed IT Committee members are: Bert Heuer (co-co and CC liaison), Ajay Rai (co-coordinator), and members Gerry Gras, Nicole Montoya, Sadie Fulton, Sanda Everette, Tim Laidman, and Trini Castaneda. Tim Laidman may also be able make the SGA changes. THE SOLUTION Add all active county-appointed SGA delegates now so that this does not consume time at the General Assembly. We will then be able to address at the GA the important matters of adopting an annual budget, moving forward on Committee and Working Group projects, being inspired by vital trainings, and hearing about and gaining understanding of success stories from around the state. ACTION You can help by respectfully (of course!) expressing your opinion on the matter. Thank you for reading, and for participating in strengthening the Green Party of California. Another world is possible, Laura Wells GROW co-coordinator and CC liaison On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote:

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems. *-Nicole

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com<mailto:cabouldin@msn.com>> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out?

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org<http://gateway.dolorespark.org>", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time.

...

...

> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com> >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844<tel:(415)%20756-8844> > Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre... > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net<http://dnsbl.sorbs.net>] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org<http://zen.spamhaus.org>] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre...

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Eric, all, As I already explained above, Adam's commentary does not reflect the issue stated regarding former SGA's refusing to train the incoming SGA admins. It does reference the previous part about why they were replaced, but still without showing when the issue was raised- only showing the result. "Reform" is subjective. There are vague references but what exactly were these efforts? Making the party more "inclusive?" Only if you agree with the "reformers." I suppose it's easier to "reform" (read: hijack) than to form your own. Js... -N Ps These responses answer almost nothing addressed On Jan 30, 2018 7:46 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 30, 2018 7:45 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Chris, all,

That’s essentially what happened. But here’s a little more detail.

In 2016 and 2017 there were, successively, a large grassroots movement of Green volunteers working to reform the California Party and make it more inviting and effective, and a large new influx of Greens who were fed up former Democrats and Sanders supporters.

All of these newly active volunteers and new Greens got the reform process in gear and then elected a lot of new leadership to the Coordinating Committee, other committees, and as new Standing General Assembly (SGA) email list and SGA vote administrators.

The primary reason we replaced the SGA email and vote administrators was that the previous administrators had acted unethically by 1) improperly censoring email conversations to silence communication about a Green Presidential primary candidate who they personally opposed and 2) egregiously attempting to block a duly elected Coordinating Committee member from being elected, by nullifying the votes for her.

This problem came to a head later down the road when the former SGA vote and email administrators who had been replaced, took their unethical actions a step further and fully refused to transfer access to the email lists and voting systems to the new administrators. (Their refusal, and the previous unethical actions that I’ve already mentioned, was what resulted in those previous administrators being censured – as noted in Adam’s email below.)

So, since we (the new SGA administrators) had no access at all to the established SGA voting and email systems, we had to create new ones so that the SGA would be able to continue holding elections.

As often happens when new systems are put in place, there were some bumps in the road. We were able to fully solve all of those problems with the one exception of the problem of the vote closing 3 hours earlier than expected.

And now that we know that OpaVote (the election system we were using) goes by East Coast time, we won’t have a repeat of that problem.

Hope all of this clears up any confusion.

Eric Brooks

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:22 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

Can someone explain this like I am five? I see SGA, coordinating committee, administrators, and censure.

My takeaway is that a bridge was burned before we got all of our stuff back from the people who were disciplined. And that the new system produced unexpected results.

Yes?

Thank you,

Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Adam Siegel <apsiegel@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

Verification is available here (10 July 2017 CC minutes, available here: http://cagreens.org/committees/coordinating/minutes/2017-07-10), see decision (11) and appendix (c):

(11) Decision: Censure for SGA Vote Administrators (25 minutes)

*Sponsor*: Bert Heuer

*Proposal*:

Proposal to "censure" the SGA vote administrators for not carrying out the June 5, 2017 Coordinating Committee Decision, which directed the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017:

Whereas an agenda item was submitted to the Coordinating Committee (CC) listserve on or before May 29, 2017, which directed the Standing General Assembly (SGA) vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties, to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017; and

Whereas at least one SGA vote administrator is a member of the above-mentioned CC listserve, and

Whereas the Coordinating Committee (CC) acted upon the above-referenced agenda item and voted at its regular meeting held on June 5, 2017 to direct the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators failed to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page by the June 7 deadline that was specified in the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas on June 7 the above-referenced decision to add those delegates to the SGA voting page was posted to the CC listserve and on June 9 it was sent to all CC, it-help, and IT committee members, and

Whereas on June 14 CC member Laura Wells posted a message to a number of state party listserves, including the SGA 'votes' listserve, which informed delegates (including the SGA vote administrators) about the June 5 CC decision, and

Whereas the SGA vote administrators continued to not add the above delegates to the SGA voting page despite the above-referenced messages sent on June 7, June 9, and June 14, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator post a message to the CC listserve or to any other relevant listserve regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator contact CC co-chair Bert Heuer regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and

Whereas the failure of the SGA vote administrators to carry out the above-referenced June 5 CC decision to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page caused much extra work for a number of CC members and others with whom they consulted with (including making arrangements with Jared Laiti and FairVote so that the votes of the above delegates could get counted), and

Whereas the work of the Green Party of California (GPCA) is severely handicapped when the SGA vote administrators fail to carry out CC decisions and fail to even communicate about CC decisions that they are not carrying out,

Therefore be it resolved that the Coordinating Committee hereby adopts the following:

The current SGA Vote Administrators are hereby censured for deliberately refusing to carry out the properly and clearly expressed will of the Coordinating Committee as to the handling of the most recent Standing General Assembly elections, for failing to communicate their unwillingness to carry out that will, and for their refusal to assist or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead. These refusals caused hardship for the Coordinating Committee, for members of the Standing General Assembly, and for the Liaison to the Secretary of State. Such behavior is unacceptable in persons holding positions of responsibility within our political party.

NOTE:

Bert restated the proposal.

Eric stated that this is not the first time the SGA Vote administrators have ignored the rules in the past. Eric wanted the text altered to include "and in past SGA elections".

Laura stated that she did not feel that including past elections

Ann said "I do support this" and that our party officers and whatnot should follow our rules.

Sanda stated that she

Mica agreed that they should be censured for disobeying direct orders from the CC.

Bert read the proposal

Eric Brooks expressed a concern (given here) and stood aside. "I will stand aside with the concern that I would have preferred that the item censuring the SGA Vote Administrators had also referenced their past actions as SGA Administrators when they 1) improperly interfered with the 2016 Coordinating Committee candidacies of both David Curtis and Ann Menasche, 2) improperly interfered with the 2016 Green Party presidential candidacy of Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry (the only woman of color in the 2016 Green primary, 3) improperly interfered with SGA and other GPCA emails in attempted discussions of all of these cases, and 4) defied the will and decisions of the Coordinating Committee, GA and SGA in all of these cases."

Sanda had an outstanding concern. She is willing to stand aside.

PASSED by consensus.

=====================================================================

========================= Appendix C ================================

=====================================================================

June 14, 2017 email message to the "gpca-votes" listserve from GROW co-coordinator Laura Wells entitled "Adding all SGA delegates now", containing info on SGA delegates not being added to the SGA voting pages:

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:25 PM, Laura Wells wrote:

[gpca-votes] Adding all SGA delegates now

Hello everyone,

As GROW (Grassroots Organizing Working Group) co-coordinator and liaison to the CC (state Coordinating Committee), I need to address a matter that affects GROW's mission to support the growth of active county organizations.

We would like to proactively deal with a problem so that it can be understood and handled in the days leading up to this weekend's General Assembly. Our face-to-face time is too valuable to be spent in an unnecessary "floor fight" — as happened so many times in the old days. There are many other crucial things we can be doing to move the Green Party and green values forward.

I will send this email to all people and lists concerned with getting every county-appointed Standing General Assembly (SGA) delegate properly added to the email list, voting pages, and webpage (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13). The affected counties include Ventura, Santa Cruz, and Mendocino, and possibly others. Concerned people and lists include GROW, the CC, SGA, IT Committee, registrants of the General Assemblies, and GPCA-forum (sorry for duplicate emails you may receive!). The intention is to have -- not a flame war or a floor fight -- but rather a result in which the SGA is updated fully and properly.

Here's the proposal that was approved, by consensus with one stand-aside, at the most recent monthly CC teleconference on June 5, 2017. The decision was noticed to all CC members on June 7, and again on June 9 to the CC, it-help, and all IT committee members.

This proposal recommends that the Coordinating Committee direct the SGA Vote Administrators to add the SGA Delegates for the foregoing Counties (Ventura and Santa Cruz) for the remaining 2016/2017 term, as identified above, to the SGA Email List, the SGA Voting Pages and the GPCA Pages identifying SGA Delegates from the Counties by no later than 48 hours after the adoption of this proposal. In addition, the same CC direction applies to other active counties that submit SGA delegates for the 2016/2017 term, including counties in the process of certification such as Mendocino County, and others whose SGA delegation allotment is not currently filled.

THE PROBLEM

Despite the CC's decision on June 5 to add the SGA Delegates within 48 hours, the requested changes have not been made. Other changes have been made to the lists since June 5. An important SGA vote is taking place now, including the elections of half of the CC members and half of California's delegates to the national party. The election is in the discussion phase, with voting to occur between Monday, June 19 and Sunday, June 25. The person who appears to be in sole control of making those changes is Mike Feinstein. He is not on the IT Committee, which is charged with providing technical support for GPCA web sites, data bases and email lists. The 8 appointed IT Committee members are: Bert Heuer (co-co and CC liaison), Ajay Rai (co-coordinator), and members Gerry Gras, Nicole Montoya, Sadie Fulton, Sanda Everette, Tim Laidman, and Trini Castaneda. Tim Laidman may also be able make the SGA changes.

THE SOLUTION

Add all active county-appointed SGA delegates now so that this does not consume time at the General Assembly. We will then be able to address at the GA the important matters of adopting an annual budget, moving forward on Committee and Working Group projects, being inspired by vital trainings, and hearing about and gaining understanding of success stories from around the state.

ACTION

You can help by respectfully (of course!) expressing your opinion on the matter.

Thank you for reading, and for participating in strengthening the Green Party of California.

Another world is possible,

Laura Wells

GROW co-coordinator and CC liaison

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

...

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same

instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

...

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific

candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

...

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my

email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

...

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to

switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems.

*-Nicole

...

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of

Nicole Castor

...

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will

they be sent out?

...

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "

gateway.dolorespark.org",

...

...

has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. > >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> > Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844> > >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo %2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392 de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------

---

...

...

...

0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org ] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo %2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%7C19e392 de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

So has the Green Party locally, state, nationally grown? Has it grown and then decreased? What's been the outcome since the Jill Stein presidential runb? How come no mention of witch hunt government was going to conduct against Jill Stein? I found out about it on Facebook. One of the accusations was that she went to Russia. Good for her. I wish I could go visit Russia. Yolanda Catzalco I just received ten GPCA emails on my junk part of my email. I was wondering why I had been receiving few emails from Green Party. ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:07 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time This should help clarify. Just below is the full paragraph in the censure that applies to this. The following phrase in that paragraph “for their refusal to *assist* or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead.” is referring to the previous administrators’ refusal to both transfer access to the systems, and to train the new administrators. “The current SGA Vote Administrators are hereby censured for deliberately refusing to carry out the properly and clearly expressed will of the Coordinating Committee as to the handling of the most recent Standing General Assembly elections, for failing to communicate their unwillingness to carry out that will, and for their refusal to assist or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead.” Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:56 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time Eric, all, As I already explained above, Adam's commentary does not reflect the issue stated regarding former SGA's refusing to train the incoming SGA admins. It does reference the previous part about why they were replaced, but still without showing when the issue was raised- only showing the result. "Reform" is subjective. There are vague references but what exactly were these efforts? Making the party more "inclusive?" Only if you agree with the "reformers." I suppose it's easier to "reform" (read: hijack) than to form your own. Js... -N Ps These responses answer almost nothing addressed On Jan 30, 2018 7:46 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: On Jan 30, 2018 7:45 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Chris, all, That’s essentially what happened. But here’s a little more detail. In 2016 and 2017 there were, successively, a large grassroots movement of Green volunteers working to reform the California Party and make it more inviting and effective, and a large new influx of Greens who were fed up former Democrats and Sanders supporters. All of these newly active volunteers and new Greens got the reform process in gear and then elected a lot of new leadership to the Coordinating Committee, other committees, and as new Standing General Assembly (SGA) email list and SGA vote administrators. The primary reason we replaced the SGA email and vote administrators was that the previous administrators had acted unethically by 1) improperly censoring email conversations to silence communication about a Green Presidential primary candidate who they personally opposed and 2) egregiously attempting to block a duly elected Coordinating Committee member from being elected, by nullifying the votes for her. This problem came to a head later down the road when the former SGA vote and email administrators who had been replaced, took their unethical actions a step further and fully refused to transfer access to the email lists and voting systems to the new administrators. (Their refusal, and the previous unethical actions that I’ve already mentioned, was what resulted in those previous administrators being censured – as noted in Adam’s email below.) So, since we (the new SGA administrators) had no access at all to the established SGA voting and email systems, we had to create new ones so that the SGA would be able to continue holding elections. As often happens when new systems are put in place, there were some bumps in the road. We were able to fully solve all of those problems with the one exception of the problem of the vote closing 3 hours earlier than expected. And now that we know that OpaVote (the election system we were using) goes by East Coast time, we won’t have a repeat of that problem. Hope all of this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:22 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time Can someone explain this like I am five? I see SGA, coordinating committee, administrators, and censure. My takeaway is that a bridge was burned before we got all of our stuff back from the people who were disciplined. And that the new system produced unexpected results. Yes? Thank you, Chris Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Adam Siegel <apsiegel@gmail.com<mailto:apsiegel@gmail.com>> wrote:

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems. Verification is available here (10 July 2017 CC minutes, available here: http://cagreens.org/committees/coordinating/minutes/2017-07-10), see decision (11) and appendix (c): (11) Decision: Censure for SGA Vote Administrators (25 minutes) *Sponsor*: Bert Heuer *Proposal*: Proposal to "censure" the SGA vote administrators for not carrying out the June 5, 2017 Coordinating Committee Decision, which directed the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017: Whereas an agenda item was submitted to the Coordinating Committee (CC) listserve on or before May 29, 2017, which directed the Standing General Assembly (SGA) vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties, to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017; and Whereas at least one SGA vote administrator is a member of the above-mentioned CC listserve, and Whereas the Coordinating Committee (CC) acted upon the above-referenced agenda item and voted at its regular meeting held on June 5, 2017 to direct the SGA vote administrators to add delegates from Ventura, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and other counties to the SGA voting page no later than by June 7, 2017, and Whereas the SGA vote administrators failed to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page by the June 7 deadline that was specified in the June 5 CC decision, and Whereas on June 7 the above-referenced decision to add those delegates to the SGA voting page was posted to the CC listserve and on June 9 it was sent to all CC, it-help, and IT committee members, and Whereas on June 14 CC member Laura Wells posted a message to a number of state party listserves, including the SGA 'votes' listserve, which informed delegates (including the SGA vote administrators) about the June 5 CC decision, and Whereas the SGA vote administrators continued to not add the above delegates to the SGA voting page despite the above-referenced messages sent on June 7, June 9, and June 14, and Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator post a message to the CC listserve or to any other relevant listserve regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and Whereas at no time after the postings of any of the above messages did any SGA vote administrator contact CC co-chair Bert Heuer regarding why the delegates discussed above would not be added (or had not been added) to the SGA voting page, and Whereas the failure of the SGA vote administrators to carry out the above-referenced June 5 CC decision to add the above delegates to the SGA voting page caused much extra work for a number of CC members and others with whom they consulted with (including making arrangements with Jared Laiti and FairVote so that the votes of the above delegates could get counted), and Whereas the work of the Green Party of California (GPCA) is severely handicapped when the SGA vote administrators fail to carry out CC decisions and fail to even communicate about CC decisions that they are not carrying out, Therefore be it resolved that the Coordinating Committee hereby adopts the following: The current SGA Vote Administrators are hereby censured for deliberately refusing to carry out the properly and clearly expressed will of the Coordinating Committee as to the handling of the most recent Standing General Assembly elections, for failing to communicate their unwillingness to carry out that will, and for their refusal to assist or allow any other person to carry out that will in their stead. These refusals caused hardship for the Coordinating Committee, for members of the Standing General Assembly, and for the Liaison to the Secretary of State. Such behavior is unacceptable in persons holding positions of responsibility within our political party. NOTE: Bert restated the proposal. Eric stated that this is not the first time the SGA Vote administrators have ignored the rules in the past. Eric wanted the text altered to include "and in past SGA elections". Laura stated that she did not feel that including past elections Ann said "I do support this" and that our party officers and whatnot should follow our rules. Sanda stated that she Mica agreed that they should be censured for disobeying direct orders from the CC. Bert read the proposal Eric Brooks expressed a concern (given here) and stood aside. "I will stand aside with the concern that I would have preferred that the item censuring the SGA Vote Administrators had also referenced their past actions as SGA Administrators when they 1) improperly interfered with the 2016 Coordinating Committee candidacies of both David Curtis and Ann Menasche, 2) improperly interfered with the 2016 Green Party presidential candidacy of Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry (the only woman of color in the 2016 Green primary, 3) improperly interfered with SGA and other GPCA emails in attempted discussions of all of these cases, and 4) defied the will and decisions of the Coordinating Committee, GA and SGA in all of these cases." Sanda had an outstanding concern. She is willing to stand aside. PASSED by consensus. ===================================================================== ========================= Appendix C ================================ ===================================================================== June 14, 2017 email message to the "gpca-votes" listserve from GROW co-coordinator Laura Wells entitled "Adding all SGA delegates now", containing info on SGA delegates not being added to the SGA voting pages: On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:25 PM, Laura Wells wrote: [gpca-votes] Adding all SGA delegates now Hello everyone, As GROW (Grassroots Organizing Working Group) co-coordinator and liaison to the CC (state Coordinating Committee), I need to address a matter that affects GROW's mission to support the growth of active county organizations. We would like to proactively deal with a problem so that it can be understood and handled in the days leading up to this weekend's General Assembly. Our face-to-face time is too valuable to be spent in an unnecessary "floor fight" — as happened so many times in the old days. There are many other crucial things we can be doing to move the Green Party and green values forward. I will send this email to all people and lists concerned with getting every county-appointed Standing General Assembly (SGA) delegate properly added to the email list, voting pages, and webpage (http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13). The affected counties include Ventura, Santa Cruz, and Mendocino, and possibly others. Concerned people and lists include GROW, the CC, SGA, IT Committee, registrants of the General Assemblies, and GPCA-forum (sorry for duplicate emails you may receive!). The intention is to have -- not a flame war or a floor fight -- but rather a result in which the SGA is updated fully and properly. Here's the proposal that was approved, by consensus with one stand-aside, at the most recent monthly CC teleconference on June 5, 2017. The decision was noticed to all CC members on June 7, and again on June 9 to the CC, it-help, and all IT committee members. This proposal recommends that the Coordinating Committee direct the SGA Vote Administrators to add the SGA Delegates for the foregoing Counties (Ventura and Santa Cruz) for the remaining 2016/2017 term, as identified above, to the SGA Email List, the SGA Voting Pages and the GPCA Pages identifying SGA Delegates from the Counties by no later than 48 hours after the adoption of this proposal. In addition, the same CC direction applies to other active counties that submit SGA delegates for the 2016/2017 term, including counties in the process of certification such as Mendocino County, and others whose SGA delegation allotment is not currently filled. THE PROBLEM Despite the CC's decision on June 5 to add the SGA Delegates within 48 hours, the requested changes have not been made. Other changes have been made to the lists since June 5. An important SGA vote is taking place now, including the elections of half of the CC members and half of California's delegates to the national party. The election is in the discussion phase, with voting to occur between Monday, June 19 and Sunday, June 25. The person who appears to be in sole control of making those changes is Mike Feinstein. He is not on the IT Committee, which is charged with providing technical support for GPCA web sites, data bases and email lists. The 8 appointed IT Committee members are: Bert Heuer (co-co and CC liaison), Ajay Rai (co-coordinator), and members Gerry Gras, Nicole Montoya, Sadie Fulton, Sanda Everette, Tim Laidman, and Trini Castaneda. Tim Laidman may also be able make the SGA changes. THE SOLUTION Add all active county-appointed SGA delegates now so that this does not consume time at the General Assembly. We will then be able to address at the GA the important matters of adopting an annual budget, moving forward on Committee and Working Group projects, being inspired by vital trainings, and hearing about and gaining understanding of success stories from around the state. ACTION You can help by respectfully (of course!) expressing your opinion on the matter. Thank you for reading, and for participating in strengthening the Green Party of California. Another world is possible, Laura Wells GROW co-coordinator and CC liaison On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote:

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

*Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

*Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did not copy the email to someone other than applications@cagreens... I have the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications" only.

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates.

*Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest, which it is.

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

*It makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate. Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay." Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should have been done correctly.

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

*Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA Admins were determined to use different systems. *-Nicole

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin@msn.com<mailto:cabouldin@msn.com>> wrote:

...

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out?

On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

...

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org<http://gateway.dolorespark.org>", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric,

...

Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time.

...

...

> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. > Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight > Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> Email me at: brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com> >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844<tel:(415)%20756-8844> > Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre... > > NOTICE: Due to [...]

Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://juno.com>) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net<http://dnsbl.sorbs.net>] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org<http://zen.spamhaus.org>] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgre...

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes