I've largely sat out this conversation because I think the advantages of endorsing are minimal and clearly it is controversial. But the reasoning that people who don't participate should be consulted is ridiculous. Use social media or email if they can't attend for physical reasons or whatever. This notion that we have to spend our precious volunteer time reaching out to people who don't care to be engaged any other day of the year is unrealistic and frankly a waste of time. We can't beg people to participate. We've had registered greens tell us to remove them from our mailing list. Being registered doesn't mean they want to participate in this shit show we call a party. My two cents. And nothing but love for you, comrade. On Feb 20, 2018 1:57 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:

The problem still lies in that not all registered greens attend county council meetings. For internal issues, that's not such a big deal. When endorsing candidates however, it creates an "establishment candidate" by having a small group deciding for the rest.

On Feb 19, 2018 12:45 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes, this point is a really important point. Delegates are **delegates** who are supposed to represent their **county** decisions.

In San Francisco our county membership vets and decides on all SGA vote items and our delegates are strictly required to all vote as directed by the county.

This is why the GPCA gives more than a month for discussion on SGA votes so that all counties can be assured of having time to meet about the SGA ballot items and decide how they wish to vote on them.

Eric Brooks

SGA Vote Admin

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nassim Nouri *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor

A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties.

Shouldn’t all SGA delegates

bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input?

We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.

It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to

participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.

Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?

If so, why participate in votes as delegates?

Nassim Nouri

Santa Clara County

On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:

Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.

On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:

I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria

...

On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:

If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.

Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192

"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin

On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:

Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,

Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.

"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??

On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.

Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...

If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.

It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.

Regards, Thomas Leavitt

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,

I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.

If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.

I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.

There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.

I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?

Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.

On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:

...

I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.

Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.

JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

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

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

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party

It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama

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

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party

It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama

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

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

-- 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

As Delegates it is our task to reach out to all Greens in our county's as best as we can. I've sent notices on FB, Messenger and e-mails at least weeks in advance. Years ago I was on local non-profit radio in the afternoon for a half hour once a month for 9 years. I've been off the air for 10 years now but every so often I'll run into someone who ask me if I am still on the air. Unfortunately, not many people responded to the Green Scene. Officially couldn't call it the Green Party show but I did conduct interviews with Greens like Peter Camejo to Tian Harter when they ran for public office. As well as folks from Tri-Valley Cares, Medea Benjamin and more. In truth, most people try to do the best that they can and for many the raising or taking care of their family comes first. It's not a crime, it's an existence. So when we make decisions on their behalf, all we can do is the best we can for them and ourselves. Richard G. - Fresno On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:41 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:

If we aren't reaching out to engage voters, what's the point??

On Feb 20, 2018 8:23 PM, "Steve Breedlove" <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I've largely sat out this conversation because I think the advantages of endorsing are minimal and clearly it is controversial. But the reasoning that people who don't participate should be consulted is ridiculous. Use social media or email if they can't attend for physical reasons or whatever. This notion that we have to spend our precious volunteer time reaching out to people who don't care to be engaged any other day of the year is unrealistic and frankly a waste of time. We can't beg people to participate. We've had registered greens tell us to remove them from our mailing list. Being registered doesn't mean they want to participate in this shit show we call a party. My two cents. And nothing but love for you, comrade.

On Feb 20, 2018 1:57 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The problem still lies in that not all registered greens attend county council meetings. For internal issues, that's not such a big deal. When endorsing candidates however, it creates an "establishment candidate" by having a small group deciding for the rest.

On Feb 19, 2018 12:45 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes, this point is a really important point. Delegates are **delegates** who are supposed to represent their **county** decisions.

In San Francisco our county membership vets and decides on all SGA vote items and our delegates are strictly required to all vote as directed by the county.

This is why the GPCA gives more than a month for discussion on SGA votes so that all counties can be assured of having time to meet about the SGA ballot items and decide how they wish to vote on them.

Eric Brooks

SGA Vote Admin

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nassim Nouri *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor

A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties.

Shouldn’t all SGA delegates

bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input?

We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.

It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to

participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.

Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?

If so, why participate in votes as delegates?

Nassim Nouri

Santa Clara County

On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:

Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.

On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:

I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria

...

On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:

If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.

Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192

"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin

On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:

Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,

Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.

"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??

On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.

Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...

If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.

It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.

Regards, Thomas Leavitt

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor < nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,

I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.

If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.

I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.

There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.

I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.

-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County

On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?

Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.

On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:

...

I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.

Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.

JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

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

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

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party

It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama

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

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party

It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama

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

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

-- 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

-- 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