No one contacted me to inform me about the voting. Being unhoused I don't always get to check my emails. Thankfully I did check before voting was over. I tend to avoid these threads unless it's urgent due to the arguing, power plays, and lack of transparency. I know this doesn't reflect the party as a whole, but makes trying to see the actual information difficult. Critiques ate often being met with hostility, ableist attacks, etc. This should be addressed in a constructive manner. We have a lot of work to do in order to build or voting block, and continuous infighting, is counterproductive. As is having the spokesperson publicly fighting with other greens, some for standing up for party values, some for valid reasons. These arguments should not be done in public forums, as it will only serve to push people out of the part, and discourage people from getting involved. Let us focus on the work that needs to get done in public, and handle internal disagreement in private. Maybe even finding people to act as mediation teams when that option is available. 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. 2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions. 3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates. 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 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. 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% 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes