Hi Bruce and all, It basically went thusly: 1) A presenter called on the General Membership to endorse a measure calling on the Board of Supes to reject the Planning Commission's approved EIR for the Home Depot, then and seek a better deal (better EIR, smaller Home Depot store, etc.) 2) A lot of discussion and debate then ensued, not as much about rejecting the EIR, but between pro and anti Home Depot folks. Anti focused on the type of corp Home Depot is and that the end results would be bad - jobs promises would be betrayed. Pro focused on jobs for Bayview Hunters Point. 3) After a lot of heated debate, the pro Home Depot (opposing the motion to reject the EIR) camp used the technique of a blocking concern to throw the matter to a vote. Two or three members used the block. (see 4 further below). (Note: This blocking tactic is entirely inconsistent with consensus process. A blocking concern is a very serious move only supposed to be used to indicate that a decision that is about to be made by a group threatens the core principles of the group itself. It is not supposed to be used as a decision making tactic when two factions in a group simply have an honest, complex disagreement in perspective on policy. In this case the honest debate was - Will or will not a Home Depot help the economically marginalized Southeast community? So those raising the blocking concern were in effect calling on the group to believe that it would be a -fundamental betrayal- of the principles of the SF Green Party to oppose the Home Depot EIR because the Home Depot would bring some jobs to BVHP. Such a contention of fundamental betrayal is absurd. The facilitator should have firmly pointed this out, and demanded that those blocking either raise a -legitimate- blocking concern or stand aside.) 4) The blocking concern tactic forced the issue to a vote on the motion 'To reject the Home Depot EIR to seek a better one.' In favor of the motion were 11, opposed 5, abstaining 2. Since the motion didn't achieve the 80% needed, it failed. Final Comments: It is very telling that the whole mess of the inappropriate block lead to a bad decision on this issue in one very key respect. As Greens, our -real- debate (besides the tricky job issue) should have been 'Does this motion go far enough, or, because the Home Depot corporation and its everyday actions are so diametrically opposed to the core values of the Green Party, should we reject this motion because it is not a motion to reject placing a Home Depot in San Francisco at all. No home depot ever.' -That- should have been the debate. In fact, I felt unable to raise that debate, because the pro Home Depot/anti motion faction was so intent on killing the motion based on some vague economic justice question, and was doing such a powerful job of shifting the debate and heading for a block, that if I succeeded in questioning the motion in the radical left direction, it would have only made it all the harder for us to take at least -some- small action to reject the Home Depot. In retrospect, I could have raised that concern (which would have been a blocking concern based on the fact that -any- future compromise with Home Depot -would- be a fundamental betrayal of the core values of the SF Green Party). At least then, our block, and the rejection of the motion, would have been across the spectrum, and would have had some legitimacy as a block leading to a vote. However, my dilemma, was that in so doing, I would have been joining the inappropriately blocking camp, and to some extent validating it. That dynamic was so unpalatable that I ended up debating what to do in my own head instead of interrupting and speaking up as I should have done, probably by first raising a point of process questioning the impending block. Because there was a failure in Consensus process and facilitation on this matter, we should rescind the vote and call the motion again at the next meeting, and have the -real- debate that I mention just above. And because the jobs/economics part of this debate is so complex and deep, there needs to be at large block of time laid out to -really- discuss that dynamic; in my view, an hour or more. And folks should be present who can point out the inherent serious contradictions in trying to solve community economic problems by bringing in a Big Box store. Peace, Eric Brooks Sue, I need some clarification since the minutes were "action" minutes and didn't provide any background on the actual language of the motion. Since I was unable to make it to the GM and all I have is the minutes to go by, I am wondering if the "motion to 'oppose the Home Depot EIR'" is correct that the discussion for consensus was to *OPPOSE the EIR* and, if not, to just then let the motion fail leaving the SFGP having no position on the matter; -or- Was the motion to take a position based on the results of the discussion to OPPOSE or SUPPORT the EIR? Was the intent of the motion wholly on a single position of opposition? Or, was it looking for consensus on the EIR in general? Bruce P.S. I don't believe I am familiar with Jerry Path. Can someone give me an introduction as to how he comes to the Green Party? I certainly don't know all the players. ==