Friday, May 19, 2006
How Do We Disagree?
Phil Huckleberry of IL posted an email to the National Party list which asks readers to consider that question. Greg Gerritt of RI offers an answer. So does Guy Anthony of PA, David Pollard of TX, John Battista of CT, Morgen D'Arc of ME and Mato Ska of NM. All are hiding behind the "Read more!" link...
I mean these questions with all sincerity. I genuinely believe our commitment to Non-Violence is tested by the way we answer these questions.
First, when an individual makes a public statement - a press statement, no less essentially accusing the Green Party of harboring or supporting terrorists, do we all agree that this goes well above and beyond strong or emotional disagreements and into the realm of actual attempts to defame the Green Party's name?
Second, when individuals do such acts, are we ensuring that they are not in any positions of authority by which they might be able to speak on behalf of the Green Party or affect the internal operations of the Green Party?
It seems to me that if an individual sends out a screed that attempts to defame in the court of public opinion the name of the Green Party - and I'm not talking about charging that the party is poorly run or undemocratic, I'm talking about outrageously blatant defamation, charging that the party is harboring and defending and supporting terrorists - that the first step should be ensuring that the individual is not in any position of authority within the party. Otherwise, we are failing on the key value and pillar of Non-Violence.
Can we at least all agree on these points?
Phil Huckelberry
Illinois Green Party
I agree on those points.
I also think the GPUS should issue a statement to denounce people in the party who make such false, defamatory and dangerous statements. We can't get rid of Greens from the party, but we can respond. The claims and attacks in that statement remind me of people who tell lies about innocent people to get some kind of reward for themselves. Some of this sort will let people die for this dynamic. The writer is as aware as the next person that the climate in this country regarding terrorists is so warped and fear mongering by the government that it is nearly mobbish if not already. To use such language in this climate is to potentially incur such a response on the Green Party whether now or in the future.
It is a concern to me that if we issue a statement that it might just bring more unwanted attention to it. But it is pretty bad to be attacked like this, putting many thousands of Greens and the Party in possible harm's way, which would affect so many more thousands of Greens as well as our cause, without the party responding in a responsible way.
What steps should be taken to ensure the writer of this defamatory statement is not in any position of authority within the party? Can you define *authority?* I would think any position within the GPUS, including as just a member of a committee, would qualify, to be able to, as you say, ensure that they cannot in any way speak for the
party or engage or be a participant in anything that could become policy or affect business in any way.
Morgen D'Arc
USGP-Maine Delegate
I would go with your suggestion as to how to practically define "authority". I also believe that Guy Anthony's remarks are quite right regarding the necessity for the National Committee to have the ability to remove people for extremely flagrant actions. The power must be used sparingly and only in extreme situations, but to refuse to use such power at all is a green light for such actions.
Much has been written lately about accountability and responsibility to our constituent Greens in our various state parties. I believe we all have a responsibility to ensure that no individual serving in any position representing GPUS in any manner be making slanderous remarks, be physically threatening others, or anything of the like that clearly goes well above and beyond simple political disagreements, and when extremely flagrant violations of such sorts are committed, that individuals are removed from positions of authority.
We need serious ethical standards in this party. Our lack of such standards speaks very poorly of our commitment to our values.
Phil Huckelberry
Illinois Green Party
Maybe, if it's done both accurately and precisely. Here's an example: If I were a lawyer, publicly affiliated with the Green Party, and agreed to serve as a public defender for individuals accused of charges related to terrorism - would you want my ouster from the party?
Currently we live in a fascist millieu which promotes the idea that any action other than violence against the enemies of our State equates to support for those enemies. If we indeed have Party members who have taken this erroneous logic to heart they need to be called on it. However, any action against them, (removal, sacking etc.)
should still follow the proper channels and practices of our party.
Just my opinion,
David Pollard
GPTx delegate
Even if we can all agree on the principles you offer, I have a suspicion (no that is probably the wrong word) maybe hunch is better, that we shall have at least some disagreement as to whether any one particular case constitutes such an incident. I also have a hunch that the process of handling the incident will be as contentious as anything else we do, and just another thing we are not really going to want to go through. Do we think the political divides we surf wil not influence how we view what blasphemy is?
The decision to protect ourselves under the circumstances is political. It is only when someone offends everybody, and I mean everyone, will this go at all smoothly. And then oit does not much matter what the rules are, if everyone wants someone to go we will find a way to legitimately do it. And if the offender of some has anything more than 2 or 3 defenders, nothing will be done, and the reality is that if enough people active in the party beleive some outrage is not outrageous, it ties up our process, and maybe it ought to.
greg gerritt gpri
And maybe it ought not. It seems IMHO there are some among us who's sole reason for being is to manipulate the reality you mention, keeping the process endlessly tied up until the party either dies of paralysis or enough good people turn their back in disgust and walk away thus allowing the sabatouers to take the control of the remaining shell of the party.
Until I came on this list I would not have believed such a tactic would work here. Now I alarmed to see how well along it has advanced.
Since we have recently given so much attention to the means by which an errant steering committee may be removed, I believe it is only proper that steps be taken to hold NC members just as accountable. There should be a method by which a 2/3 majority of the NC can censure or even remove a fellow member for destructive and disruptive conduct within the body.
This does not mean any violation of the soverngity of the state who that delegate represents. That state is of course the untimate authority as to who represents them. The NC action woulld however force the delegate to go back to his/her state and explain him/her self and what conduct drew such disapproval from Greens nationwide. It is my belief that many state committees are unaware of what goes on here. If sunshine is good for the SC, it is good for the NC as well.
States would perfectly free to return any delegate so disiplined but in most cases I expect they would demand some sort of an accounting before doing so.
Guy Anthony
PA
Connecticut has adopted ethical standards for Green Party Members. An ethics complaint may be followed against a Connecticut Green Party member alleging:
1. Making commitments or position statements that conflict with the Party of Chapter policies, principles, or ethical codes.
2. The advocacy or practice of racial, sexual, ethnic, or religious discrimination
3. Betrayal of trust in maters affecting Party or Public welfare
4. Indulgence in or use of any form of violence.
5. Irresponsible advocacy such as that based upon misrepresentation or gross ignorance of pertinent facts.
Such a complaint initiates an investigation by the Ethics Committee of the Connecticut Green Party. If the investigation substantiates the alleged violations the Ethics Committee may recommend sanctions which may include, but are not limited to:
1. Written warning
2. Formal Censure
3. Suspension
4. Expulsion
The decision as to appropriate action is determined by the Connecticut governing body, representing each chapter.
These sanctions certainly could be modified to include running for, or holding, public office or a position of authority within the Green Party. Similary, the criteria for filing an ethics complaint might be altered to advocating a position which is inconsistent with the key values of the Green Party. The decision making body could become the national committee. A national Green Party ethics committee would have to be instituted.
Such an ethics complaint procedure might be appropriate for the Green Party of the United States to institute, as shown by the press release being considered. For
this to occur, a proposal would have to be submitted for consideration by the national committee by a state party or a standing committee.
John Battista
CT Green Party
It has been raised in discussion in NM that such standards are inherently used in internal disputes and often work against the interest of full and complete discussion of issues without intimidation. There are questions of how, or even if, such standards can facilitate an open forum.
Mato Ska
Delegate
NMGP
On a personal note, I feel like I'm turning into the C-Span of Green National Committee internal politics...a diet filled with plenty of fiber, but not too tasty.
I mean these questions with all sincerity. I genuinely believe our commitment to Non-Violence is tested by the way we answer these questions.
First, when an individual makes a public statement - a press statement, no less essentially accusing the Green Party of harboring or supporting terrorists, do we all agree that this goes well above and beyond strong or emotional disagreements and into the realm of actual attempts to defame the Green Party's name?
Second, when individuals do such acts, are we ensuring that they are not in any positions of authority by which they might be able to speak on behalf of the Green Party or affect the internal operations of the Green Party?
It seems to me that if an individual sends out a screed that attempts to defame in the court of public opinion the name of the Green Party - and I'm not talking about charging that the party is poorly run or undemocratic, I'm talking about outrageously blatant defamation, charging that the party is harboring and defending and supporting terrorists - that the first step should be ensuring that the individual is not in any position of authority within the party. Otherwise, we are failing on the key value and pillar of Non-Violence.
Can we at least all agree on these points?
Phil Huckelberry
Illinois Green Party
I agree on those points.
I also think the GPUS should issue a statement to denounce people in the party who make such false, defamatory and dangerous statements. We can't get rid of Greens from the party, but we can respond. The claims and attacks in that statement remind me of people who tell lies about innocent people to get some kind of reward for themselves. Some of this sort will let people die for this dynamic. The writer is as aware as the next person that the climate in this country regarding terrorists is so warped and fear mongering by the government that it is nearly mobbish if not already. To use such language in this climate is to potentially incur such a response on the Green Party whether now or in the future.
It is a concern to me that if we issue a statement that it might just bring more unwanted attention to it. But it is pretty bad to be attacked like this, putting many thousands of Greens and the Party in possible harm's way, which would affect so many more thousands of Greens as well as our cause, without the party responding in a responsible way.
What steps should be taken to ensure the writer of this defamatory statement is not in any position of authority within the party? Can you define *authority?* I would think any position within the GPUS, including as just a member of a committee, would qualify, to be able to, as you say, ensure that they cannot in any way speak for the
party or engage or be a participant in anything that could become policy or affect business in any way.
Morgen D'Arc
USGP-Maine Delegate
I would go with your suggestion as to how to practically define "authority". I also believe that Guy Anthony's remarks are quite right regarding the necessity for the National Committee to have the ability to remove people for extremely flagrant actions. The power must be used sparingly and only in extreme situations, but to refuse to use such power at all is a green light for such actions.
Much has been written lately about accountability and responsibility to our constituent Greens in our various state parties. I believe we all have a responsibility to ensure that no individual serving in any position representing GPUS in any manner be making slanderous remarks, be physically threatening others, or anything of the like that clearly goes well above and beyond simple political disagreements, and when extremely flagrant violations of such sorts are committed, that individuals are removed from positions of authority.
We need serious ethical standards in this party. Our lack of such standards speaks very poorly of our commitment to our values.
Phil Huckelberry
Illinois Green Party
Maybe, if it's done both accurately and precisely. Here's an example: If I were a lawyer, publicly affiliated with the Green Party, and agreed to serve as a public defender for individuals accused of charges related to terrorism - would you want my ouster from the party?
Currently we live in a fascist millieu which promotes the idea that any action other than violence against the enemies of our State equates to support for those enemies. If we indeed have Party members who have taken this erroneous logic to heart they need to be called on it. However, any action against them, (removal, sacking etc.)
should still follow the proper channels and practices of our party.
Just my opinion,
David Pollard
GPTx delegate
Even if we can all agree on the principles you offer, I have a suspicion (no that is probably the wrong word) maybe hunch is better, that we shall have at least some disagreement as to whether any one particular case constitutes such an incident. I also have a hunch that the process of handling the incident will be as contentious as anything else we do, and just another thing we are not really going to want to go through. Do we think the political divides we surf wil not influence how we view what blasphemy is?
The decision to protect ourselves under the circumstances is political. It is only when someone offends everybody, and I mean everyone, will this go at all smoothly. And then oit does not much matter what the rules are, if everyone wants someone to go we will find a way to legitimately do it. And if the offender of some has anything more than 2 or 3 defenders, nothing will be done, and the reality is that if enough people active in the party beleive some outrage is not outrageous, it ties up our process, and maybe it ought to.
greg gerritt gpri
And maybe it ought not. It seems IMHO there are some among us who's sole reason for being is to manipulate the reality you mention, keeping the process endlessly tied up until the party either dies of paralysis or enough good people turn their back in disgust and walk away thus allowing the sabatouers to take the control of the remaining shell of the party.
Until I came on this list I would not have believed such a tactic would work here. Now I alarmed to see how well along it has advanced.
Since we have recently given so much attention to the means by which an errant steering committee may be removed, I believe it is only proper that steps be taken to hold NC members just as accountable. There should be a method by which a 2/3 majority of the NC can censure or even remove a fellow member for destructive and disruptive conduct within the body.
This does not mean any violation of the soverngity of the state who that delegate represents. That state is of course the untimate authority as to who represents them. The NC action woulld however force the delegate to go back to his/her state and explain him/her self and what conduct drew such disapproval from Greens nationwide. It is my belief that many state committees are unaware of what goes on here. If sunshine is good for the SC, it is good for the NC as well.
States would perfectly free to return any delegate so disiplined but in most cases I expect they would demand some sort of an accounting before doing so.
Guy Anthony
PA
Connecticut has adopted ethical standards for Green Party Members. An ethics complaint may be followed against a Connecticut Green Party member alleging:
1. Making commitments or position statements that conflict with the Party of Chapter policies, principles, or ethical codes.
2. The advocacy or practice of racial, sexual, ethnic, or religious discrimination
3. Betrayal of trust in maters affecting Party or Public welfare
4. Indulgence in or use of any form of violence.
5. Irresponsible advocacy such as that based upon misrepresentation or gross ignorance of pertinent facts.
Such a complaint initiates an investigation by the Ethics Committee of the Connecticut Green Party. If the investigation substantiates the alleged violations the Ethics Committee may recommend sanctions which may include, but are not limited to:
1. Written warning
2. Formal Censure
3. Suspension
4. Expulsion
The decision as to appropriate action is determined by the Connecticut governing body, representing each chapter.
These sanctions certainly could be modified to include running for, or holding, public office or a position of authority within the Green Party. Similary, the criteria for filing an ethics complaint might be altered to advocating a position which is inconsistent with the key values of the Green Party. The decision making body could become the national committee. A national Green Party ethics committee would have to be instituted.
Such an ethics complaint procedure might be appropriate for the Green Party of the United States to institute, as shown by the press release being considered. For
this to occur, a proposal would have to be submitted for consideration by the national committee by a state party or a standing committee.
John Battista
CT Green Party
It has been raised in discussion in NM that such standards are inherently used in internal disputes and often work against the interest of full and complete discussion of issues without intimidation. There are questions of how, or even if, such standards can facilitate an open forum.
Mato Ska
Delegate
NMGP
On a personal note, I feel like I'm turning into the C-Span of Green National Committee internal politics...a diet filled with plenty of fiber, but not too tasty.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 12:16 PM 
