Green News and Opinion

Say a group of people in a state with no Green Party decide to create one. They meet, get a list of rules they must follow to join the US-GP, jump through all the appropriate hoops, and so long as no objection is raised, those folks would likely be approved as a new chapter of the party. The decision would begin with the Accreditation Committee and would end with a vote of the National Committee.

Similarly, if a group of people who believe that their group suffers from a lack of access to the political process, or less political power than they should have, they can apply to create a caucus within the party. If, for example, enough Greens with disabilities were to join it, the disability caucus would likely win approval.

So, what if a caucus or state is established, and then things change? What if most of a caucus' members quit? What if they refuse to comply with national party rules they agreed to when they joined up? What if a state party withers to the point that a small group of non-greens can take it over at a convention or by a concerted ballot effort?

What if, more to the point, some caucus confronts something and either can't or won't deal with it? For example, what if a trans-gendered person asks to join the Women's Caucus?

Should each state and/or caucus be subjected to a review of their accreditation?

This is not a rhetorical question. Take a look behind the "Read more!" link and you will see that the Women's Caucus is dealing with this right now, or not dealing with it, depending on your perspective. Check back to this section several times over the next week or so as I intend to re-post the National Committee conversation as it develops...


In regard to having some kind of annual review of committee work, would it be appropriate to task the Accreditation Committee with the annual review, or should that be done by some other committee, or by the NC itself?

My view is that it should be in the purview of some committee. The NC seems not to do much itself. The real work is done in committee, it seems, and will be more so in the future as (we hope) our job of building the party structure, rules and processes gets pretty much done.

Seems to me that part of the reason that the NC seems to be treading water, is that we don't well understand our mission, and get sidetracked by poor communication.

There are long-standing issues unresolved within the Black Caucus and the Women's Caucus. On the one hand, since I am in neither group, I feel that hands off as much as possible is better. On the other, my good friend and "constituent" who is transgendered (male to female) has not been able to get an answer (even if the answer is no) from the NWC (National Women's Caucus) for well over a year whether she can join. A complaint has been filed and is purportedly pending with the Accreditation Committee, I believe, but there is no evidence of progress being made. I am told there is a "gag order" and so have been unable to learn much more. One of the Michigan delegates to the AC has become frustrated with lack of process and action.

Perhaps this issue is more properly within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Committee, and it's stalled because the AC does not know what to do with it. Do the rules provide for sanctions against a committee, other than dissolution?

While the issue may be important, the bigger thing is that our process is not working very well. Could committees be required to make short reports and answer questions
during the Annual Meeting?

Think Green, Act Green, Vote Green!

Matthew R. Abel
Detroit, Michigan
www.attorneyabel.com
attorneyabel@riseup.net

Green Party of Michigan State Committee
Green Party U.S. National Delegate

=================
This is a footnote in the bylaws of the National Women's Caucus;


III.2a. NOTE: In defining "natural members," the Caucus has had to deal with a challenge of whether non-women who identify as women can join the Caucus. Early discussions revealed wide-ranging opinions. Later discussions in the months of June and July, 2003 that were sparked by interference from outside the Caucus to mobilize women to join the Caucus for the express purpose of voting against the bylaws if the bylaws did not specifically state that transgendered women could be members, also revealed wide-ranging reactions and opinions. A vote was held during August 2003 to define membership, but it failed for lack of quorum and was impacted by the server malfunction that was outside of Caucus control and which deleted over half the membership base, taking a while to restore.

It is now almost three years later, and the issue has apparently, still not been taken to a vote.

So, wazzup with that?

**From Holly Hunter, in Response to the Above Question**

Matt,

You've gotten a response, several times: your information is erroneous. And, the NWC coordinating committee has received legal counsel that advised us not to discuss this. As a lawyer yourself, you ought to know better than to keep trying ot bring this up. Last year, I asked if you wanted to speak with the person who adviseed us. You asked if that was a woman. That didn't clarify whether you wished to speak with that person ro not.

Holly Hart
GPUS-NC Delegate, NWC
==========================

GPUS Bylaws, Article III, requires that

All committees shall:

... 5) report to the NC on a regular basis and set up a schedule for written reporting, with monthly reports being the standard unless otherwise approved by the NC.

**and:**

10) participate in a biannual review of committee RP&Ps conducted by the BRPP, which shall report to the NC on each committee's procedures.

it seems the apparatus for review is in place.

Whether it is observed, is another matter.

I know the Eco-Action Committee has been submitting monthly reports, and BRPP as well, and ANMC, but I'm not sure of the others.

However, the bylaws are silent regarding any reporting requirements for caucuses.

Perhaps that would help to find out what is going on with Womens Caucus and Black Caucus.


Think Green, Act Green, Vote Green!

Matthew R. Abel

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

From Owen Broadhurst:

Vote or no vote, the Diversity Committee, Accreditations Committee, and National Committee were all given assurances by National Women's Caucus officers that self-identified women were eligible for NWC membership.

In a related note, the National Committee did vote to give Accreditations Committee certain purview reviewing Caucus performance and continued adherance to the set of expectations prescribed for Caucuses in our national party Rules and Procedures. Proposal 183 was approved by the National Committee by the 23rd of October, 2005.

Proposal 183

=======

8. Complaint Process
A. Greens who wish to lodge a complaint or grievance against an affiliated Green Party in the state in which they reside or a caucus with which they identify must first exhaust the complaint process of that state's Green Party or caucus. If it can be demonstrated that the complainant's state party or caucus has not addressed the grievance in a timely way, the AC, at its discretion, can decide to hear the grievance after giving the state party or caucus notice. Complaints must be submitted on the AC complaint form and co-signed by three Greens with standing before being reviewed by the committee. (To have standing a Green must reside in the state or
identify with the caucus they are lodging a complaint against.)

Green Party or caucus members with a grievance are required to complete and submit the AC complaint form to their state party or caucus and copy the AC. After 30 days, the AC will inquire to see that the state party or caucus has initiated their process for review of complaints. If no action has been taken, the AC will remind the state party or caucus that action must be taken within the next 30 days. State parties or caucuses who have entered into the "grievance" process in good faith but needs more time to address the complaint must ask the AC for an extension in writing. After two weeks of receiving the complaint, the AC will assign a point person to guide the
complainant through the process.

B. Accredited State Parties or Caucuses, who wish to lodge a complaint or grievance against another accredited state party or caucus must submit their complaints on the AC complaint form. The complaint must be filed by the Executive Committee or membership of the state party or caucus in accordance with that state party's or caucus' bylaws. A state party or caucus with a grievance is required to complete and
submit the AC complaint form to the other state party or caucus and copy the AC. After 30 days, the AC will inquire of the state party or caucus to see if the grievance has been resolved. State parties or caucuses who have entered into a "grievance" process in good faith but need more time to address the complaint must ask the AC for an extension in writing. After two weeks of receiving the complaint, the AC will assign a point person to guide the complainant through the process.

===========

The National Committee did approve of these P&Ps (Gregg Note: Policies and Procedures) by a vote of 65-8-15. This then answers Marc Sanson's April 15 inquiry:

Posted by Marc Sanson April 15 of this year:

I have seen some accusations lately that the SC (Steering Committee) has handpicked what representatives of the GPUS Black Caucus it wishes to deal with, and is showing favoritism toward those black who support some unnamed agenda of unidentified leaders of this party. I would like to respond to this accusation.

First of all, the SC has no authority or ability to choose who they will recognize as representatives of a state or caucus. That is entirely within the purview of the caucus or state. Even if we felt the current leadership and representation of the BC (Black Caucus) was not legitimate, which some of us do, there is nothing in the bylaws or procedures that give us the ability to reject those leaders or representatives. Unless the GNC (Green National Committee or Green National Convention...not sure which) acts to direct the SC in the matter, our hands are tied and we have no choice but to accept those representative the BC puts forward.

I assure you, this has been a concern of the SC for some time and our minutes will reflect many discussions on the topic and several attempts to get answers from the BC. We have discussed how we will respond when proposals, communications, requests, etc...come forth from the BC that we know no longer represents many blacks within our
party and has not been operating within its bylaws as required by the accreditation guidelines. There are some who believe we should no longer accept anything from the BC or recognize its representatives until they have confirmed that they are operating within their bylaws and granting inclusion to all blacks in our party. But most of us also agree that we are powerless to do so and have not been granted that authority under our bylaws. So, in my opinion, there is little the SC can do to help resolve this situation.

Some have suggested that this is a matter for the DRC. (Dispute Resolution Committee) In my understanding, this has come before the DRC several times, but without the cooperation of all parties in the dispute there is little the DRC can do. Others have suggested this is a matter for the AC, (Accreditation Committee) but as I read the bylaws, RPnP's, (Rules, Policies and Procedures) AC PnP's, and Santa Barbara resolution, the AC has no role to play here either. The only authority granted to the AC in reference to caucuses is the ability to recommend 'temporary inactive status' should the caucus fail to vote for more than 6 months or fail to attend two GNC meetings in a row. If someone knows of other language that give the AC authority to investigate a caucus and recommend action, please point it out to me.

I've also seen it stated that members of the BC have submitted several complaints to the AC regarding BC accreditation. Besides the questionability of whether the AC has any role regarding caucuses, I am unaware of any such complaints being formally submitted, but that is not to say they have not been. The AC is maintaining secrecy in what complaints it has received and what investigations it is conducting. I find this disturbing. Nowhere in the AC PnP's, posted complaint process, GPUS bylaws or GP RPnP's is there language allowing secrecy in these proceedings. Disaffiliating a state or caucus is just as, if not more, serious an affair as removing an officer ? these complaints and proceedings should be done in the full light of the GNC. So, there very well may have been complaints filed and investigations conducted by the AC, but we would have no way of knowing.

I urge the officers of the BC to reach out to members that have either left or have been ejected, and find ways to make the caucus inclusive to all blacks in the GP, quickly followed by new elections to satisfy their bylaws. I also call on the AC to release to the GNC all complaints they have received regarding accreditation of any state or caucus, and report to the SC and GNC on all current and past investigations they have conducted.

Peace,
Marc Sanson, ILGP/Springfield Greens
Co-chair, Green Party of the U.S.

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

Continuing from an email by Owen Broadhurst:

I didn't answer Marc at the time, but I shall answer now.

The AC has such investigatory powers via their very own P&Ps. I did ask precisely when IDCAP was approved, but have no answer to that question. I have seen no records of IDCAP approval. If IDCAP was approved, then I have no knowledge of precisely what version of IDCAP was approved.

One version of IDCAP (No idea folks...sorry) explicitly does provide provisions for the disaffiliation of a caucus. That version is here.

The language of this proposal differs somewhat from what we read in posted GPotUS Rules & Procedures. Yet, I see no record of when this differing language was approved.

I'm wondering if IDCAP in fact had ever been approved. If it was not approved, then I'm wondering why so much of its langauge can now be found in our Rules and Procedures.

In any case, we know the following from AC P&Ps, of which a record of the National Committee's approval CAN be found:

Where Marc wrote:

"If someone knows of other language that give the AC authority to investigate a caucus and recommend action, please point it out to me."

I now point out Section 8 from AC P&Ps.

-------------

Where Marc wrote:

"The only authority granted to the AC in reference to caucuses is the ability to recommend 'temporary inactive status' should the caucus fail to vote for more than 6 months or fail to attend two GNC meetings in a row."

I must point out that this is not necessarily the case, depending on what version of IDCAP was approved if in fact IDCAP had ever been approved at all. Proposal 59 did explicitly provide for disaffiliation of a caucus. I recall no version of IDCAP submitted for National Committee consideration since. If no version of IDCAP was approved, then I don't see how what is noted in our Rules & Procedures has any force or legitimacy regarding the subject.

AC P&Ps do not address the question of disaffiliation, but do indeed assign the AC powers of investigating any grievances filed with it. This authority, that of conducting an investigation, therefore was indeed granted the AC via P. 183. The power to suspend a Caucus for inactivity, however, would remain contigent on IDCAP approval regardless of what is reflected in our Rules and Procedures since the relevant portion of our Rules and Procedures was based on an IDCAP proposal.

----------

Where Marc wrote:

"Nowhere in the AC PnP's, posted complaint process, GPUS bylaws or GP RPnP's is there language allowing secrecy in these proceedings."

AC P&Ps, in fact, contain a confidentiality clause. Written notice, possibly followed by requested removal of an offending AC member, number among the consequences of an AC member violating confidentiality regarding AC deliberations. The National Committee did approve of this language.

I do not recall the Steering Committee having expressed concern about secrecy during proceedings relating to the affiliation of Caucuses when Diversity Committee members were denied the full National Women's Caucus accreditation packet. Such a packet includes (according to most versions of IDCAP) "a list of at least 100 members in at least 15 USGP- affiliated states, containing name, address, and state party membership of each member". To the best of my knowledge, the Diversity Committee was not explcitly required to be in receipt of this, but (according to most versions
of IDCAP) the Accreditations Committee certainly was.

Since any AC review of Caucus progress in meeting expectations assigned (should IDCAP in fact exist) would indeed include AC's access to such a membership list, then I trust Marc would not object to handling of such in confidence.

Nothing in our bylaws, rules and procedures, or AC P&Ps compels AC notification to the National Committee of any deliberation over grievances submitted until such time as the AC has prepared its report to the NC regarding the matter.

----------

Finally, Marc wrote:

"First of all, the SC has no authority or ability to choose who they will recognize as representatives of a state or caucus."

While this is indeed true, this does not infer that "our hands are tied". On the contrary, the Steering Committee has among its list of powers the following powers:

4. Gather information and report emerging problems and opportunities to the National Committee.
5. Make recommendations and proposals to the National Committee based on those reports.

Sincerely yours,
Owen R. Broadhurst (MA)