Sunday, August 13, 2006
Some clarity on Utah
Nan Garrett of Georgia posted a message to a national listserv and gave her version of the Utah events. It's behind the "Read more!" link, and does seem to answer some common sense questions. If you are unsure of your opinion vis-a-vis the Utah question, please take a peek.
Now if only we could get Ms. Garrett to stop hiding behind a lawyer and adequately and honestly address the abuse of Stephanie Loveless by the National Women's Caucus. If you see me and my face is blue, you know what happened.
Although the Secretary can respond to your question, as a member of the Accreditation Committee, I wanted to provide my perspective. Jody Grage provided much of this info to our meeting last week. Karen Shelley is also a member of the AC now, but was not during the time some of this happened. Perhaps her review of the AC list archives might help the situation, but that is up to her.
In December 2004, after some investigation, the AC forwarded a 'determination' statement to this body, then still the CC, about this. The AC took a position. Few if anyone here asked questions. No one here objected. Nada.
Then in summer of 2005, in Tulsa, this issue came up again at the annual meeting. The NC voted on the floor to seat the body recognized in the December 2004 statement / letter.
No one filed a complaint. I realize some in California said they made a formal request, but I thought formal requests appeared in the version of a proposal. Otherwise, we don't have a structure to process the 'request'. If this is a misunderstanding by me as to how our processes work, I'd like some clarity here, but perhaps it was a misunderstanding on the part of the California Greens who made the request.
Some of the Greens associated with the body not currently tied by affiliation with the GP-US filed a complaint against the GP-US in the AC just a week to ten days before this year's meeting, possibly dated July 19. [First version said 2005, but the filer explained that was a typographical error, and should have been 2006.] But the point is that this is obviously not adequate time for the AC to review this new complaint, investigate and make a recommendation.
IMO, if folks are clammering for a more thorough investigation than was done in 2004, or if there are new relevant facts here, it still should either go through AC or DRC. If NC members here have issues or questions about the AC composition or processes, fine, join the committee or rewrite their P & P but either allow them to do a thorough investigation or make a concious decision that our AC serves no bona fide
purpose related to accreditation.
Certainly I have questions about why no one objected to the AC's report in December 2004. I also question why no one filed a complaint and followed through after last summer, yet as our annual meeting rolled around, this suddenly becomes 'urgent'.
We need simple straightforward structure that works, honors due process, and is not subject to forum shopping. It needs to work for all.
I obviously don't believe the AC should have jurisdiction over any and all complaints against states and caucuses. But where the complaint directly involves the subject of accreditation, I don't see the positive purpose served or existing process being
followed if we bypass our AC.
Back to Roger Horowitz's question, I believe the NC made a decision by accepting the AC's report and not objecting to it formally via a proposal. But perhaps we need to tighten up that procedure and require us - either via our SC or self, the NC - to formally accept or reject committee statements and recommendations that have a lasting or stare decisis effect on the GP-US. [not their general business reports] Not sure what I think about this, but the comment is offered as food for thought and reflection.
As to the other issues being debated here, I don't see any urgency of adding more Utah Greens to this e-list as this list is no place to conduct an investigation that provides even a semblance of due process. If we can focus on a process or structure to address these type of issues generically, and then actually apply that process to this Utah situation, we might make some progress.
Now if only we could get Ms. Garrett to stop hiding behind a lawyer and adequately and honestly address the abuse of Stephanie Loveless by the National Women's Caucus. If you see me and my face is blue, you know what happened.
Although the Secretary can respond to your question, as a member of the Accreditation Committee, I wanted to provide my perspective. Jody Grage provided much of this info to our meeting last week. Karen Shelley is also a member of the AC now, but was not during the time some of this happened. Perhaps her review of the AC list archives might help the situation, but that is up to her.
In December 2004, after some investigation, the AC forwarded a 'determination' statement to this body, then still the CC, about this. The AC took a position. Few if anyone here asked questions. No one here objected. Nada.
Then in summer of 2005, in Tulsa, this issue came up again at the annual meeting. The NC voted on the floor to seat the body recognized in the December 2004 statement / letter.
No one filed a complaint. I realize some in California said they made a formal request, but I thought formal requests appeared in the version of a proposal. Otherwise, we don't have a structure to process the 'request'. If this is a misunderstanding by me as to how our processes work, I'd like some clarity here, but perhaps it was a misunderstanding on the part of the California Greens who made the request.
Some of the Greens associated with the body not currently tied by affiliation with the GP-US filed a complaint against the GP-US in the AC just a week to ten days before this year's meeting, possibly dated July 19. [First version said 2005, but the filer explained that was a typographical error, and should have been 2006.] But the point is that this is obviously not adequate time for the AC to review this new complaint, investigate and make a recommendation.
IMO, if folks are clammering for a more thorough investigation than was done in 2004, or if there are new relevant facts here, it still should either go through AC or DRC. If NC members here have issues or questions about the AC composition or processes, fine, join the committee or rewrite their P & P but either allow them to do a thorough investigation or make a concious decision that our AC serves no bona fide
purpose related to accreditation.
Certainly I have questions about why no one objected to the AC's report in December 2004. I also question why no one filed a complaint and followed through after last summer, yet as our annual meeting rolled around, this suddenly becomes 'urgent'.
We need simple straightforward structure that works, honors due process, and is not subject to forum shopping. It needs to work for all.
I obviously don't believe the AC should have jurisdiction over any and all complaints against states and caucuses. But where the complaint directly involves the subject of accreditation, I don't see the positive purpose served or existing process being
followed if we bypass our AC.
Back to Roger Horowitz's question, I believe the NC made a decision by accepting the AC's report and not objecting to it formally via a proposal. But perhaps we need to tighten up that procedure and require us - either via our SC or self, the NC - to formally accept or reject committee statements and recommendations that have a lasting or stare decisis effect on the GP-US. [not their general business reports] Not sure what I think about this, but the comment is offered as food for thought and reflection.
As to the other issues being debated here, I don't see any urgency of adding more Utah Greens to this e-list as this list is no place to conduct an investigation that provides even a semblance of due process. If we can focus on a process or structure to address these type of issues generically, and then actually apply that process to this Utah situation, we might make some progress.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 6:46 PM 
