Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Proposal 261 concerns
In an earlier post I expressed concerns about the USGP endorsing the "War Crimes" report of a group we did not control. It would appear that my concerns were not without merit. Here, from the Consumers for Peace website is text and a link from a message to the Green National Committee by Mato Ska of New Mexico:
UFPJ SHITS ON ANTI-WAR TROOPS & VETERANS:
Active Duty Troops & Iraq Vets Against The War Betrayed By Lowlife Scumbags, As Usual
And EXCUSE ME! I just looked at their website traffic report...they are averaging 37 hits a day to their website! Why the hell are we even considering associating ourselves with this stuff? Good God there is more important stuff to do! Don't saddle us with this tripe.
UFPJ SHITS ON ANTI-WAR TROOPS & VETERANS:
Active Duty Troops & Iraq Vets Against The War Betrayed By Lowlife Scumbags, As Usual
And EXCUSE ME! I just looked at their website traffic report...they are averaging 37 hits a day to their website! Why the hell are we even considering associating ourselves with this stuff? Good God there is more important stuff to do! Don't saddle us with this tripe.
Other proposals
Proposal 262 is also in the voting stage and would authorize the party to accept loans to pay a short term debt.
Proposal 264 re-writes the Policies and Procedures of the Presidential Campaign Support Committee. This one is an important proposal.
Proposal 263 would appoint Jane Hunter of New Jersey to the role of Forum Manager. She would join two other committee members who's overall responsibilities are designed to make the national committee mailing list as productive as possible and keep the delegates from personalizing the process.
Proposal 260 was cancelled. I'm not sure why, although I am sure the answer is in one of the emails I have yet to read. That proposal would have provided for expenditures in the absence of a passed budget, but so did Proposal 259, so maybe they just decided once was enough.
Proposal 264 re-writes the Policies and Procedures of the Presidential Campaign Support Committee. This one is an important proposal.
Proposal 263 would appoint Jane Hunter of New Jersey to the role of Forum Manager. She would join two other committee members who's overall responsibilities are designed to make the national committee mailing list as productive as possible and keep the delegates from personalizing the process.
Proposal 260 was cancelled. I'm not sure why, although I am sure the answer is in one of the emails I have yet to read. That proposal would have provided for expenditures in the absence of a passed budget, but so did Proposal 259, so maybe they just decided once was enough.
Proposal 261
This proposal would endorse the Iraq War Crimes Report. Voting has been expedited for reasons I am not 100% sure of.
I am concerned because I think we need to evaluate how this sort of thing impacts our locals. In my case, I don't think endorsing a war crimes report will do anything but make us look either silly or pro-death penalty or both.
Frankly, I think that the environmental damage being done as we watch has plenty of potential for both having an impact and helping grow my local. If the Green Party takes a stand on new and improved clean water standards, that my local group can use. A report on the impact of small particle pollution on children and what local communities are doing about it is much more likely to help us find and elect candidates who will implement Green policies.
Involvement in "War Crimes Tribunals" is not worth the baggage to me.
I am concerned because I think we need to evaluate how this sort of thing impacts our locals. In my case, I don't think endorsing a war crimes report will do anything but make us look either silly or pro-death penalty or both.
Frankly, I think that the environmental damage being done as we watch has plenty of potential for both having an impact and helping grow my local. If the Green Party takes a stand on new and improved clean water standards, that my local group can use. A report on the impact of small particle pollution on children and what local communities are doing about it is much more likely to help us find and elect candidates who will implement Green policies.
Involvement in "War Crimes Tribunals" is not worth the baggage to me.
Alex Walker says why he's a Green
The story is here, at Daily Kos. I haven't read it to be honest, but it looks good at first blush. What do you think?
Progressive Review
Edited by Sam Smith, Progressive Review is hitting Dems on health care.
Some news
Over at Babblemur, there is a discussion of Elaine Brown's announcement of her intent to seek the Green Party nomination. Apparently Nan Garrett has dropped from the race.
Better Day
Two members of our family are experincing severe medical difficulties. Out of respect for their privacy I have opted to leave it pretty much at that, except to reiterate that I will do what I can here, if only for my own sake, and to say that yesterday was a better day than the day before. But there is a long road ahead.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Doing what I can
Thanks for stopping by. I will be doing less blogging over the next bit I imagine, although I'll stop by to post what I can.
I am sure I'll need to pop in for therapudic purposes if nothing else.
I am sure I'll need to pop in for therapudic purposes if nothing else.
Friday, February 23, 2007
WI Greens tell Obey: Actions speak louder than words!
Led by the Green Party candidate who ran for his seat, WI Greens will visit Congressman Obey's office to let him know that his words against the war on Iraq are not enough. He must act too. More details arebehind this link to the Wausau Daily Herald.
Haiwai'i Greens to lose ballot status?
The article, taken from the Maui News says that the Greens in Haiwai'i have not won enough votes to stay on the ballot, and they must go through petitioning again.
I am so glad I live in a state with reasonable ballot access laws!
I am so glad I live in a state with reasonable ballot access laws!
Accreditation Committee gets new chairs
Maria Kurloff of NY and Brent White of WA are the new co-chairs. Roger Snyder is getting some well deserved rest from those responsibilities. The committee page is linked here.
I wrote to Roger and was less than diplomatic (surprised?) when I took him and the AC to task for doing the AC's business in private. I remain convinced that all GP committees must do ALL their work in full sight of the entire GP membership. There is no room for private or secret committee actions in the GP.
I hope the new co-chairs will conduct themselves in a more open fashion.
Even so, Roger Snyder has my thanks, and that of many Greens I am sure, for his labors on this committee and elsewhere in the GP.
I wrote to Roger and was less than diplomatic (surprised?) when I took him and the AC to task for doing the AC's business in private. I remain convinced that all GP committees must do ALL their work in full sight of the entire GP membership. There is no room for private or secret committee actions in the GP.
I hope the new co-chairs will conduct themselves in a more open fashion.
Even so, Roger Snyder has my thanks, and that of many Greens I am sure, for his labors on this committee and elsewhere in the GP.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Gorbachev a Green???
The website says he is the founder of Global Greens. What the hell???
The site linked here. Don't get me wrong. We need strong allies, and Gorbachev is a heavy weight, but is the word "Green" losing it's meaning?
The site linked here. Don't get me wrong. We need strong allies, and Gorbachev is a heavy weight, but is the word "Green" losing it's meaning?
Divine Strake CANCELLED!
You may remember a few months back that this blog participated in a "Blogswarm" on the issue of the Divine Strake bomb. Plans were to explode a huge bomb in the NV desert to help design "bunker buster" nukes. Greens and others across the nation fought and they backed off the test.
Well, now it's been cancelled. From a mailing list I participate in on anti-nuke issues:
Well, now it's been cancelled. From a mailing list I participate in on anti-nuke issues:
"Divine Strake," the proposed conventional explosion that would have simulated a nuclear weapon and spewed radioactive debris into the atmosphere, has been canceled! The test was slated for the Nevada Test Site this summer. Read the press release from the Defense Department. After months of public outcry from concerned citizens and members of Congress, the Pentagon has agreed to cancel the test. FCNL (Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Quakers) constituents sent hundreds of emails to the federal government and members of Congress opposing the test. They were joined by thousands of other concerned citizens and our voices were heard! Congratulations on a small victory. Lets keep up the good work.
San Juan County WA Greens sue the bastards!
The Island's Sounder reports on a law suit brought by two Greens in San Juan County, Washington to challenge ballot tracking software in local elections. The software uses barcodes, and the Greens suggest that it may be used to track the votes cast by citizens. The government says that the bar codes can only track the ballot and not the voter.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Dallas pushes the blog to 5000
I recently began using StarCounter and Sitemeter at this blog. When I put up the StarCounter link I set the number of visitors equal to the number listed at Sitemeter.
Well, for some reason I don't really understand, Sitemeter doesn't record my visits as I work on the site, but StarCounter does. This is why StarCounter says that this blog has had 5028 hits and Sitemeter says I have had 5000. The 5000th visitor? A visitor from Dallas TX.
Either way you slice it, the blog is now over 5000 visits. I am humbled, and thank you all.
Well, for some reason I don't really understand, Sitemeter doesn't record my visits as I work on the site, but StarCounter does. This is why StarCounter says that this blog has had 5028 hits and Sitemeter says I have had 5000. The 5000th visitor? A visitor from Dallas TX.
Either way you slice it, the blog is now over 5000 visits. I am humbled, and thank you all.
How many faries can dance on the head of a pin?
While the Green National Committee goes into spasms about a member of the Green Party offering attendees of our National Meeting with free greeting cards made of recycled materials, the media and other "kingmakers" are fawning all over Barak Obama. Well, Follow the Money shows Obama's take in his IL race in 2002. More than $225,000 raised for a state legislative seat, and 86.8% from business interests.
These contributions include more than $4000 from Unicom Corp, a nuclear energy company. Oh, by the way, Obama says that we can't take nuclear power off the table. His Presidential Campaign has received at least $2500 from Exelon, one of the nation's biggest nuclear concerns.
I know who the real threat to our future is, and it ain't a guy giving Greens free massages nor recycled greeting cards.
These contributions include more than $4000 from Unicom Corp, a nuclear energy company. Oh, by the way, Obama says that we can't take nuclear power off the table. His Presidential Campaign has received at least $2500 from Exelon, one of the nation's biggest nuclear concerns.
I know who the real threat to our future is, and it ain't a guy giving Greens free massages nor recycled greeting cards.
Who speaks for the Green Party??
In an email to the Green National Committee, Aimee Smith of MI asked
This is an important question. GPAX, a still illegitimate committee "established" outside the proper process, has a hankering to take the USGP to their positions by hook or by crook. Dr. Smith's pro-Palestinian positions may cause the national Green Party difficulties down the road if there are no limits on what they can say, do or endorse. Already they have endorsed at least one event the National Green Party did not endorse.
If these committees want to speak for the Green Party, they should do as all other committees do: present their case to the GNC and ASK for an endorsement. If they want to do it on their own, they should start a stand-alone committee or organization they control outside the confines of the USGP.
Can you say "Greens for Non-violence"? Hell, even GPAX is fine, so long as they don't represent themselves as speaking for anyone but themselves.
As has been asked several times before, can you please guide interested folks to which section of the operating rules make it clear that USGP committees cannot make endorsements?
Since state parties, caucuses, and national candidate's campaigns can all make statements, sign petitions/letters, and make endorsements etc. on behalf of themselves, it is not a big stretch to imagine action committees also being able to speak for themselves. Many feel this is an important way to help get our party name around more broadly, with less red tape. Obviously such endorsements would need to be consistent with the 10 key values and GP-US positions, but the diverse perspectives on at least the Peace Action Committee make it a lot less likely to be out of step with the NC than a campaign committee.
This is an important question. GPAX, a still illegitimate committee "established" outside the proper process, has a hankering to take the USGP to their positions by hook or by crook. Dr. Smith's pro-Palestinian positions may cause the national Green Party difficulties down the road if there are no limits on what they can say, do or endorse. Already they have endorsed at least one event the National Green Party did not endorse.
If these committees want to speak for the Green Party, they should do as all other committees do: present their case to the GNC and ASK for an endorsement. If they want to do it on their own, they should start a stand-alone committee or organization they control outside the confines of the USGP.
Can you say "Greens for Non-violence"? Hell, even GPAX is fine, so long as they don't represent themselves as speaking for anyone but themselves.
I got $200...maybe you can too
I got a phone call last week from a representative of a "Market Research" firm. Did I want to attend a focus group? I would be paid $200 for participating for a couple of hours.
My answer? YES! Of course. $200!? Sign me up!
Well, the entire focus group lasted an hour and a half. I got the $200, in cash thank you very much, and inside the envelope was an invitation to send friends and family to the Market Research firm so they too can earn money for participating.
If you are willing to sell your opinions for more than a hundred dollars an hour, visit their website at Leibowitz-research.com and fill out their application.
My answer? YES! Of course. $200!? Sign me up!
Well, the entire focus group lasted an hour and a half. I got the $200, in cash thank you very much, and inside the envelope was an invitation to send friends and family to the Market Research firm so they too can earn money for participating.
If you are willing to sell your opinions for more than a hundred dollars an hour, visit their website at Leibowitz-research.com and fill out their application.
Outreach Committee posts minutes
Led by Richard Scott and Becky Weber, the Outreach Committee has posted the minutes of their meetings at the committee page for all to see.
Roosevelt University Poli Sci prof misses the mark by a LONG shot
In an article in Pentagraph.com, Professor Paul Green is quoted saying that Rich Whitney, IL Green running for Governor last year, would win only a few thousand votes. He is quoted saying "He may siphon off a couple of thousand votes, but it’s not going to mean anything," said Roosevelt University political scientist Paul Green.
So, how close was the vaunted Poli Sci Prof? Not very. Whitney secured over 361,000 votes and over 10% of the vote total.
How the hell do these sycophants keep their posts? There are other "experts" from academia quoted in the article, all of them saying that Whitney was a non-issue.
I wrote Professor Green to ask him how he got it so wrong, and to his department head as well. I doubt either will respond to my query. So few in Ivory Towers want to answer questions, much less admit they screwed up big time.
So, how close was the vaunted Poli Sci Prof? Not very. Whitney secured over 361,000 votes and over 10% of the vote total.
How the hell do these sycophants keep their posts? There are other "experts" from academia quoted in the article, all of them saying that Whitney was a non-issue.
I wrote Professor Green to ask him how he got it so wrong, and to his department head as well. I doubt either will respond to my query. So few in Ivory Towers want to answer questions, much less admit they screwed up big time.
Diane White, PA Green, writes about mayoral race
The candidate, Jennaro Pullano is running for mayor of Reading, PA, host city of this year's Annual National Meeting.
Jason Nabewaniec has it right!
I love the tag line for his blog. Something to believe in. Someone to vote for. Ain't it the truth! Isn't that what we all want?
René Kaczka-Vallière, Burlington VT Green, in the running
His campaign websitecan be found right here.
Craig Hill of Vermont discusses VT Green issues
The text of the discussion is available at Burlington Pol.
A former Republican is now a Green
Wesley Rolley of Morgan Hill, CA says that he was a Republican until the party left him, but is now a Green and hopes we don't leave him as the Republicans did.
Many of us Greens assume that our members are uniformly disenchanted former democrats, but this is not the case. In my opinion, many of us were left behind by both corporate parties so long ago that it's meaningless to consider us "fallen away" Democrats. I voted D in 1976, and not since. Am I a former Democrat? I don't think of myself that way, and I doubt you do either.
Independence! Freedom! Justice! Peace! Sanity! That's what I want, and that is what the Democrats and Republicans will never deliver to us.
Many of us Greens assume that our members are uniformly disenchanted former democrats, but this is not the case. In my opinion, many of us were left behind by both corporate parties so long ago that it's meaningless to consider us "fallen away" Democrats. I voted D in 1976, and not since. Am I a former Democrat? I don't think of myself that way, and I doubt you do either.
Independence! Freedom! Justice! Peace! Sanity! That's what I want, and that is what the Democrats and Republicans will never deliver to us.
War on Iraq was impeachable offence, not just a "blunder"
As reported at After Downing Street, the Green Party has issued a press release pointing out that Bush and Co.'s war on Iraq is not just incompetently executed, but an impeachable crime.
Think Pelosi and the rest of the corporate party's leaders agree? I don't. They want Bush and cohort in office as long as possible. Why? Because they don't care what he does, so long as it's unpopular. More American deaths in Iraq=more votes for Democrats, or so it would seem.
Think Pelosi and the rest of the corporate party's leaders agree? I don't. They want Bush and cohort in office as long as possible. Why? Because they don't care what he does, so long as it's unpopular. More American deaths in Iraq=more votes for Democrats, or so it would seem.
5 of 6 WI Greens advance to general election
Pete Karas, candidate for 9th District Alderperson in Racine, WI won 49.8% of the vote in his race. All the details on all the races are available at The Journal Times.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Fighting the "straight ballot"
A delegate from Detroit has pointed out on the GNC mailing list that the folks in Detroit are so accustomed to voting a straight party ticket, mainly Democratic, that they don't vote Green even though they agree with Green policies and the democrats have failed them. He asks, how do we fight this straight ballot voting. Any ideas gang?
Planning to attend the annual national meeting?
If you are planning to attend, the PA Greens have put together a survey they would like you to fill out. Click here to fill out the survey.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Alternative approaches to delegate allocation
The Green National Committee has rejected a proposal on how to allocate delegation size amongst the various states. Now it appears that this loss has resulted in a flood of new and innovative approaches.
I have proposed setting a limit of 100 delegates and a minimum of 1 delegate per state, followed by asking each state to choose how many people they want to represent them on the GNC. A series of compromises and discussions could lead to an apportionment we all can live with.
Another new proposal suggests going back to the Association of State Green Party's formula of two delegates per state.
A more complex idea, but simpler than the DAC proposal, comes from Allison Duncan of NY. The proposal is behind the "Read more!" link...
Suggested proposal for delegate apportionment:
Note: I have not researched any of the states used as examples. These examples are purely imaginative.
In order to determine the number of delegates:
Step 1:
---States with Green registration will submit the number of registered Greens in their state as well as the percentage of their state's registered voters who are registered Green.
---States without Green registration will submit the total number of registered voters in their state.
Step 2:
---The committee will evaluate that information and determine the lowest existing percentage of registered Greens in any state. (for example, if only Alaska and Hawaii have registered Greens and .4 percent of Alaska's voters are Green and .5 percent of Hawaii's voters are green, the lowest existing percentage is .4 percent.).
---The committee will use the lowest existing percentage to calculate representation equivalents for the states without Green registration by multiplying each states total number of registered voters by the lowest existing percentage. For example if Georgia does not have Green registration and does have 5 million registered voters, the representation equivalent is 5 million multiplied by .004.
Step 3:
Once all the numbers for registered Greens by state and representation equivalents are determined, the committee will sum all those numbers into a total. The percentage of that total that a state is responsible for, in registered Greens or equivalents, will be the percentage of delegates representing that state on the NC.
Each state will have no less than two delegates. The maximum size of the NC will be 200 delegates.
Note: Before Jan 1, 2008 a state will be considered to have green registration, if the a state office or agency has recorded registered greens for at least 12 months. After Jan 1, 2008, a state is considered to have Green registration once it have passed the lowest existing percentage in Green registrations or a state office or agency has recorded registered greens for at least 12 months---whichever occurs first.
I have proposed setting a limit of 100 delegates and a minimum of 1 delegate per state, followed by asking each state to choose how many people they want to represent them on the GNC. A series of compromises and discussions could lead to an apportionment we all can live with.
Another new proposal suggests going back to the Association of State Green Party's formula of two delegates per state.
A more complex idea, but simpler than the DAC proposal, comes from Allison Duncan of NY. The proposal is behind the "Read more!" link...
Suggested proposal for delegate apportionment:
Note: I have not researched any of the states used as examples. These examples are purely imaginative.
In order to determine the number of delegates:
Step 1:
---States with Green registration will submit the number of registered Greens in their state as well as the percentage of their state's registered voters who are registered Green.
---States without Green registration will submit the total number of registered voters in their state.
Step 2:
---The committee will evaluate that information and determine the lowest existing percentage of registered Greens in any state. (for example, if only Alaska and Hawaii have registered Greens and .4 percent of Alaska's voters are Green and .5 percent of Hawaii's voters are green, the lowest existing percentage is .4 percent.).
---The committee will use the lowest existing percentage to calculate representation equivalents for the states without Green registration by multiplying each states total number of registered voters by the lowest existing percentage. For example if Georgia does not have Green registration and does have 5 million registered voters, the representation equivalent is 5 million multiplied by .004.
Step 3:
Once all the numbers for registered Greens by state and representation equivalents are determined, the committee will sum all those numbers into a total. The percentage of that total that a state is responsible for, in registered Greens or equivalents, will be the percentage of delegates representing that state on the NC.
Each state will have no less than two delegates. The maximum size of the NC will be 200 delegates.
Note: Before Jan 1, 2008 a state will be considered to have green registration, if the a state office or agency has recorded registered greens for at least 12 months. After Jan 1, 2008, a state is considered to have Green registration once it have passed the lowest existing percentage in Green registrations or a state office or agency has recorded registered greens for at least 12 months---whichever occurs first.
259 passes
The delegate vote is behind the "Read more!" link...
Voting for the following proposal is now closed. Here are the results:
Proposal ID: 259
Proposal: GPUS National Committee Authorization for Expenditures
Floor Manager: Holly Hart, hhart@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Discussion: 02/10/2007 - 02/11/2007
Voting: 02/12/2007 - 02/18/2007
Result: Adopted
82 Total Votes Received from 38 States/Caucuses
Presens Quorum: 32 0.6666 of 48 Accredited States/Caucuses
Consens Quorum: 39 A Majority of 76 Yes and No Votes
Yes: 76
Abstain: 6
Yes: Gene Hunter - Alabama
Yes: Claudia Ellquist - Arizona
Yes: Andrew Spencer - Arizona
Yes: Jan Arnold - California
Yes: Leslie Bonett - California
Yes: Sanda Everette - California
Yes: Forrest Hill - California
Yes: Fred Hosea - California
Yes: Jared Laiti - California
Yes: Steve Loebs - California
Yes: Kent Mesplay - California
Yes: Donna Warren - California
Yes: Bruce Meyer - Colorado
Yes: Tim McKee - Connecticut
Yes: David McCorquodale - Delaware
Yes: David Bosserman - District of Columbia
Yes: Jenefer Ellingston - District of Columbia
Yes: Henry Lawrence III - Florida
Yes: Barbara Rodgers-Hendricks - Florida
Yes: Hugh Esco - Georgia
Yes: Frank Jeffers - Georgia
Yes: Julie Jacobson - Hawaii
Yes: Michael Drennan - Illinois
Yes: Phil Huckelberry - Illinois
Abstain: Marc Sanson - Illinois
Yes: Alicia Snyder - Illinois
Abstain: Sarah Dillon - Indiana
Yes: Jeff Sutter - Indiana
Yes: Larry Orr - Iowa
Yes: Paul Krumm - Kansas
Yes: David Strand - Lavender Caucus
Yes: Jacqui Deveneau - Maine
Yes: Karen Jennings - Maryland
Yes: Steve Kramer - Maryland
Abstain: Jamie McLaughlin - Massachusetts
Yes: Elie Yarden - Massachusetts
Yes: Linda Manning Myatt - Michigan
Yes: Louis Novak - Michigan
Yes: Fred Vitale - Michigan
Yes: Eric Makela - Minnesota
Yes: Bill Oldfather - Minnesota
Yes: Ben Kjelshus - Missouri
Yes: Paul Etxeberri - Nevada
Yes: Paul Steven Juntunen - Nevada
Yes: Mike Spector - New Jersey
Yes: Mato Ska - New Mexico
Yes: Howie Hawkins - New York
Abstain: Doug McComb - New York
Yes: Jason Nabewaniec - New York
Yes: Rebecca Rotzler - New York
Yes: Roger Snyder - New York
Yes: J. Rebecca White - New York
Yes: Jan Martell - North Carolina
Yes: Paul Dumochelle - Ohio
Yes: Gwen Marshall - Ohio
Yes: Logan Martinez - Ohio
Yes: Kimberly Wise - Ohio
Abstain: Marnie Glickman - Oregon
Abstain: Paul Loney - Oregon
Yes: Dave Baker - Pennsylvania
Yes: Traci Confer - Pennsylvania
Yes: Skip Mendler - Pennsylvania
Yes: Marakay Rogers - Pennsylvania
Yes: Diane White - Pennsylvania
Yes: James DeBoer - Rhode Island
Yes: Greg Gerritt - Rhode Island
Yes: David Whiteman - South Carolina
Yes: Katey Culver - Tennessee
Yes: Howard Switzer - Tennessee
Yes: Esther Choi - Texas
Yes: Deanna Hayes - Texas
Yes: Keith Lyons - Texas
Yes: Alfred Molison - Texas
Yes: Christine Morshedi - Texas
Yes: Douglas Reber - Texas
Yes: Craig Hill - Vermont
Yes: Audrey Clement - Virginia
Yes: Aram Falsafi - Washington
Yes: Mike Gillis - Washington
Yes: Jill Bussiere - Wisconsin
Yes: Jeff Peterson - Wisconsin
Yes: Julia Willebrand - Women's Caucus
Full proposal details and results are online at:
http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propresult?pid=259
Thank you and have a wonderful day!
--The GP-US Voting Admin
Voting for the following proposal is now closed. Here are the results:
Proposal ID: 259
Proposal: GPUS National Committee Authorization for Expenditures
Floor Manager: Holly Hart, hhart@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Discussion: 02/10/2007 - 02/11/2007
Voting: 02/12/2007 - 02/18/2007
Result: Adopted
82 Total Votes Received from 38 States/Caucuses
Presens Quorum: 32 0.6666 of 48 Accredited States/Caucuses
Consens Quorum: 39 A Majority of 76 Yes and No Votes
Yes: 76
Abstain: 6
Yes: Gene Hunter - Alabama
Yes: Claudia Ellquist - Arizona
Yes: Andrew Spencer - Arizona
Yes: Jan Arnold - California
Yes: Leslie Bonett - California
Yes: Sanda Everette - California
Yes: Forrest Hill - California
Yes: Fred Hosea - California
Yes: Jared Laiti - California
Yes: Steve Loebs - California
Yes: Kent Mesplay - California
Yes: Donna Warren - California
Yes: Bruce Meyer - Colorado
Yes: Tim McKee - Connecticut
Yes: David McCorquodale - Delaware
Yes: David Bosserman - District of Columbia
Yes: Jenefer Ellingston - District of Columbia
Yes: Henry Lawrence III - Florida
Yes: Barbara Rodgers-Hendricks - Florida
Yes: Hugh Esco - Georgia
Yes: Frank Jeffers - Georgia
Yes: Julie Jacobson - Hawaii
Yes: Michael Drennan - Illinois
Yes: Phil Huckelberry - Illinois
Abstain: Marc Sanson - Illinois
Yes: Alicia Snyder - Illinois
Abstain: Sarah Dillon - Indiana
Yes: Jeff Sutter - Indiana
Yes: Larry Orr - Iowa
Yes: Paul Krumm - Kansas
Yes: David Strand - Lavender Caucus
Yes: Jacqui Deveneau - Maine
Yes: Karen Jennings - Maryland
Yes: Steve Kramer - Maryland
Abstain: Jamie McLaughlin - Massachusetts
Yes: Elie Yarden - Massachusetts
Yes: Linda Manning Myatt - Michigan
Yes: Louis Novak - Michigan
Yes: Fred Vitale - Michigan
Yes: Eric Makela - Minnesota
Yes: Bill Oldfather - Minnesota
Yes: Ben Kjelshus - Missouri
Yes: Paul Etxeberri - Nevada
Yes: Paul Steven Juntunen - Nevada
Yes: Mike Spector - New Jersey
Yes: Mato Ska - New Mexico
Yes: Howie Hawkins - New York
Abstain: Doug McComb - New York
Yes: Jason Nabewaniec - New York
Yes: Rebecca Rotzler - New York
Yes: Roger Snyder - New York
Yes: J. Rebecca White - New York
Yes: Jan Martell - North Carolina
Yes: Paul Dumochelle - Ohio
Yes: Gwen Marshall - Ohio
Yes: Logan Martinez - Ohio
Yes: Kimberly Wise - Ohio
Abstain: Marnie Glickman - Oregon
Abstain: Paul Loney - Oregon
Yes: Dave Baker - Pennsylvania
Yes: Traci Confer - Pennsylvania
Yes: Skip Mendler - Pennsylvania
Yes: Marakay Rogers - Pennsylvania
Yes: Diane White - Pennsylvania
Yes: James DeBoer - Rhode Island
Yes: Greg Gerritt - Rhode Island
Yes: David Whiteman - South Carolina
Yes: Katey Culver - Tennessee
Yes: Howard Switzer - Tennessee
Yes: Esther Choi - Texas
Yes: Deanna Hayes - Texas
Yes: Keith Lyons - Texas
Yes: Alfred Molison - Texas
Yes: Christine Morshedi - Texas
Yes: Douglas Reber - Texas
Yes: Craig Hill - Vermont
Yes: Audrey Clement - Virginia
Yes: Aram Falsafi - Washington
Yes: Mike Gillis - Washington
Yes: Jill Bussiere - Wisconsin
Yes: Jeff Peterson - Wisconsin
Yes: Julia Willebrand - Women's Caucus
Full proposal details and results are online at:
http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propresult?pid=259
Thank you and have a wonderful day!
--The GP-US Voting Admin
Can someone do a Wiki?
There are some certain issues that lend themselves to individual effort. I believe in committees of one person when they are tasked with very specific goals and they have a reputation for performing their task.
But some issues require a blend of ideas and are by their very nature more complicated. For these issues, such as creating a fundraising plan for the party, I wonder if using a Wiki might not be more appropriate. For example, if I set up a Wiki and put up a list of what I think are the components of a good fundraising plan, others could come in and add to, delete from, or change the proposal to reflect their best thinking, and after twenty or thirty folks had looked the outline over, we could begin to fill in the points, again changing them over and over again until each has been approved by a large group of Greens. Once this is accomplished, we take a look at the overall picture that results, subject it to "blocking concerns", and we have a consensus document and plan for the GNC to evaluate and improve on.
Can anyone do that out there in the Green netroots community make that happen? Is it even a good idea?
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
But some issues require a blend of ideas and are by their very nature more complicated. For these issues, such as creating a fundraising plan for the party, I wonder if using a Wiki might not be more appropriate. For example, if I set up a Wiki and put up a list of what I think are the components of a good fundraising plan, others could come in and add to, delete from, or change the proposal to reflect their best thinking, and after twenty or thirty folks had looked the outline over, we could begin to fill in the points, again changing them over and over again until each has been approved by a large group of Greens. Once this is accomplished, we take a look at the overall picture that results, subject it to "blocking concerns", and we have a consensus document and plan for the GNC to evaluate and improve on.
Can anyone do that out there in the Green netroots community make that happen? Is it even a good idea?
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
21 states not responding to survey request
According to Phil Huckleberry of IL, the following 21 state parties have not submitted answers to a national questionaire:
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai'i
Indiana
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Washington
What is the purpose of this questionaire? Should it matter to you if your state is not represented in the survey results? Take a look behind the "Read more!" link and you'll see the full questionaire. Why not answer it yourself and send the answers to your state delegation if no one from your state has done so yet? If they don't pass the answers along, maybe you'll kick start them into action. If not, send ytour answers to Phil, and maybe they can still use the info. Again, for the text of the questionaire, click the "Read more!" link...
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STATE GREEN PARTIES
This questionnaire has been prepared based on the input of three standing committees Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC), Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC), and Ballot Access Committee (BAC) and GPUS staff. Our intention is to use the information gathered in this questionnaire to update party records and to provide the basis for much of our campaign work through the 2008 election cycle.
IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that state parties return this questionnaire as soon as is feasible, and as thoroughly as is possible. It is understood that it may require the input of several people to answer all of the questions, and so we understand that it may take some time to get all of the questionnaires back. Still, we must ask that the state parties please make a top priority of returning this questionnaire.
Members of the PCSC are intending to follow up with state parties shortly after the
questionnaire is circulated by email.
Initially this questionnaire will be sent on the National Committee list to the delegates from the various states. In some cases, the delegates may be able to handle the questionnaire themselves. In other cases, it will be officers of the state party; and in some cases, it will require a group of people working together. Delegates, we ask that you please forward this message immediately upon receipt to any relevant individuals or groups within your state party.
As you will see from the questions asked, this information will largely provide the basis for much of our electoral work in 2007, especially regarding ballot access and aspects of early presidential campaign support. There is a common belief that one of the biggest failings from the 2004 election cycle was the lack of information about state party processes and the lack of communication between state parties and GPUS. We believe that this questionnaire will go a long way to opening those lanes of communication.
GENERAL REMARKS ON FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Some of the questions may not seem relevant to your state party, or may seem like commonly known information. Please consider the questionnaire as serving the purpose not only of informing our electoral committees and staff today, but also as providing vitally necessary institutional memory into the future, and answer all questions that can be answered. If a question does not at all apply to your state party, please specify as much.
For each question asking for a name of a person, please include appropriate contact information especially email and phone so we can have an up to date contact list available.
For ease of reading, we ask that you either copy and paste the text of the questionnaire into a separate file and then copy and paste back into a fresh email, or attach a clean file to an email, rather than hitting reply and leaving in reply marks. The questionnaire is available in both .txt and .rtf format upon request from Phil Huckelberry (phil@mcgreens.org).
PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, by emailing your completed questionnaire, either in the body of a message or as an attachment, to all four of the following individuals:
Emily Citkowski (emily@gp.org) GPUS Operations Director
Brent McMillan (brent@gp.org) GPUS Political Director
Greg Gerritt (gerritt@mindspring.com) Co-Chair, CCC
Phil Huckelberry (phil@mcgreens.org) Co-Chair, PCSC & BAC
If at any time you have any questions or need any clarification, please contact Phil Huckelberry.
OFFICE QUESTIONS
What is the formal name of your state party? (e.g. Green Party of California, Illinois Green Party, etc.)
What is the formal contact address and phone number for your state party; is the phone number a party office, a voicemail line, or a private phone belonging to a member of the party; and, if not a PO Box, is the contact address a party office or a home address for a member of the party?
What is the best way to route phone calls for general inquiries and volunteers to your state?
What is the URL of your state party's website, and what is the contact email address for general questions?
Does your state party maintain a list of local contacts online?
Does your party have compensated staff and/or contractors; and, if so, who are they and what are their titles?
Who are the officers of your state party, potentially including, but not limited to, co-chairs, secretary, treasurer?
Besides staff, contractors, and officers, most state parties have key people in roles such as media coordinator, fundraising coordinator, membership coordinator, outreach coordinator, webmaster, and potentially several others. Who are your other key people in such roles and what are their titles?
Who are the current members of your state party's delegation to the Green National Committee (including alternates)?
To whom in your state party should questions be directed regarding the status of members of your state's GNC delegation and representatives from your state to various GPUS committees?
To whom in your state party should volunteer information be sent?
To whom in your state party should Green Party Card information be sent?
To whom in your state party should donation sharing information be sent?
To where should state sharing checks be sent?
Does your state party have a standing order for Green Pages?
To where should Green Pages bundles be sent?
To where should invoices for Green Pages and other merchandise be sent?
BALLOT ACCESS COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The Ballot Access Committee (BAC) exists to promote Green Party organizations' and candidates' efforts to attain petition signature goals, reduce excessive petition signature requirements, help state parties attain and retain ballot access where possible, and promote fair ballot access laws.
Who in your state party is the primary contact for questions regarding ballot access?
Does your state party currently have a guaranteed ballot line for 2008? If so, how was the ballot line secured?
If your state party does not have a ballot line for 2008, what will be required to secure this ballot line? Include all known information, including but not limited to: alternative ballot access methods; signature requirements; signature deadlines.
Will your state party be participating in a state-administered primary election in 2008, and if so, on what date?
Often state parties facing high signature requirements look to neighboring states for help collecting signatures. Would your state party be able to recruit volunteers to visit neighboring states to help on signature drives?
COORDINATED CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC) is a standing committee consisting of ten elected members which cooperates with state and local chapters in the support of federal, state, and local Green Party electoral campaigns. See http://www.gp.org/committees/campaign/ for more information on the committee's activities.
One of the CCC's projects is to assist state parties in conducting regional campaign schools where experienced Greens can lead seminars on aspects of running campaigns, recruiting candidates, etc.
Is your state party interested in hosting a regional campaign school?
Does your state party have a campaign committee, candidates committees, or something similar, and if so, who are the contacts and what is the function of the group?
Does your state party actively recruit local candidates?
Does your state party need some help in figuring out how to recruit candidates?
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SUPPORT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) is the committee of GPUS that, among other things, coordinates communication with Green presidential candidates. It also serves as a communications point regarding the presidential campaign for other committees and for state parties and caucuses. Among its other delineated tasks, the PCSC is responsible for some aspects of helping state parties through the preference/nomination process.
In April 2006, the Green National Committee approved by a wide margin a resolution declaring GPUS's intention to "run electoral campaigns full out… including running in all states possible as actively and as eagerly as possible, running on all Green Party ballot lines possible, participating in Green Party primary elections wherever possible, and running for all levels of public office for which the party is able to find credible candidates to run as Greens and sustain Green Party campaigns." Based on this mandate, PCSC is working to assemble the information necessary to follow through on the party's commitment to running a "full out" campaign for President in 2008.
PCSC would like to have a list of Initial Points of Contact (IPCs) in each state - the people within a state party that prospective presidential candidates would first approach with questions about ballot requirements for the state, etc.
Who in your state party will be the Initial Point of Contact?
If your state has a candidates/campaign committee, does its scope include the presidential campaign? Or does your state have a separate group in place to deal specifically with the presidential campaign, and if so, who are the contacts and what is the function of the group?
The PCSC is also compiling information about the primary/preference processes that will be used in each state for the 2008 nomination process. It is understood that some state parties will not have answers for several of these questions at this time, and it is important to know this as well.
What process will your state party use to poll its membership on their preference for a presidential nominee?
What process will your state party use to select its convention delegation?
What process will your state party use for directing its delegation as to how to vote at the national convention?
In 2004 several state parties expressed that they really did not know what sort of process they should be using and as a result several states used somewhat arbitrary processes. In some cases the preference vote took place at a state convention and the processes were not even approved until that state convention, not only giving candidates but even state party members no advance notice as to what methods would be employed. Would your state party like assistance from PCSC in developing the above processes?
In a best-case scenario, what would your start party be able and willing to do to support the presidential ticket?
Based on an evaluation of the current strength and sentiment within your state party, what is your state party likely to be able and willing to do to support the presidential ticket?
What kinds of resources that GPUS might be able to provide would enhance the ability of your state party to support the presidential ticket?
Are there any specific factors unique to your state or state party that PCSC should be aware of? Examples might include: availability of ballot line fusion, internal state party rules governing disposition of ballot lines, highly unusual statutory procedures and/or paperwork requirements relative to ballot lines, etc.
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai'i
Indiana
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Washington
What is the purpose of this questionaire? Should it matter to you if your state is not represented in the survey results? Take a look behind the "Read more!" link and you'll see the full questionaire. Why not answer it yourself and send the answers to your state delegation if no one from your state has done so yet? If they don't pass the answers along, maybe you'll kick start them into action. If not, send ytour answers to Phil, and maybe they can still use the info. Again, for the text of the questionaire, click the "Read more!" link...
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STATE GREEN PARTIES
This questionnaire has been prepared based on the input of three standing committees Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC), Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC), and Ballot Access Committee (BAC) and GPUS staff. Our intention is to use the information gathered in this questionnaire to update party records and to provide the basis for much of our campaign work through the 2008 election cycle.
IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that state parties return this questionnaire as soon as is feasible, and as thoroughly as is possible. It is understood that it may require the input of several people to answer all of the questions, and so we understand that it may take some time to get all of the questionnaires back. Still, we must ask that the state parties please make a top priority of returning this questionnaire.
Members of the PCSC are intending to follow up with state parties shortly after the
questionnaire is circulated by email.
Initially this questionnaire will be sent on the National Committee list to the delegates from the various states. In some cases, the delegates may be able to handle the questionnaire themselves. In other cases, it will be officers of the state party; and in some cases, it will require a group of people working together. Delegates, we ask that you please forward this message immediately upon receipt to any relevant individuals or groups within your state party.
As you will see from the questions asked, this information will largely provide the basis for much of our electoral work in 2007, especially regarding ballot access and aspects of early presidential campaign support. There is a common belief that one of the biggest failings from the 2004 election cycle was the lack of information about state party processes and the lack of communication between state parties and GPUS. We believe that this questionnaire will go a long way to opening those lanes of communication.
GENERAL REMARKS ON FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Some of the questions may not seem relevant to your state party, or may seem like commonly known information. Please consider the questionnaire as serving the purpose not only of informing our electoral committees and staff today, but also as providing vitally necessary institutional memory into the future, and answer all questions that can be answered. If a question does not at all apply to your state party, please specify as much.
For each question asking for a name of a person, please include appropriate contact information especially email and phone so we can have an up to date contact list available.
For ease of reading, we ask that you either copy and paste the text of the questionnaire into a separate file and then copy and paste back into a fresh email, or attach a clean file to an email, rather than hitting reply and leaving in reply marks. The questionnaire is available in both .txt and .rtf format upon request from Phil Huckelberry (phil@mcgreens.org).
PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, by emailing your completed questionnaire, either in the body of a message or as an attachment, to all four of the following individuals:
Emily Citkowski (emily@gp.org) GPUS Operations Director
Brent McMillan (brent@gp.org) GPUS Political Director
Greg Gerritt (gerritt@mindspring.com) Co-Chair, CCC
Phil Huckelberry (phil@mcgreens.org) Co-Chair, PCSC & BAC
If at any time you have any questions or need any clarification, please contact Phil Huckelberry.
OFFICE QUESTIONS
What is the formal name of your state party? (e.g. Green Party of California, Illinois Green Party, etc.)
What is the formal contact address and phone number for your state party; is the phone number a party office, a voicemail line, or a private phone belonging to a member of the party; and, if not a PO Box, is the contact address a party office or a home address for a member of the party?
What is the best way to route phone calls for general inquiries and volunteers to your state?
What is the URL of your state party's website, and what is the contact email address for general questions?
Does your state party maintain a list of local contacts online?
Does your party have compensated staff and/or contractors; and, if so, who are they and what are their titles?
Who are the officers of your state party, potentially including, but not limited to, co-chairs, secretary, treasurer?
Besides staff, contractors, and officers, most state parties have key people in roles such as media coordinator, fundraising coordinator, membership coordinator, outreach coordinator, webmaster, and potentially several others. Who are your other key people in such roles and what are their titles?
Who are the current members of your state party's delegation to the Green National Committee (including alternates)?
To whom in your state party should questions be directed regarding the status of members of your state's GNC delegation and representatives from your state to various GPUS committees?
To whom in your state party should volunteer information be sent?
To whom in your state party should Green Party Card information be sent?
To whom in your state party should donation sharing information be sent?
To where should state sharing checks be sent?
Does your state party have a standing order for Green Pages?
To where should Green Pages bundles be sent?
To where should invoices for Green Pages and other merchandise be sent?
BALLOT ACCESS COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The Ballot Access Committee (BAC) exists to promote Green Party organizations' and candidates' efforts to attain petition signature goals, reduce excessive petition signature requirements, help state parties attain and retain ballot access where possible, and promote fair ballot access laws.
Who in your state party is the primary contact for questions regarding ballot access?
Does your state party currently have a guaranteed ballot line for 2008? If so, how was the ballot line secured?
If your state party does not have a ballot line for 2008, what will be required to secure this ballot line? Include all known information, including but not limited to: alternative ballot access methods; signature requirements; signature deadlines.
Will your state party be participating in a state-administered primary election in 2008, and if so, on what date?
Often state parties facing high signature requirements look to neighboring states for help collecting signatures. Would your state party be able to recruit volunteers to visit neighboring states to help on signature drives?
COORDINATED CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC) is a standing committee consisting of ten elected members which cooperates with state and local chapters in the support of federal, state, and local Green Party electoral campaigns. See http://www.gp.org/committees/campaign/ for more information on the committee's activities.
One of the CCC's projects is to assist state parties in conducting regional campaign schools where experienced Greens can lead seminars on aspects of running campaigns, recruiting candidates, etc.
Is your state party interested in hosting a regional campaign school?
Does your state party have a campaign committee, candidates committees, or something similar, and if so, who are the contacts and what is the function of the group?
Does your state party actively recruit local candidates?
Does your state party need some help in figuring out how to recruit candidates?
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SUPPORT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) is the committee of GPUS that, among other things, coordinates communication with Green presidential candidates. It also serves as a communications point regarding the presidential campaign for other committees and for state parties and caucuses. Among its other delineated tasks, the PCSC is responsible for some aspects of helping state parties through the preference/nomination process.
In April 2006, the Green National Committee approved by a wide margin a resolution declaring GPUS's intention to "run electoral campaigns full out… including running in all states possible as actively and as eagerly as possible, running on all Green Party ballot lines possible, participating in Green Party primary elections wherever possible, and running for all levels of public office for which the party is able to find credible candidates to run as Greens and sustain Green Party campaigns." Based on this mandate, PCSC is working to assemble the information necessary to follow through on the party's commitment to running a "full out" campaign for President in 2008.
PCSC would like to have a list of Initial Points of Contact (IPCs) in each state - the people within a state party that prospective presidential candidates would first approach with questions about ballot requirements for the state, etc.
Who in your state party will be the Initial Point of Contact?
If your state has a candidates/campaign committee, does its scope include the presidential campaign? Or does your state have a separate group in place to deal specifically with the presidential campaign, and if so, who are the contacts and what is the function of the group?
The PCSC is also compiling information about the primary/preference processes that will be used in each state for the 2008 nomination process. It is understood that some state parties will not have answers for several of these questions at this time, and it is important to know this as well.
What process will your state party use to poll its membership on their preference for a presidential nominee?
What process will your state party use to select its convention delegation?
What process will your state party use for directing its delegation as to how to vote at the national convention?
In 2004 several state parties expressed that they really did not know what sort of process they should be using and as a result several states used somewhat arbitrary processes. In some cases the preference vote took place at a state convention and the processes were not even approved until that state convention, not only giving candidates but even state party members no advance notice as to what methods would be employed. Would your state party like assistance from PCSC in developing the above processes?
In a best-case scenario, what would your start party be able and willing to do to support the presidential ticket?
Based on an evaluation of the current strength and sentiment within your state party, what is your state party likely to be able and willing to do to support the presidential ticket?
What kinds of resources that GPUS might be able to provide would enhance the ability of your state party to support the presidential ticket?
Are there any specific factors unique to your state or state party that PCSC should be aware of? Examples might include: availability of ballot line fusion, internal state party rules governing disposition of ballot lines, highly unusual statutory procedures and/or paperwork requirements relative to ballot lines, etc.
Look for yourself
Dave, a delegate from PA, suggested that GNC members who are concerned about corporate donations actually look at the meeting website themselves. I think that's a good idae, so if you want to see the page yourself, just click here.
By the way, if you plan to attend the meeting this year, why not go ahead and register now at this secure site.
The specific "offending" text is at the bottom of this page.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this page, but this does seem like much ado about nothing. Am I wrong? Is it not appropriate to encourage community based businesses? Are we limited to community based economics that are non-profit?
By the way, if you plan to attend the meeting this year, why not go ahead and register now at this secure site.
The specific "offending" text is at the bottom of this page.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this page, but this does seem like much ado about nothing. Am I wrong? Is it not appropriate to encourage community based businesses? Are we limited to community based economics that are non-profit?
Focus
Some delegates to the Green National Committee are asking questions about whether the Green Party should accept legal corporate donations or not. Some are questioning if a 5 pack of greeting cards made of re-cycled material given to the delegates at our national meeting, a free 15 minute massage, or a free tour of local Underground Railroad sights offered by a PA delegate represents a potential downfall of all things Green.
Some are asking questions about how delegates to both the Green National Committee and the Nominating Convention are chosen. Because of what some see as an illegitimate exercise of control over the last Green National Nominating Convention, there has been a call both to change the way the size of delegations is determined, and to establish both a uniform way to assess success in each community of Greens for the various candidates, and to establish specific rules to assure that the will of the voters is represented in the outcome at the nominating convention.
I think the basic point is, most Greens not deeply involved in the maintenance of the party wanted Nader to represent the party. Many of them voted for Camejo to send a message of support to Nader, and to direct the Green Party to facilitate a reconciliation with Nader. There were some of us, myself included, who wanted Nader as ours because we believed that he represented the best tool to grow my local Green Party. Mine was a distinct minority position in my state, and continues to be.
Because Utah and Vermont (I think) chose to leave Cobb off their state ballot, the question of "party discipline" came up. Because CA has apparently never signed an agreement to put the party's nominee on their ballot line, there was the risk that Cobb would not appear there either.
Now there are these streams going on in the Green National Committee, and lots of other, perhaps more meaningful, issues are to be addressed.
One thing that saddens me is what I read a delegate discussing the Presidential race or convention, or seeking other "high offices" as being the most important thing to do right now, I just shake my head and wonder what planet these people are on.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
Some are asking questions about how delegates to both the Green National Committee and the Nominating Convention are chosen. Because of what some see as an illegitimate exercise of control over the last Green National Nominating Convention, there has been a call both to change the way the size of delegations is determined, and to establish both a uniform way to assess success in each community of Greens for the various candidates, and to establish specific rules to assure that the will of the voters is represented in the outcome at the nominating convention.
I think the basic point is, most Greens not deeply involved in the maintenance of the party wanted Nader to represent the party. Many of them voted for Camejo to send a message of support to Nader, and to direct the Green Party to facilitate a reconciliation with Nader. There were some of us, myself included, who wanted Nader as ours because we believed that he represented the best tool to grow my local Green Party. Mine was a distinct minority position in my state, and continues to be.
Because Utah and Vermont (I think) chose to leave Cobb off their state ballot, the question of "party discipline" came up. Because CA has apparently never signed an agreement to put the party's nominee on their ballot line, there was the risk that Cobb would not appear there either.
Now there are these streams going on in the Green National Committee, and lots of other, perhaps more meaningful, issues are to be addressed.
One thing that saddens me is what I read a delegate discussing the Presidential race or convention, or seeking other "high offices" as being the most important thing to do right now, I just shake my head and wonder what planet these people are on.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Proposal 259 headed for passage
Proposal 259, which would authorize the national party to continue operation in the absence of an approved budget, is going to pass without objection it seems. This proposal currently has 68 votes cast by representatives of 36 committees or caucuses. The quorum requirement has been met with 36 of the of the 47 units voting, and the actual vote is 65 in favor, three abstentions. To see how (or if) your delegates voted, just visit this page
Should the Green Party accept corporate donations?
A delegate from the Green Party in California says in a note to the Green National Committee
Is the delegate right? Has the time come for the USGP to accept help from like-minded corporations, or should we refuse to accept legal corporate donations? What about other organizations? Should a partnership be allowed to give, like a law firm or a small local business? How about a company owned by one person but employing many others? What about unions, coalitions, non-profits or foundations?
I think it's time to revisit and redefine this issue. We want to welcome coalitions and those who can help us with inkind donations - the caveat behind corporate donations at the majors is INFLUENCE.
If companies already have policies and intentions close to the GP, then I believe we should accept their help.
also considering our financial situation, and the realities of a REAL national political party, I think this issue and policy needs revamping. We cannot be simply grassroots, if we're to be recognized on the national stage.
Is the delegate right? Has the time come for the USGP to accept help from like-minded corporations, or should we refuse to accept legal corporate donations? What about other organizations? Should a partnership be allowed to give, like a law firm or a small local business? How about a company owned by one person but employing many others? What about unions, coalitions, non-profits or foundations?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Party's Committees
What I plan to do in this post is supply you with information about each of the party's committees. I will cover their status, that is, are they an ad-hoc but authorized committee, a properly constituted permanent committee, or a committee of dubious birth of either variety? What are their goals and responsibilities? Do they have working Policies and Procedures, and if not, why not? How many members does each have? Are they reaching their goals? Is the committee needed and effective?
I'll link all over the place of course, but much of this is just my opinion. Look the stuff over yourself and see if you don't agree with my perceptions. All the committee reviews are waiting behind the "Read more!" link...
First up is the Delegate Allocation Committee. The listed co-chairs are Cat Woods of CA and Greg Gerrit of RI. The page lists no members, and indeed, Garrett has reported to the Green National Committee that the entire committee membership, including co-chairs, has resigned. The committee is an ad-hoc committee, not a permanent committee. The proposal that grew from their efforts, Proposal 256 , was unable to secure the 2/3 majority it needed to pass. The report to the GNC from the DAC is right here The members of the DAC were elected in accordance with Proposal 208 The results are right here. The committee itself was properly constituted following the adoption of Proposal 175 The results of that vote is right here A proposal to clarify terminology and mission of the DAC was presented by the Green Party of Florida, but for some reason nothing else happened there. Here's a a link to the proposal The PDF with results of their questionnaire are available here and the PDF of the actual DAC Proposal is hiding behind this link. The committee does not seem to have any Policies and Procedures in place. The committee page says
That is the report on but one committee, and as you can see, it takes some time to run all this stuff down, but I believe the national party needs to shake hard like a wet dog and shake off the old people and ways of thinking and acting which have led to unhappy outcomes of late for the party. We have a glorious future if old fuddy duddies like me will just get out of the way and let a new wind lift our sails. Check back later for more on the rest of the committees.
The second committee I will cover is the Presidential Campaign Support Committee Chaired by Phil Huckleberry of IL, the PCSC lists no members They list a state questionnaire at the site, and the Policies and Procedures of the committee make up the bulk of the text at the site, but I am not sure, for the page labeled Documents and Procedures" is as blank as the list of committee members.
The PCSC's Mission and Objectives were passed by the GNC in adopting Proposal 215 The committee was properly constituted by the adoption of Proposal 63 That proposal was adopted in 2003.
I am not convinced that this committee serves a vital function.
The Platform Committee is chaired by Howard Switzer of TN and Jenefer Ellingston of of DC. The 2000 and 2004 platforms are at the committee's site, as are their Policies and Procedures, one of few who have them posted to their page. They also link to a page with a variety of reports on their work over the years.
Proposal 196 updated the rules of the committee when it was passed about a year ago I can find no record of the committee being properly constituted. The online record only goes back to October 28th of 2001.
While I am not interested in spending my time on platform issues, I understand that it's vital stuff for some. Based on that, and the fact that the committee appears to function, the committee is OK by me. I do think they should publish a list of all members, but apparently no committees do that, not even the Green National Committee, the Grand Pooh-Bah of Committees.
Now comes the Peace Action Committee Chaired by Ann Wilcox of DC and Aimee Smith of MI, the committee maintains two listserves, which you must be approved for by your state party. One, the Organizing List, is for committee work, and the other is for for discussions. The Peace Action Committee, unique amongst committees as far as I know, is allowed to raise their own donations Their website contains a number of a number of fliers and photos as well as organizing tools and a petition to Impeach Bush
The committee site has no Policies and Procedures in place. The Peace Action Committee was illegitimately created by passage of Proposal 238 I say illegitimate because the Peace Action Committee proposed it's own creation in direct contradiction to USGP rules which demand that all proposals must come from a state, caucus or standing committee.
I see the Peace Action Committee as an Uber-Committee with special rights not allowed other committees, like the right to raise funds separately from the rest of the party. Allowing the committee to endorse peace actions without the GNC approving has left us with a Peace Action committee endorsement of an event no Green was allowed to address and that the national party had not endorsed. This committee is unneeded as a committee within the party structure and should be reconstituted as "Greens for Peace" or even GPAX, but as a separate unit, just as GDI or Green Institute are.
The Outreach Committee is chaired by Becky Weber of DC and Richard Scott of AZ. Their site, still being created, includes several banner ads for Green blogs like mine, and a couple of PDF files for fliers, including one in Spanish, which you can download and print off at home. the committee does have a set of Policies and Procedures on the site, and the committee was properly constituted following the adoption of Proposal 248 The vote wasn't even close
While I am inclined to have both the Merchandise and Outreach Committees as sub-committees of Fundraising, I know that outreach is vital no matter how it happens. We must grow, and soon.
Speaking of merchandising, that committee webpage lists LaVerne Butler of DC and Jon Olsen of ME as chairs. The committee site includes the online application to use the Green Party Logo, a stupid idea if there ever was one, and information on bulk pricing. Surprisingly, there are no links to the adverts for the merchandise, like coffee, CDs or apparel. That said, the info is at the gp.org site, and the committee's page does have the committee's by-laws and their committee minutes No Policies and Procedures as such, but pretty close.
The Merchandise Committee was properly constituted as a result of the passage of Proposal 241 which passed almost unanimously, 66 to 0 with 2 abstentions. As with Outreach, I'd prefer a tighter committee structure, with Merchandise as a sub-committee of fundraising, but I am thrilled that merchandise is available from the national party. This should be a primary source of income for the party in my mind.
Well, my mind is a bit frazzled at the moment. Here is a list of committees yet to be covered.
Media Committee
International Committee
Green Pages Board
Fundraising
Finance
Eco-Action
Diversity
Dispute Resolution
Credentials
Coordinated Campaign Committee
Communications
By-laws, Rules, Policies and Procedures
Ballot Access
Annual National Meeting Committee
Accreditation
Steering Committee
and of course, the Green National Committee As you can see, finishing this out will take some time, but if it helps us get a grasp on what is working and what is not, it's well worth the time.
I'll link all over the place of course, but much of this is just my opinion. Look the stuff over yourself and see if you don't agree with my perceptions. All the committee reviews are waiting behind the "Read more!" link...
First up is the Delegate Allocation Committee. The listed co-chairs are Cat Woods of CA and Greg Gerrit of RI. The page lists no members, and indeed, Garrett has reported to the Green National Committee that the entire committee membership, including co-chairs, has resigned. The committee is an ad-hoc committee, not a permanent committee. The proposal that grew from their efforts, Proposal 256 , was unable to secure the 2/3 majority it needed to pass. The report to the GNC from the DAC is right here The members of the DAC were elected in accordance with Proposal 208 The results are right here. The committee itself was properly constituted following the adoption of Proposal 175 The results of that vote is right here A proposal to clarify terminology and mission of the DAC was presented by the Green Party of Florida, but for some reason nothing else happened there. Here's a a link to the proposal The PDF with results of their questionnaire are available here and the PDF of the actual DAC Proposal is hiding behind this link. The committee does not seem to have any Policies and Procedures in place. The committee page says
Committee Missionbut some members of the GNC want to re-constitute the DAC with new elections and give them six more months to develop a new delegate allocation proposal. I don't know for certain, but I believe the proposal voted on did not address the allocation of delegates to the next nominating convention. The work this committee is charged with doing must be done. We will need not only to address the question of delegate allocation to the GNC, but also to the annual national meeting and nominating conventions. This work should be done by a standing committee, perhaps the By-laws, Rules, Policies and Procedure committee or, in the question of the annual meetings and nominating conventions, the Credentials Committee. Fewer committees accomplishing more tasks is the route we should be on.
The Delegate Apportionment Committee is elected to devise a new apportionment formula for state party delegates to the GPUS national committee and the Green party national presidential nominating convention. It will cease to operate when it has finished its work.
That is the report on but one committee, and as you can see, it takes some time to run all this stuff down, but I believe the national party needs to shake hard like a wet dog and shake off the old people and ways of thinking and acting which have led to unhappy outcomes of late for the party. We have a glorious future if old fuddy duddies like me will just get out of the way and let a new wind lift our sails. Check back later for more on the rest of the committees.
The second committee I will cover is the Presidential Campaign Support Committee Chaired by Phil Huckleberry of IL, the PCSC lists no members They list a state questionnaire at the site, and the Policies and Procedures of the committee make up the bulk of the text at the site, but I am not sure, for the page labeled Documents and Procedures" is as blank as the list of committee members.
The PCSC's Mission and Objectives were passed by the GNC in adopting Proposal 215 The committee was properly constituted by the adoption of Proposal 63 That proposal was adopted in 2003.
I am not convinced that this committee serves a vital function.
The Platform Committee is chaired by Howard Switzer of TN and Jenefer Ellingston of of DC. The 2000 and 2004 platforms are at the committee's site, as are their Policies and Procedures, one of few who have them posted to their page. They also link to a page with a variety of reports on their work over the years.
Proposal 196 updated the rules of the committee when it was passed about a year ago I can find no record of the committee being properly constituted. The online record only goes back to October 28th of 2001.
While I am not interested in spending my time on platform issues, I understand that it's vital stuff for some. Based on that, and the fact that the committee appears to function, the committee is OK by me. I do think they should publish a list of all members, but apparently no committees do that, not even the Green National Committee, the Grand Pooh-Bah of Committees.
Now comes the Peace Action Committee Chaired by Ann Wilcox of DC and Aimee Smith of MI, the committee maintains two listserves, which you must be approved for by your state party. One, the Organizing List, is for committee work, and the other is for for discussions. The Peace Action Committee, unique amongst committees as far as I know, is allowed to raise their own donations Their website contains a number of a number of fliers and photos as well as organizing tools and a petition to Impeach Bush
The committee site has no Policies and Procedures in place. The Peace Action Committee was illegitimately created by passage of Proposal 238 I say illegitimate because the Peace Action Committee proposed it's own creation in direct contradiction to USGP rules which demand that all proposals must come from a state, caucus or standing committee.
I see the Peace Action Committee as an Uber-Committee with special rights not allowed other committees, like the right to raise funds separately from the rest of the party. Allowing the committee to endorse peace actions without the GNC approving has left us with a Peace Action committee endorsement of an event no Green was allowed to address and that the national party had not endorsed. This committee is unneeded as a committee within the party structure and should be reconstituted as "Greens for Peace" or even GPAX, but as a separate unit, just as GDI or Green Institute are.
The Outreach Committee is chaired by Becky Weber of DC and Richard Scott of AZ. Their site, still being created, includes several banner ads for Green blogs like mine, and a couple of PDF files for fliers, including one in Spanish, which you can download and print off at home. the committee does have a set of Policies and Procedures on the site, and the committee was properly constituted following the adoption of Proposal 248 The vote wasn't even close
While I am inclined to have both the Merchandise and Outreach Committees as sub-committees of Fundraising, I know that outreach is vital no matter how it happens. We must grow, and soon.
Speaking of merchandising, that committee webpage lists LaVerne Butler of DC and Jon Olsen of ME as chairs. The committee site includes the online application to use the Green Party Logo, a stupid idea if there ever was one, and information on bulk pricing. Surprisingly, there are no links to the adverts for the merchandise, like coffee, CDs or apparel. That said, the info is at the gp.org site, and the committee's page does have the committee's by-laws and their committee minutes No Policies and Procedures as such, but pretty close.
The Merchandise Committee was properly constituted as a result of the passage of Proposal 241 which passed almost unanimously, 66 to 0 with 2 abstentions. As with Outreach, I'd prefer a tighter committee structure, with Merchandise as a sub-committee of fundraising, but I am thrilled that merchandise is available from the national party. This should be a primary source of income for the party in my mind.
Well, my mind is a bit frazzled at the moment. Here is a list of committees yet to be covered.
Media Committee
International Committee
Green Pages Board
Fundraising
Finance
Eco-Action
Diversity
Dispute Resolution
Credentials
Coordinated Campaign Committee
Communications
By-laws, Rules, Policies and Procedures
Ballot Access
Annual National Meeting Committee
Accreditation
Steering Committee
and of course, the Green National Committee As you can see, finishing this out will take some time, but if it helps us get a grasp on what is working and what is not, it's well worth the time.
Delegation size
The entire Green National Committee has been involved in a discussion of what formula would best represent the membership of the Green Party.
What does seem to be, at least in part, at the core of the debate is the question of how David Cobb secured the nomination in 2004. I wrote here when the Delegate Allocation Committee began it's work that the time had arrived for those who want to control the outcome of the nominating convention to get themselves involved. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that David Cobb had more supporters in positions of authority inside the Green Party, including on delegate allocation, accreditation and other procedural committees than those who supported Ralph Nader.
It is equally clear that Ralph Nader was not going to seek our nomination, and that alone rendered his campaign moot for many state Green Parties. The fact that Peter Camejo, serving as stand-in for Nader, won a huge majority of the California primary vote was in essence ignored by the party, and the votes of California Greens was thereby diminished.
I agree with that assessment, but think we must also consider the reverse. What if Camejo had won the party nomination exclusively because of the results of the California primary and votes he secured in primaries or conventions in other states? If he had won the nomination, and then refused to use the ballot to campaign, choosing to be Nader's #2 instead, what would that have done to the party? Does it make sense to put the destiny of the party's Presidential campaign in the hands of a person not clearly committed to running a Green Party campaign. I can assure you that it would generate some anger here in South Carolina.
So, what I have done is take the number 100 out of thin air. That is the number of delegates I propose we use. Based on that figure, and the proposal that every affiliated state is represented, how would you balance the delegate count? To see my delegate count, look behind the "Read more! link, and hey, why not share your own delegate mix that you think would be fair?
AL - Currently 2 Change to 1
AK - Currently 2 Charge to 1
AZ - Currently 2 Change to 1
AR - Currently 2 Change to 1
BC - Currently 1 Change to 0
CA - Currently 13 Change to 16
CO - Currently 2 Leave at 2
CT - Currently 2 Change to 1
DE - Currently 2 Change to 1
DC - Currently 2 Change to 3
FL - Currently 6 Change to 4
GA - Currently 2 Change to 1
HI - Currently 2 Change to 1
ID - Currently 2 Change to 1
IL - Currently 6 Change to 5
IN - Currently 2 Change to 1
IA - Currently 2 Change to 1
KS - Currently 2 Change to 1
LC - Currently 1 Change to 0
LA - Currently 2 Change to 1
ME - Currently 2 Change to 3
MD - Currently 2 Change to 1
MA - Currently 3 Change to 2
MI - Currently 4 Leave at 4
MN - Currently 2 Change to 3
MS - Currently 2 Change to 1
MO - Currently 2 Change to 1
NE - Currently 2 Change to 1
NV - Currently 2 Change to 1
NJ - Currently 3 Change to 2
NM - Currently 2 Change to 1
NY - Currently 7 Change to 9
NC - Currently 3 Change to 1
OH - Currently 4 Change to 2
OK - Currently 2 Change to 1
OR - Currently 2 Leave at 2
PA - Currently 5 Change to 4
RI - Currently 2 Change to 1
SC - Currently 2 Change to 1
TN - Currently 2 Change to 1
TX - Currently 8 Change to 5
UT - Currently 2 Change to 1
VT - Currently 2 Change to 1
VA - Currently 3 Change to 2
WA - Currently 2 Leave at 2
WI - Currently 2 Change to 3
WC - Currently 1 Change to 0
WY - Currently 2 Change to 1
Total - 100 delegates
What does seem to be, at least in part, at the core of the debate is the question of how David Cobb secured the nomination in 2004. I wrote here when the Delegate Allocation Committee began it's work that the time had arrived for those who want to control the outcome of the nominating convention to get themselves involved. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that David Cobb had more supporters in positions of authority inside the Green Party, including on delegate allocation, accreditation and other procedural committees than those who supported Ralph Nader.
It is equally clear that Ralph Nader was not going to seek our nomination, and that alone rendered his campaign moot for many state Green Parties. The fact that Peter Camejo, serving as stand-in for Nader, won a huge majority of the California primary vote was in essence ignored by the party, and the votes of California Greens was thereby diminished.
I agree with that assessment, but think we must also consider the reverse. What if Camejo had won the party nomination exclusively because of the results of the California primary and votes he secured in primaries or conventions in other states? If he had won the nomination, and then refused to use the ballot to campaign, choosing to be Nader's #2 instead, what would that have done to the party? Does it make sense to put the destiny of the party's Presidential campaign in the hands of a person not clearly committed to running a Green Party campaign. I can assure you that it would generate some anger here in South Carolina.
So, what I have done is take the number 100 out of thin air. That is the number of delegates I propose we use. Based on that figure, and the proposal that every affiliated state is represented, how would you balance the delegate count? To see my delegate count, look behind the "Read more! link, and hey, why not share your own delegate mix that you think would be fair?
AL - Currently 2 Change to 1
AK - Currently 2 Charge to 1
AZ - Currently 2 Change to 1
AR - Currently 2 Change to 1
BC - Currently 1 Change to 0
CA - Currently 13 Change to 16
CO - Currently 2 Leave at 2
CT - Currently 2 Change to 1
DE - Currently 2 Change to 1
DC - Currently 2 Change to 3
FL - Currently 6 Change to 4
GA - Currently 2 Change to 1
HI - Currently 2 Change to 1
ID - Currently 2 Change to 1
IL - Currently 6 Change to 5
IN - Currently 2 Change to 1
IA - Currently 2 Change to 1
KS - Currently 2 Change to 1
LC - Currently 1 Change to 0
LA - Currently 2 Change to 1
ME - Currently 2 Change to 3
MD - Currently 2 Change to 1
MA - Currently 3 Change to 2
MI - Currently 4 Leave at 4
MN - Currently 2 Change to 3
MS - Currently 2 Change to 1
MO - Currently 2 Change to 1
NE - Currently 2 Change to 1
NV - Currently 2 Change to 1
NJ - Currently 3 Change to 2
NM - Currently 2 Change to 1
NY - Currently 7 Change to 9
NC - Currently 3 Change to 1
OH - Currently 4 Change to 2
OK - Currently 2 Change to 1
OR - Currently 2 Leave at 2
PA - Currently 5 Change to 4
RI - Currently 2 Change to 1
SC - Currently 2 Change to 1
TN - Currently 2 Change to 1
TX - Currently 8 Change to 5
UT - Currently 2 Change to 1
VT - Currently 2 Change to 1
VA - Currently 3 Change to 2
WA - Currently 2 Leave at 2
WI - Currently 2 Change to 3
WC - Currently 1 Change to 0
WY - Currently 2 Change to 1
Total - 100 delegates
National Committee needs a kick in the pants
The Green National Committee (GNC) has failed to pass a budget twice. I will not suggest that this was the right or wrong decision.
Now the Steering Committee has placed a proposal from the Steering Committee before the GNC which is best described as a temporary fix which will allow the national party to pay our debts and honor our contracts. The proposal is here.
Voting on this proposal ends in three days, and thus far only 21 votes from 15 states have been cast. With a 2/3 majority of the states casting a vote required, the GNC is many states short of a quorum.
Please contact your state's delegates and ask them to vote on this proposal today.
Now the Steering Committee has placed a proposal from the Steering Committee before the GNC which is best described as a temporary fix which will allow the national party to pay our debts and honor our contracts. The proposal is here.
Voting on this proposal ends in three days, and thus far only 21 votes from 15 states have been cast. With a 2/3 majority of the states casting a vote required, the GNC is many states short of a quorum.
Please contact your state's delegates and ask them to vote on this proposal today.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
2006 State of the Union addresses
This link will take you to a page at gp.org with a video clip of Byron DeLear of California discussing Iraq War and Impeachment.
Health Care is addressed by Marakay Rogers of PA.
Energy and Global Warming is the topic of the presentation by Rich Whitney of IL
Democracy and Local Issues is taken on by Renée Bowser of Washington DC.
Finally, Rebecca Rotzler of New York gives an overview of the Green Party. To go see it, you'll want to click here
All of these videos will load at once if you have cable internet.
Thanks to Lisa in LA for the links over at Green Commons
Health Care is addressed by Marakay Rogers of PA.
Energy and Global Warming is the topic of the presentation by Rich Whitney of IL
Democracy and Local Issues is taken on by Renée Bowser of Washington DC.
Finally, Rebecca Rotzler of New York gives an overview of the Green Party. To go see it, you'll want to click here
All of these videos will load at once if you have cable internet.
Thanks to Lisa in LA for the links over at Green Commons
Report on ongoing peace vigils in Rock Hill, SC
The York County (SC) Greens continues to sponsor anti-war vigils each week at the corner of Eden Terrace and Oakland Avenue in Rock Hill, SC. Held from Noon to 1 PM, the vigil last Saturday drew 11 people into the chilly breeze to call for peace.
We got a visit from one of Winthrop's finest, and I think we were able to reach an understanding. Most were returning vigilers, but three were new. One was a high school student from Northwestern. One was a student from Winthrop University, and one was a local Green who has not been free until now to attend.
She, Liz Anderson, wrote a letter to the editor, which ran in today's paper, encouraging the public to join us. Our protests have been the subject of several letters to the editor, and so far not one reporter has shown up to cover us.
We got a visit from one of Winthrop's finest, and I think we were able to reach an understanding. Most were returning vigilers, but three were new. One was a high school student from Northwestern. One was a student from Winthrop University, and one was a local Green who has not been free until now to attend.
She, Liz Anderson, wrote a letter to the editor, which ran in today's paper, encouraging the public to join us. Our protests have been the subject of several letters to the editor, and so far not one reporter has shown up to cover us.
Green Party response to the State of the Union Address
Blind Faith of the Democrats
Nan Garrett of Georgia
Change the State of the Union--become a candidate
John Eder of Maine
Why are Bush and Cheney still in office?
Rebbecca Rotzler of New York.
Green National Committee news
4 of the last 5 proposals voted on by the Green National Committee failed. The one that did pass almost didn't get the needed quorum, and was a vote on where to hold the next annual meeting.
I am pleased to say that the current proposal undergoing a vote seems likely to pass. That proposal, proposal 259, would allow the national office to stay in business while the GNC passes another budget. So far, 15 votes have been cast by 12 states. 2/3 of the states must vote or this proposal will also die for lack of a quorum.
There is something fundamentally broken about the GNC, and I don't know who can fix it. The fact that proposals keep getting turned down doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the flip, cruel, racist and most importantly, needlessly argumentative way many delegates "debate" on the list. I am an abrasive son of a bitch, and don't hold back much, but even I feel that these folks are over the top sometimes.
The tough part is, if a state wants to put out a delegate who is abrasive, inclined to anger, unbending and unable to listen with any respect to divergent views, well, isn't that their right? And sometimes, people who otherwise seem like normal folks, will suddenly lash out at another delegate with whom they have broad agreement. This happened to me a few times. If a state wants to send someone like that to the GNC as a delegate, what can we do?
I wonder if we need both a USGP and an Association of State Green Parties, the earlier iteration of the national Green Party.
The process of chosing the size of state delegations is still under discussion by the GNC. There is talk of re-submitting the last delegate allocation committee proposal minus the proxy provisions, but there is no reason to believe that this would pass.
One thing I am seriously wondering about is this. If we currently have a total of 145 seats in the GNC, and only 110 votes were cast, why is the GNC even considering expanding the size of the GNC? I understand why we need to adjust the current delegate allocation. But, why are they considering increasing the size of the GNC?
If we instead went the other direction and made the GNC smaller, we might be able to make progress. I think that this "formula" might work...
Create a written policy on what the GNC is supposed to do, the role of the delegate in the process, and request of each state that they send their most accomplished listeners. Encourage the states to keep their most effective debaters and policy experts for committees other than the GNC or, better yet, for local work.
Lower the minimum delegation size to one. Require gender ballance by rotating between sexes over a cycle, say, every two years one sex is replaced by the other.
If states want "power" in the Green Party I think the rest of us should wonder what the heck is going on to cause these people to believe there is any power in the Green Party. What is it that they really want? With New York off the ballot, how does it benefit the Greens in California for that to remain thus? Likewise Texas, North Carolina, or Georgia. The bottom line is, all states will benefit from a growing Green Party, and the national committee is unable to provide the leadership that will make that happen. Neither is the Steering Committee.
So, with our fundraising not yet meeting our needs, and ballot lines across the nation at risk, and slightly slower growth in various numbers, we must take a moment and re-think what we are doing. If we want something different, we must do something different.
Perhaps we need some sort of term limits for delegates. Perhaps we should require that delegates come from identifyable local chapters of more than four unrelated Greens. Perhaps we need to dismiss a delegate if s/he does not cast a high enough percentage of votes. Perhaps we should link the number of delegates to the number of committee members on other committees.
The point is, this system is not sustainable. What changes would you make if you could wave a magic wand?
I am pleased to say that the current proposal undergoing a vote seems likely to pass. That proposal, proposal 259, would allow the national office to stay in business while the GNC passes another budget. So far, 15 votes have been cast by 12 states. 2/3 of the states must vote or this proposal will also die for lack of a quorum.
There is something fundamentally broken about the GNC, and I don't know who can fix it. The fact that proposals keep getting turned down doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the flip, cruel, racist and most importantly, needlessly argumentative way many delegates "debate" on the list. I am an abrasive son of a bitch, and don't hold back much, but even I feel that these folks are over the top sometimes.
The tough part is, if a state wants to put out a delegate who is abrasive, inclined to anger, unbending and unable to listen with any respect to divergent views, well, isn't that their right? And sometimes, people who otherwise seem like normal folks, will suddenly lash out at another delegate with whom they have broad agreement. This happened to me a few times. If a state wants to send someone like that to the GNC as a delegate, what can we do?
I wonder if we need both a USGP and an Association of State Green Parties, the earlier iteration of the national Green Party.
The process of chosing the size of state delegations is still under discussion by the GNC. There is talk of re-submitting the last delegate allocation committee proposal minus the proxy provisions, but there is no reason to believe that this would pass.
One thing I am seriously wondering about is this. If we currently have a total of 145 seats in the GNC, and only 110 votes were cast, why is the GNC even considering expanding the size of the GNC? I understand why we need to adjust the current delegate allocation. But, why are they considering increasing the size of the GNC?
If we instead went the other direction and made the GNC smaller, we might be able to make progress. I think that this "formula" might work...
Create a written policy on what the GNC is supposed to do, the role of the delegate in the process, and request of each state that they send their most accomplished listeners. Encourage the states to keep their most effective debaters and policy experts for committees other than the GNC or, better yet, for local work.
Lower the minimum delegation size to one. Require gender ballance by rotating between sexes over a cycle, say, every two years one sex is replaced by the other.
If states want "power" in the Green Party I think the rest of us should wonder what the heck is going on to cause these people to believe there is any power in the Green Party. What is it that they really want? With New York off the ballot, how does it benefit the Greens in California for that to remain thus? Likewise Texas, North Carolina, or Georgia. The bottom line is, all states will benefit from a growing Green Party, and the national committee is unable to provide the leadership that will make that happen. Neither is the Steering Committee.
So, with our fundraising not yet meeting our needs, and ballot lines across the nation at risk, and slightly slower growth in various numbers, we must take a moment and re-think what we are doing. If we want something different, we must do something different.
Perhaps we need some sort of term limits for delegates. Perhaps we should require that delegates come from identifyable local chapters of more than four unrelated Greens. Perhaps we need to dismiss a delegate if s/he does not cast a high enough percentage of votes. Perhaps we should link the number of delegates to the number of committee members on other committees.
The point is, this system is not sustainable. What changes would you make if you could wave a magic wand?
Monday, February 12, 2007
Delegate Allocation Committee proposal goes down in defeat
The final vote was 69 "Yes", 38 "No" and 2 "Abstain". Because of the super-majority required the proposal fails. If the abstentions are included in the vote, taking the 69 "yes" votes and dividing them by the total of no and yes votes renders a 63% result. If you deduct the abstentions and recalculate, the result is 64% support, again not enough to pass.
Georgia has offered to present the same proposal, minus the proxy provision, immediately.
The delegate vote, state by state, representative by representative, is hiding behind the "Read more! link below.
Votes Received
Delegation Vote Voter
Alabama No Rob Collins
Arizona No Claudia Ellquist
Arizona No Andrew Spencer
Arkansas Yes Donna Werley
Arkansas Yes Anita Wessling
Black Caucus No Rick Tingling-Clemmons
California Yes Leslie Bonett
California Yes Budd Dickinson
California Yes Marilyn Ditmanson
California Yes Sanda Everette
California Yes Forrest Hill
California Yes Fred Hosea
California Yes Greg Jan
California Yes Susan King
California Yes Jared Laiti
California Yes Steve Loebs
California Yes Kent Mesplay
California Yes David Silva
California Yes Cat Woods
Colorado Yes Dave Chandler
Colorado Yes Bruce Meyer
Connecticut Yes Tim McKee
Connecticut Yes Charlie Pillsbury
Delaware Yes Roger Horowitz
Delaware Yes David McCorquodale
District of Columbia Yes David Bosserman
District of Columbia Yes Jenefer Ellingston
Florida No Julia Aires
Florida Yes Henry Lawrence III
Florida Yes Barbara Rodgers-Hendricks
Florida Yes Sarah echo Steiner
Georgia No Hugh Esco
Georgia No Nannette Garrett
Hawaii Yes Julie Jacobson
Hawaii Yes Claire Mortimer
Idaho Yes Robert McMinn
Illinois Yes Michael Drennan
Illinois Yes Phil Huckelberry
Illinois Yes Dave Sacks
Illinois Abstain Marc Sanson
Illinois Yes Alicia Snyder
Indiana No Sarah Dillon
Indiana No Jeff Sutter
Iowa No Daryl Northrop
Iowa No Larry Orr
Kansas No Paul Krumm
Lavender Caucus Yes David Strand
Louisiana Yes Jason Jones
Maine No Jacqui Deveneau
Maryland Yes Karen Jennings
Maryland Yes Steve Kramer
Massachusetts Yes Jamie McLaughlin
Massachusetts Yes Elie Yarden
Michigan No Linda Manning Myatt
Michigan Yes Louis Novak
Michigan Yes Karen Shelley
Michigan Yes Fred Vitale
Minnesota Yes Eric Makela
Minnesota Yes Bill Oldfather
Missouri No Dee Berry
Missouri No Ben Kjelshus
Nevada Yes Paul Etxeberri
Nevada Yes Paul Steven Juntunen
New Jersey Yes Elizabeth Arnone
New Jersey Yes Mike Spector
New Mexico Yes Francine Cronshaw
New Mexico Yes Mato Ska
New York Yes Howie Hawkins
New York Yes Sally Kim
New York Yes Doug McComb
New York No Jason Nabewaniec
New York Yes Rebecca Rotzler
New York Yes Roger Snyder
New York No J. Rebecca White
North Carolina No Elena Everett
North Carolina No Jan Martell
Ohio Yes Paul Dumochelle
Ohio No Gwen Marshall
Ohio No Logan Martinez
Ohio No Kimberly Wise
Oklahoma No Joni LeViness
Oklahoma Yes Huti Reynolds
Oregon Yes Marnie Glickman
Oregon Yes Paul Loney
Pennsylvania Yes Traci Confer
Pennsylvania Abstain Skip Mendler
Pennsylvania Yes Marakay Rogers
Pennsylvania No Diane White
Rhode Island Yes James DeBoer
Rhode Island Yes Greg Gerritt
Tennessee No John Miglietta
Tennessee No Howard Switzer
Texas No Esther Choi
Texas No Earl Gerhard
Texas No Bill Holloway
Texas No Keith Lyons
Texas No Alfred Molison
Texas No Christine Morshedi
Texas No Douglas Reber
Texas No George Reiter
Vermont Yes Craig Hill
Vermont Yes Bruce Marshall
Virginia No Audrey Clement
Virginia No Christopher Fink
Washington Yes Aram Falsafi
Washington Yes Mike Gillis
Wisconsin Yes Jill Bussiere
Wisconsin Yes Jeff Peterson
Women's Caucus No Julia Willebrand
Georgia has offered to present the same proposal, minus the proxy provision, immediately.
The delegate vote, state by state, representative by representative, is hiding behind the "Read more! link below.
Votes Received
Delegation Vote Voter
Alabama No Rob Collins
Arizona No Claudia Ellquist
Arizona No Andrew Spencer
Arkansas Yes Donna Werley
Arkansas Yes Anita Wessling
Black Caucus No Rick Tingling-Clemmons
California Yes Leslie Bonett
California Yes Budd Dickinson
California Yes Marilyn Ditmanson
California Yes Sanda Everette
California Yes Forrest Hill
California Yes Fred Hosea
California Yes Greg Jan
California Yes Susan King
California Yes Jared Laiti
California Yes Steve Loebs
California Yes Kent Mesplay
California Yes David Silva
California Yes Cat Woods
Colorado Yes Dave Chandler
Colorado Yes Bruce Meyer
Connecticut Yes Tim McKee
Connecticut Yes Charlie Pillsbury
Delaware Yes Roger Horowitz
Delaware Yes David McCorquodale
District of Columbia Yes David Bosserman
District of Columbia Yes Jenefer Ellingston
Florida No Julia Aires
Florida Yes Henry Lawrence III
Florida Yes Barbara Rodgers-Hendricks
Florida Yes Sarah echo Steiner
Georgia No Hugh Esco
Georgia No Nannette Garrett
Hawaii Yes Julie Jacobson
Hawaii Yes Claire Mortimer
Idaho Yes Robert McMinn
Illinois Yes Michael Drennan
Illinois Yes Phil Huckelberry
Illinois Yes Dave Sacks
Illinois Abstain Marc Sanson
Illinois Yes Alicia Snyder
Indiana No Sarah Dillon
Indiana No Jeff Sutter
Iowa No Daryl Northrop
Iowa No Larry Orr
Kansas No Paul Krumm
Lavender Caucus Yes David Strand
Louisiana Yes Jason Jones
Maine No Jacqui Deveneau
Maryland Yes Karen Jennings
Maryland Yes Steve Kramer
Massachusetts Yes Jamie McLaughlin
Massachusetts Yes Elie Yarden
Michigan No Linda Manning Myatt
Michigan Yes Louis Novak
Michigan Yes Karen Shelley
Michigan Yes Fred Vitale
Minnesota Yes Eric Makela
Minnesota Yes Bill Oldfather
Missouri No Dee Berry
Missouri No Ben Kjelshus
Nevada Yes Paul Etxeberri
Nevada Yes Paul Steven Juntunen
New Jersey Yes Elizabeth Arnone
New Jersey Yes Mike Spector
New Mexico Yes Francine Cronshaw
New Mexico Yes Mato Ska
New York Yes Howie Hawkins
New York Yes Sally Kim
New York Yes Doug McComb
New York No Jason Nabewaniec
New York Yes Rebecca Rotzler
New York Yes Roger Snyder
New York No J. Rebecca White
North Carolina No Elena Everett
North Carolina No Jan Martell
Ohio Yes Paul Dumochelle
Ohio No Gwen Marshall
Ohio No Logan Martinez
Ohio No Kimberly Wise
Oklahoma No Joni LeViness
Oklahoma Yes Huti Reynolds
Oregon Yes Marnie Glickman
Oregon Yes Paul Loney
Pennsylvania Yes Traci Confer
Pennsylvania Abstain Skip Mendler
Pennsylvania Yes Marakay Rogers
Pennsylvania No Diane White
Rhode Island Yes James DeBoer
Rhode Island Yes Greg Gerritt
Tennessee No John Miglietta
Tennessee No Howard Switzer
Texas No Esther Choi
Texas No Earl Gerhard
Texas No Bill Holloway
Texas No Keith Lyons
Texas No Alfred Molison
Texas No Christine Morshedi
Texas No Douglas Reber
Texas No George Reiter
Vermont Yes Craig Hill
Vermont Yes Bruce Marshall
Virginia No Audrey Clement
Virginia No Christopher Fink
Washington Yes Aram Falsafi
Washington Yes Mike Gillis
Wisconsin Yes Jill Bussiere
Wisconsin Yes Jeff Peterson
Women's Caucus No Julia Willebrand
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Delegate Allocation Committee proposal heads for defeat
The Green National Committee has been unable to get a lot accomplished of late. Unable to muster a quorum, my offer to serve as a forum manager failed. The last two budgets have failed, and the GNC is now reviewing a proposal from Georgia to extend last year's authorization to bring in income and spend it until a new budget is passed.
Now the GNC is poised to reject the proposed re-writing of the rules used to determine how many representatives each state gets on the GNC. The proposal also allows for the use of proxies for those states who cannot, for various reasons, mostly scheduling of state wide meetings, cannot fill their posts for a while. This part of the proposal is set to "sunset" after a year, meaning that no state would be allowed to continue use of proxies after a year, regardless of how difficult or easy it may be for a given state to fill it's ranks.
The fundamental problem is that the state of California, which has uniformly voted for the proposal, will grow in influence while some other states, perhaps like Texas which has voted uniformly against the proposal, might lose some.
To me, the real "power", if any exists in the Green Party, is inside the working committees of the national Green Party. The Green National Committee does not coordinate gathering signatures to get Greens on the ballot. The GNC does not raise funds, handle the money, decide what merchandise to stock, issue press releases nor recruit candidates. All this is done by working committees, and if a state feels a need to gain more influence over the Green Party, that is the place to exercise the power that comes from productive work.
To be frank, much of what the GNC does falls into the category of either chest thumping, vendetta, or silly stuff no one should waste time on.
Now the GNC is poised to reject the proposed re-writing of the rules used to determine how many representatives each state gets on the GNC. The proposal also allows for the use of proxies for those states who cannot, for various reasons, mostly scheduling of state wide meetings, cannot fill their posts for a while. This part of the proposal is set to "sunset" after a year, meaning that no state would be allowed to continue use of proxies after a year, regardless of how difficult or easy it may be for a given state to fill it's ranks.
The fundamental problem is that the state of California, which has uniformly voted for the proposal, will grow in influence while some other states, perhaps like Texas which has voted uniformly against the proposal, might lose some.
To me, the real "power", if any exists in the Green Party, is inside the working committees of the national Green Party. The Green National Committee does not coordinate gathering signatures to get Greens on the ballot. The GNC does not raise funds, handle the money, decide what merchandise to stock, issue press releases nor recruit candidates. All this is done by working committees, and if a state feels a need to gain more influence over the Green Party, that is the place to exercise the power that comes from productive work.
To be frank, much of what the GNC does falls into the category of either chest thumping, vendetta, or silly stuff no one should waste time on.
Nader on Daily Show
Personally, I want us to run a presidential candidate who can get on TV, and not just C-Span. Here is a link to Ralph Nader on the daily show. You'll have to tolerate the ads to watch the three part video, but it's worth it.
I would prefer to run someone other than Ralph, but somehow I think we would do well to run someone Ralph could support. I am not sure who that might be, but again, for me I think it should be someone who can help us accomplish legitimate goals, and getting on TV to promote the party is a must to me.
I will say this. Even though I assume Ralph is aware of the silly infighting and arguments over issues that only matter to those who are on the Green National Committee, trying to take or protect "power" none of us really has, he said basically good things about the Green Party, supported our positions on issues, and said our name more than once. I appreciate that, and Ralph, very much.
I would prefer to run someone other than Ralph, but somehow I think we would do well to run someone Ralph could support. I am not sure who that might be, but again, for me I think it should be someone who can help us accomplish legitimate goals, and getting on TV to promote the party is a must to me.
I will say this. Even though I assume Ralph is aware of the silly infighting and arguments over issues that only matter to those who are on the Green National Committee, trying to take or protect "power" none of us really has, he said basically good things about the Green Party, supported our positions on issues, and said our name more than once. I appreciate that, and Ralph, very much.
George Washington University report on Green Prez choices
By clicking here you will be taken to a page at a website hosted by George Washington University which covers some of the names of potential candidates for our Presidential nomination. The list includes Elaine Brown, who is apparently serious about seeking the Green Party nomination. Ms. Brown was the one time chair of the Black Panther Party.
Additionally, Matt Gonzalez was listed as a potential candidate. His service in elective office in San Francisco and his agonizingly close loss in his race for Mayor of San Francisco encourages many Greens I am sure.
Nan Garrett has apparently decided not to run, or so the rumor goes. Kat Swift of Texas is in the race for sure. Rebecca Rotzler, also an elected Green as Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, is the subject of a draft, and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and Global Exchange are suggested as is former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. With Pat LaMarche, former Veep nominee and recent Maine Independent Green Party nominee for Governor, filling out the list of women, the list of men is far shorter.
In addition to Matt Gonzalez, Kent Mesplay may seek the party nomination. He did so first in 2004, losing to David Cobb. Rich Whitney, who garnered over 10% in his race for Governor of IL, is also mentioned. If he could do nation wide what he did in IL, we would in fact be on the map for a long time to come.
Both Cobb, the 2004 party standardbearer and Nader's 2004 running mate and two time California Green nominee for Governor, Peter Camejo have said that they will not seek the party nomination in 2008.
Additionally, Matt Gonzalez was listed as a potential candidate. His service in elective office in San Francisco and his agonizingly close loss in his race for Mayor of San Francisco encourages many Greens I am sure.
Nan Garrett has apparently decided not to run, or so the rumor goes. Kat Swift of Texas is in the race for sure. Rebecca Rotzler, also an elected Green as Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, is the subject of a draft, and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and Global Exchange are suggested as is former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. With Pat LaMarche, former Veep nominee and recent Maine Independent Green Party nominee for Governor, filling out the list of women, the list of men is far shorter.
In addition to Matt Gonzalez, Kent Mesplay may seek the party nomination. He did so first in 2004, losing to David Cobb. Rich Whitney, who garnered over 10% in his race for Governor of IL, is also mentioned. If he could do nation wide what he did in IL, we would in fact be on the map for a long time to come.
Both Cobb, the 2004 party standardbearer and Nader's 2004 running mate and two time California Green nominee for Governor, Peter Camejo have said that they will not seek the party nomination in 2008.
Nader leaves door open for 2008 bid
What is the purpose of the Green Party?
We don't exist to advance libertarianism as a movement. The LP exists to elect libertarians to public office so we can move public policy the way we want to go.__Timothy West at Third Party Watch . Currently the last comment at the bottom of the page
So that's the question. Is the Green Party here to advance the larger green agenda, or are we here specifically to elect Greens to office so we can move public policy the way we want it to go?
To me, I am thinking that the planet, the actual earth, may become uninhabitable under anything approaching "normal" circumstances inside two hundred years, maybe much sooner. This could be a radioactive wasteland, a waterless wasteland, an airless wasteland, or a toxic wasteland.
I believe it is possible that the globe itself will provide the circumstances to bring us to our collective knees. We human beings are behaving as though we have a protective coating that will filter our air and water, and protect us from poison and radiation.
Part of the argument at Third Party Watch is the question of ideological "purity" in the Libertarian Party. West goes on
My own father was going to vote for him because I asked him to vote LP until he saw that appearance, and he asked me exactly how I thought the LP could go from where we are now to zero taxes and how did I think the American people would ever vote for such a impossible thing. I couldn't’t answer him except to say that I was trying to get rid of stuff like that in the party and platform. He voted for Kerry.
Do I risk losing potential members by talking about what I see as our likely future if we don't start to get really serious really fast? Do I risk sounding like a loony toon by saying that the fact that Pakistan, India, and North Korea have exploded nuclear weapons of varying potential makes me think that nuclear explosions are a lot more likely? Am I crazy to say that the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided that the nuclear industry does not have to make any attempt to stop an attack by airliner but only mitigate it after the fact makes me think we who live near nuclear facilities have just had targets painted on our backs?
I believe I have a better chance to bring someone to the Green Party by talking about schools and taxes and sidewalks. I believe that a Green Party position on plans to build a new local hospital is critical if we are to grow. I believe that a position on food quality at our schools makes sense for us to focus on, as does local application of pesticides and local water plans.
But since those other perspectives are important to me, what can I expect of myself? If someone is interested in the Green Party because they know that we are proposing a comprehensive educational / physical / recreational /health program for her children, should I keep my opinions about 9-11 to myself? Should I leave talk of drug laws and their impact on the poor and racial minorities out of the picture? Do I risk her walking away if I bring up using local tax dollars to fund water treatment in the third world? If I do, does it matter?
In other words, if someone is not on the exact same page as me, do I serve the goal of electing Greens more effectively by focusing on our areas of agreement, or the goal of the broader green movement by trying to educate her on whatever issue and risk losing her? Can I do both effectively? Has anyone else got this one figured out, and if so, what do you do?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
How many representatives will your state get?
That question is before the Green National Committee right now. Voting ends at midnight Sunday. As of now, 74 members of the GNC have voted, and the proposed delegate allocation is winning by just enough votes to win. The change which would allow proxy voting on the Green National Committee for a set period of time and change the current allocation of members based on a new set of criterion.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link here, but if you want to see the current vote, it's right over here.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link here, but if you want to see the current vote, it's right over here.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Federal Elections Commission recognizes Green Senatorial Committee
You know what? With all the struggle, internal dissent, cash flow, media and ballot access problems and voter ignorance of the Green Party, we do still manage to make progress.
One example, and an exciting one, is that the Federal Elections Commission has recognized the Green Senatorial Campaign Committee. Having helped a bit with Efia Nwangaza's campaign here in South Carolina, I can say that this step is an important one.
All the details are behind the "Read more!" link, or you can get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Green Senatorial Campaign Committee Recognized by FEC
Green Party of the United States
www.gp.org
Green Senatorial Campaign Committee
www.greenscc.org
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Contact: Anita Wessling, GSCC Co-Chair, 870-426-2284
Greens warn Senators not to vote for further funding of Iraq occupation
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Senatorial Campaign Committee (GSCC) was granted national Senate campaign committee status by the Federal Election Commission on Thursday, February 8, giving the committee the ability to raise and spend money under rules similar to those for the Democrat and Republican House and Senate national campaign committees. The GSCC assists Green Party candidates running for the U.S. Senate.
Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion 2006-36 represents the first time a political party other than the Democrats or Republicans has been granted a national party campaign committee. Such committees have higher limits on campaign contributions that they can accept and give to candidates.
As its first act after receiving FEC recognition, the GSCC called upon all U.S. Senators to vote against further funding of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, or any resolutions promising such funding, including currently proposed concurrent resolutions promising funding 'for troops.'
"Dozens of Democrats in the U.S. Senate are preparing to vote for a stay-the-course resolution being marketed as an anti-'surge' resolution," said Chris Lugo, Tennessee Green candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2006, referring to Senate Concurrent Resolution 7, sponsored by Sen. Mark Warner (R-Va.).
"The Warner resolution actually promises more funding for the occupation," noted Mr. Lugo.
During the 2006 election cycle, 6 Democratic Senators who voted for the occupation of Iraq (Dianne Feinstein, Calif.; Maria Cantwell, Wash.; Herb Kohl, Wis.; Bill Nelson, Fla.; Joe Lieberman, Conn; and Hillary Clinton, N.Y.) were opposed by Green Party candidates.
"When Democrats in Congress vote for war, their actions have consequences. One of those consequences is that the Green Party will oppose them at the ballot box. If the Democrats vote for more funding, or even promises of more funds, they are supporting the occupation's continuance, not opposing it," said Anita Wessling, co-chair of the GSCC.
"Don't let the Democrats hide behind the fog of war," said Rebekah Kennedy, 2006 Green candidate for Attorney General of Arkansas. "We don't need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster and pass a fake anti-surge resolution. We just need 50 votes, or a courageous committee chair, to block any funding bills or resolutions. We got out of Vietnam when Congress refused any more funding. We got out of Kosovo when a Republican-controlled Congress cut off funds. It's up to this Democrat-controlled Congress to decide when the Iraq occupation will end."
Brent McMillan, Political Director of the Green Party of United States and life-long peace activist, was elated that the Green Party now has an FEC-recognized Senate campaign committee to help Greens compete on a more equal basis with the established parties's candidates. "We have been laying the groundwork to become a force in Congressional elections. With the FEC's decision today, the Party of Peace has a more level playing field with the twin parties of war."
Green Senatorial Campaign Committee: http://www.GreenSCC.org
Green Party of the United States: http://www.GP.org
Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinions: http://www.fec.gov/law/advisoryopinions.shtml
One example, and an exciting one, is that the Federal Elections Commission has recognized the Green Senatorial Campaign Committee. Having helped a bit with Efia Nwangaza's campaign here in South Carolina, I can say that this step is an important one.
All the details are behind the "Read more!" link, or you can get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Green Senatorial Campaign Committee Recognized by FEC
Green Party of the United States
www.gp.org
Green Senatorial Campaign Committee
www.greenscc.org
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Contact: Anita Wessling, GSCC Co-Chair, 870-426-2284
Greens warn Senators not to vote for further funding of Iraq occupation
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Senatorial Campaign Committee (GSCC) was granted national Senate campaign committee status by the Federal Election Commission on Thursday, February 8, giving the committee the ability to raise and spend money under rules similar to those for the Democrat and Republican House and Senate national campaign committees. The GSCC assists Green Party candidates running for the U.S. Senate.
Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion 2006-36 represents the first time a political party other than the Democrats or Republicans has been granted a national party campaign committee. Such committees have higher limits on campaign contributions that they can accept and give to candidates.
As its first act after receiving FEC recognition, the GSCC called upon all U.S. Senators to vote against further funding of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, or any resolutions promising such funding, including currently proposed concurrent resolutions promising funding 'for troops.'
"Dozens of Democrats in the U.S. Senate are preparing to vote for a stay-the-course resolution being marketed as an anti-'surge' resolution," said Chris Lugo, Tennessee Green candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2006, referring to Senate Concurrent Resolution 7, sponsored by Sen. Mark Warner (R-Va.).
"The Warner resolution actually promises more funding for the occupation," noted Mr. Lugo.
During the 2006 election cycle, 6 Democratic Senators who voted for the occupation of Iraq (Dianne Feinstein, Calif.; Maria Cantwell, Wash.; Herb Kohl, Wis.; Bill Nelson, Fla.; Joe Lieberman, Conn; and Hillary Clinton, N.Y.) were opposed by Green Party candidates.
"When Democrats in Congress vote for war, their actions have consequences. One of those consequences is that the Green Party will oppose them at the ballot box. If the Democrats vote for more funding, or even promises of more funds, they are supporting the occupation's continuance, not opposing it," said Anita Wessling, co-chair of the GSCC.
"Don't let the Democrats hide behind the fog of war," said Rebekah Kennedy, 2006 Green candidate for Attorney General of Arkansas. "We don't need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster and pass a fake anti-surge resolution. We just need 50 votes, or a courageous committee chair, to block any funding bills or resolutions. We got out of Vietnam when Congress refused any more funding. We got out of Kosovo when a Republican-controlled Congress cut off funds. It's up to this Democrat-controlled Congress to decide when the Iraq occupation will end."
Brent McMillan, Political Director of the Green Party of United States and life-long peace activist, was elated that the Green Party now has an FEC-recognized Senate campaign committee to help Greens compete on a more equal basis with the established parties's candidates. "We have been laying the groundwork to become a force in Congressional elections. With the FEC's decision today, the Party of Peace has a more level playing field with the twin parties of war."
Green Senatorial Campaign Committee: http://www.GreenSCC.org
Green Party of the United States: http://www.GP.org
Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinions: http://www.fec.gov/law/advisoryopinions.shtml
Monday, February 05, 2007
National Convention to be held in Reading, PA
Using Ranked Choice Voting, the Green National Committee has choosen Reading, PA to host this year's Annual National Meeting from July 12th to July 15th. The results can be found right here.
Voting is underway on Delegate Allocation
How many representatives on the Green National Committee are there from your state? How many should there be? The Delegate Allocation Committee (DAC) has a proposal currently being voted on. To see it, click here. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link here, but this is a vital question, so if you have an opinion, I hope that you'll share it with your state representative on the GNC.
National Budget Fails
The second proposed budget for the GPUS has failed. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but if you want the details just click here to go to the proposed budget at gp.org.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
An alternative view of Nader?
A documentary named An Unreasonable Man covers Ralph Nader and his unreasonable campaigns.
There is a video clip there, which I watched and enjoyed. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but I thought yoiu might like to know that there is an alternative view of Nader. Not everyone wants to see him off himself.
There is a video clip there, which I watched and enjoyed. Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but I thought yoiu might like to know that there is an alternative view of Nader. Not everyone wants to see him off himself.
Blogger says Ralph Nader should shoot himself in public
Stolen directly from her "My Space" blog:
Wow...Beth is one pissed woman! To see for yourself, click here, but beware, the music loads automatically Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
You scored as Green. The Green Party believes in an America where decisions are made by the people and not by a few giant corporations. Their environmental goal is a sustainable world where nature and human society co-exist in harmony.
New Democrat 100%
Green 100%
Old School Democrat 100%
Foreign Policy Hawk 80%
Libertarian 20%
Socially Conservative Republican 0%
Pro Business Republican 0%
What's Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com
Contrary to the quiz, I remain a lifelong Democrat that believes the human species is running out of time and that we must learn to live in harmony with nature so that humanity can therefore continue to survive at all here on earth. I believe we must honestly reevaluate and reprioritize the conditions and requirements that make happy, healthy, and safe communities possible in the 21st Century. The Green Party is very unwisely pursuing a separatist-extremist-socialist agenda that doesn't have a snowballs chance to acheive any significant power whatsoever over the country's destiny except to take away measurably at critical elections from the only Party in America that actually can affect positive change for the environment and social justice. The only way Ralph can undo the great harm he has accomplished to his place in American history is if he were to shoot himself which he should do in front of a public gathering of many of his socialist Green Party friends that encouraged him to stand in the way of John Kerry in 2004. {emphasis mine} Only then would history find great charity in the memorials to Ralph's honor and the restoration of his lionization in American culture and history. In not grasping reality in 2004, Ralph has now assured himself a place in American history as political kitsch, and furthermore become as politically unscientific and backward as the creationist fundamentalist William Jennings Bryant.
Wow...Beth is one pissed woman! To see for yourself, click here, but beware, the music loads automatically Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one folks.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Green National Committee Debates Budget
The Green National Committee is debating the national party budget Voting is underway, and you can see if your representative has voted by clicking here.
Debate seems to center around the question, is the Green National Committee being responsible voting for the budget as proposed, or should the current proposal be rejected and a new proposal presented?
The first proposed budget was rejected by the Green National Committee by a vote of 35 to 35 and 8 abstentions My state did not vote. Did yours? How should they have voted? Is there a better way to do this? How do other groups write budgets?
Debate seems to center around the question, is the Green National Committee being responsible voting for the budget as proposed, or should the current proposal be rejected and a new proposal presented?
The first proposed budget was rejected by the Green National Committee by a vote of 35 to 35 and 8 abstentions My state did not vote. Did yours? How should they have voted? Is there a better way to do this? How do other groups write budgets?
Peace Vigil reports
The York County (SC) Greens have sponsored three peace vigils, one each of the past three Saturdays at trhe corner of Eden Terrace and Oakland Avenue in Rock Hill, SC. By clicking on the link above you will be able to read my report and see a few photos from the recent vigils. We will be continuing them at least through the end of March, 2007.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but what about you? What's going on in your area?
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but what about you? What's going on in your area?
What to focus on?
The Green National Committee, like Greens across the nation, are discussing the future direction of the party. What comes first? Getting a ballot line in every state so whomever we run for office will be free from the onerous task of securing the right to run? Raising enough money to keep the national office afloat? Conducting a series of traveling training and educational programs? Building strong locals across the nation? Running and winning a set number of local offices? Running all out for President in an attempt to impact the outcome? How? Running all our resources into one congressional campaign where we might actually be able to win? Run a racially and gender balanced set of campaigns across the nation? Turn Green Pages into a regular national publication?
What should we be doing? What should come first? What are the strategies, tactics and logistics needed to make it happen? If we want to promote non-violence, and choose to do so by running for office, or holding never ending protests, or by growing a very profitable business and funneling money into the right causes or any number of other ways, isn't that all compatible with being a Green?
So, can we do a number of things at once and do all of them well enough to not make fools of ourselves, or should we re-focus on a new set of priorities? Should the strategy be limited specifically to electing people to office? If the current trio of electoral, direct action/lobbying and education seems right, and it does to me, what should we adopt as tactics to reach our goals? Should we run people for federal office? If so, what expectations should we have, if any, of them as they campaign? Should we focus all national efforts on support of local efforts? That is, should the national political director spend his time talking to Green Party donors, allies, media figures, state and local Green Party leaders in an effort to bring us to the attention of the American people? Should he spend much of his time conducting training seminars on ballot access campaigns, how to recruit and run effective campaigns, and how to raise funds for locals and their candidates?
Should the office manager spend her time creating a steady and flowing communication between locals and states? Should she be a resource for locals to call on for help with media contacts, printed resources and web assistance?
I'll not say that any of these are good ideas. I have absolutely no idea how our national staff spend their time, but I do know that they get a lot done without many resources. I have always respected the national party staff and their hard work.
Another ongoing discussion is on the question of support for the national nominee. This goes back to efforts, unsucessful, in California, to replace Cobb with Nader. The California party rules allow them to do so, as does Virginia.
South Carolina law permits us to place the nominee of our choice on the ballot. We could have run Kerry on our ballot line if we wanted. But our by-laws do not permit that, and there is no appetite for this in South Carolina. State law be damned: we're Greens, and support the Green Party nominee.
What should we be doing? What should come first? What are the strategies, tactics and logistics needed to make it happen? If we want to promote non-violence, and choose to do so by running for office, or holding never ending protests, or by growing a very profitable business and funneling money into the right causes or any number of other ways, isn't that all compatible with being a Green?
So, can we do a number of things at once and do all of them well enough to not make fools of ourselves, or should we re-focus on a new set of priorities? Should the strategy be limited specifically to electing people to office? If the current trio of electoral, direct action/lobbying and education seems right, and it does to me, what should we adopt as tactics to reach our goals? Should we run people for federal office? If so, what expectations should we have, if any, of them as they campaign? Should we focus all national efforts on support of local efforts? That is, should the national political director spend his time talking to Green Party donors, allies, media figures, state and local Green Party leaders in an effort to bring us to the attention of the American people? Should he spend much of his time conducting training seminars on ballot access campaigns, how to recruit and run effective campaigns, and how to raise funds for locals and their candidates?
Should the office manager spend her time creating a steady and flowing communication between locals and states? Should she be a resource for locals to call on for help with media contacts, printed resources and web assistance?
I'll not say that any of these are good ideas. I have absolutely no idea how our national staff spend their time, but I do know that they get a lot done without many resources. I have always respected the national party staff and their hard work.
Another ongoing discussion is on the question of support for the national nominee. This goes back to efforts, unsucessful, in California, to replace Cobb with Nader. The California party rules allow them to do so, as does Virginia.
South Carolina law permits us to place the nominee of our choice on the ballot. We could have run Kerry on our ballot line if we wanted. But our by-laws do not permit that, and there is no appetite for this in South Carolina. State law be damned: we're Greens, and support the Green Party nominee.
Is the Green Party a democracy?
In an ongoing debate about how many delegates each state should be allocated and how to balance one state party's rights with another and the individual members of each, the Green National Committee has seen posts from some members calling for the Green Party to be a democracy. This, loosely said, is the position of those who want "One Green, One Vote" policies in place which would, if carried to full implementation, render a neighborhood Green Party chapter in Arcata (assuming they had enough members) as influential as a state party in any state with a small membership.
David McCorquodale of Deleware wrote to the national committee that the Green Party cannot be a democracy, because democracy is a form of government. The Green Party does not expect to replace the government, but to use elective office to implement the Green Party platform. As I interpret this, it's similar to the "war on terrorism", in that one cannot be at war with a tactic. The Green Party can be democratically run, but cannot be a democracy.
Lou Novak points out that the Green Party is or can be a self-governing body, and as such can be a democracy.
While this may seem like arguing over which end of the egg to crack, the net result of these arguments is not inconsequential. If one or another proposal is adopted, a state might wind up with less or more representation. I have seen evaluations of the existing plan to change the delegate allocation procedure which indicate that the new plan will leave the actual delegation sizes about where they are now. If so, it seems like a lot of effort and anger to little effect.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are vital issues in play. South Carolina has little influence at the national level, with only two representatives on the Green National Committee. But when I tell you that the state party membership is under twenty I am by no means exaggerating. In six years we have never had a membership of over twenty, although we have held conventions of about forty.
We need to come to some sort of decision about the Green Party as individuals. Do I want to have the Green Party available for me to vote for? Do I want members of the Green Party to get elected? If so, what the hell am I doing about it? Green National Committee members often times are the most involved local members too, but I think it fair to say that some of our national "leaders" are like me, a leader in a very small local, if that much. Some serve at the national level when they have not even organized a sustainable local. Somehow that seems to me to be a deeper problem than if Michigan should have one more or Maine one less member on the GNC.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but you might want to click here to read about the results of the York County (SC) Greens local peace vigils. 1st week there were three. Second week, about thirty five. Today, when it was MUCH colder, we were down to twenty six.
David McCorquodale of Deleware wrote to the national committee that the Green Party cannot be a democracy, because democracy is a form of government. The Green Party does not expect to replace the government, but to use elective office to implement the Green Party platform. As I interpret this, it's similar to the "war on terrorism", in that one cannot be at war with a tactic. The Green Party can be democratically run, but cannot be a democracy.
Lou Novak points out that the Green Party is or can be a self-governing body, and as such can be a democracy.
While this may seem like arguing over which end of the egg to crack, the net result of these arguments is not inconsequential. If one or another proposal is adopted, a state might wind up with less or more representation. I have seen evaluations of the existing plan to change the delegate allocation procedure which indicate that the new plan will leave the actual delegation sizes about where they are now. If so, it seems like a lot of effort and anger to little effect.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are vital issues in play. South Carolina has little influence at the national level, with only two representatives on the Green National Committee. But when I tell you that the state party membership is under twenty I am by no means exaggerating. In six years we have never had a membership of over twenty, although we have held conventions of about forty.
We need to come to some sort of decision about the Green Party as individuals. Do I want to have the Green Party available for me to vote for? Do I want members of the Green Party to get elected? If so, what the hell am I doing about it? Green National Committee members often times are the most involved local members too, but I think it fair to say that some of our national "leaders" are like me, a leader in a very small local, if that much. Some serve at the national level when they have not even organized a sustainable local. Somehow that seems to me to be a deeper problem than if Michigan should have one more or Maine one less member on the GNC.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one, but you might want to click here to read about the results of the York County (SC) Greens local peace vigils. 1st week there were three. Second week, about thirty five. Today, when it was MUCH colder, we were down to twenty six.
