- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Our bylaws stipulate that candidates must indicate in writing their intent to run on the Green Party ballot 45 days prior to the nominating convention. Our Candidate Training is on March 1, which puts us 21 days from our nominating convention. I would like to accept candidate nominations on March 1, the day of the training. If we did this, I would expect all potential candidates to submit their resume and bio, with references, in a timely manner for State Council review prior to the nominating convention. Would anyone have any objections to this?
Sounds good. Note: Candidates must be affiliated with the Green Party 30 days before the nominating convention.
I have a Clarifying Question: Why were the bylaws written they way they were? What was the spirit and purpose of the 45-day window? Thanks!Peace,StevePikes Peak Greens
To address Steve's question the bylaws were amended at the 2007 state meeting in Carbondale. The criteria and time frames for nominating candidates were changed because of a character named Buddy Moore who claimed that he could run for office as a Green because of loopholes that existed in our state bylaws and related Colorado statutes even though the Adams/Jeffco chapter had voted not to endorse his candidacy as did Denver subsequently. He was a one-issue candidate for U.S. senate-911-and to the extreme. He had been rejected by the Dems and Republicans so we were his last ditch effort. Many Greens are involved in 911 Truth groups and the national platform is for a reinvestigation but Moore was so militant about this one issue that his candidacy risked tainting the GP as a one-issue party as he was planning a very aggressive campaign. We passed proposal 04-08 to officially and publicly declare that he was not a candidate of the GPCO because he was threatening to run as a Green independently. A lot of work went into these revisions and for good reason. If we change them for this election cycle I think we should consider changing them back afterwards as they do make sense in the interest of vetting candidates.Kevin AlumbaughGreater Boulder Green Party
Kevin, thank you for the historical reference. I agree with the need for time to review a candidate's qualifications. I see this extension as a specific proposal to allow this one time. All chapters would be aware, since they would be voting on the issue. Therefore we would still have time to look over their bios (I'm making sure I get them by March 1). Which means by the 22nd we would all know them and be able meet them in person and vote on them. I hope we would discuss each candidate here in private council discussion prior to the convention, so we all know where we stand before we get there. I want the convention to be as fun as possible, no surprises, just a good time for everyone there as we prepare for this election season! I will prepare a proposal this weekend.
I'm OK with the change if it includes a proviso that we get sufficient info to vet the candidate also on March 1. It might be good to also include a time limit – after this election it goes back to 45 days.Michael HaugheyAJ Greens
The problem with the time limit is that when the State moved the Primary elections up it moved a lot of deadlines up as well. Eric would know most about this. The other problem is finding candidates. Buddy popped up after I had announced for Senate and as Kevin says, he was pretty one issue, was driving a mega camper that smoked like a coal fired power plant as his campaign vehicle and wasn't even a Green Party member for long enough to demonstrate his commitment to the ten key values. We need candidates and I believe that it is OK for the Council to bend the rules whenever a candidate shows up who would be good.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.