- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is Proposal 005-16: Declaration of Co-Chair Position Vacancy Please read the proposal and keep comments on the topic of the proposal only. Please suggest any amendments or additions for discussion.Designate your vote by using the following terms: AGREE, BLOCK, or STAND ASIDE. Any blocks will require a vote of the council.Per Section 5.9 of the GPCO Bylaws, "If any officer or national representative is found to be in contempt of the goals of the Green Party of Colorado, recall proceedings shall be invoked. A three fourths majority of voting members present at a state meeting and/or the Council is required to achieve the recall of an officer.”There are currently nine ( 9 ) active voting chapters in the Green Party of Colorado. A vote of at least 75% quorum requires at least one response from seven ( 7 ) chapters.Active ChaptersJeffersonAdamsArapahoe CountyDenverDouglasGreater BoulderPikes PeakPoudre ValleyMesaThe floor is now open for one week of Agreement Seeking (September 27, 2016 - October 4, 2016 ).1. Basic Info:Date proposed: September 27, 2016Name of the sponsor(s): Poudre Valley Green Party, Arapahoe Green Party2. Title: Declaration of Co-Chair Position Vacancy3. Text of the actual proposal:As of the date of the end of agreement seeking (October 4, 2016), one of two positions of Co-Chair is declared vacant.4. Background: This proposal would recall Bill Bartlett from his position as co-chair of the Green Party of Colorado. The sponsoring local chapters have directly experienced and witnessed significant negative interactions with Bill Bartlett, that are inconsistent with several of the 10 Key Values and with our bylaws. Some examples include:Bill’s view of racism is inconsistent with the 8th Key Value (Respect for Diversity). He holds a well-publicized belief in “reverse racism,” has expressed more than once that dialogue about racism equates to “anti-white racism,” and has exhibited considerable impatience, disdain, gaslighting and silencing when discussing racism with people of color and their allies. He has shown himself incapable of promoting “the development of respectful relationships across these lines,” by respecting the life experience of people of color or as contemplated in the 8th Key Value.Bill’s recent interactions with female rank-and-file Greens are inconsistent with the 7th Key Value (Feminism and Gender Equity). Both co-chairs and the secretary were recently sent an email that described an account of sexism that Bill exhibited online (see Example 1, References, below). Further, after the encounter, Bill posted on his own Facebook wall an account that was wholly demeaning to women (see Example 2 in References).As co-chair, Bill has failed to uphold the ideals of the 1st Key Value (Grassroots Democracy) by attempting to hurry a proposal on a particular potentially divisive issue on Amendment 69 without having followed a legitimate consensus-seeking process and without understanding that some locals were not in agreement. This lack of understanding results from Bill’s absence in the dialog and work of the party. He refused to accept a substitute statement that would project a public display of unity in favor of universal health care and respect for dissenting opinions and instead has taken to social media to attack the Green Party of Colorado itself.Bill has failed to exhibit the basic leadership requirements of the co-chair position as described in the bylaws, since at least 2013 (see Example 3). Bill has rendered no assistance when requested to help plan and conduct state meetings. Further, Bill has not offered assistance in any events of the state party, including the recent presidential candidate visits or in the formation of any new local chapter during his entire tenure as co-chair. He has never attended a meeting of the Poudre Valley Green Party, nor assisted in any of its work, while simultaneously declaring it his local. Additionally, since the time that a Facebook page was created for the Platte Valley Greens on March 28 2013, presumably his home local, no proposal for recognition has been presented to the state council.Finally, Bill has committed a grave offense against the 4th Key Value (Non-Violence) by physically threatening the female co-chair after becoming visibly intoxicated at the People’s Fair in June 2016, an outreach event the state party paid a sizeable sum to participate in.5. Justification/Goals: Our U.S. Senate candidate was excluded from recent multi-party candidate debates because the Green Party of Colorado’s voter registration numbers were too low. Even with the robust growth in registrations shown since 2015, it is reasonable to assume a tapering off after the November 2016 election. At that point, a focused, robust campaign to register new voters will become necessary so that we can properly support future candidates. This work cannot be done without leadership that supports the work of the local chapters by providing resources, guidance and strategies. Our growth as a party is severely hampered because one co-chair is shouldering the burden without any assistance from the other co-chair, and much of those responsibilities are currently being borne by local co-chairs and others.6. Pros and Cons: ProsThe division of work of the co-chairs can be equitably shared, so that the party can grow with sufficient support.A safe environment for people of color and women within our party can be achieved, and trust can be rebuilt, so that the party’s growth goals can be met.ConsThe position of co-chair may be left vacant for an excessive amount of time, thereby perpetuating an already imbalanced division of work between co-chairs.7. Alternatives to the proposal: Take no action.8. References:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-sKCIke8emqU1pxX1lwMUd4b3M?usp=sharingLetter from registered Green Danika Carter:I would like to share some concerns I have about our Co-Chair, Bill Bartlett and his behavior that is unbecoming of a state Co-Chair and creates a hostile environment for women.In a discussion on the GPUS Facebook group there was a discussion happening about sexism in the Presidential election. I was on the receiving end of some very sexist comments and insults from a male Green from California. Bill joined the conversation and rather than making it clear that sexism and attacks upon women bringing up the issue have no place in our party, he actually defended the man making sexist comments, added to the insults and actually accused me of being sexist for bringing up the issue of sexism in the election and defending myself against this man from California. Bill’s comments were highly offensive and abusive. His comments were the kind that one would expect to see in a conservative Men’s Rights Activist group, not a Green Party group. I expect my Green Party leadership to create a safe environment for women and other marginalized communities to bring up issues of concern relevant to our life experience. Not to participate in derailing those conversations, defending men attacking women for bringing up the issue and insulting them.Luckily, I have been a Green for 16 years. I have been staff for the Green Party of California before moving to Colorado. However, if I were new to the party and saw this conversation, I would leave it. Immediately. I would not think that this is a party that supports women as equal participants who deserve respect. I would not think this was a group that supports feminism.It's bad enough to see men who are members of the Green Party behave in such a misogynistic way, but it is simply unacceptable for a member of party leadership to contribute to a hostile environment for women. And sadly, this is not the first time I have seen Bill behave in this way. In fact, even after the Facebook group admins deleted the conversation, he continued the insults and misogyny on his own personal page. I have screenshots should you need them.Given that Bill has a history of misogynistic behavior and disrespect of women, and does so in a public forum I believe it is time for some sort of action against him. I don’t know what party rules allow for, but this cannot continue if our party is going to continue to grow, and continue to be a safe place for women and other marginalized communities. If this is how he treats women he has absolutely no business being in a leadership position.look forward to hearing from you. Thank you,~ Danika Carter
MESSAGE FROM THE GPCO STEERING COMMITTEE REGARDING THIS PROPOSALDear fellow Greens and members of the Colorado Green Party State Council,The Greater Boulder Green Party conducted a special meeting of our steering committee on Saturday, September 24th, to discuss Proposal 05-16 calling for the removal of Bill Bartlett from his position as Co Chair of the GPOC. Three members of our steering committee also participated in the teleconference initiated by Bill on Thursday, September 22nd. We have come to the following conclusions which we would like to submit to the GPCO State Council:While the accusations presented in Proposal 05-16 are very serious and would certainly constitute grounds for removal from office of a state officer, in our collective opinion there has not been enough hard evidence submitted to warrant such an action. The most serious of the allegations against Bill Bartlett, that he threatened physical violence against fellow Co Chair Andrea Merida Cuellar, was only witnessed by Andrea, her husband Jason Justice, and Bill Bartlett. The parties involved have submitted significantly different versions of the incident and Bill has claimed that he in no way threatened physical violence against Andrea. Barring an account of the incident from an independent, objective source we feel the incident should be characterized as a misinterpretation of intent since all parties involved have stated there was no actual physical violence perpetrated. The other evidence submitted in the proposal was based on screen shots of Facebook conversations, some of which were private conversations on a friends group of Bills, and an open letter from Danika Carter in which she claims she felt she was the target of sexual discrimination on Bill's part. Whereas it is regrettable any time an individual feels they were the victim of gender discrimination the evidence presented in a single screen shot in which Bill refers to women as "girls" without any additional evidence of the content and context of the conversation is circumstantial. We feel that other allegations including lack of participation in GPCO activities are entirely open to interpretation and his lack of participation could be directly attributed to the difficulties Bill was experiencing both in his personal life and health-related issues that were known to us at the time. Furthermore charges of racial discrimination due to conversations about reverse discrimination are not substantiated by screen shots included in the proposal. We feel that the presentation of so much circumstantial evidence for the removal of a state Co Chair could be interpreted as a possible hidden agenda on the part of the proposal's sponsors to achieve an undisclosed objective. Therefore we think it would be appropriate at the next state meeting to suspend bylaws concerning the length of terms of Co Chairs so that new elections of both current office holders could be conducted along with related discussions and presentation of support and/or criticisms with the opportunity for rebuttal by all concerned parties. In the mean time the GPCO should continue to conduct business as usual in the best capacity possible and focus on the most important and immediate business at hand-the support of our Green candidates' campaigns.We would also like to promote discussion and/or amendment of GPCO bylaws at the next state meeting concerning the conduct of state officers as it relates to participation in public and private Facebook conversations and the adoption of guidelines so that in the future GPCO state officers can have a better understanding of what state council members and fellow Greens consider to be appropriate conduct in regards to social media.Sincerely,Greater Boulder Green Party Steering CommitteeKevin Alumbaugh, Carolyn Bninski, Susan Hall, Tom Hall
In reference to the emergency council meeting on 9/22/2016 (audio linked here https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzteq2tfIdXvSnV4NmVSOGI3LVE ), I would just like to state for the record that within 15 minutes of the opening of this meeting, every single person that has access to this recording or was sitting on the call has personally witnessed the behavior that is the source of this complaint. Andrea was asked by the members of the council to give her account of the situation at the People's Fair. As Andrea began speaking she was interrupted and shouted down by Bill within seconds. She calmly asked if she could finish, and was interrupted and shouted down again within seconds. She responded that she understands that situation is stressful and that she would be willing to tell this story off line to any one interested. At this point, the council members present stated that they would like to hear Andrea's story uninterrupted on this call so that it would be part of the record. Andrea again began recounting her experience and was immediately interrupted and shouted down again by Bill. After being unable to get more than 30 seconds into her testimony, Andrea then repeated that she was going to leave the call, and again extended the offer to tell this story to anyone who is interested in hearing it. She then left the call. Bill's behavior in this instance is unacceptable, and clearly illustrates the need for this level of intervention. Bill does not get to decide how Andrea's account of these events is framed. This council has no right to determine the timeline for the redress of Andrea's grievance.Over the next hour and 30 or so minutes, Bill was given several minutes to refute Andrea's testimony that was never formally heard by this council. During that conversation there were many comments (by Bill and other council members) about Andrea's character and her behavior, and many excuses and justifications made for Bill's behavior. There were repeated statements that Andrea has been less than admirable in her interactions with former Bernie supporters. I refute that statement by reminding everyone in this council that Andrea has facilitated and supported the creation of two new chapters made up of primarily former Bernie Supporters in this state in the last 3 months, and there are 4 more forming as this conversation is happening. There was also some criticism regarding the fact that we have candidates in the field and that we should not be fighting each other right now. I do not need to remind anyone that at the end of August, Dr. Jill Stein came to Colorado and we had 4 well attended, very successful events that brought a lot of attention to our candidates. Andrea played an unrivaled role in organizing and executing those events. With all of that out of the way, I would like to remind everyone that this conversation is not about Andrea. If you feel that this party is suffering under her leadership I would invite you to continue that conversation outside of this discussion. This discussion is about how this party is suffering under Bill's leadership. There is overwhelming evidence (shared in the google drive) to support the claims made in this proposal. The first example is a formal complaint by a female member of our State Party stating that Bill's conduct creates an unsafe space for women. His response to the post in question was to call her a "girl" and then a "sexist" on his own timeline. The reality is, women cannot be sexist against men because they are oppressed by patriarchy. Fighting oppression does not make a person guilty of the same oppression. Bill even stated in the emergency council meeting that he had clashed with Danika multiple times in the past, which was corroborated by Danika in her official complaint. I would like to address a few things that were stated in the meeting on 9/22. Bill said in no uncertain terms that he had not heard Andrea's story. That statement is absolutely false. On July 1st Bill and Andrea engaged in a conversation about this event over Facebook messenger. The screen shots are shared in the google drive link provided in the proposal (also linked here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B-sKCIke8emqU1pxX1lwMUd4b3M). They are named "July 1-1.png, July 1-2.png, July 1-3.png, July 1-4.png, July 1-5.png, July 1-6.png, July 1-7.png, July 1-8.png".Next, we were accused of spying on Bill. I believe that interpretation is inaccurate. Bill and I are friends on Facebook and quite often interact with each other's posts in various ways. We have even disagreed on some pretty fundamental issues from time to time. One of those disagreements is cited as source material for this proposal. Calling this spying does one of two things: it either points to a misunderstanding of social media functionality, or it is a word that was specifically chosen to paint Bill as the victim in this scenario. Having a debate on Facebook, even on your personal timeline, is visible to everyone that you are connected to and anyone they can share it with or tag into the conversation. The reach of social media is unprecedented in our history, and the amount of damage that can be done to our party by statements made on social media is immeasurable.In addition, Bill stated that he had not been confronted about this behavior and that this recall attempt was unexpected. The truth is, Bill has been challenged on these beliefs many times by non-greens, greens, state party members, even including Sean Friend and myself (cited in the screenshots). The question in this proposal is not whether or not Bill harbors views that are unacceptable to me. The question is, do these views held by an officer in our state party conflict with our values in a way that makes him unfit to hold the title of State Co-Chair of the Green Party of Colorado.
I think everyone should listen to the teleconference for themselves. Bill was trying to address a preemptive point Andrea made about whether this issue had been made public or not. He did interrupt her but I thought we had cleared the floor for Andrea and a couple of us encouraged her to continue. We were disappointed when she decided to hang up. She did offer to talk to any of us in a private phone conversation and I had a long conversation with her the next day.I don't think anyone is defending sexism. I understand Dave's point about women being oppressed by patriarchy but when someone writes an open letter and then it is used as evidence to remove a Co Chair from office I think there needs to be more than he said she said presented for proof. Doesn't that open the door for anyone to make a claim like this and the accused person being tried, convicted, and sentenced without question? I'm sure the conversations on these lists can be quite intense and I'm sure there are heated exchanges on all sides so how can anyone make a judgement one way or the other without seeing the ENTIRE conversation from start to finish? And as for the screen shots I didn't see anything that could be called "overwhelming evidence" of anything. Maybe that's why they weren't included in the repost of the proposal. This is serious business folks and public record and it threatens to ruin Bill's reputation so in my opinion there should be indisputable evidence of all of these accusations.I believe that a response of Block means that the proposal goes to a vote immediately. So now that we have another chance to impeach a Co Chair let's get this witch hunt over with so we can get back to the business of the Green Party especially supporting our candidates.Kevin
Kevin. You're right. This will immediately go to vote in the other thread. I've been at work and have been unable to re-post into the other forum. This will be done before I go to bed tonight. Sorry for the delay, I know his is a sensitive topic.
I concur with the Boulder Greens and Kevin's statement. I would further add that we should not be analyzing everyone's personal “behaviour”, particularly posts on Facebook, with respect to our own interpretations of the 10 Key Values and with the intent of ousting anyone who is not perfect (in our own judgement). The 10 Key Values are guidelines for policy, not ten commandments for individual behaviour. It just opens up a can of worms of individuals throwing stones from glass houses.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.