- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is Proposal 007-16: Call for election of both state Co Chair positions.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, DISAGREE, or STAND ASIDE.Per section 4.3 of the bylaws: All decisions concerning policy, finance, and objectives shall require consensus or a vote of at least 60% of the membership present at a state meeting and/or the Council. The Green Party of Colorado may adopt a party Platform by consensus or a vote of at least 60% of the membership present at a state meeting. Party officers and national representatives shall be chosen by consensus or a vote of at least 60% of members present at the annual meeting.”There are currently eleven ( 11 ) active voting chapters in the Green Party of Colorado. A vote of at least 60% quorum requires at least one response from seven ( 7 ) chapters.Active ChaptersJeffersonAdamsArapahoe CountyDenverDouglasGreater BoulderPikes PeakPlatte Valley Poudre ValleyMesaSan MiguelThe floor is now open for one week of voting (October 19, 2016 - October 26, 2016 ).1. Basic Info:Date proposed: October 15, 2016Name of the sponsor(s): Jeffco Green Party, Greater Boulder Green Party2. Title: Call for election of both state Co Chair positions. 3. Text of the proposal: The sponsors of this proposal believe it would be in the best interest of the Green Party of Colorado to suspend the bylaws and hold immediate elections for both Co-Chair positions for interim terms and a “cooling off” period and then hold elections at the next State Party meeting for full terms. 4. Background: The recent proposal to remove Bill Bartlett from his position as co-chair and his subsequent resignation have created a deep divide in the state party between council members who feel that the accusations against him were based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay and those who feel the accusations were justified and some who feel the accusations were not worthy of a recall. There has been a considerable amount of contention in the leadership of the GPCO between the co-chairs which appears to have led to the recall vote. The divide also seems to have created opposing factions between local chapters that could eventually become a deterrent to cooperation and consensus building within the party and has already become a major obstacle for volunteers attempting to help our candidates. There are allegations regarding co-chair Andrea Merida Cuellar that remain unaddressed. However, the national election is 4 weeks away and this divide is causing an unacceptable level of distraction when our full attention is needed on the elections. Our senate candidate Arn Menconi is now without any co-chair support at the time he needs it the most. Andrea is now the paid regional coordinator for the Jill Stein presidential campaign and her full attention is needed there. To illustrate the seriousness of the unaddressed allegations on one side of the divide, here is a brief summary. There has been a considerable amount of contention between co-chair Andrea Merida Cuellar and several party members, former Bernie Sanders supporters, former Democrats seeking to align themselves with the Green Party, Libertarians who support Jill Stein, and our U.S. Senate candidate, Arn Menconi. Some of these are documented in Facebook posts. There are allegations of expenses having been made without council approval including additional features of NationBuilder and hot spots. There are allegations that the website has been rebuilt by Andrea without collaboration with the website committee or the other co-chair. There is alleged at least the appearance of unprecedented control of the party by one person. There are facebook posts that appear to trivialize the intentions and beliefs of those who are not “working class” as an “academic exercise”. The sponsors of this proposal believe that continuing the blame game and creating further contention at this critical election time will do serious harm to the GPCO. We feel that it would be appropriate to start with a clean slate in regards to the office of co-chairs during a cooling off period and provide an opportunity to elect new and neutral leadership that could bridge the divide that has been created. 5. Justification/Goals: The sponsors of this proposal believe that the current situation is urgent. Volunteers have requested that this situation be resolved no later than 2 weeks prior to the 2016 U. S. general and presidential election, which would be October 25 (the election is November 8th). Therefore a discussion period of three days, and then a voting period of 4 days on this proposal is proposed; Then a nominating period of four days to begin if and when the proposal is passed. This would be followed by three days of voting using Instant Runoff Voting with the results tallied and posted on the Forum by the secretary. Any registered Green would be eligible to be nominated and all registered Greens could vote on the Forum. Andrea Merida-Cuellar and Bill Bartlett would be ineligible for the interim election but would be eligible for nomination at the next state meeting. 6. Pros: By holding new interim elections for both co chair positions the GPCO would have an opportunity to begin to heal the divide that has been created by electing, new, objective leadership who can give support to all Colorado candidates at this crucial time. Cons: Not holding new co chair elections would perpetuate the current divide and opposing factions in the party and be an ongoing deterrent to the future progress of the GPCO. 7. Alternatives to the proposal: Eliminating the position of co-chairs and conduct the business of the GPCO entirely through the consensus of the state council.
My vote is No. Joseph Scardetta is correct in saying this proposal is about race. In Denver, we have been organizing and adding new members from communities of color. We offer them a safe place to talk about their life experiences dealing with white supremacy without fear of white people telling them that their feelings or experiences are illegitimate or saying to them that "All Lives Matter." If they knew that there are white liberals in this party who are not fully intersectional with their struggles, Black Lives Matter, police violence on communities of color, Immigration and detention of families escaping violence in their home countries, LGBTQIA+ issues, especially queer and trans youth living on the street, income inequality between white people and communities of color, they would not be involved in the Denver Greens. How dare the writers of this proposal fail to believe that Bill Bartlett physically threatened Andrea Mérida when I was there and had to stand in front of him so he couldn't take a swing at her. But the white-privileged proponents of this proposal couldn't believe it, because maybe you feel she had it coming? Do you feel that way about other women as well? Or is it just women of color? Shame on you. These half-baked allegations are scurrilous lies at best and serve a racist, sexist, and classist agenda. There is a clear direction that the national party is taking after the Houston convention,which is to become intersectional and fight for the rights of oppressed communities. Why is it that the 7 new chapters that have come/are coming online are made up of former Berners? Isn't this the very same outreach to Sanders supporters you're accusing Andrea of not doing? What is your part in that effort? How does that happen if she is "not welcoming?"This proposal has no merit, no integrity, no truth, not compliant the bylaws or procedure, and is fulfilling a racist and sexist agenda that these so-called white liberals are upholding by failing to hold accountable those who show these behaviors. Whether or not you hold these ideals in your hearts, the outcome is the same.
Absolutely not. I find Andrea one of if not the most important member of our states party. Her intersecrionality is second to none and I find that to be crucial. Also I don't much care what former Bernie supporters think, I supported him to some extent but I refuse to sit idly by while Bernie bots attack Andrea. Oddly enough when I say the same things as Andrea I don't get nearly the backlash (guess that happens as a white male). I'll say it one final time, I vote as strong of any vote as is possible.
Disagree!!!Shane McDonnell Mesa County Green PartyAs I stated earlier in another vote, I have to say that the accusations about Andrea are the opposite of what I have seen from her. Most of our members are former Berners, including myself. Although we have had disagreements on issues, she has been very knowledgeable and professional in all communications I have had with her. She is an amazingly passionate leader who has helped us constantly. A loss of Andrea to the party would be unfixable on so many levels. She is an asset to the Green Party.
I am against this proposal for the following reasons:1. Andrea is very proactive, constantly finding ways to see us over here on the Western Slope and we are primarily made of Berners.2. Without Andrea we wouldn't have near the support we have as a new chapter here in Grand Junction.3. When it comes to the spending issue, Nation Builder is 100% necessary in doing the ground work we are all doing.4. Who is going to be responsible in the 11 days listed on the proposal? We don't have 11 days to just throw away the election is in 20 days and whoever is elected Co Chairs aren't going to have enough time to acclimate and get everything together.5. I heard from Andrea and Jason what happened that night, and what all the people saying it didn't are doing is called victim shaming. That was attempted assault and you are saying simply because he is your friend that he couldnt have done that. Isn't that the same thing rapists friends and family say? Very Anti- Green.6. We are all adults, why are we wasting time focusing on this when we have so many other things to worry about? When you go to work and don't like a co-worker or your boss do you campaign to get them fired? NO. Leave it at the door. Your personal relationship has nothing to do with establishing a Party. Leave it at the door. Andrea is awesome and puts a lot of work into what she does.
I couldn't more wholeheartedly DISAGREEAndrea has been vital in recruiting new members and fostering the development of this party in CO. She does the work of over 100 people and she does it with spirit and gusto. She also does the work 99% of us cant or wont do. As a Latinx I find this very disheartening... seeing Andrea as a beacon of what a strong brown woman in leadership could be has been inspiring... till having to witness the utter BS that she is handed over and over again by quite frankly a bunch of whiney white people... All this tells me is that when I am confident and assertive, I'll be construed as petty, argumentative and unable to get along with. From the one place I truly was expecting better. How sad. I am disappointed in seeing this and having to respond but so be it. Once again, strongly disagree.
DISAGREEI blocked this proposal in the consensus-seeking stage for the following reasons, and I quote myself:"I fully support Andrea Mérida Cuéllare. She has been an invaluable resource and mentor to me as a leader in our party. As I see it, she has done nothing that could be construed as inconsistent with the 10 Key Values. Her work as co-chair of both the state and national parties as well as within the Latinx caucus has greatly contributed to the recent successes of our party. She is the most politically intersectional person I know. As a Xicano, I feel that race is the primary motivation for this proposal."Upon blocking, I was immediately accused of playing the "race card" and "crying wolf," which I honestly expected to happen. In our racist society wherein white people hold all institutional power, the burden of proof falls on us people of color. I don't need safe spaces to call out racism as I see it. Amen, I say to you: these are baseless accusations against Andrea. 1. Any money spent by Andrea did not exceed the amount allowed without Council approval; indeed, some of those funds came out of her own pocket. 2. Andrea did not propose the removal of Bill Bartlett, and as far as I know had nothing to do with it. And for the record, I was AGAINST removing Bill, as he too has been an invaluable resource to me in spearheading the Platte Valley Greens. 3. Andrea's public statements are in line with the 10 Key Values, and are intended to feed the debate among members of our own party. There is nothing contained within them that degrades the wealthy, white-collar, white-skinned, cisgender, heterosexual men and women who are airing concerns about having their privilege checked by this courageous and wise Latina.On the contrary, I feel there is a concerted effort to depose Andrea because certain members feel uncomfortable with a religious woman of color leading our party, speaking truth to power, and calling out the injustices that have existed within our party for decades. I was at the convention in Houston this past summer. There is a loud cry for our Green Party to become more intersectional within our own ranks. There was also a very vocal minority spouting white supremacy and heteronormativity. I'm drawing a line with this proposal.I am including a Dropbox link to a Word .doc file that includes several email chains that have been sent to me, which I find disturbing, as evidence to warrant my claims.
DISAGREEAnd I would like to support the words of Joseph Scardetta in his statement above. Lawrence DunnAdams County Green Party (ACGP)
Vehemently disagree. Andrea has been utterly supportive to our chapter. I'm frustrated that we're having this conversation.Again, DISAGREE.
AGREEMichael HaugheyJefferson County Green PartyIt is unfortunate that a few responses to this vote and the previous agreement-seeking proposal have immediately jumped to accusations of racism and more. The attempt to label anyone who votes to agree with this proposal as racist or sexist is incredibly hypocritical. The authors of this proposal are not racist. They are caring individuals who are trying to heal a rift in the Colorado Green Party. Some have been in the Green Party for decades selflessly advocating for all of the ten key values back when that alone was a radical concept. They have reviewed prior allegations about Bill and unaddressed allegations about Andrea. They are not making any judgment with this proposal about whether any of the allegations are true or false or some gray area in the middle. They believe a cooling off period is needed and that after that period new candidates as well as both Bill and Andrea should be allowed to put their hat in the ring for GPCO Co-Chair. They also believe that during that period there needs to be a serious attempt to heal the wounds and find ways to disagree without jumping to accusations of racism and sexism and recalls and sanctions. They believe that could be one of the primary roles of the interim Co-Chairs. Lets be clear: it is not racist to disagree with someone who is LGBTQ, black, hispanic, asian, or any other race just because the person who disagrees is believed by the accuser to be a white male. Disagreements are a normal part of discussion.Regarding the allegation that Bill threatened Andrea, Andrea declined to give her side on a conference call which had the purpose of discussing the allegations. The only “witness” is Jason who happens to be Andrea’s partner. Jason’s version of the “incident” differs substantially from Bill’s version. People who know Bill do not believe the accusation. The concept that women must always be believed is seriously flawed. Witnesses are generally the least reliable kind of evidence. It is therefore one of those incidents where there is no proof. Many people, and disproportionately people of color, have been convicted of crimes based on witness accounts and then proven innocent when scientific evidence later became available (DNA). Memories change and are influenced by so, so many things both conscious and sub-conscious. It is known that Andrea and Bill had disagreements on policy/administration in the past. Regardless, a better response could have been an attempt at conflict resolution. Other than Andrea, Bill, and Jason, the rest of us do not know with any sufficient degree of certainty what happened. That is not sufficient cause for a recall. The situation does, however, lead to the reasonable suspicion that something else is going on.Bill was also accused of being sexist for using the word “girl” on a facebook post in the context of “…the girls not getting their way”. He was complaining that posts were deleted on Facebook (the GPCO page?) because the moderator was not getting her way. Had it been the other way around, would there be an accusation of sexism? It would be nice if posts on facebook were well thought out and maybe slept on before posting, but that is not how facebook works. Failure to respond immediately often misses the opportunity to reply at all. The conversation will have moved on, and if a popular thread or page, have moved so far down the page as to make a well-thought out reply totally impractical if not impossible. That is one reason that many of us do not “do facebook”.There are also serious allegations about Andrea’s posts. Here is one example:On Sept. 9, 2016 at 5:53, Andrea Mérida Cuéllar wrote: “I am absolutely convinced that for the most part, the former Sanders supporter is not our target for recruitment into the Green Party. I just tabled at a "progressive" event in Albuquerque for the Green Party of New Mexico, and the people who were still waffling over whether to be a Green were NOT the two groups of working-class Latinas who are fighting neoliberal assaults on the community, with whom I had good, honest conversations.I qualify this by saying there is a difference between voting for Jill and becoming a registered Green Party member (where allowed). There are plenty of good people of good conscience who will be voting for Jill but at the end of the day are going to still "change the Democratic Party from within." All power to them, seriously.Our party, however, must be built with the working class, for whom the stakes are higher and the damage from capitalism is imminent. It must be from the frontline communities who are the first to suffer environmental racism, police brutality, poverty and homelessness. For others, being a Green is an academic exercise. For the rest of us, it's life or death.Let's be clear about the difference between simply voting for Jill and becoming a Green. There is a difference.”There are also complaints regarding how Andrea has responded to persons expressing a different opinion. Here is one example from an e-mail to the Stein campaign:Date: Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:58 PMSubject: ConcernsTo:
To Whom it May Concern,I am writing today as a matter of conscience, and principle. I have found that typically there is a sense, rightly felt, that it is dangerous to have opinions that differ from those opinions possessed by persons in power. I have found this to be true of my experience, and others with whom I am acquainted, have also had experiences when expressing opinions that differ from Miss Andrea Cuellar's personal paradigm.Differing opinions held by party members should be regarded and considered by those in authority, and not thrown out and dismissed and the people expressing them put down and humiliated. Human opinion should be regarded, isn't that the whole point? No one person can know everything, and have all the answers. The Green Party as a party that supports the rights of whistle-blowers and opinions that dissent from the main stream should be inclusive. Members of the party should not have to be afraid of speaking out against Miss Andrea Cuellar. For having differing opinions they should not be harassed by her husband, or in other ways be retaliated against. Me and several other Green Party members were considering leaving the party over Miss Andrea's hateful rhetoric on Facebook, and were only persuaded to stay in the party, because Mr. Bartlett took the time to be kind to us.I believe that removing Mr. Bill Bartlett from his position would be detrimental to the social environment, and potential growth of the Green Party in Colorado. I believe this action is being taken in direct retaliation to what I perceive as his desire to heal the damage that exclusive rhetoric has had on the Party in state.Regards,Elizabeth ThorntonThere is a disconnect between these words and what a few people are saying about all the support they have received from Andrea. Perhaps this warrants investigation. There appear to be serious rifts in the GPCO about support for Bernie and about whether someone who does not spend all his/her time in support of racism and sexism issues in one particular way is a true “Green”. There have been statements that essentially say that women can do no wrong and that persons of color cannot be racist - ever. The seriousness is underscored by the tone of the insults and accusations of racism and sexism. Keep in mind there are ten key values, not two. The Green Party has room for all of them. Like it or not, Andrea is in the middle of this. The sponsors of this proposal are very concerned and see the installation of interim co-chairs and a cooling-off period as a necessary step.Since the rift in the GPCO is devolving into accusations about racism, it is probably a good time to consider the roots of the problem. Anthropologically speaking, humans have been fighting over resources and land since they crawled out of the trees, and other species do the same. There has historically been a demonization of “the other” as a justification for taking the resources of the other. The root problem is the sense of resource scarcity. A large part of that issue is the way in which money supply is created. Money is created out of thin air as debt owed, with interest, to the private entities that created it out of nothing. Paying back these debts requires an exponential expansion of economies whether there is an intrinsic need or not. When debt outpaces economic productivity, the result is an economic crash with the wealth of the poorest being transferred to the wealthiest. Thus the wealth gap increases. One solution, used historically, is violent revolution with power transferring to the next set of bullies. Another, advocated by the Green Party (using more words), is essentially to abolish the central banks Then money becomes only what it should be – a medium of exchange, not a tool for extracting wealth. Public banking is a small step in that direction. Here is Andrea trying to tell folks what happened and here is Bill (violently) shutting her down and you people doing nothing about it. Starts at 9:42 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByNZ1Gqvs9d5cUtSaXF6MkFONXc/view Let's address the accusation with facts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.