- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I can understand why so many folks are posting about how nice Andrea is. Just to be clear, I hold no malice toward Andrea. I do think her style of off-hand insults and un-truths is a serious problem (I worry that there is more than just that going on) – and before you get defensive, I will give a few personal examples. I do not know if it is intentional, or just one of those personality quirks that many of us have. For now I think it is a serious enough problem to warrant the cooling off period that this proposal advocates. I worked a couple shifts in the GPCO booth at the People’s Fair on Sunday, June 5, 2016 in the hot sun, and one shift was with just Andrea. There were times when we had no visitors and we had pleasant conversations. We talked about how Bernie Sanders would make a great addition to the Green Party ticket. Andrea and I had been on different sides of that discussion, so it was good to hear that she was evolving. Then I read her post on this proposal for a cooling off period and she makes a side comment about me that seems innocuous on the surface: “But just as Michael Haughey is apparently free to openly advocate for Green nomination of Bernie Sanders as late as the People's Fair in June (and within the Jeffco meetings), …” but that is not the truth. We had only a private discussion. Her words give an image of a person running around the people’s fair in a green party t-shirt and wearing co-chair button waving a Bernie sign with a Democratic party logo. That is simply not true. In any discussions with Greens I am very careful to frame my personal opinions as just that – personal opinions. It seems minor and silly by itself, but it does not stand alone as I’ll get to shortly. Not only that, notice the insinuation “as late as the People's Fair in June”. The Green Party convention was August 5 – 7, so Jill was not even the official candidate until August 7, a full two months later. Prior to the People’s Fair (this “discussion” started in early 2015) there was a “movement” in the GPCO including Andrea and others to try to outlaw any co-chair taking any position in favor of Bernie even in their own personal conversations having nothing to do with the GreenParty. That opinion was aggressively put forth in our local chapter meetings by at least one individual who vehemently denied that Jill had made any overture to Bernie. I stood up to that as much on principle as anything else. No-one gets to tell me what to think. Period. What happened? Look at bylaws amendment proposal 008-15, which passed. It was mis-leadingly titled “Chapter Accreditation”. It included, under items a “Green Local must agree to”: “Openly support only the national candidates selected by Green convention, state level candidates nominated at a Green Party of Colorado nominating convention, and local candidates selected with the criteria specified in sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 of these bylaws.” It seems innocent enough, but look at what is happening now (as I predicted in my disagree vote). I am accused of “open support…” (for Bernie). As it turns out in this particular discussion (about asking Bernie to join the Green ticket) I am vindicated – Jill Stein invited Bernie to join the Green Party presidential ticket and even offered him the top position on the ticket. For me it goes much, much deeper. I began my liberalization and understanding that the “system” has serious problems back in the 1960’s before I was even a teenager. I’ve been an environmentalist and advocate for equality and more ever since. In all those years we couldn’t even dream of a candidate as good as Bernie, and then he gradually emerged and was courted by the Greens in previous elections. He declined then and he declined now, but he is still Bernie. I am sad that he is stumping for the corporate candidate, but perhaps I’ll get over that in time. There is more. In a recent e-mail that Andrea sent to another member of the JC Greens (forwarded to me by that person) she included “I have bent over backward to assist you, communicate, loop you in when Michael would not.” and “You might start by advocating for democracy within the Jeffco chapter and calling for co-chair elections as you committed to do.” That is two digs that are not true. I have not kept this person “out of the loop”. In fact I was never included in whatever “loop” to which Andrea might have been referring. I have been very pro-active in including any information I have in the monthly meeting e-mail invites and more. The second one about elections is even more perplexing. I agreed to keep the Adams-Jeffco Greens alive by becoming the chair starting in January 2012 when literally NO-ONE else would. I was nominated, and I was elected unanimously at the next meeting. It was me or the chapter dies. Simple as that. We have had an election for chair and then later co-chair every year. We followed that process every year, sending out a plea for individuals to volunteer and to run for a position. Each year there were NO OTHER CANDIDATES and I was elected unanimously with no abstentions. On November 17, 2014 Larry Dunn volunteered (put up by Andrea) to re-join the Adams-Jeffco Chapter and become a co-chair, and he expressed his opinion at that time that eventually Adams and JeffCo would need to be split up. In retrospect, that is now very interesting (and yes – I have e-mail documentation). Since we were barely scraping by as one chapter, a split would have been difficult at that time, which Larry and I both acknowledged. Larry did not show up at the next meeting, in December 2014. In fact he did not show up for over a year (no judgement here – he had good personal reasons). During that time we had discussions about our chapter bylaws (which took quite some time to find). Rachel served as our Secretary for part of that time. We updated and adopted bylaws revisions on January 12, 2015, and that included provisions for a co-chair, but still no volunteer for the position. Larry next came to a meeting on March 9, 2015 and was welcomed with open arms. Larry offered again to be co-chair prior to the June meeting and was elected unanimously as a co-chair on June 8, 2015. At our June 13, 2016 meeting Larry made a motion to split and form an Adams chapter. That motion was unanimously approved with no abstentions. So where did this rumor start that the AJ Greens/JC Greens are not having elections? I still hold no ill-will toward Andrea, although she is making that difficult. I don’t know her motives, if any. But I re-iterate that the GPCO has a serious problem as a result of her words and actions. I think some conflict-resolution during the proposed cooling off period could be beneficial. At least one statement in Andreas post need to be corrected, and it is serious because of our limited funds and that fact that the GPCO is supposed to be a democracy: the statement that a co-chair has authorization to spend up to $200. This is what the bylaws say:“4.2.3. The Council sets the agenda for the state meetings, decides on issues needing expedient attention between state meetings, handles administrative tasks, and acts as representative to the press on state issues, as well as representing the Green Party of Colorado to groups interested in establishing locals where none exist. The Council can make appropriations from the GPCO bank account of $200 per item or less by a 60% vote of the Council, in consultation with the Treasurer to insure availability of funds. Expenditures above $200 per item require consensus of the Council or a 60% vote at a state meeting.”The council, not the co-chair, can approve expenditures on consultation with the treasurer and upon a vote for items less than $200. More than $200 requires consensus or a vote of the membership at a state meeting. No co-chair, no one person, has this authority. If there is a good reason to make an expense, make a case to the council and run it by the treasurer to confirm the impact on our funds (they are VERY limited). That is how this democracy works. If there are other statements that need correcting, hopefully someone else will post to correct them. The opinion on the definition of racism is an interesting intellectual discussion, but far from reality. The justification is that “racial justice activists recognize that RACISM = BIGOTRY + POWER.” “Racial justice advocates”? This view seems really convenient. A person of color can now be racist but is immune from being called racist because of his/her race status? And because of that ONLY whites can be racist? Sorry – don’t buy it. It has too many flaws. For just one, not only whites are in position of power. For another, to fear or denigrate all whites because of a mistaken belief that they all hold power is itself racist and incorrect. Not only that – it is incredibly insulting and libelous to those of us who have advocated, fought, and put ourselves at personal and professional risk (and lost jobs, friends, loved ones, and opportunities) BECAUSE of our advocacy for equality. Regardless, using the term racist as a weapon against anyone who disagrees, to call someone a racist for agreeing to this proposal, is disgraceful. Andrea’s statement in her post that all of us who are white are “actively anti-racist in their own right” is absurd and anything but healing. That is treating us with respect??? All it takes for bad ideas to triumph is for good people to remain silent. Michael HaugheyJC Greens
Michael, let me quote the bylaws for you, even though you did vote no on this:
III. Membership3.1 A Green Local must agree to:* Accept the Ten Key Values and to manage the chapter in accordance with those values.* Abide by the bylaws of the Green Party of Colorado.* Openly support only the national candidates selected by Green convention, state level candidates nominated at a Green Party of Colorado nominating convention, and local candidates selected with the criteria specified in sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 of these bylaws.* Make a good faith effort, where reasonable, to increase the number of Green voter registrations within the boundaries of their chapter.* Make a good faith effort to run state and local candidates.* Make a good faith effort to increase the number of qualified voting members within their chapter.* Make a good faith effort to fundraise for the operation of their chapter and to assist in the operation of the Green Party of Colorado.* Demonstrate evidence of commitment to, and good faith efforts to achieve, gender balance in party leadership and representation.* Demonstrate evidence of good faith efforts to empower individuals and groups from oppressed communities, through, for example, leadership responsibilities, identity caucuses and alliances with community-based organizations, and endorsements of issues and policies.Chapter officers and council representatives must not have been registered as a member of a political party other than the Green Party of Colorado for at least thirty days before nomination and must maintain registration as a Green Party of Colorado voter throughout the duration of the officer’s/representative’s term.A Green local must present its proposed bylaws for approval, and be approved by 60% of the voting Greens at a state party meeting, or by the state council.
So this isn't a question of my evolution. It's a question of being faithful to the bylaws, as well as to our requirements for accreditation with GPUS. This is a fundamental issue: is the Green Party an autonomous, independent electoral party separate from the Democratic Party, or not? If so, then we should not be concerned with other parties' nominees.My position is not changed. Neither has yours. And I understand you have a different opinion on this.It is my position as well that if your loyalties are split, then there is no way you can grow your own local. But this isn't material to the proposal on the floor. It's an important discussion that we're going to have later, however.
Now you are just being insulting. I read the amendment. I object to the vague and open-to-interpretation “Demonstrate evidence of” and the long list of chapter requirements that are impossible for a small chapter. There was no “agreement-seeking” in the sense of making good faith efforts to find consensus in the wording. My objections were simply ignored. And I did vote. My vote was “Do not agree as worded”. My full post was:"Do not agree as worded. Too much micro-managing. All the good faith efforts require timethat some chapter volunteers/officers do not have. Also, the statement to support "only..."could be interpreted to apply to issues as well. It also does not address supporting otherparty candidates when there is no Green Party candidate for a particular office.I think it needs work before voting. As worded I would vote no.Michael HaugheyAJ Greens"Michael
No, I don't mean to be insulting at all. I'm simply recognizing that you were not in support, and when you say “do not agree as worded,” and given that you did not present an amendment, I have to conclude that you didn't agree.If I misread your intention from your words, I apologize.
this brouhaha seems very confusing for chapters far from the front range. instead of a forum for voting, this thread appears to be a forum for presenting opposing sides of a rift in the party. and the accusations of racism against those who are in favor of the proposal seems to make it a losing proposition however one votes. so, san miguel greens abstain on this proposal for now.artg
Last post did't format correctly. One thing is for sure: there is a huge rift in this party. I too hold no malice or ill-will towards Andrea but I do see an increase in anger and emotionally filled comments from her, including a message she sent to me that was insulting and disparaging to my character. However, passion is not always a bad thing, if directed properly. I understand that Andrea is passionate about racial and social equality. Any number of comments on Facebook, emails, conference calls, or personal meetings will attest to that. However, it is not the only issue our party holds dear and it's not the only issue that deserves our focus. We have people who are passionate about the environment, passionate about peace and ending the endless wars, passionate about animal cruelty, passionate about feeding the homeless every Friday night in Denver, etc. The big difference is that nobody else is using their passion as weapons against their own party members or to those that would like to join our party. This is what's happening right now. Using racial epithets against others is a slippery slope and almost always ends any rational discussion thereafter. Also, using the same weapon over and over again only dulls that weapon to uselessness. Words matter and if you continually use those words for everything or everyone you disagree with, eventually those words will lose all meaning. It seems to me there are many out there more interested in labeling others in their own party than having a discussion about it. How ironic for a party that espouses community building, openness, and equality. Fight for your passion but not at the expense of your own party members or at the behest of one of the party members you look up to. Be a teacher not a preacher. Don't go so far left that you end up on the right which I feel is what is happening. Please don't turn this into a Green version of McCarthyism. What makes the Green Party different is that members think critically and deeply to make their own decision, not emotionally and blindly to another person's agenda. That's why I joined because it's the only place I've found that I can have amazingly deep and cogent conversations, be politically active, and be a part of something bigger than myself.I'll give credit to Andrea for taking a lead position and attempting to build our party, which was our mandate as a party. However, quantity should not be the most important measurement. We have many new members who have been recruited by Andrea and share her passion for racial and social equality as the number one issue, the majority of them in newly formed chapters. What surprises me is that the majority of these same individuals, ones who haven't been in our party for more than a year, decided to recall a long time champion of Green Party values, the majority without explanation! So you join a political party after disliking the previous establishment one, join hands with one co-chair and then go after the other? This very much feels like a coterie led by Andrea. Maybe it's not, but it sure is suspicious when the recall could have waited until after the election.I don't feel comfortable with the new direction of the party by only focusing on one or two key values and then using them against their own party members. There has to be some discussion on our focus, mission, sensitivity to others, and racism. I don't believe electing interim co-chairs will solve this or bridge us to that point. I prefer no co-chairs until out next annual meeting. Personally I wish Andrea will consider stepping down so we can begin a healing process and then decide later who we want to lead us. Reading her previous comments I understand this is unlikely to happen. However, I believe it is the right move and Agree with this proposal.
I've been mulling this one over since I first read it, and was no closer to a decision on how to vote, but having read Art's comments, I agree wholeheartedly. I vote Abstain.John Wontrobski, Council MemberSan Miguel Greens
I agree. I don't see a significant rift. I guess I have a thick skin and see many of you all as newbies who didn't get involved in the D&D of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant SuperFund Mega-Site – which still hasn't been cleaned up. Is this an issue for the GP?
I don't want to circumvent the process here but it looks pretty certain that this proposal will not pass and if I'm not mistaken the week of voting will be over after tomorrow. Can we call a truce in the interest of a get out the vote effort since the election is only two weeks away? I would like to revive the nomination process for the co chair vacancy as well and I have nominated Arn Menconi on the private council discussion page.Andrea can we get an update on Jill's campaign since you're the Southwest campaign manager? Are there any events in the works for Jill's campaign or for our Colorado candidates? Can we get calling lists from Nationbuilder? Myself, Carolyn Bninski, Susan Hall, and Tom Hall have done phone banking recently and I'm sure we would all be willing to make more calls if we could get new lists.Thank you.Kevin Alumbaugh
The voting period has ended and the proposal has failed. Thank you to everyone who sent me updated chapter council members and their contact info! If you haven't already, please email me with which chapter you represent and your email address so that I can add it to my record. My email is Brittany.HooverATC@gmail.com. I will post the official voting record shortly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.