Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
disagreemaking it more difficult for new Green Party members to vote at our annual meeting goes against all the past inclusive policies of the Green Party of Colorado for the 18 years i've been a memberart goodtimessan miguel greens
andreai must respectfully disagree. we are in agreement-seeking to confirm a date and place for the state meeting, and harry's post is about exactly that -- the date and place of the meeting. while you may not agree with his comment or post, it is not appropriate to censor his post so other council members cannot read it. please explain the reason for the date. the place you explained, but not the date.thank you,art goodtimessan miguel greens
thank you, andrea. i have no problem with the state meeting being on the front range, although for the 19 years i've been a party member, geographic balance was an important focus and policy, so that we tried to alternate where we met. but i'm concerned about a frank and open discussion among council members on where and when. to that end, i'm confused why you chose to remove this post from one of our members without an explanation, other than your personal belief that it was off-topic. referring us to previous discussions of the time and place would seem to me to be on topic for this proposal. it's hard to participate in an agreement-seeking process when removal of comments rather than discussion of comments occurs. please explain.removed comment:Title: Re: Proposal 004-17: Date and Agenda Setting of 2017 State Meeting Post by: Harry Hempy on April 10, 2017, 07:45:51 AMArt, the date was discussed on the forum in December 2016 and January 2017 at http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=308.msg1551#msg1551At any rate, please read the History of GPCO Annual Meeting Dates and Locations (Read 110 times)at http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=308.msg1551#msg1551
we're glad to see the date and place setbut we wonder if we couldn't use this agreement-seeking time to discuss the date and place in more detailcan the proponents explain to us why the date and place were chosen?thank you.san miguel greensart goodtimes, facilitator
i missed this vote in going out to see my new granddaughter in san francsico.but i'm surprised to see a block without an explanation of why. this is supposed to be agreement-seeking time, where we discuss a proposal. blocking without explanation is a curtailment of discussion. that's not agreement-seeking.
as a veteran of government for the past 20 years, i think too much regulation can strangle operations.why not allow a situation to develop in the future where a large voter drive before a state meeting brings in a wave of new members and they begin with an immediate voice in our party? yes, there is a danger of vote-packing by intra-party factions. but i think a permissive attitude to give new party members the franchise -- so long as they have a valid document from their county clerk as to their registration as a Green -- is a wiser course of action.san miguel greens are a standasideart goodtimes, facilitator
my vote is for arn menconi.as (i believe) the oldest continuous member of the green party of colorado, it is very disturbing to witness such a deep division in the party with old members being pushed aside and new members seeking to take control and being dismissive of long-time members.i believe when we wrote the original bylaws, there was supposed to be respect for gender and geographic balance in the co-chair position. has that changed?art goodtimessan miguel greens
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
