Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This thread has been moved to the voting section of the council forum. Please proceed by voting there.
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.
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
Jason, A request by anyone can be made to extend voting on which I as council facilitator act on. I have been doing a one week voting extension when a request is made.
As council facilitator, Can I ask why proper protocol wasn't followed by sending this proposal to send to me first? Is that not “rushing” this proposal, just as you accuse Bill of doing with the Amendment 69 proposal? With that said, this proposal isn't official and should be deleted. If you'd like it to be reposted, follow the proper channels and email it to me first. Come on now people, lets try to emulate some professionalism.
This proposal also needs two additional chapters to agree. I was mistaken in that 5 votes are needed to reach quorum, since Mesa is an active chapter.
Two additional chapters will need to Agree with this proposal in order for it to pass. As there was an official request to extend the voting time for an additional week, official voting will close on Sept 13th.
Yes, the Proposal has reached agreement. Andrea, some of the newer council members don't have their respective chapters listed under their profile. That helps me determine voting counts per chapter. Any idea how we can update that?
We are needing one more chapter to vote in order for this to pass. We currently have 4 separate chapters voting.
Michael, Can you please clarify your response? We have enough consensus to pass the approval but I need to know if you are blocking or stand aside and Andrea is trying have a dialogue with you about the wording.
The proposal has passed. I will post official results soon.Final Tally:9 Agree0 Stand Aside0 Block5/8 Chapters voting.
