Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DisagreeThis is moving the Colorado Green Party toward being a most un-welcoming party. It also sets a double standard: 90 days now to apply only for the current "administration", 180 days after the state meeting. Going from same day registration to 180 days is a drastic move that will have negative consequences.While over 8 chapters have weighed in, The wording must be changed to reflect the fact that a quorum is a MINIMUM of 60%. 7 chapters is 58.33% and does not meet the minimum. Therefore a quorum requires 8 chapters.The "Exceptions" have not been defined. What are the excepted groups allowed to do, or how are they counted. What is the purpose?
I would like to add a few thoughts to those posted by judyh: taken one step further, a candidate may run as a Green who does not really embrace Green values or who, for other reasons, is objected to by a Green Party member. Greens “should” support Greens, but that assumes that the Green candidate is truly Green AND acceptable to the individual. To make it a requirement that all Greens support all Green candidates goes too far, and can result in running poor candidates who do more harm than good. To require Greens to think a certain way also goes too far.By running good Green candidates we will not have any difficulty getting the support of true Greens. If we have difficulty, then we are not running good candidates and that is what needs to be changed, not rules to require support of bad candidates.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
Hi Veronica,I assume you have seen the commentary about the bylaws provisions. The general request is, I believe, to remove paragraphs 2.2 and 2.2.1, or to re-word them.Thanks,Michael HaugheyJC Greens
The point of agreement-seeking is to discuss and seek agreement. Only after agreement has been achieved is it time to vote. Without discussion all we have is take-it-or-leave-it.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
We need new chapters and it is great that one is forming in Longmont.However, there are serious concerns with the bylaws that I believe need to be addressed. Paragraph 2.2 comes across as divisive and negative. It sets a racist tone against whites. The Green Party is about positive messages and unity. A much better approach is to be a positive and welcoming force, such as a statement in favor of equal opportunity, economic system reform, and unity. Using the latest controversial buzzwords seems, in addition, to inflame and divide. Paragraph 2.2.1 takes one opinion on a hot and contested topic in the Green Party and locks it into the bylaws. The result is to exclude anyone who disagrees. Another opinion is that this is also, and even more so, divisive, negative, and racist. The concept that only whites can be racist is a narrow view that is not commonly accepted. It insults, belittles, and excludes those whites who are not advantaged, who are struggling, and who do not hold positions of power. It is the opposite of developing unity. Attempts to redefine racism with the result of immunizing whole groups from being able to be labeled racist seem disingenuous. Racism is basically racial prejudice or discrimination. Racism is defined (Meriam Webster) as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. Prejudice (Meriam Webster) is: 1: : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims. 2: a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge; b : an instance of such judgment or opinion; c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.Racism and racial prejudice are neither forward nor reverse. They are feelings and/or actions that any person can have or take.The bylaws are intended to set a framework of how the party will operate and be governed. Often they will include a statement of compliance with a parent group’s (the National Green Party) values (such as the 10 Key Values). Locking in one opinion of a controversial topic within the Green Party does not belong in the bylaws. Should a chapter wish to make a statement on a topic, a better avenue is to issue a resolution stating the opinion and post it on their own webpage or in the forum.
Andrea, by your logic we can never hold a meeting earlier than the previous meeting at which a co-chair was elected. That is of course silly.A good first start to selecting a meeting date is for chapters to volunteer to host the meeting, and propose a location and date. Then council can select amongst those.Michael HaugheyJC GReens
Andrea,Anyone can change their vote, and many have done so in the past. This is why we need an independent forum facilitator. Facilitating and moderating the forum is not the same as facilitating the council (as in running the meetings). This is a clear conflict of interest for you.Michael HaugheyJefferson County Green Party
The procedures document refers to the council, not the forum. The forum didn't even exist when the procedures document was dated.i think it makes sense to have an independent facilitator for the forum.BTW - the bylaws, regarding posting proposals, state:3.4. Endorsements and Sign-ons on public issues:3.4.1 Any proposal for endorsement or sign-on from a Chapter, a Chapter representative, a Committee co-chair, or Officer of the GPCO will be considered by the Council.It seems pretty clear that the intent is for council reps to be able to author and post proposals.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
Sean,I see nothing in the bylaws about the facilitator, one way or another. Perhaps there was a resolution?Michael HaugheyJC Greens
I believe the vote should stop. However, should the vote continue, my second and vote shall be counted.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
As much as I don't want to wade into this, Harry is correct. The bylaws do say “may” and also says “… both co-chairs in agreement…”. Since we only have one co-chair at the moment, both co-chairs in agreement is not possible. Therefore only council can make this appointment and it must go through the proper process. We must first verify that the council wants to fill the second co-chair position for such a short term and then have another election at the state meeting. In the absence of such a motion in agreement-seeking, we ride with only one co-chair until the state meeting. Both co-chairs can only agree to fill a vacant position other than their own with the possible exception that agreement is made prior to one co-chair vacating.Andrea - there is no need to accuse Harry of obstructing progress. He is helping us follow the bylaws. Lets keep it a civil discussion of what the bylaws say and the intent of the bylaws.Michael HaugheyJefferson County Green Party
