Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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
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. The proposal sponsors (Boulder and Jefferson) accept the one week of agreement seeking as stated in the introduction to the proposal.Michael HaugheyJefferson County Green Party
I reread the proposal and the comments. I'd like to see a brief period of civil discussion for the purpose of education, and then if sufficient agreement, go to a vote. Where there are objections, it would help to have specific text references.One concern I've heard is that Medicare recipients may be paying twice, so I looked into that a little. BTW - Medicare is a little complicated. My summary understanding begins with the complex nature of Medicare. The added tax would be new, as I understand it, for people who currently do not have supplemental coverage. My understanding is that Amendment 69 essentially provides the coverage that supplemental coverage would. So if you have Medicare, or will soon, and have or plan to have supplemental coverage (Part B, kinda necessary in my opinion), then you will not be paying "twice", although the exact differences in cost (I think the costs are similar) are far beyond what I have time to research. On the other hand, if you do not have or plan to have supplemental coverage (Part A only) then you will be paying more under A69, but will get the coverage. On the other hand, without supplemental coverage (Plan B), Medicare has some big gaps.I think there is no question that most if not all Greens want single payer. Medicare for all sounds nice, but even that certainly does not go far enough. Everyone should have health care, not insurance, for most ailments and preventive care without having to buy supplemental insurance. Added insurance should be for luxuries, like single occupancy hospital rooms. I think we will not get single payer in one fell swoop. It will be a process. Amendment 69 looks like a good first step to me. Keep in mind that we are currently budget-limited by other systemic issues that also need to be addressed, and hence the need for A69 to be essentially self-funding through a tax. Get rid of central banks and usury interest and that problem goes away, but we are not there yet and in the meantime do need healthcare. Once A69 is in place, then it seems to me that we then have a potential voice for adding coverage for more ailments and preventive care.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
For reference this si item #003-16 currently located in Proposal Agreement Seeking.I'll reread also and then comment.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
I certainly oppose privatization. I would like to see discussion comparing the candidates, and will do my own research before weighing in on endorsement. I have the impression that privatization, at least of highways (which makes mass transit less possible) has come from the CDOT. Can anyone help clarify the role of RTD vs. CDOT and even the Governor's office?Michael HaugheyJC Greens
AGREEWe received feedback from campaign volunteers that they are hamstrung by having to spend time discussing the co-chair situation (Bill's recall) and try to explain that rather than being able to discuss issues and the candidates. I have also talked to Arn who is frustrated at now having no co-chair support. The allegations about the current co-chair are at least as serious as those claimed against Bill. Therefore I agree that we need a clean slate at least during the elections and then time to have discussions (after the November 8 election) about how to move forward. A new election at the next state meeting could re-affirm support for Andrea or go in a different direction dependent upon the discussions between now and then.If Andrea would like to voluntarily step down to facilitate this process, that would be a great gesture and appreciated. She could focus on Jill's campaign and the GPCO could more quickly elect interim co-chairs to do the best we can in the time remaining until the November 8 election.Michael HaugheyJefferson County Green Party
BTW, the text and title of the proposal (items 2. and 3.) are mis-leading. They may give the false impression that the co-chair position has been vacated.This is a recall attempt per bylaws section 5.9 which is only allowed "If any officer or national representative is found to be in contempt of the goals of the Green Party of Colorado."Michael HaugheyJefferson County Green Party
I concur with the Boulder Greens and Kevin's statement. I would further add that we should not be analyzing everyone's personal “behaviour”, particularly posts on Facebook, with respect to our own interpretations of the 10 Key Values and with the intent of ousting anyone who is not perfect (in our own judgement). The 10 Key Values are guidelines for policy, not ten commandments for individual behaviour. It just opens up a can of worms of individuals throwing stones from glass houses.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
The JC Greens voted on our local bylaws update to accommodate the minor name change.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
My understanding is that this would make a certain number of signatures from every “???” (precinct, county, ???). Not sure of the local divisions. At any rate, it would appear to result in only initiatives that are very well funded, and perhaps only conservative initiatives since a minimum number of signatures appears required from even the smallest rural area.Does anyone have details on this?I think we should oppose it.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
