Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I'd first like to clarify the purpose of this proposal. The stated purpose – “call for election of both state Co Chair positions” – actually isn't possible, because we have an active co chair and regular elections won't be held till the Annual Meeting next year. If this is intended to be a recall proposal to remove Andrea from her position, it would require a vote of 75%, not the 60% listed in this proposal. Please reference the bylaws, section 5.9: “If any officer or national representative is found to be in contempt of the goals of the Green Party of Colorado, recall proceedings shall be invoked. A three fourths majority of voting members present at a state meeting and/or the Council is required to achieve the recall of an officer.” Section 4.3, which is referenced in the proposal, actually doesn't apply to this situation, since this is not a vote on policy, finance, or objectives, and this is not a state meeting where we would have regular elections.This proposal appears to be out of order. Can the sponsors or the facilitator clarify, please? If it is a recall, the title and text of the proposal should be updated to reference the recall and the 75% threshold.In case this is in fact a recall proposal, I vote Disagree. In my mind, Andrea has done nothing to show contempt for the goals of the state party, and has in fact been directly responsible for a great deal of the growth and level of organization we have achieved over the last few months. Aside from the multiple new chapters she has directly rebooted or started (including my own in Arapahoe that is currently mostly made up of former berners), we've seen our registrations statewide up by 50% and we are engaging with frontline communities at a much higher level than before she became co-chair. I see nothing in any of the items listed in the proposal that suggests Andrea has done anything that would violate any of our key values.
Agree. It's disturbing to me that this has started to be framed as a dispute between Andrea and Bill. Only one of the items on the proposal relates to her at all, and there are enough other items to demonstrate the necessity of recall. I and others involved in drafting this proposal have challenged Bill around his statements and actions multiple times, and I have personally tried to offer him resources on racism with no response. The impracticality of calling an in person meeting right now seems self evident for folks all over the state weeks before an election. There have been accusations of trying to rush this proposal through. I have already expressed my willingness to extend the discussion period and consider amendments to the proposal. The only reason we are currently on such a short time line for voting on this proposal is the Block presented in Agreement Seeking. I was also not aware that I was breaking protocol by posting a proposal myself, as three out of the previous six proposals posted in Agreement Seeking have not been posted by the Council Facilitator. My understanding was that elected officers of the party would be allowed to post a proposal for discussion. I'd like to ask the other members of the council who have leveled accusations of impropriety in relation to this proposal to explain what they think we should do with the multiple accusations that have been brought by multiple registered Greens in this state against Bill. As a white cis man who is trying to resist oppression, I am trying to make this party a safe place for marginalized people. I believe that the first and most basic step in doing that is to believe women who accuse a white man in a position of power of sexism and threats of violence. If that makes me an anti-male sexist, I will wear that label as a badge of honor. I would like to close by pointing out that attacks on Andrea's character and behavior are frankly irrelevant to this proposal, as she is not the subject of recall. They are also highly inappropriate, as she did not bring this proposal or ask it to be brought. I would like to request that the council keep comments on the topics covered in the proposal and refrain from personal attacks.
I know, and I'm sorry if that came across as an accusation. I want to be sure that this one item doesn't overshadow the rest of the issues being raised. I didn't even know about the threats until very recently. That said, I believe that Andrea and Jason are telling the truth, and I also believe that this alone would be enough to warrant recall. But even if it were not on the list, I would still have helped bring this proposal to the council.
The screenshots Andrea mentions are named July 1.I do want to offer a reminder that Andrea is not bringing this proposal, and the threat of violence against her is only one of many reasons for the proposal. Even if you are reluctant to believe that Bill threatened a fellow officer, he freely admits to getting drunk and shouting at people at a public event where he represented our state party. This isn't a personal vendetta between our two co chairs in which you're being asked to take sides. This is multiple people attempting to address our grave concerns with Bill's behavior.
I would be open to possibly extending the discussion period on this proposal. I'm also open to rewording any sections as appropriate. Do you have any particular suggestions for rewording or modifying any sections, Michael?
Stand AsideI am strongly in favor of universal health care, but I have some concerns with this particular Amendment. Sean Friend, Arapahoe County
We have quorum, with Arapahoe, Denver, Pikes Peak, Greater Boulder, and Adams/Jeffco (5/8 chapters). The decision was unanimous with 10 Agrees, no Blocks, and no Stand Asides. Thanks folks, and congrats to the Party for expanding officially into Mesa County!
