Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry! Apparently copy and past from Word is an issue. That's okay, I can always use practice at typing 🙂Hi Veronique,Thank you for taking some time to explain further your chapter's bylaws. As I stated in the previous thread, some clarification of 2.1 and 2.1.1 would be very helpful in understanding your motivations and thoughts concerning prejudice. At present, the chapter bylaws do not explicitly denounce or reject prejudice if it's not considered oppression. And by the definition the bylaws give, prejudice is not considered oppression. I find this troublesome and worrying. Prejudice is a violation of the Ten Key Values and should not be codified into any chapter's bylaws. I truly appreciate and look forward to your response as I personally seek to understand these issues and, hopefully, allay my concerns.
Hi Véronique,[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Thank you for taking some time to explain further your chapter's bylaws. As I stated in the previous thread, some clarification of of 2.2 and 2.2.1 would be very helpful in understanding your motivations and thoughts concerning prejudice. At present, the chapter bylaws do not explicitly denounce or reject prejudice if it's not considered oppression. And by the definition the bylaws give, prejudice is not considered oppression. I find this troublesome and worrying. Prejudice is a violation of the Ten Key Values and should not be codified into any chapter's bylaws. I truly appreciate and look forward to your response as I personally seek to understand these issues and, hopefully, to allay my concerns. [/font]
I'd like some clarification on 2.2 and 2.2.1 [/color] [/color]2.2 begins with declaring that the chapter is anti-oppression and defines somewhat what that means.[/color] [/color]2.2.1 goes on to then define the difference between oppression and prejudice. However, there is no statement regarding whether prejudice is allowed, whether the chapter disagrees with prejudice, or if expressions of prejudice are permissible. Is this a Green Value? That prejudice is okay because it's not oppression? The wording does not explicitly say the chapter rejects prejudice[/color]I STAND ASIDE.
Nice find Damian! I did some research to see if there are others with different options and functionality.Election Runner has a mobile phone function but are a little more expensive ($15 up to 100, $29 up to 300) - https://electionrunner.com/ BallotBin is free with unlimited users and ranked choice voting but is really bare bones, computer only via emailing registration codes - https://www.ballotbin.com/index.php I think any one of these would be interesting to try. The two that cost money are actually free for up to 20 voters. We could test them out at some point.
Okay, I totaled some numbers from the Secretary of State's website that you provided Judy. Super interesting! I split the state into three sections: western, front range, eastern plains/far south. I used my best judgement on some of the counties like putting Park (52 registered), Gilpin (25 registered), and Clear Creek (31 registered) into the front range category.64 total counties in ColoradoWestern: 1,697 (14.9%)Front Range: 8,026 (70.2%)Eastern Plains/far south: 1,711 (14.9%)Total Green registered: 11,434I've been to a couple of annual meetings and voting happens both ways depending on the issue. When we voted for co-chairs we wrote on a piece of paper. When we voted for delegates at the national convention we raised hands, if my memory serves me correctly. I'd have to do some research on teleconferencing and voting. I'm sure there is some software out there that would suit our needs.
Hi Judy,I think early May is okay. That probably should be the latest date though. Anything later and I feel like we'll be missing out on the opportunity to have a good showing at the meeting. Location is always the hardest decision. I want to be sensitive to the fact that we have Greens on the other side of the state but also to realize that, by far, the majority live near the front range (I could be wrong on that, I don't have the numbers in front of me). I'm a little concerned that a four hour drive will keep a large number of people at home. Also, I would want to be sure we put together some type of carpooling/sharing for the long trip. It would seem out of sorts that an environmentally friendly political organization would have a parade of polluting vehicles rolling through the mountains. Another point to consider is the timing. People will have to leave quite early in the morning or the day before, which would mean a hotel stay. These are not insurmountable obstacles, just something to consider. Of course, all those obstacles apply to those living on the Western slope to come to the front range. However, maybe we can offset some of the expense. I have a spare bedroom to offer and maybe a few others do too. Maybe all the front range chapters could donate a little money for gas. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming...
I agree that we definitely need to hold the annual meeting sooner rather than later. The momentum from the election will dissipate the longer we wait and we will miss out on the opportunity to keep people motivated. Our president elect is sure to make some unpopular decisions in the coming months and we should be prepared to at least look like we're organized and ready to fight. March or April would be good months in my opinion.
Last post did't format correctly. One thing is for sure: there is a huge rift in this party. I too hold no malice or ill-will towards Andrea but I do see an increase in anger and emotionally filled comments from her, including a message she sent to me that was insulting and disparaging to my character. However, passion is not always a bad thing, if directed properly. I understand that Andrea is passionate about racial and social equality. Any number of comments on Facebook, emails, conference calls, or personal meetings will attest to that. However, it is not the only issue our party holds dear and it's not the only issue that deserves our focus. We have people who are passionate about the environment, passionate about peace and ending the endless wars, passionate about animal cruelty, passionate about feeding the homeless every Friday night in Denver, etc. The big difference is that nobody else is using their passion as weapons against their own party members or to those that would like to join our party. This is what's happening right now. Using racial epithets against others is a slippery slope and almost always ends any rational discussion thereafter. Also, using the same weapon over and over again only dulls that weapon to uselessness. Words matter and if you continually use those words for everything or everyone you disagree with, eventually those words will lose all meaning. It seems to me there are many out there more interested in labeling others in their own party than having a discussion about it. How ironic for a party that espouses community building, openness, and equality. Fight for your passion but not at the expense of your own party members or at the behest of one of the party members you look up to. Be a teacher not a preacher. Don't go so far left that you end up on the right which I feel is what is happening. Please don't turn this into a Green version of McCarthyism. What makes the Green Party different is that members think critically and deeply to make their own decision, not emotionally and blindly to another person's agenda. That's why I joined because it's the only place I've found that I can have amazingly deep and cogent conversations, be politically active, and be a part of something bigger than myself.I'll give credit to Andrea for taking a lead position and attempting to build our party, which was our mandate as a party. However, quantity should not be the most important measurement. We have many new members who have been recruited by Andrea and share her passion for racial and social equality as the number one issue, the majority of them in newly formed chapters. What surprises me is that the majority of these same individuals, ones who haven't been in our party for more than a year, decided to recall a long time champion of Green Party values, the majority without explanation! So you join a political party after disliking the previous establishment one, join hands with one co-chair and then go after the other? This very much feels like a coterie led by Andrea. Maybe it's not, but it sure is suspicious when the recall could have waited until after the election.I don't feel comfortable with the new direction of the party by only focusing on one or two key values and then using them against their own party members. There has to be some discussion on our focus, mission, sensitivity to others, and racism. I don't believe electing interim co-chairs will solve this or bridge us to that point. I prefer no co-chairs until out next annual meeting. Personally I wish Andrea will consider stepping down so we can begin a healing process and then decide later who we want to lead us. Reading her previous comments I understand this is unlikely to happen. However, I believe it is the right move and Agree with this proposal.
Agree. I would prefer to see no co-chairs for the time being until the Colorado Green Party can get its affairs in order and then elect co-chairs at the next annual meeting. I feel that the state party has lost its way this election season with unsubstantiated accusations, purposeful name calling, and a general sense of “my way or the highway” thinking. We should be fostering a sense of community, unity, and solidarity with each other and others that want to join us in saving this world. Instead I feel leadership has failed at this endeavor at a really historic time in politics.
