The Green National Committee has finished voting on Proposal 379, which elects members of the Green Party’s Senate Campaign Committee, and Proposal 378, which elects members of the Green House Campaign Committee. The Green Party is the only non-corporate political party with Federal Election Commission recognized Senate and House Campaign Committees.
The results of the voting is unclear. In the case of the Senate Committee, 70 votes were cast by 32 states. No write-in votes were cast, and 7 candidates sought 7 seats. In the case of the House Committee, 70 votes were cast by 33 states . One write-in vote was cast, and three candidates sought nine seats. According to an email from Phil Huckelberry, floor manager for both proposals, the write-in vote would be counted, and assuming the write-in candidate agrees to serve, s/he would be considered elected. The rules under which the House Campaign Committee was created would seem to indicate that the Green National Committee must now undertake a new election to fill the rest of the seats on the House Committee.
To muddy the waters even further, since neither the House Campaign Committee nor the Senate Campaign Committee elections secured votes from 34 or more of the eligible states and caucuses, neither proposal can be said to have passed. The quorum requirement for both these proposals is .66 participation in voting, or 34 of 50. None of the party’s caucuses cast a vote on either proposals, and absentee votes are accounted for.
We had one of each.
Very libertarian of you – as my husband would put it: Not one or the other, but both!!
🙂
We had one of each. I won’t say which was profoundly more delicious. 🙂
About the only contentious moment in the last 12 months was whether our 20 year birthday cake should be vegan or not.
Well?!
Which was it? For heaven’s sake, man, the suspense is killing me!
Ron, thanks for sharing.
Deran: I feel bad that you think consensus is anti-Democratic.
I do not believe that consensus is necessarily anti-democratic. It is just that some people manipulate it to use it as a tool. Just like some people manipulate Roberts Rules of Order sometime, to create disorder.
An example: If the Steering Committee of GP-US was using consensus fairly and properly, than when there was a decision, they would stop, state the decision, and ask if there was consensus. (Ie: ask if there were objections, etc.)
But, often, the Steering Committee (or other groups, not just a green thing) will mention a topic, not let the people around totally understand that it is presented as a proposal, and then write it up in the minutes as an agreement made by consensus.
Instead of rejecting consensus, I think it is better to A. Study consensus and B. Study strategize to thwart people trying to abuse consensus.
One simple remedy is that if you are in a group where someone plays that game of pitching ideas and later saying everyone agreed, just slow everything down. Constantly ask questions, ask for clarification if someone is making a proposal. Try to get people to often do the go around of asking if they agree. Also, when you bring up concerns, state straight out if they are “objections” or “blocking objections” so no one can claim you agreed with something you did not agree to.
Also, there is a difference between “consensus as a principle” and “consensus as a process”. Consensus as a principle is a beautiful thing.
To me, consensus means that a group wants to get work done. But, they don’t want to force anyone to do work they don’t agree on. So, they check and see what everyone has as a common goal.
Same thing for a message. A group wants to send out a message, but they do not want to say it in a way that will upset any member of the group.
If consensus were applied in good spirit in the Green Party, it would be a powerful thing. That is why, when a committee was created years ago on consensus, it was absolutely thwarted and stopped. In third parties or activist groups, when you are just near the brink of success, something or someone or some government program comes in to cut you off at the knees.
Kimberly,
Well said. I wish I could have stayed naive to some things and sometimes I wish I never got involved in national for a number of reasons. Working solely with my state party insulated me to a lot of the junk at national but I think after the McKinney campaign I felt more a part of a bigger Green Party than just the Wisconsin Green Party. I think her campaign got me interested in what was happening nationally.
Now we have our 2010 state wide races to concentrate on, there’s always the next campaign!
Ron
Well, ditching the DC staff would be a start. Some of those people have been there since 2000, many from ’96.
I think it’s also, at least to some degree, a problem of all that darn consensus anti-democracy crap. Makes it hard to get things done.
let the viable locals and state chapters help build a new Left green party. Like the one in Iceland. It’s the lack of spine re critique of capitalism as well that has always been a prob for the current GP.
Ron,
I believe that you took a lot of what I was saying very personally. And, that was not my intention. I did not even realize/process as I was writing that you are a state officer. I think of you as a fellow blogger.
Because scenarios did not happen to you and your state, does not mean that they did not happen.
There were recent “slips” of someone posting an e-mail chain with a Steering Committee member’s e-mail catching him in the act of tattling and bad-mouthing me. S. also recently experienced flak which involved pressure from national on his state. And there have been many other instances.
I do not believe you, personally, are a lackey. Though, I do think that you have not been around enough to see their games.
And, I do believe that you have part bought into their hideous culture. Most notably, a comment you made on another list that someone was being “obsessive.” That is odd and rude to accuse someone of publicly. But, Doctor Greg does that all the time. Doctor Greg made it fashionable at GP-US to diagnose people, and then dismiss and/or attack them either privately or in public, whichever he thinks is most effective.
I do have hope for you to become a good and independent leader in GP-US. But, I do not believe that you have the lay of the land enough yet.
Peace and struggle,
Kimberly
“The people on the payroll at national like to have GP-US National Reps who think “the state party comes first.” ”
I don’t see where this came from and how it is relevant other than to suggest that GPUS Staff are the “enemy”, or to suggest that I am somehow GPUS Staff’s lackey because I think the state party comes first.
As for “Doctor Gregg and Uncle Phil” writing to my state officers, well that would mean they had been writing to me and pulling my puppet strings, given that I just finished a two year term as state co-chair last October. I’m afraid to say that I never heard from Gregg or Phil once during those two years.
No – that isn’t true. I talked to Gregg for the first time when we were preparing for the McKinney campaign in Wisconsin. And I met Phil for the first time when we were planning on Midwest organizing for the McKinney campaign.
Nonetheless I think I can state for the record that there has been no one at National keeping Wisconsin disorganized, nor fighting amongst ourselves. In fact we’ve been blessed in Wisconsin with very congenial, collaborative, hard working and friendly Greens as officers, on our coordinating council, as Delegates, and in our locals. About the only contentious moment in the last 12 months was whether our 20 year birthday cake should be vegan or not.
I guess I never realized how good we have it in Wisconsin until I hear about the awful things that seems to happen in other states.
The people on the payroll at national like to have GP-US National Reps who think “the state party comes first.”
In fact, I think that is one way they recruit Steering Committee members – they ask, “Who will care so much about their state, and be so busy, that they won’t care what the clique or permanent government (paid staff) do?”
It is just a shame that when someone like myself – because they have free time, or because they have a holistic approach – wants to help at national, we get shut down as simply complaining.
If your state party comes first, than you should make sure that national “does right” by your state party.
That would be the point I mentioned about making a rule that communications from national to your state be public and posted. Because, I think you would be surprised about how many e-mails Doctor Gregg used to write to your state officers, and how many Uncle Phil now writes. The people at national are masters at keeping the states disorganized/fighting amongst themselves.
“It is going twenty steps backwards to take delegates away from states who have been active enough and ambitious enough to recruit people to fill those slots.”
Every Green focused on GPUS issues is NOT focused on state issues. Yes, I know people can do both, but I’ve seen a high percentage of Greens become Delegates to the NC and within months they have no energy for State Party work, State Party committees, Local chapter organizing, or campaign support. And that is assuming that they don’t get burned out or jaded and quit altogether.
We need our most energetic and active Greens focused on growing our state party, not bogged down with repetitive national committee e-mail.
What would I do to change GPUS? I don’t know. But my state party comes first.
Thanks for the question.
What would I replace GP-US with:
1. Something that kept more to the initial set-up of GP-US. An association of state parties.
To set things right again, I would require that any correspondence from national to any state officials, and any correspondence from Steering Committee members to state officials, be posted for the record on a national list-serve.
I would take off any censorship of delegates on the national list-serve. The reps – elected of appointed by their states – could say whatever they wanted. No national entity could stifle discussion of a state rep.
I would create the position of Volunteer/Committee Liaison, so that there was someone to help make sure that national was not squashing participation in committees. If a green was trying to get on a national committee, someone would give them help, information and advocacy if needed.
I would also make sure the Dispute Resolution Committee operated more transparently. So, that it could in no way be a pawn for the power elite. And, I would demand that the Dispute Resolution comply with its mandate to have a list of eligible mediators.
I would probably eliminate the physical, national office. Because, that winds up focusing too much power at national. Open up room for the states to take up tasks, and guide things.
I would demand that if a state asked for a proposal to be put up for a vote, it go out. Instead of the Steering Committee using tricks to block and stall proposals.
2. If not a GP-US with its original intention and those reforms, I would prefer to stop national, and restart again. Maybe have a big, open meeting. Could be physical, but with enormous efforts to have people participate by video hook-up and/or conference calls. And, start from scratch on setting up a national.
3. I would not mind if GP-US entirely folded. I believe with the next push for Presidential in a year or so, something better would replace it.
I also think that your idea that the National Committee is too big and should shrink is off-base. I think shrinking the National Committee would only play into the hands of people that want everything to be small and kept close to the founders and at the mercy of the staff and Steering Committee.
It is going twenty steps backwards to take delegates away from states who have been active enough and ambitious enough to recruit people to fill those slots.
Peace and struggle,
Kimberly Wilder
Kimberly,
I think we agree that the strength of the Green Party is in local chapters and state parties, not GPUS. 99% of Green Party candidates are run by locals and states, and 100% of elected Greens are local.
GPUS is probably too large, I think a 200 member National Committee (with 100 or less Delegates actually voting) is unnecessary.
But is there a role for GPUS? I’ve questioned that at times but I think the answer is yes.
However if one feels that GPUS is in the way, I have never felt that GPUS has held my state party or local chapter back from forging ahead on anything we have wanted to do. I think Greens can forge ahead despite GPUS, or with GPUS, or on top of GPUS.
Out of curiosity, what would you replace GPUS with? A smaller national Green Party? Dissolve it all together and have 51 (or less) state parties? Or no Green Party at all?
Ron,
If you read my post, I stated that the failure to achieve quorum was not a sign on of the death of GP-US. I am saying the darned thing won’t die.
GP-US is like an evil-zombie creature now, that seems to go on forever, and ever, passed its usefulness. Determined to live on so that a certain set gets to do press releases and have paid jobs at the DC office.
Or maybe a handful of delegates have just tuned out all the email on the national list and failed to even notice that there was a vote taking place.
Just to put it in perspective, 70 votes were received from delegates from 32 states. If just one of the Minnesota Delegates and one of the Texas Delegates would have voted then a quorum would have been met.
So being two votes short is hardly a sign of the death of the Green Party.
Sometimes I think the holdouts are inadvertently propping up the clique, though.
Ah, yes – the Dagny Taggart syndrome (though the reference to Rand may not be considered appropriate in this case:).
“I can’t let it go!”
But – who knows – maybe they will, in the end, be there to help the Party back up.
P.S. It is former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney’ Birthday today. It says so on her Facebook.
Happy Birthday, Cynthia McKinney!!!
Warning! This is from a cranky ex-green:
I can think of several profound reasons that this vote might have failed to achieve quorum:
1. Everyone in that party snipes so much and distrusts each other, people couldn’t even find a set of 7 people (for Senate) and a set of 9 people (for House) to agree on to do simple tasks.
2. All the people that would have volunteered to do the work have left the party. (Note that there were not even enough nominations for all the spots on the committees. Odd that in a whole country, they could only find 3 people willing to be on a 9 member House Committee.)
3. Perhaps some of the insiders realized that they do not like these Senate/House committees, which are in some ways like a political PAC (perhaps that is the actual, technical definition of these entities? I am not sure.) In some ways, these groups were ways to get around contribution limits to the main party. And, maybe the National Committee reps decided to put the cabash on them by not filling the seats? Maybe there is some integrity left in the party?
Look for more things to fail at the national GP-US due to lack of quorum. The numbers and quorums on the Green Party National Committee are designed for a thriving, national party. What’s left, is the founding clique, some people willing to play “I am his master’s dog at Kew”, and a few new people who don’t get it yet.
I am told that regardless of all this failure, once a group has FEC status, a donor list, and some paid staff, it will probably take years to actually give up. Too bad for the green movement.
My wish is that GP-US would reform dramatically, or just fold up and get out of the way. There is a whole country of folks who care about the earth, peace and justice. But, it’s hard to find each other with the distraction of that failing monstrosity.
One hope is that a Presidential candidate (perhaps even Cynthia McKinney again) will rise up in the next year or two, and create such wonderful energy they will revive national, or fill it up with better people. I got tired of waiting for a moment like that to happen. But, there are a few patient holdouts. Sometimes I think the holdouts are inadvertently propping up the clique, though. That is one thing I decided to stop doing. Especially since I was not appreciated, and actually thwarted and attacked whenever I tried to get anything done.