-- Shane
--------- Forwarded message ---------- From: davidpollard at home.com To: TarrantCo-Greens at yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:04:23 -0000 Subject: [TarrantCo-Greens] Report on GPUSA St. Louis Meeting Message-ID: <978f18+o3re at egroups.com>
GPUSA failed to endorse the Boston "unity" proposal at their conference last weekend. Here's the lowdown on it that I found on a NJ GP list. I guess that this means we (ie ASGP - of which Texas is a member) go on without them....
--- In nortxgreens at y..., davidpollard at h... wrote: Subject: report on GPUSA St. Louis meeting from Michigan Green Party rep.
Hi, everyone. For those of you who only know me as the Committee Manager and occasional irritable facilitator at state quarterly meetings, I'm also one of the state representatives to the GNC for GPUSA. Juscha Vannier is the other rep, but she was unable to attend the meeting this past weekend. Steve Herrick, a member of the ASGP's steering committee and, likewise, a member of GPUSA, also attended. (I'm sure Steve will have at least something to add to my report.)
Unfortunately, barring some personal experiences, I have almost nothing positive to say about the proceedings in St. Louis. It was a remarkable display of parliamentary maneuvering and power politics, the likes of which I haven't seen since I was an occasional attendee at 'off the Hill' conferences in Georgetown bars in the late 80s.
The GNC is made up of whichever delegates can attend from member states and the oppressed minority caucuses (people of color, queer, women, etc.) Each state has a minimum of two votes, plus one for each 50 GPUSA members or 500 Greens. Each caucus receives two votes. Doing the easy math, Michigan had three votes at this meeting. 14 delegates from MI, NY, MA, IL, WI, CA, MO, PA, and various caucuses attended.
The primary focus of this meeting was intended to be the Boston proposal, which Steve Herrick and 11 other GPUSA and ASGP delegates negotiated in that city last October. The Proposal establishes a basic framework for unity between the two disparate groups, which would allow us to have one national Green party and leave such issues as dues, basic structure, and electoral/activist emphasis up to the member Greens of the respective states.
There is a minority of resistance among GPUSA members who do not approve of the Proposal and we (I say 'we' because Steve and I have both been working toward this for several months, as Michigan is one of six states that are dually-affiliated and are thus referred to as 'unity' states) expected a rather hard-fought discussion that would either a) see the Proposal passed or, b) see it moved to a meeting of the Green Congress, which incorporates the general membership of the GPUSA into the debate, much like our own quarterly meetings. The latter option was, in fact, preferable, as it enables input from more than simply 'representative' delegates. The key to the Congress is timing, as the deadline set for approval of the Proposal is April 30; after which time, ASGP will presumably file with the FEC and, with the cooperation of Nader, receive recognition as the one, national Green party.
So, it was bound to be an arduous meeting. However, what we did not expect was the outright abrogation of both GPUSA by-laws and democratic process which we encountered in St. Louis.
St. Louis is the home base of the Gateway Green Alliance, which is led by Don Fitz. Don has been vocal about his opposition to the Proposal and we expected that he would capably lead the argument against it. We also discovered upon arrival on Saturday that the delegations from Minnesota, Virginia, and New Jersey would not be attending (all pro-unity). So, in that respect, we were already at a disadvantage. Now, it becomes interesting. Edith Gbur stood up and suggested that she was attending the meeting as a 'representative' of a minority opinion in New Jersey against the Boston Proposal and that, consequently, she was entitled to half of that state's votes. There is no allowance for such an action in the by-laws. There was no answer to our question about why the minority should be represented while the majority could not be, or why the minority should lay claim to HALF the state's votes (1.5 of 3). Furthermore, in simple fact, Edith is not an elected delegate of New Jersey. However, as we were the minority opinion at the table (which was perhaps 2/3 anti-unity, and 1/3 pro-unity/undecided) Edith was given a seat and the 1.5 votes.
Next, Mitchel Cohen stood up from New York. Howie Hawkins and Julia Willebrand are the elected delegates from that state and were splitting the state's 5 votes between them. Mitch first claimed to be a member of the Queer caucus (although he has not served in that capacity before) and was granted the two votes from that caucus. Mitch also waved a stack of 32 emails that he claimed were from GPUSA members in New York, representing the minority anti-unity viewpoint, that empowered him to speak on their behalf. He then laid claim to HALF of New York's votes. This discussion went on for some time until it was decided that there were two options: let the New York delegation caucus with Mitch for a few minutes to see if they could work it out themselves, or put it to a GNC vote. Knowing full well what would happen if it went to a vote, Howie and Julia (under protest) discussed the matter with Mitch and he was granted one of New York's votes, with Howie and Julia splitting the other four. Consequently, we now had three delegates sitting at the GNC for the state of New York in direct violation of the by-laws which declare that each state or caucus shall have only two delegates. We also were stuck with the fact that a further 4.5 votes were automatically arrayed against us on every issue.
Then, came the agenda snafu. At each GNC meeting, the committee is supposed to approve the agenda to be used over the weekend. That agenda is set by the GPUSA Coordinating Committee (comprised of Howie, Dorothy Byrne from Florida, and Sarah Nelson from Illinois.) The CC's agenda was distributed, followed by the distribution of Don's alternative agenda. The key feature of the latter was that it essentially nullified any discussion about the Boston proposal, relegating it to a discussion about a proposal from the Syracuse, NY local that incorporated modifications to the text, and a mysterious proposal about unity from California that never actually surfaced (the delegates from CA, Sue and Ed Nelson, were not aware of the proposal or from which local in CA it had emerged. Incidentally, Sue and Ed are opposed to the Boston proposal and, thus, is the state of California. However, local polling and public opinion belie that fact. Despite the presence of a Massachusetts delegate who was voting pro-unity for her membership in contrast to her personal feelings, Sue briefly led a discussion about how delegates should vote independently of their constituents at times. Thus the evils of representative government...)
So, a vote was called about the agendas. Of course, Don's agenda replaced that established by the Coordinating Committee as mandated by the by-laws. Consequently, despite the heavy mood of urgency shrouding the meeting for some discussion about Boston; and despite the fact that a good 75% of all responses on all issues over the weekend referenced Boston in some context, discussion was delayed to either very late in the day Saturday, where little would be accomplished, or Sunday.
It was at this point that I brought up my experiences meeting Senators, Reps, pages, and lobbyists in Georgetown (Washington, DC) bars in the late 80s (the 'off the Hill' meetings I spoke of earlier) and declared that the power politics I was seeing displayed at this meeting were precisely those I had seen in DC which much of the public, and EVERY Green that I've ever met, decries with a certain level of disgust. There was a fair amount of applause ('twinkling') and nodding heads to my comments before the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth and cries of my heretical attitude rained down on me.
Nevertheless, I know politics. I know power politics. This was the latter without question. I hesitate to use the term 'un-Green' because I dislike labels. However, I can think of little else that describes the behavior that I was witnessing.
Saturday continued with a series of 'reports' on different issues that GPUSA is ostensibly involved in, all of which were presented as seeming educational opportunities, to which I informed Steve that I did not make a 1000-mile round trip to sit with a bunch of other hyper-educated Greens and be 'educated' AGAIN. In any case, we muddled our way through much of Don's agenda (at one point being castigated for our invocation of email as an informative tool, as email is 'classist' (i.e. is denied those without the resources for an expensive piece of hardware.) However, at least three or four of the delegates mentioned that they accessed email through their local, public library and there was no mention of Mitch's unscientific email poll being 'classist' when the question of New York's votes was on the floor...)
Sunday opened with a determination by several delegates to discuss the Boston proposal in any method that might serve. The decision was made to bring the Syracuse alternative to Boston to the floor. The changes that Syracuse had suggested were, by and large, cosmetic. While there was some trepidation with essentially asking ASGP to return to the negotiating table after four months of silence, it was allowed that there was a possibility for change. However, Don then introduced four unfriendly amendments to the Syracuse proposal that utterly changed the character of it and, in essence, scrapped Boston completely. Here is where it becomes interesting.
The voting process stipulated in the by-laws is similar to our own: strive for consensus, but fall back to a 2/3 majority vote when necessary. However, there is another line in the GPUSA by-laws that stipulates that points of process (i.e. procedural points about the way the meeting is conducted) may be decided by a SIMPLE MAJORITY. As Don knew at that point that some resistance had hardened to the way his faction was dominating the meeting, I believe that he was aware that they would not be able to get the 2/3 necessary to pass these amendments. He then claimed that these substantive amendments were, in fact, points of process and could be passed by the said simple majority. This, despite the fact that EVERY vote taken during the preceding day for amendments to proposals, was done and cited by a 2/3 margin.
I was stunned. I could not, and still do not, quite believe what I was seeing and hearing. As the rancorous discussion continued, I managed to insert a point (I was quite close to shouting at this time) that EVERY Green I knew decried the use of simple majority to decide an issue of substance, not least because it is one of the primary flaws of the US system of government. However, as the method of voting on the amendments WAS a genuine point of process, Don's faction won the vote. It was at that point that I stood up and left the table, as did Howie and Julia. Howie began penning a letter to be inserted in the minutes indicating that the state of New York was participating in the meeting only under protest for what had been done to their voting rights and the abrogation of the multiply-precedented and by-law-written rule about voting procedure at GNC meetings. I was asked if I was going to include myself in the continuing discussion about the four amendments and I stated that, as a matter of personal principle, I make it a point not to participate in travesties.
All four amendments passed (two of them by grudging consensus, as those left at the table knew that voting was pointless at that time; the passage of these two was met by no shortage of effort by Don's faction patting themselves on the back for their success). However, John Stith of Pennsylvania, who was facilitating at that point, did establish with Don that since the Syracuse proposal was, in fact, a proposal, it must have the 2/3 vote. New York and Michigan returned to the table to defeat the proposal (Howie voting down the very words that he had authored) and the issue died.
The rest of the day was consumed by parliamentary games, as people from both sides attempted to add items to the agenda, most of which were defeated in turn. Among those were a motion by Mitch Cohen to discuss the Boston proposal phrased in such a way as to present it as a point of process (simple majority vote.)
Our final effort was to be getting a special Green Congress called in April, to beat the deadline suggested by the ASGP. The Congress is normally called in the summer (at least May) and it is stipulated in the by-laws that it must be given at least 12 weeks preparation time once it is called at a GNC meeting. Twelve weeks would put us past April 30, so we were asking for a minor deviation (which, considering what had already happened, should not have been that much of a crisis.) As expected, at that point the by-laws became virtually sacrosanct and no deviation was allowed for. Our motion for the early Congress was defeated and the meeting bogged down into endless details about the where and when the Congress should actually be held. In the end, a six person committee was elected to decide these matters. They seem to be aiming for late May.
Now comes the weekend's final stroke. The Coordinating Committee (Howie, Dorothy, and Sarah) had an opening, as Sarah had resigned for reasons of health shortly before the meeting. The CC is similar to our own SCC in that it runs the day-to-day functions of GPUSA, including the finances. According to the by-laws, there are also supposed to be three alternates, to resolve just such a situation. However, at the last GNC meeting, no such alternates were elected. Don made a proposal that all six slots (3 regular, 3 alternate) in the CC should be elected at this meeting, although there was no precedent for removing sitting members (Howie, Dorothy) before at least a year had passed. Nevertheless, the motion passed and six nominations were made for the six slots, 3 GNC delegates (Howie Hawkins, Marc Loveless, Kelly Riley), two present observers (Barbara Chicherio, Echnaton Vedder) and one absent (Nancy Oden.) Howie made the point that preference voting had always been used in the past in these situations, but several among Don's faction argued that it wasn't appropriate in this scenario and, instead, proportional voting should be used, in which each delegate had 3 votes which would be multiplied by the number of GNC votes that the delegate possessed (I, therefore, would have nine). You should be able to follow the easy conclusion here: Those with the most delegate votes at the table would have their choice of candidates, rather than personal preference voting, which would have provided a more ccurate representation.
Howie turned to me and said that he felt like someone had stood him on his head and switched groups on him. He said the tactics employed that weekend, including the switch of voting systems, were identical to the tactics used by the ASGP in 1997 to exclude him and his opinion. In the end, some degree of wisdom shone through, as Howie was elected with the most votes, followed by Marc Loveless (People of Color caucus) and Nancy Oden (Maine.) The other three were accepted as alternates. On the face of things, it looks quite good to have a minority and a woman on the CC. However, the truth of the matter is that Marc and Nancy are both stridently anti-unity and Howie will now have to contest that problem over the coming months. Incidentally, Don said he just happened to have spoken with Nancy on the phone Saturday night and suggested that he might nominate her if the election came up, to which she gladly accepted.
Put simply, I'm appalled. Most of you who know me understand that I do not go in much for dramatic language or excitability, but I was completely dismayed at what took place this weekend. There were many during the meeting who suggested that, with no decision on Boston and the early Congress defeated, GPUSA was finished. ASGP would get FEC status and become the public face of the Green party in the US, and our hope for a concentrated core of hardline environmentalists and social activists to set the tone for that organization was eliminated. Steve Herrick is going to make a concerted effort to get the ASGP to extend their deadline to after the Congress. We both still feel that, given the feedback we have received, if the question is called before the general membership, the Proposal will pass and we will be on our way to a single, strong Green party and movement.
However, I think more damage was done in St. Louis than that solely over the unity issue. It was quite clear that those opposed to unity would stop at no boundaries of ethical behavior to make sure that the will of the group bent to theirs. Steve has suggested before that we recommend disaffiliation with GPUSA if the unity movement dies. I am tempted to suggest disaffiliation right now, given what I experienced in St. Louis. I, personally, want no part of an organization that is dominated at its top by those who freely engage in the underhanded power politics of the system that the Greens are supposed to be an alternative to (and, incidentally, which decries ASGP for EXACTLY that kind of behavior, past and present.)
We will both continue to work on organizing people to attend the Green Congress. But I would like to hear some feedback from the general membership on which direction we should take past, or even before, that.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. I'm quite sure there are details that are fogged over by the haze of outrage in my mind.
Marc Reichardt
Ann Arbor, MI
dystopia at w... --- End forwarded message ---
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.