[candidate-development] In regards to the failure to post a minority opinion as required by our By-laws

[Jamie O'Keefe]

Oh, where ever should I start.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:04 AM, John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu> wrote:
>  I am sorry Jamie, but after the repeated refusal of you and a small band to
> obey the State Convention, State Committee (even at  risk to life and limb)
> and State Co-chairs, you have little credibility.

Obey?  What are we an authoritarian party?  I thought we believed in dissent.

> Bill Cunningham points out that the rules if read finely enough are riddled
> with contradictions which means that a jesuitical reading can come up with
> almost anything.

Perhaps you should read the By-laws for once since it appears that you
haven't before.

> I wish you had put the same effort into helping (rather than impeding) my
> attempts to raise funds for ballot access for the Greens in AZ as you put
> into these silly maneuvers.

I don't see how calling all of our members for every other state's
ballot access drive when we haven't called them for our own
fundraising purposes builds the GRP.  Besides, your request did not
meet our data access policy.  I am only following rules that have
already been established.  And I did forward the requests for funds
for the AZ ballot access drive to the local lists I am on.  It likely
helped that effort be successful and for that I am pleased.

> Nat and Merelice continue to do a fine job - and at this point when it is
> their word against yours, you simply have no leg to stand on.

It is not a question of my word vs theirs, though you can try to
spread that lie.  Instead, it is a  question of what was required,
what was agreed, and what was actually carried out.  In that we have
much documentation.  Perhaps you should read it and see if you find
mistakes.  Oh wait, the co-chairs told the Secretary not to do so.

Jamie