[candidate-development] Link to the Minority Opinion

[Yarden]

James O'Keefe (on behalf of the Minority Opinion signatories)

I regret that, signing this e-mail "on behalf of .   .   . " are unable 
to do
more than direct your readers to a 'campaign' website established
on February 28, 2008 for the purpose of obtaining additional 
signatories.
Any user of e-mail without filter is accustomed to this use. Even so
following your link, I did find the website entitled:

			A "Minority Opinion"

The website seemed well designed, better for a campaign than for a
discussion.  Bet never mind.  You do refer to a report that has been
under discussion.  Who has been discussing it?  Why would anyone be
discussing it? Until this morning, I had no knowledge of the existence
of this campaign.

I had known of a number of people who disapproved of the actions
of people who were placed in charge of carrying out the decision
of the State Committee and the Convention, but that is usually the
case in the absence of 100% consensus.  Vociferous and insitent
objectors, like Mike Heichman, and perhaps others, refused to
discuss the matter me.  There may have been other people who
experienced this refusal, and wished to use the CDLC as a forum
for this purpose.  Mike, myself and others did succeed in re-forming
that body, for the purpose of preparing for the primary and while
our meetings were frustrated by the unreadiness of candidates to
participate in our planning, we were able to come up with ways of
calling attention to our primaries, that were used in some parts of
the state.

Because of the press of other electoral activities in the Towns, with
which you had specifically asked me to concern myself -- and I did --
others in the party, who had far more experience of the work of the
CDLC than I did, objected, and rightly objected to using the time of
CDLC meetings for discussion of objections to an election that had
occurred, and expressed a willingness to have those people who
were willing to do so, meet for the purpose of examining the delegate
selection plan, and how it could be improved to deal with various
objections.  At no time did you identify yourself to me as one of the
objectors.

On Friday, March 7, 2008, at 04:30  PM, Jamie O'Keefe wrote:

> Friends,
>
> Below is a link for those who have not had equal access to the report
> that has been under discussion:
>
>     http://saintkermit.com/greenopinion/
>
> The action we seek is a resolution of the assigning of delegates.  We
> still seek that resolution and are VERY ready to have any conversation
> about possible resolutions.

That this last statement: "The action we seek is a resolution of the 
assigning
of delegates." is misleading at best is demonstrated below.  And there 
is
nothing in your: A "Minority Report" (is the use of double quotation 
marks
intended to suggest that you are actually a 'moral majority?') to 
suggest this.

> Please don't hesitate to contact any of us, although our agreed upon
> spokespeople have been Martina Robinson, Jamie O'Keefe and Jim
> Henderson.
None of the named people above have indicated any willingness to enter
into discussion, when I have offerred it.  I have not bothered Martina, 
but
have no difficulty in doing so other than appearances of annoying her 
after
two of the spokespeople might find it easiest have refused.

> Resolutions:
Whose?

> "A call was put out for anyone interested and seeking resolutions to
What is the opening quote mark (") supposed to be doing there?  Where
does this implied quotation end?  Who is being quoted?  A "A call was
put out  .   .   . by whom?  How is anybody to make head or tail of 
this?
Is your heart really in it?

> the delegate apportionment issues not covered in the present delegate
> selection plan - unforeseen areas.  A group of four people answered
> that call -
Please tell us who they were.  There was no meeting of any people who
can not be named, as far as I know.  I was present at a telephone 
conference
on Sunday, March 2, talking with Mike Heichman, who agreed to a 
discussion
after having refused to talk to me about resolving any concern with 
delegate
apportionment for more than a month, Grace Ross, and Gary Hicks.

> They came up with two proposals:
This is not true.
I had undertaken to word a draft suggestion by Wednesday morning
that I would send to the four people who participated in the Sunday
evening session at a Monday evening session from which Gary Hicks
was absent, and was unable to do so.  I do not know where you got
the statement below, nor do I know to whom the second word refers.
There is nothing in the statement below that was not talked about, but
I doubt very much that I would impose such vagueness of thinking on
anyone seeking resolution of grievances, while pretending something
to be doing something else. None of the 'spokespeople' participated.
I do appreciate, and am even grateful, for the sincere desire that you
indicate for resolving the matter of delegate selection, and even the
show of 'bad conscience' demonstrated in the incoherence of your
missive.  Yes, Jamie, that is what we should be doing.  So why did you
not participate in the conversation?  Why did Mike have to be 
continually
reminded that we were here to do that.  _Not_ discuss the minority 
report.
>
> 1) That we define "candidates" to mean those presently seeking the
> nomination of the Green Party for President, in which case the only
> remaining language change that they believed was needed was: that
> write-ins eligible for delegates would have to be contacted to agree
> to be seeking the nomination before they were assigned delegates.
>
> 2) That since we can get the lists of everyone who voted 'J' in the
> Primary, that we get those lists and send out a new ballot configured
> like the other ballots (so would include 'no preference' and space for
> write-ins) with Mesplay, Swift, and McKinney (and possibly Johnson) on
> it.  They believe the plan would still need an additional change, that
> delegates were not bound to candidates who were not at the convention
> (related to their choices about participating in the nomination
> process, not because they were sick or something).
>
> peace,
>
> James O'Keefe (on behalf of the Minority Opinion signatories)
> _______________________________________________

If it is your intent to take care of appointment of delegates, I will 
easily
demonstrate to you, and to anyone else willing to discuss the matter, 
that
there is nothing in our approve delegate plan that interferes with our 
doing
so.  If you persist in charges of malfeasance that prevent this, you are
interfering, and doing so unnecessarily.  Do you know the difference 
between
making war and seeking agreement.  Any agreement sought under duress,
is weak and worthless.  If there is a genuine conflict resulting from 
objections
to the actions of the party, in the matter of nominations that appeared 
on our
primary, on the part of a genuine minority, the GPUS has institutions 
for dealing
with such conflicts, especially when the are interstate-al conflicts.  
The work
of selecting delegates might be made easier if your were to divorce 
this action
from the design of troop collecting web-sites.  Send the conflict for 
resolution
to where it belongs and let's begin the delegate selection process.

I confess that I had made a personal resolution to be kind and not 
respond.
It is also true that I dropped it very easily, failed to keep my word, 
confronting
the reality that people, Jen, Merelice, and others, were responding.
Peace?
lets try it.
Shall I send you the forms for referring the matter to the GPUS 
conflict resolution
resolution bodies?  (According to your statement,  does involve 
candidacies
from other states.)  Or would you, and your organization, prefer that I 
refer it?
Please consult with your colleagues, do respond, and let's begin the 
delegate
selection work.  People are waiting for us to start.
Elie Yarden
delegate, NCMA GRP



> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>