[candidate-development] [statecom-discuss] [Locals] Link to the Minority Opinion

Sat Mar 8 15:25:42 EST 2008

Hi Merelice,

In response to your message below:

1. Why are you targeting Congresswoman McKinney in your remarks? I 
personally do not know how everyone who has signed the "Minority Report" 
voted on February 5. When we meet we do not ask which candidates or 
non-candidates that people support? We have come together because we 
believe that a wrong has been done and want to seek a just remedy that 
would, to the best of our abilities, be fair and just for all of the 
candidates, fair to our members and especially those who voted GRP on 
February 5, and would be consistent with the decisions made by the 
policy making organs of the GRP.

2. 4 people came together (3 of whom are signers of the Minority Report 
and one who hasn't) and came up with 2 proposed remedies. They are 
"proposed remedies". In the message that Jamie sent out, it included the 
following message (not included in the e-mail that you just sent out):

"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. Please don't hesitate to contact any of us, 
although our agreed upon spokespeople have been Martina Robinson, Jamie 
O'Keefe and Jim Henderson."

I believe that there has been a serious split within the leadership of 
our party for months. Doesn't the Minority Report demonstrate that this 
split doesn't represent the thinking of just a couple of malcontents? 
Hasn't this conflict been damaging? Don't we want a just resolution? We 
are proposing a just remedy of this conflict. Here are 2 ideas. Do other 
members of the leadership have other ideas? If yes, let's discuss them 
and create a resolution so that our party can begin to heal our wound 
and move forward and place our energies in party building activities. 
Speaking only for myself, there is much more that I would prefer doing 
instead of engaging in the current conflict.

3. In both of the proposed remedies below, we say nothing about who did 
or did not comply with the party's requirements of the past. (Maybe 
somebody wants to come up with another proposal?). Both proposals refer 
to the 3 (Mesplay, Swift and McKinney) and ask the question of what we 
should do about Jesse Johnson. These are the people who are CURRENTLY 
pursuing the Green Party's nomination for president (who, except for 
Jesse Johnson, have complied with all of our party's requirements).

4. You may be right that any changes would have to be ratified by the 
State Committee and by the Secretary of the Commonwealth and there could 
be a potential cost for a resolution.

5. This is part of what you wrote on February 7, two days after the MA 
Primary: (I will be glad to send your entire e-mail if requested.)

"Merelice’s email of February 7, 2008 entitled ‘fulfilling party 
requirements while assigning delegates’ states: ‘- I believe my proposal 
is a way to get the Party’s required assurances from ALL candidates. - 
fair to candidates and voters, while honoring the Party’s requirements. 
-. Let’s notify those candidates whose vote levels qualify them for 
delegates. At the same time, let’s explain that their delegates are to 
fulfill the purpose of seeking the Green Party’s presidential 
nomination. - If delegates are accepted, the candidate –acknowledges 
that accepting them indicates support of the 10 Key Values, - 
understands that the delegates will become uncommitted if the candidate 
does not seek the Green Party nomination,-’”

I want to point out the following:

a. The title of your e-mail was deliberately chosen by you to accurately 
describe the purpose of the conversation that was taking place.
b. I thought that it was an excellent proposal and expressed that 
shortly after February 7. It attempted to be fair to all of the 
candidates and to those who had voted two days previously to your e-mail 
while "honoring the Party' requirements".

5. Merelice, please clarify your following paragraph:

"At the end of the State Committee meeting -- even though the straw poll 
showed a 17 to 3 opposition to the minority interpretation --there was a 
hasty effort to come up with a proposal that might reach consensus. 
Neither of the ideas below follows up on that effort."

a. What was the content of the question that led to the 17-3 straw vote?
b. I do know that at that meeting that I had proposed a remedy AND more 
importantly had made it clear that I was NOT pushing my proposed remedy 
(which was clearly unpopular on that day) and that I was seeking a 
decision, which I hoped would be a just remedy.

6. I want to make a few comments about your last paragraph which reads, 
"More to the point, there is no agreement that a problem exists that 
needs resolution. First step is to get agreement on that. Otherwise, 
these could be seen simply as two resolutions looking for a problem."

a. The leadership of our party is certainly divided. Some of us are 
crying out for a resolution. Others would just like for us to quietly go 
away. Others are just quiet and I know not what they may be thinking.

b. Below are the results of the February 5 election (numbers crunched 
from our website)

1. 44.2% (of those who voted-not blanks) voted for 3 people who are no 
longer (or never was in the case of Mr. Nader) a candidate pursuing the 
Green Party's nomination for the presidency.

2. 30.7% voted for the 3 people on our ballot who were (before February 
5) and are still candidates pursuing the Green Party's nomination for 
the presidency.

3. 10.4% voted for "No Preference"

4. 14.6% were "Write-Ins" (We don't know who.)

Without rehashing ANY of the past arguments about the meaning of the 
policy decisions that were made, we have two choices:

1. The leadership of the party can actively and/or passively decide that 
there is no problem and will assign delegates according to the 
mechanical process that will crunch the above figures and assign 
delegates to those above accordingly, whether or not they are currently 
candidates pursuing the Green Party' nomination.

2. The leadership of the party can, using your own words (above), 
"fulfilling party requirements while assigning delegates" and "get the 
Party’s required assurances from ALL candidates. - fair to candidates 
and voters, while honoring the Party’s requirements".

I have repeatedly argued that the policy decisions that have been made 
put requirements on people before their names would be placed on our 
ballot. I never have believed that you and Nat intended to place anyone 
on our ballot who would not eventually be pursuing the Green Party's 
nomination for the presidency.

The situation has changed. Does it make sense to pretend that there is 
no problem and just turn the processs over to a computer? Or should we 
acknowledge that there is a problem and come together and create a just 
remedy?

Mike Heichman
============================

Merelice wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>Is it just coincidence or is it partisan favoritism toward McKinney
>that both resolutions suggested below leave her in the mix? If all the
>candidates need to fulfill certain rules as interpreted by the
>minority opinion in order to be valid candidates, then only Mesplay
>and Swift should be defined as "candidates" (solution 1) or be listed
>on a new ballot (solution 2) for a new election (at whose expense and
>at what timing, given it would have to be approved by the State
>Committee and the Secretary of State's office?).
>
>Instead, these resolutions are changing the rules long after the
>ballot deadline and well after the primary, which voters and the
>office of the Secretary of State would have good reason to challenge.
>Solution 2 is especially insulting to the nearly 40% of voters who
>would learn that their vote was being tossed out, and that includes me
>(and, no, I did not vote for Nader, the main target). Further, it
>would be seen as a ballot being manipulated by party insiders to
>benefit a select candidate, hardly appropriate for a party that claims
>to be inclusive and transparent.
>
>At the end of the State Committee meeting -- even though the straw
>poll showed a 17 to 3 opposition to the minority interpretation --
>there was a hasty effort to come up with a proposal that might reach
>consensus. Neither of the ideas below follows up on that effort.
>
>More to the point, there is no agreement that a problem exists that
>needs resolution. First step is to get agreement on that. Otherwise,
>these could be seen simply as two resolutions looking for a problem.
>
>Merelice
>
>
>On 3/7/08, Jamie O'Keefe <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org> wrote:
>.......
>  
>
>> Resolutions:
>>
>> "A call was put out for anyone interested and seeking resolutions to
>> the delegate apportionment issues not covered in the present delegate
>> selection plan - unforeseen areas.  A group of four people answered
>> that call -
>>
>> They came up with two proposals:
>>
>> 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).
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>  
>