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

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Merelice,

I find the tone of your letter to be hostile and disrespectful.

In terms of your attempts to place candidates on your ballot before the 
December 6 deadline, I have always been understanding and supportive. 
You and Nat had just been elected co-chairs at the end of August. CDLC 
was not meeting and you were relying on Elie Yarden, who did the bulk of 
the work in making contact with the potential candidates. The state 
legislature had changed the rules and suddenly you lost an entire month 
and had to make decisons before December 6. While I agree with Dan M.'s 
point that you should have consulted with Adcom when you had encoutered 
difficulties, I do not believe that you, Nat and Elie had done nothing 
short of your best efforts to comply with the decisions of the Stte 
Committee and the August Convention.

My understanding is that on December 6 that you only had on hand all of 
the documents from Dr. Mesplay.

I have never made a proposal that said that we should deny delegates to 
everyone who had not complied with all the requrements by December 6! 
The two proposals submitted yesterday say nothing about December 6. Your 
e-mail proposal of February 7 said nothing about December 6. Etc.

Why do you continue bring up December 6? I believe that you are 
attempting to distract everyone from the real issues.

I have not deliberately intended to misinform anyone. The authors of the 
"Minority Report" have attempted to present our viewpoint. The title, 
"Minority Report" by definition acknowledges that there are different 
perspectives.

In terms of your statement that "only a few people have refused to 
accept and are now fomenting unnecessary dissension", that is an insult 
to the members of our party (currently 16 members). The authors of the 
"Minority Report" believe that something serious has gone wrong and we 
are seeking a just remedy. If that is a crime, why does our party exist?

You are the co-chair of our party. Why can't you tolerate dissent?

You were very upset that the letter from Kat Swift ( a member of our 
party who is seeking the Green Party's nomination and has complied with 
all of the requirements) was publicized by Larry Elly. You made it clear 
that you would have preferred to have kept that secret. Kat Swift is a 
party that so far has been harmed by the actions of the leadership of 
the GRP. She has a right to file a complaint and seek redress of her 
grievance. She is seeking a just remedy.

I have never attempted to impose any remedy. I have always said that I 
want to seek a just remedy and have reached out to other members who are 
part of the leadership of the party in search of a remedy.

Using the term "pious" to describe my behavior is disrespectful.

Mike Heichman

Merelice wrote:

>On 3/8/08, Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote:
>.....
>  
>
>> 1. Why are you targeting Congresswoman McKinney in your remarks?
>>    
>>
>
>And why do you continue to ignore the fact that if all the candidates
>were required to fulfill your interpretation of the rules (an
>interpretation not shared by those who have been most actively
>involved in these deliberations), Cynthia McKinney also would not have
>been on the ballot? As of the deadline, she had not announced her
>intention to seek the nomination. So you can offer only two choices by
>your set of standards.
>
>I do not question the motives of the growing list of signatories. I
>seriously question the misinformation they have been fed that leads
>them to think they are supporting an effort based on principle. You
>cannot deny that they have heard only your side of the story and do
>not have first-hand knowledge of all the debate and discussions that
>have led to the conclusions of the majority, conclusions that only a
>few people have refused to accept and are now fomenting unnecessary
>dissension.
>
>Furthermore, the misinformation has now been fed to and used by a
>candidate to level charges in a formal complaint against the Elections
>Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, as well as against
>party volunteers!
>
>Given that long history, why should anyone trust your pious offer to
>seek resolutions?
>
>Merelice
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>  
>