[candidate-development] Fwd: [usgp-nc] Appeal for Process

[Yarden]

The forwarded message serves well to describe the jockeying for 
advantage, and some of the factors at play surrounding the removal of 
Nader's name -- as a candidate or draft candidate -- from the GPUS 
website.  This action is now being questioned (in the name of observing 
agreed rules) and protested (only to protest the arrogance of party 
officials) by all sorts of well-meaning people, and for all sorts of 
declared motives.

In the seeking of advantage for any particular candidate, through the 
devising of rules -- and their alteration -- by people who do not 
understand the 'pathos of power'
or have not carefully examined the meaning or content of the Green 
Parties' KVs, especially the statement on Feminism and the nature of 
the male-established order, are doomed to mimic the political behaviors 
that we condemn.  Worse still is the damage done to the ability to 
think clearly about responsibility for unintended consequences, and the 
damage done done conspiratorial and clandestine actions to the ability 
to act cooperatively.

There is no defense against these actions except openness.  Especially 
concerning the pathetic devices used to dominate.  All sympathies, 
invoked in secrecy, do serious damage to the development of shareable 
strategies.  "Trust me!" is the cry of the bramble that has nothing to 
offer but threats.

I would like to be able to deter the victory of ill-will over the 
possibility of shared goals. but am unsure of how it might be done.  
And, I do know that the means have much to do with how goals are 
accomplished.  But that is because I do not consider the 10KV a fetish 
or a tool of faction, as currently seen in the GRP.
Elie Yarden
delegate, NCMA GRP

I have converted the color of the forwarded message to black for easier 
reading.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Erik Douglas <politicaltao at taotetao.com>
> Date: Sun Mar 23, 2008  11:41:30  PM US/Eastern
> To: "natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org" <natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org>
> Subject: [usgp-nc] Appeal for Process
> Reply-To: politicaltao at taotetao.com
>
> The situation is absurd.  Does a candidate have the right to overrule 
> the NC and not run?  Bizarre, but a genuine conundrum in the letter of 
> the rule...  but only because some of us think it so.  Okay, this is a 
> democratic party.  I disagree with the view personally, but being 
> democratic is more important.  A couple of points.
>
> 1. Nader's decisions are irrelevant to what we do (strangely and not 
> in contradiction to the above): his decision is only relevant insofar 
> as it convinces the SC.  The SC are the decider on this, not Nader 
> (strangely, I agree).  By extension, the NC are the ultimate decider 
> of course, but the SC are our representatives...  Not Nader.
>
> 2. I think this is really the ugly offspring of playing with the rules 
> early on (draft candidates... we should *never* have done this) but 
> let us not cry over spilled milk.
>
> 3. Does the SC have the authority to act as they have?  Only by the 
> means given them - namely that they "may..."
>
> An NC resolution being overturned is a serious matter.   To be clear:
> It is absolutely a misunderstanding to interpret a "may..." clause to 
> legitimize other means.   It does no such thing (though it does not 
> preclude such either).  Specifically, saying "committee C  -- may -- 
> do action  A in manner M" says *nothing* about C doing A in *other* 
> manner O - it neither supports nor denies such authority.  However, it 
> is *also* an assumption of the bylaws (and I am sure or at least hope 
> that someone made it clear there) that powers not explicitly given to 
> the SC are not held by the SC, or any part thereof.  In other words, 
> the SC serves at the pleasure of the NC and derives it powers from the 
> NC.  Which powers precisely? Answer: *Exactly those that it has been 
> explicitly given and no more...*
>
> 4. So, it would seem - strange and bizarre as it is - that the SC 
> needs formally to rule that Nader is not a candidate any  longer, and 
> they (thankfully) have a way of doing this.  A 2/3 vote is required.
>
> 5. Did they formally rule?  I was unclear there.  I recall reading 
> that they met, and there was a "consensus" (presumably of a quorum), 
> which is greater than the needed 2/3...  But I read the minutes and  
> it is apparently not so...
>
> 6. Why any of the SC would not immediately agree that this is absurd 
> is beyond me.  May our memories be long when we next vote...
>
> 7. However, the fact that the SC is divided is a case in point for the 
> ambiguity of the process here. What is the right thing here?
>
> 8. What is *not* the right thing is for any one person or small group 
> to *decide* that such and such is the correct interpretation of the 
> rules and the situation.
>
> 9. The long range answer to this sort of (reoccurring it seems) 
> situation is to introduce a new body in the party, an independent 
> committee elected by the NC and vetted for proper training, to 
> adjudicate on our rules of order and matters of process.
>
> 10. For the time being, I beg the SC to get together and resolve this 
> matter efficiently and cleanly and quickly.  Please.  Find a way to 
> get along - we cannot have this sort of thing happening again and 
> again... We do not have the formal structure to survive it.
>
> 11. But if it is not resolved (e.g., arriving at a needed 2/3 vote), 
> then the NC certainly does have recourse to appeal this matter, and 
> they should.
>
> 12. But I also still think it is seriously crazy for anyone to hold 
> out on Nader under the circumstances.
>
> Thank you,
> Erik Douglas (OR)
>
>
> Holly wrote from the minutes:
>
> 9)  PCSC - Phil
> PCSC took a vote to remove Ralph Nader's name as "draft candidates" 
> per the policy in Proposal #311.  The vote failed to reach 2/3 needed 
> approval;  there was some confusion about someone voting on time and 
> what the vote was.   However, the language in #311 makes clear that 
> when a candidate separates (is not willing to accept a draft) then 
> that is sufficient to remove the candidate's name.   Some on PCSC 
> believe that is not sufficient, that the votenader.org link should be 
> added to the web page.     However, Ralph Nader has made clear in a 
> letter published last week that his intention with an Independent run 
> that he is not seeking the nomination.   He made it clear he does not 
> want to be involved in the GPUS nomination process.  The PCSC vote had 
> begun before the letter was published.  The letter renders the vote 
> moot.
>
>
> I think the issue is crazy and I cannot understand why some members of 
> the SC are holding on to this... (and I like many will certainly not 
> vote for them again).  HOWEVER... It is clear here that there was not 
> a consensus as was reported in an earlier email.  And *no one* has the 
> explicit authority unilaterally to interpret the curious situation we 
> are in a the moment.  And if there is so much divergence of opinion on 
> the matter, then clearly it is an issue.   So, I do think there are 
> grounds for an objection based on process here.  Though I think the 
> content of the issue really is for the birds.
>
> Again, it becomes apparent that an independent parliamentarian 
> committee would be a highly desirable addition to the party so that 
> such things could be decided quickly and efficiently, and we could 
> move on to far more important matters...
>