[External Relations] Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on attemptsbyNader/Camejocampaign's supporters to usurp

[Owen Broadhurst]

The subjects to which Aimee Smith refers have also been broached on the BRPP 
list ( I am a GRP representative to the GPUS Bylaws, Rules, Policies and 
Procedures Comittee). The BRPP has not arrived at any consensus on the 
matter. However, the majority view seems to be that the word "support" does 
not imply conditions that can be met by denying the national nominating 
convention candidate an available ballot line. I had argued that such denial 
constitutes "opposition".

The word "support", for the curious, is among the list of conditions of 
affiliation listed under the GPUS Rules and Procedures: 
http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.html These criteria follow:

II. Criteria for State Party Membership in the Green Party of the United 
States.

1. Acceptance of the four pillars of the international Green Party movement 
[ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, non-violence] or 
the Ten Key Values as guiding principles.
2. Organized and run in accordance with these values.
3. A statewide organization open to, and reflective of, a statewide 
membership.
4. Agrees to support national candidates selection by Green convention.
5. Makes good faith effort, where reasonable, to achieve ballot status.
6. Makes good faith effort to run state and local candidates.
7. Has applied to GREEN PARTY for accreditation, and has included written 
by-laws, platform, and other documentation with that application.
8. Has a history of networking with other environmental and social justice 
organizations.
9. Evidence of commitment to, and good faith efforts to achieve, gender 
balance in party leadership and representation.
10. Evidence of good faith efforts to empower individuals and groups from 
oppressed communities, through, for example, leadership responsibilities, 
identity caucuses and alliances with community-based organizations, and 
endorsements of issues and policies.

As Aimee has noted, at least one GPVT CC representative insists that the 
word "support" may be so construed as to permit an affiliated state party to 
cause all efforts to field the national nominating convention candidate on 
the state party ballot to be made impossible. This act of opposition, an 
attempt to prevent the national nominating convention candidate from being 
listed on the state ballot, is said by those who have opposed the Cobb/ 
LaMarche candidacy within Vermont to somehow mystically constitute genuine 
"support" if such actions are conducted after passing a resolution 
"endorsing" that candidacy. The BRPP has been discussing the matter.

Where BRPP members have been discussing a resolution that would somehow 
clarify the meaning of the word "support", I personally have urged the BRPP 
to decline forwarding such a resolution to the CC. My reasoning is as 
follows: Were such a resolution introduced, the disingenuous would suddenly 
have their contortions blessed with an official admission that opposition 
may somehow be construed as "support" if the denial of a ballot line is 
portrayed as an "endorsement." I noted on the BRPP list that I personally 
hope and pray that no one in the Town of Agawam is ever so supportive of my 
City Council campaign. With support like that, I would have to wage a 
write-in campaign.

Should the State Committee believe that I was mistaken in being opposed to 
such a resolution, I happily shall entertain suggestions as to what language 
the State Committee might seek in a resolution attempting to clarify the 
meaning of "support". Phil Huckleberry's draft now follows:

4. Agrees to support national nominees selected by Green convention,  
including extending state ballot lines, where applicable, to those nominees.
5. Makes good faith effort, where reasonable, to achieve ballot status for 
national nominees.

Please note that this is draft language only, not the text of any resolution 
approved by the BRPP.

By no means could I take issue with insertion of such language into the 
relevant section of the GPUS Rules and Procedures. Perhaps such 
clarification may be wise. As Phil Huckleberry pointed out, however, point 5 
within the section as it now reads already clarifies the "support" provision 
of point 4. The GPUS has interests in states achieving ballot status 
precisely for purposes of fielding the national nominating convention 
candidate. Indeed, this is the raison d'etre for GPUS existence.

What is problematic about Rules revision is that such may necessitate each 
and every state party to once again deliberate over new GPUS affiliation 
agreements when all such parties have already ratified affiliation 
agreements. What would happen if a state party declined, insisting that 
affiliation as per present agreement could not be retroactively declared 
null and void? It invites our being in an even bigger pickle. Affiliated 
states may find themselves affiliated under differently worded articles of 
affiliation. Would the GPUS then disaffiliate those who decline to sign the 
revised agreement?

What then, of any sanctions? The prospect of disaffiliating a state party 
makes many queasy, for reason quite understandable. Yet, if an affiliated 
state party declines support, then what is the point in its remaining 
affiliated? A range of possible sanctions has been discussed, but not 
decided on.

Some within the BRPP have suggested to me that "reasonable people" could 
disagree regarding intent of the language, and that "support" may somehow be 
found in failure to field on the ballot. I must admit that I wrote a rather 
testy reply to such a suggestion, which leaves me flabbergasted:

"My use of the phrase "common sense" could indeed be construed as a
rhetorical effort to deflect attention from my failure to have offered any
reasoning for my position- had there been indeed said failure. However, my
reasoning was in fact stated: I stated that those who deny candidates ballot
lines are working in opposition to said candidates' campaign.

"Yes, I have indeed been paying attention- enough so to note that the 
failure
to field someone on an available ballot line, be that effort cloaked in the
language of "endorsement" or not, is a deliberate effort to prevent that
someone from having any votes in that state.

"If that is how one defines "support," then I pray no one ever supports my
own campaigns.

"I might well confuse that with "opposition." Of course, my viewpoint on 
that
might well be prejudiced by the fact that I would rather "support" not cause
harm to my campaign."

Owen R. Broadhurst

==============

The BRPP does not seem inclined to take action until after the AC ( 
Accreditations Committee) has concluded deliberations, until after 
November's elections, or (perhaps) until actually directed to do so. In any 
case, it is not the BRPP that actually decides issues of state party 
compliance.

==============

State party compliance is technically decided in the following fashion, once 
a state party has already been affiliated: The formal disaffiliation vote is 
requested by the GPUS Accreditations Committee. The process in place is 
initiated by the filing of a grievance. A hearing is held, and the AC 
reports its findings to the CC. Betts, Ebony, Aimee or Gil could correct me 
should I be mistaken.

Owen R. Broadhurst

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Aimee Smith" <Aimee at green-rainbow.org>
Reply-To: State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
To: "State Committee Official Business" 
<statecom at green-rainbow.org>,<outreach at green-rainbow.org>, 
<mikeh.massed at rcn.com>
Subject: Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on 
attemptsbyNader/Camejocampaign's supporters to usurp
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:21:48 -0400

I am very tired out by the process that got us to this resolution
on the national list, but I will try to recap.

CA almost didn't agree to put Cobb on the ballot, but fortunately did.

UT had a renegade officer put Nader on the ballot, resulting in an
emergency state convention, getting Nader's name withdrawn and
resulting in no name on the UT ballot.  It seems the UT case was
partly a lack of understanding of consensus process and partly
a few bad actors.  If that is the case, should the rest of the state
party be seperated from the GPUS?  I thought not, but curious
what folks think.  In any case, the national cc email list had people
expressing the sentiment that UT should not be dissafiliated.

VT reps to the cc used this as a way to say, "seeUT, we to can choose
to NOT put Cobb on our ballot line and not risk losing our GPUS
affiliation."

This was percieved by some as bad-faith, lack of adherence to the spirit
of the "support national candidates" part of the affilitation agreement, and
actually a way of undermining the decision of the convention.  I personally
wrote that they should be responsible and either put Cobb on the ballot
or self-disaffiliate and do their own thing if they couldn't abide Cobb on
their ballot.  They did not have the decency to take one of these options.
Instead, they insist on their "right" to not put Cobb and remain in the GPUS
because the term "support" is "legally" vague, "support" could simply mean
vote to "endorse" the candidate, which VT did in their meeting.  (They voted
to endorse both Cobb and Nader tickets.)

So, then the legal scholars went back and forth.  I tried to point out the
"spirit" part of agreement and that we don't want to be a party of laws
and lawyers, but one of mutual respect, etc.  But that fell on deaf ears
in the VT delegation.

So, in light of all this, people feel the term "support" in "support
national
candidates" needs to be spelled out clearly to close the "loophole"
as it were, thus taking us down the legalism path, but to at least see that
it can't be repeated by state parties who lack good faith in 2008.  And
put national candidates on ballot where legally possible means where
states have ballot lines - i.e. to not penalize states who have no
ballot line to give.

Anyhow, so that is some background.  If anyone has input, let those
of us on the national know.

Sincerely,
Aimee