[External Relations] CC Resolution: My Final Plea

[Owen Broadhurst]

I have now written considerably regarding the GPUS CC resolution upon which 
voting shall conclude this Sunday- but I fear many have not taken the 
concerns that I have expressed at all too seriously. My strong belief is 
that this dismissal of such concerns is due primarily to the contentious 
debate over how the Greens have handled the question of fielding a national 
candidate in 2004.

So, let me now be clear:

This motion has nothing whatsoever to do with the politics of fielding a 
candidate in 2004.

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

Now, that is a strong statement. Therefore, before going on to defend it, I 
must reiterate:

I by no means am attempting to dictate any course of action regarding any 
motion to the GRP's GPUS CC representatives or the Lavender Caucus CC 
representative. I trust their wisdom in coming to considered decisions that 
might not, need not, and ought not reflect only my own point of view. Said 
CC representatives shall undoubtedly consider during their deliberations not 
only my concerns, but others, and any viewpoints heard by them- and be 
guided ultimately by their very own conscience and sense of how to best 
serve our party. My viewpoint is a necessarily biased viewpoint that is also 
necessarily limited in scope, as is true for the viewpoints of any one 
individual. However, my beliefs indeed are strongly held beliefs. I must 
state them, and shall do so forcefully.

========


How various candidates, any particular grouping of their supporters, 
particular state parties, or persons involved in those parties might or 
might not have conducted themselves is a red herring. It simply happens to 
be the red herring of most convenience in advancing the goal of a 
centralized command structure. The maelstrom of emotions has fueled a 
dictatorial tendency.

Permit me to put this in yet another way:

The GPUS CC resolution in question advances policy. GPUS bylaws require that 
questions of policy be decided only by two-thirds CC majority. The CC has 
certainly skirted party bylaws in the past, of course, but- where the CC has 
previously done so by the required two-thirds majority- the CC has been able 
to rationalize its having, for instance, set aside bylaws requiring only the 
nomination of candidate at the convention ( and so no permission of 
endorsements or "no candidate" votes) by noting how they, by their two 
thirds vote, had in specifically setting party bylaws aside in 2004 
precisely that authority. Nevermind for now that no motion so worded in that 
way was offered.

This GPUS CC resolution advances policy cloaked in an admonition to the 
Nader/ Camejo campaign.

Now, regardless of how we may feel about the Nader/ Camejo campaign, even if 
some among us indeed truly believe that Nader/ Camejo supporters have been 
underhanded and disingenuous (I believe very few have)- surely we must agree 
that it is unseemly for the CC to make a statement declaring every right and 
authority to place a candidate on a state party ballot regardless of state 
party constituent wishes, and declare that a motion passed - as it seems it 
surely shall be- by not the required two-thirds, but instead a simple 
majority. That is not how this decision should be made.

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

Let there be no mistaking this: this GPUS CC resolution has as its central 
concern... policy.

By mere simple majority, the GPUS as a national entity shall effectively 
declare null and void not only the GPUS bylaw that respects and honors 
autonomy for the state parties, but also bylaws long honored within these 
state parties asserting how no GPUS decision is truly for the state parties 
binding. State parties are by merely their state affiliation agreement in 
any way bound, and each such reserves the right to disaffiliate. This is our 
unique nature. This is distinctly Green.

Remember what the resolution says- "We therefore call on Ralph Nader and 
Peter Camejo to publicly support the right of the Green Party of the United 
States to place the Cobb/LaMarche ticket on state Green Party ballots 
wherever that is legally possible." The resolution creates new policy.

http://green.gpus.org/vote/displayproposal.php?proposalId=111


So, now let us review the relevant GPUS national bylaws, and more seriously 
weigh their meaning:

GPUS Bylaws are transparently clear-

Where Section 2 from Article 1 is, as we all have heard, a call for the 
creation of a Green Party Federation, the word "Federation" within this 
document is in no way defined- and any future definition, of course, must be 
one in strict accordance with all of our Ten Key Values. Where no federation 
today can exist, as federations have traditionally been defined, in any 
manner that is in keeping with these Ten Key Values- it is clear that the 
phrase "Green Party" before that term is not merely descriptive, but is an 
obvious qualifier.

Thus, what we're creating is truly unique among federations in that its 
structure must defy how federations have traditionally been defined. We know 
this to be true beyond all doubt as Greens embrace those values and have 
adopted those Ten Key Values. We have certainly not repealed those values, 
we have not repudiated those values, we do not consider such values to be 
merely symbolic or rhetorical- and so then we therefore quite clearly must 
remain opposed to the traditional concept of federation as that is anathema.

Therefore, the concept of a Green Party Federation, however such might in 
the future be defined, could only be one that exists under principles that 
GPUS bylaws following obviously defend and advocate. That is, any federation 
that we might devise would be one that operates in adherance to following 
bylaws as well, for-

GPUS Bylaws are transparently clear-

"The Green Party accepts that it cannot order the internal politics of its 
member states." This is the very first sentence in Article VII, and its 
meaning is clear. Those who pretend that it does not pertain to state 
ballots forget how state parties affiliating with this body were forthright 
and unmistakable in the state party bylaws that both Accreditations and 
Coordinating Committees have reviewed, and have also forgotten how those 
committees did never once object.

It is therefore disingenuous to now pretend that such state party bylaws 
were not intended to be treated with respect and are somehow null and void. 
It is disingenuous to pretend that this national party did not intend for 
state party faith in them to be kept. It is disingenuous to now pretend that 
the CC can interpret bylaws to now mean something else by simple majority, 
for-

GPUS Bylaws are transparently clear-

"If consensus is not possible, general decisions shall be passed by simple 
majority and rules, by-laws, and platform issues must pass by a two-thirds 
majority." This, the second sentence in Article V transparently makes 
obvious how questions of bylaws interpretation require two-thirds vote. The 
question of any statement to that effect of asserting a right by the 
national body to place candidates on state party ballot lines is a question 
involving interpretation of bylaws, and a statement that therefore quite 
clearly requires a two-thirds vote in order to pass.

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

Allow me to make things even more clear:

The Green-Rainbow Party views all matters involving its ballot line, a 
ballot line that only the Green-Rainbow Party created, as a matter that 
involves internal politics of our state party.

Regarding this, GRP Bylaws are transparently clear-

1.1 The Green-Rainbow Party is an autonomous independent political party 
sharing kinship
with other Green Parties and Green organizations in the USA, through our 
common
adherence to the Ten Key Values (See Articles 2 and 16). The Green-Rainbow 
Party also
shares common goals and values with other Green Parties and Green 
organizations
around the world.

12.1 The Green-Rainbow Party may nominate or endorse candidates for local, 
regional, state,
and national offices.

14.1 The Green-Rainbow Party is an affiliated state party of the Green Party 
of the United
States (USGP).

The Green-Rainbow Party may, by any of its regular decision-making 
processes, also
decide to affiliate or disaffiliate itself with national, regional, 
issue-based, or identitybased
Green membership organizations.

14.3 Decisions and rules of the USGP, other Green state parties, or any 
other Green
organizations will in no way be considered binding upon the Green-Rainbow 
Party.

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

These are the bylaws of a state party that was, with these very same bylaws 
in place, admitted to membership. There can be no question then that this 
state party's notion of "internal politics" are by this document defined- 
and that bylaws intepretation by the GPUS CC to the contrary must be decided 
by

TWO THIRDS VOTE

I thank all on these lists for putting up with me.

Sincerely yours in struggle and solidarity,
Owen R. Broadhurst