[External Relations] Re: [statecom] CC Resolution: My Final Plea

[David Rolde]

Owen, you may be right that this resolution contains policy and 
should require a two-thirds vote. Certainly any decision is more 
legitimate with a two-thirds vote than with a bare majority, and it 
is always best to seek consensus.

But it is possible to view the decision (for the GPUS to take legal 
action to put Cobb/LaMarche on the ballot in Utah and Vermont) as not 
infringing on state party autonomy, but rather as an attempt by the 
GPUS to put our national candidates in UNUSED ballot positions of 
state parties that have chosen to remain affiliated with the GPUS. As 
I pointed out in my last email about this, the two state parties in 
question did not put another presidential ticket on the ballot - they 
left the ballot spot blank. As I also pointed out, the processes 
whereby the presidential ballot spot was left blank in both these 
states were allegedly illegitimate, and I believe the state GP in 
Utah would even welcome this GPUS action, and some Vermont Greens 
would probably welcome it as well.  I think I also pointed out that 
neither of these state parties passed a motion to disafilliate from 
the GPUS.  I know you view the failure to put Cobb/LaMarche on the 
ballot as signifying disafilliation. I don't agree.  I think that if 
the GPUS were to forcefully disafilliate a state party based on a 
disagreement about the presidential campaign, that would constitute 
an affront to state party autonomy.  State parties and their members 
should be allowed to disagree with the national party, but if they 
choose to remain affiliated then they need to realize that the 
national party may attempt to gain control over the state ballot 
lines for our presidential ticket.  If a state party wants to make 
sure that the national party has no legal control over the state 
party's ballot spot for national candidates in their state, then the 
state party should voluntarily disafilliate.   If a state GP chooses 
to remain in the GPUS, then they should be free to vigorously 
campaign against the GPUS presidential candidate, but they shouldn't 
expect the GPUS to refrain from taking legal action to prevent the 
GPUS national ballot spot from remaining blank in that state.

Campaigns for national office should have national ballot access; 
this should be added to the platform - and this legal reform would 
stop this problem from coming up again.

As to your contention that this motion has nothing whatsoever to do 
with the politics of fielding a candidate in 2004, the validity of 
your contention depends on whether there is any perceived chance of 
the GPUS being able to put Cobb/LaMarche on the ballot in Utah and 
Vermont at this late date. I'm not 100% sure that it is impossible to 
still place them on the ballot. Some members of the GPUS CC may still 
hope to place Cobb/LaMarche on more state ballots.  So I would 
conclude that the motion does have something to do with the politics 
of fielding a candidate in 2004 and is not merely an attempt to more 
generally define a policy about the rights of state parties within 
the GPUS. Both motives may coexist.

Out of all the bad things going on in the GPUS this year, I don't 
understand why you chose this as the one thing that the GRP should 
consider disafilliating over.

- David

At 5:05 AM -0400 10/9/04, Owen Broadhurst wrote:
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>StateCom mailing list
>StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom