[statecom-discuss] new and important information from the 1-27 State Comm.

[mikeheichman at verizon.net]

February 1, 2008

Dear State Comm. Members:

I have been spending quite a bit of time this week writing a report to you
explaining why I have decided to step 
down (for how long I do not know) as an active leader of our party. I was
hoping by now that my report would 
already be finished and sent to you. However, I want this to be a quality
report and thus will need more time.

Something has come up in my research that I feel compelled to share with
you right now! 

As you know, our co-chairs have worked hard to place 6 names on our
Presidential Primary Ballot. Also, when their 
actions came under question and criticism, they have vigorously defended
their actions. This is quite appropriate.

Additionally, they played a significant role in preventing my proposal to
deal with the issue of the apportionment of 
delegates to be addressed at our meeting as an “urgent matter”. My
understanding from my discussions with our 
co-facilitators, John and Wanda, is that they advised them not to treat my
proposal as an “urgent matter”. 

Once, at a very important meeting, I had threatened to quit the party if
the decision did not go my way. Sometimes 
it is important to take a principled stand, even though it would be painful
to walk away from something that you 
love so deeply. Before Sunday’s meeting, one of our co-chairs had
threatened to resign over this issue and the other 
co-chair threatened to do the same during the meeting. Speaking for myself,
I have no attention of driving anyone 
out of the party or out of the leadership of the party. At the same time,
it is important to note that resignation 
threats, especially from the co-chairs of our party, are designed to
influence the outcome of our deliberations.

At this State Committee meeting, our Co-Chairs passed out their report. (A
copy of most of their report is below.)  
One half of their report directly addresses the current controversy. It is
very interesting that they would feel a sense 
of “urgency” to address this controversy at the same time they would use
their influence to prevent my proposal 
from being addressed under “urgent business”.

I will not use spend time in this letter responding to with what our
co-chairs wrote in their letter to us. The purpose 
of this letter is to share with you what they left out of their report.  IT
APPEARS TO ME THAT THE CO-CHAIRS 
DELIBERATELY OMITED IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE STATE COMMITTEE! IF THEY
HAD INCLUDED THIS 
INFOMRATION, THEY WOULD HAVE PROVIDED THE STATE COMMITTEE WITH INFORMATION,
WHICH WOULD HAVE 
UNDERMINED THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW AND ALSO WOULD HAVE STRENGTHENED MY
ARGUMENTS. I STRONGLY 
BELIEVE THAT THIS OMISSION SERIOUSLY DISTORTED OUR MEETING ON JANUARY 27!

If I am provided you with information, which shows that I am wrong, I will
apologize to our co-chairs and to you. I 
respectfully request that those who have different information about this
specific issue to please share it with the 
entire State Committee,

Mike Heichman	mikeheichman at verizon.net		617-265-8143

THIS IS A COPY OF THE CO-CHAIR’S REPORT:

Co-Chairs Report for 27 January 2008 State Committee Meeting 

The most time consuming aspect of our activities since the last state
committee meeting has been the efforts 
required to contact potential candidates for our presidential primary and
the paperwork and communications 
needed to place them on the ballot. In the end, we succeeded in placing six
individuals on the Green-Rainbow party 
presidential party ballot. (A seventh individual currently listed as a
candidate by the GPUS ---Jesse Johnson --- was 
also contacted but failed to indicate his desire to be placed on our
ballot).

All six individuals were either Green Party members or independents not
enrolled in any party, all six are on record 
as supporting our 10 key values, and all six agreed to have their names be
placed on our ballot with the 
understanding that in so doing, they were placing their name in nomination
for president on the Green Party of the 
US ticket.

In the case of Ralph Nader, because he was (and remains) a draft candidate,
the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s 
office independently verified that Mr. Nader knew his name was being placed
on the ballot and that he had the 
option to refuse if he so wished.

These actions have not gone without criticism. The crux of the criticism is
the (mistaken) assumption that any 
individual placed on our ballot was to have declared their candidacy in
writing prior to being placed on our ballot.  
We understand the desire of those in our
party who wish everyone who will appear on our ballot was a declared
candidate -indeed, we share that desire --- 
but this was not a requirement, and enforcing such a requirement would have
been contrary to the express 
instructions of the party.

The Green Party Presidential Plan we used as reference states (with edited
language supplied by Grace Ross to Larry 
Ely at the 11/2007 State Com meeting in italics)

2.0  Placing Candidates on the Presidential Primary Ballot
2.1 Requirements

The only requirements for a candidate to be placed on the presidential
primary ballot are:

(Note from Mike: “A” is crossed out.) That the candidate be either a Green
Party member in their home state 
(provided their home state has an active state Green Party that has
membership criteria) or, in lieu of a state Green 
Party membership criteria, be a declared Green Party member according to
their state’s regular process, or be an 
independent, i.e. a member of no other political party who indicate their
intent to be placed on our presidential 
primary ballot and their support of the Green Party’s 10 Key values. Proof
of being a Green Party member is based on 
the membership requirements of the candidate’s home state party.

(B) That the candidate declare support of the Green Party’s 10 Key Values.
(Note: This whole line is crossed out.)


2.2 Contacting candidates to be on the presidential primary ballot


Simply put, we did not have the authority to arbitrarily exclude those who
had indicated their intent to be placed on 
our presidential primary ballot, simply because, by virtue of being draft
or exploratory candidates, they had not 
officially declared their candidacies. Had we done so, we would have had to
exclude three of the individuals 
appearing on our ballot: Elaine Brown (former draft candidate), Cynthia
McKinney (former exploratory candidate, who 
officially declared her candidacy Dec 11th), and Ralph Nader (still a draft
candidate). We do not believe we would 
have been within our rights to exclude any of these three from our ballot.

What we hereby attest is that we acted conscientiously and ethically to the
best of our ability, and did so on an 
extremely tight deadline. With the able help from Elie Yarden filing in for
CDLC, we placed six excellent individuals 
on the Feb. 5 presidential primary
ballot and fulfilling what we believe was the intent of the state
convention to allow both Greens and qualified 
independents a spot on our ballot.

(NOTE FROM MIKE: THE NEXT 6 PARAGRAPHS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS MESSAGE
BECAUSE THE CO-CHAIRS ARE 
DISCUSSING OTHER ITEMS.)

Respectfully submitted,

Nat Fortune
Merelice
2007-2008 Green-Rainbow Party co-chairs



What did our co-chairs fail to include in their report?

Underneath, “2.2 Contacting candidates to be on the presidential primary
ballot”, is nothing from that section.

I believe that reading the above report would lead most of the members of
the State Committee to support the 
position of the co-chairs.

However, there is something directly underneath “2.2”, which I will now
share with you. On page 2 of the document, 
“Green-Rainbow Party Presidential Election Plan, approved by GRP State
Committee, November XX, 2007: there is the 
following information:

“Four months prior to the Presidential Primary, the CDLC will send a letter
via registered mail to each declared 
candidate requesting that they or their campaign committee provides us with:

1)	A letter indicating their intent to be placed on our presidential
primary ballot and their support of the Green 
Party’s “10 Key Values”;
2)	A picture (preferably digital);
3)	A 100 word statement on why they are running;
4)	optionally, a list potential delegates and their contact information. As
specified in our National Presidential 
Convention Delegate Selection Rules, this list must be sorted in
female-male order. Optionally, the list can include 
the diversity characteristics of potential delegates.

After this time, the CDLC will follow the above procedure for each
candidate who announces their desire to pursue 
the Green Party nomination. This process will continue until two weeks
prior the date by which we must provide the 
Secretary of the Commonwealth with the list of candidates we will place on
our primary ballot.”


I will resist the temptation in this letter to explain why I believe that
this OMISSION both undercuts the point of view 
and the actions of our co-chairs and strengthens my arguments. For now, I
will just submit this report and 
encourage our co-chairs and everyone else on State Committee to reflect and
discuss 




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail