[statecom-discuss] fighting for the soul of our party

[Ron Francis]

Just an informational point:

Is everyone agreed that the 3 points cited in this post are in fact the requirements ?

And is everyone agreed that Mr. Nader only satisfied 1 of the 3 ?

I am just curious as to if there are any disagreements as to the facts of the case.

Ron


1) You have to be either a Green Party member or an Independent
 (not a 
member of another political party.)
2) You have to be a DECLARED CANDIDATE pursuing the GREEN
 PARTY’S 
NOMINATION for the presidency.
3) The CANDIDATE or her/his CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE must send us a
 LETTER 


a. declaring their intent to be placed on our presidential
 primary ballot
b. declaring their support for our “10 Key Values”






Mike Heichman <mikeheichman at verizon.net> wrote: (This is a continuation from Nat's response to my e-mail message of 2-01.)

Feb. 2

Hi Nat (and other State Committee Members),

Thanks for responding. I know that you are busy and other members of 
State Committee members are busy, too. However, I encourage everybody to 
respond when you have a chance. After all, this is not really about the 
future of Mr. Nader. This is about the future of our State Party

I ask for understanding and your patience, because I need to respond 
once again.

I. The Co-Chair’s Report to the State Committee and the “Green-Rainbow 
Party’s Presidential Election Year Plan” document

A. On Feb1, Nat wrote: “The important word in 2.1 about requirements 
(see below) is ONLY. We took 2.1 to be the only requirements, because 
that is what the document says.

If Nat is right, then the only requirement would be “2.1”, which says: 
“The only requirements for a candidate to be placed on the presidential 
primary ballot are:

(A) 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.)”

To summarize Part A of “2.1):

1. You have to be a member of the Green Party or Independent.
2. You have to be a candidate. (Note: The first 3 words say, “That the 
candidate”.)
3. You have to indicate your intent to be placed on our presidential 
primary ballot.
4. You have to support the 10 key values.

Part B would have required that the candidates “DECLARE” her/his support 
of the 10 key values, EXCEPT that it has been crossed out!!!!! Thus a 
reasonable person (i.e. member of our State Committee could decide for 
themselves if they think that a candidate complies, because the 
requirement has been withdrawn. The obligation to “DECLARE” has been 
withdrawn; we must have changed our minds.

Then, our co-chairs finish quoting the “Green-Rainbow Party Presidential 
Primary Election Plan” by listing the title of the next section, “2.2 
Contacting candidates to be on the presidential primary ballot”, without 
informing members of the State Comm. as if this section had nothing to 
do with the controversy.

B. Important information from 2-2 that the co-chairs did not include in 
their report:

(To avoid confusion, this was not rewritten to include the important 
fact that the date of our primary had suddenly been changed by the MA 
state legislature (to benefit the duopoly) which changed the date of our 
primary from March 4 to February 5.)

“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.”

To summarize the important points to this controversy, 2.2 requires the 
following from those who we would place on our ballot:

1. You have to be a DECLARED CANDIDATE.
2. The CANDIDATE or her/his CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE will send us a LETTER. 
(i.e. in writing) This letter will include:

A. their intent to be placed on our presidential primary ballot
B. their support of the Green Party’s “10 Key Values”

3. “The CDLC will follow this procedure for each candidate who announces 
their desire to pursue the Green Party’s nomination.

I SUBMIT THAT THE OMISSION OF THE LANGUAGE OF 2-2 IN THEIR REPORT TO THE 
JANUARY 27 STATE COMMITTEE MEETING HAD THE EFFECT OF SUPPORTING THEIR 
POINT OF VIEW AND UNDERCUTTING THOSE, INLUDING OTHERS AND ME, WHO 
DISAGREED WITH THE CO-CHAIRS! WHAT HAPPENED AT OUR MEETING WAS TAINTED 
BY THIS OMISSION!

Once again, I appreciate the tremendous amount of work that Elie, Nat 
and Merelice had done on behalf of our party. They sought to contact all 
potential candidates and to encourage them to comply with the 
requirements in order for the co-chairs to place their names on the 
ballot. Once again, because of the sudden change in the date of our 
primary and the lack of organization on part of some of the candidates, 
it is understandable that the co-chairs had placed people on our ballot 
who had not complied with the above requirements by the deadline. I am 
also sure that they had done so with the hope and the expectation that 
everyone on the ballot would very soon comply with the requirements.

II. Summary of the Requirements for People to be placed on our February 
5 GRP Presidential Primary Ballot (Policy decided by the January, 2007 
State Committee Meeting, August 2007 Annual Convention, and the 
Green-Rainbow Party’s Presidential Primary Document passed by the 
November, 2007 State Committee Meeting)

1) You have to be either a Green Party member or an Independent (not a 
member of another political party.)
2) You have to be a DECLARED CANDIDATE pursuing the GREEN PARTY’S 
NOMINATION for the presidency.
3) The CANDIDATE or her/his CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE must send us a LETTER 


a. declaring their intent to be placed on our presidential primary ballot
b. declaring their support for our “10 Key Values”

A number of those on our ballot did not comply with the above 
requirements before the co-chairs (for understandable reasons) placed 
their names on our primary ballot. According to state law, their names 
cannot be removed.

Since that time


1) Mr. Jared Ball has publicly withdrawn his candidacy and is supporting 
Congresswoman McKinney.
2) Ms. Elaine Brown has publicly resigned from the Green Party and has 
withdrawn her candidacy.
3) Ms. Kat Swift, a member of our party, has complied with all of the 
above requirements.
4) Dr. Kent Mesplay, a member of our party, has complied with all of the 
above requirements.
5) Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who has joined our party, has 
complied with all of the above requirements.
6) Mr. Ralph Nader is in compliance with the first requirement. The 
Annual Convention had changed its policy which allowed Mr. Nader, who 
has remained an Independent and has not joined the Green Party, the 
opportunity to be on our ballot. However, HE HAS NOT YET COMPLIED WITH 
ANY OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

III. Response to the following paragraph from Nat:

“There have been serious allegations from a couple of our own party 
members that we failed to follow our own rules, and did so willfully and 
fraudulently. I find such allegations slanderous and astounding. We 
followed the spirit of the State Convention to allow independents in 
addition to Green Party members and we followed the letter of the 
requirements that were written.”

1) I believe that the co-chairs have not followed the policy and rules 
in placing people on our ballot. As I have written before, I believe 
that your failure to follow the policy and rules in submitting the names 
of 6 people to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by the legal deadline 
was understandable. I believe that you fully expected that all 6 would 
comply with all of the above requirements. There is evidence for me to 
believe this.

a. Ms. Swift, Mr. Mesplay and Congresswoman McKinney all have complied 
with all of the above requirements.
b. I believe that you fully expected that Mr. Nader, as reported, would 
comply with the above requirements sometime in December and when he 
didn’t sometime in January. Now I believe that you think that Mr. Nader 
will comply with our requirements sometime in February, after the date 
of our primary.

2) While I have never used the word, “”fraud”, I have 
asked/pleaded/begged for greater understanding and the support of the 
co-chairs to comply with the above rules and to seek appropriate 
remedies. As of this date, I remain disappointed in the response.

3) There has been no need for the co-chairs to follow the “spirit of 
State Convention to allow independents
” That was the decision of the 
convention and I want to remind everyone that I was the one who took on 
leadership to change this policy. At the same time, the annual 
convention added some additional requirements that a minority of members 
of the State Committee and I have struggled to have implement over the 
opposition of the co-chairs of our party.

IV. Nat’s next paragraph:

“More broadly, I cannot understand the argument that placing Ralph Nader 
on the ballot is contrary to the goal of wanting Nader to run on our 
ballot line instead of as an independent. In 2000, with a candidate who 
happened to be Ralph Nader running for our party's nomination and 
appearing on our ballot line, we gained major party ballot-access 
status. In 2004, with Nader running as an independent instead of 
appearing on our ballot line, the vote was split and we did not keep 
that status. As a result, many want to ensure this time that Nader seeks 
our party's nomination instead of running as an independent. Let's 
suppose you are one such person and you want Nader (or any other 
individual) to run on our party's ballot line instead of as an 
independent. The necessary first step is for that person to actually be 
on the presidential primary ballot. If your goal is to encourage Nader 
to run on the Green Party ticket instead of as an independent, how do 
you make that happen by leaving him off the ballot? How would leaving 
him off the ballot discourage him from running as an independent?”

1) Nat, I totally agree with your analysis.
2) I had come to that understanding well before the January 2007 State 
Committee. At that meeting, I seemed to be either the only one who had 
that understanding or agreed with that understanding. Everyone else on 
that day wanted to only have Green Party members on our ballot and not 
to allow Independents, like Mr. Nader and Congresswoman McKinney on our 
ballot.
3) Not everyone in our party agreed or now agrees with your thinking. 
Some strongly argued and still believe that only members of our party 
should have been allowed on our ballot.
4) The Annual Convention agreed with our (you and me) thinking by 
allowing Independents to be on our ballot if they would fulfill all of 
the other requirements that members of our party had to follow.
5) Mr. Nader has not joined the Greens. He has remained an Independent. 
That is consistent with our policy. As of this date, he has not complied 
with any of the other requirements.
6) The leadership of the party has the legal and ethical responsibility 
to implement the policy of the party. No one is more responsible than 
our co-chairs!
7) You are not free to substitute your strategic thinking in place of 
your responsibility to fully implement, to the best of your ability, the 
policy of our party.
8) As much as you and I want Mr. Nader to be on our ballot (for the 
reasons that you have explained so well), Mr. Nader should have to 
follow the same rules and requirements as everyone else.
9) IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR PARTY HAVE GRANTED 
SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO SOMEONE WHO WON’T EVEN JOIN OUR PARTY AND WHO 
HASN’T COMPLIED WITH THE RULES THAT MEMBERS OF OUR PARTY HAVE HAD TO 
FOLLOW!!!!! IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT OUR CO-CHAIRS HAVE TAKEN ON LEADERSHIP 
IN THE SUBVERSION OF OUR RULES AND THE VIOLATION OF OUR POLICY!!!!!

V. Nat’s next paragraph:

“More broadly still, what hubris is it for us to declare that someone 
who has already twice been our national party's candidate for president 
-- on our ballot line ---- is not even worthy of a position on our state 
party's presidential primary ballot? 
. Is this really how we want to 
treat those who have run at the head of our ticket? How more
discouraging of candidates can we actually be before we have no 
candidates at all?”

1) I am thankful for Mr. Nader’s contributions to our party.
2) This does not entitle him to special treatment.
3) If the annual convention had decided to grant special dispensation to 
Mr. Nader from following the rules that everyone else had to follow, I 
would have opposed such a move. However, if that were the decision of 
the convention, the leadership of the party would have the 
responsibility to implement it.
4) The annual convention made no such decision. Under my leadership, it 
made one major concession for Mr. Nader. He would not have to join our 
party in order to be on our ballot (as long as he complied with all of 
the other rules).
5) Nat, thanks for asking your last question!!!! What effects will this 
have on Dr. Mesplay, Ms. Swift, and Congresswoman McKinney, all members 
of our party, and their candidacies if they see that they have to follow 
all of the rules and Mr. Nader doesn’t? I am glad that you share my 
concern. What do you think the effects will be for them if we persist in 
not following our own policy?
6) Let’s follow your thinking to one logical possibility. Imagine that 
time moves on and Mr. Nader continues his role as Hamlet. He goes to the 
convention and receives the nomination without every announcing his 
candidacy. Yes, what will the other candidates think?
7) Thanks to Jill, Jamie, Grace, Martina, Chuck, Luc, Rick, Ebony, and 
all those who have been our candidates (some of whom have been elected). 
Thanks to everyone who supported them.
8) None of them is above the rules. None of them is entitled to 
dispensation from the rules that everyone else has to comply. None of 
them has the right to appear on our ballot in the future if they decide 
to leave our party or not comply with the rules.
9) I though that we were a party that was fighting against special 
privileges.
10) It appears that I have been greatly mistaken.

VI. Nat’s next two paragraph:

“What, precisely, is the goal here? Why are we more content to endlessly 
bicker about the primary in a contest we will not win this November 
instead of doing any of the work that would have been necessary to field 
candidates in races we could win? Why is it
thought that this is really the best use of the time of state com, ad 
com and the co-chairs? Are we afraid to let this party grown in 
membership (instead of decline) and be successful electorally at ALL 
levels (instead of flounder at the lowest non-partisan level) because we 
will no longer have the same influence we have today, for better or 
worse? Are we afraid of democracy? Why not let the voters say who merits 
being the Green Party's presidential candidate this fall? Why would we 
tolerate an election in which they didn't?

If discussion on the presidential primary ballot access process must 
continue, I hope it is because everyone involved thinks it is more 
important to spend our time (and the time of others) on this than on any 
other issue. I hope it is because everyone involved thinks it it
is worth splitting the party over.”

1) Many of us have worked hard for a long time for our party. I am proud 
to be one of them and thankful that I have spent so much of whom I am 
working with so many of you in building our party.
2) Some of us are fighting for the soul of our party. This discussion is 
part of this struggle.
3) I hope that more people on this list will fight for the soul of our 
party. I hope that more people on this list will participate in this 
discussion.
4) This party is split. Some of us have left; more may be leaving.
5) This party will not survive or thrive unless we are willing to 
communicate about difficult issues.

_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss