[statecom] Response to Grace re Prop #3 concerns

[Jim Hammerman]

Dear Wanda,
Thanks for your efforts in trying to move things along, but I don't think 
as facilitator you're supposed to declare issues resolved without talking 
to those who raised them.

As for legal concerns, while passing proposal A at the June 29 meeting 
deals with one important legal issue, and getting legal advice is a good 
idea (and seemed to help Dan, who had legal concerns), I think there's now 
a conflict between our allocating delegates to Brown, Ball and Nader and 
our prohibiting them from voting for those folks. I sponsored Proposal A 
at the June 29 meeting and think it's important and solves one of the 
issues we would have had in certifying a delegate slate to the 
national--specifically, that they not work in opposition to the Green 
party nominee (which Nader delegates would be doing since he's running 
independently). However, I'm not sure we can reserve spaces for Brown, 
Ball and Nader delegates in our delegation and then tell them not to vote 
for those folks--I think that's what Michelle Tassinari was trying to tell 
us about Mass law, and GPUS rules may also say that. If we had allocated 
and selected delegates before the end of February, when Nader announced 
his independent candidacy, then maybe this would be OK. But I don't think 
it is at the end of June. Can we consult with the National about these 
rules? 

As for diversity concenrs, while the McKinney delegation is certainly more 
diverse than the rest of Proposal #3, we still haven't met our diversity 
goals in the full proposed slate. The "Uncommitted" slots were also 
intended to be held open to help us meet these diversity goals and I'm 
concerned that only one of the four proposed people to fill those slots 
helps with diversity at all (in terms of race/ ethnicity or glbt status). 
The "Nader" slate also doesn't meet gender parity and so, we're not 
supposed to confirm them unless and until we find women to balance the 
men. 

Thus, I don't think the legal concerns nor the diversity concerns _have_ 
been met.

Yours,
Jim




Wanda Boeke <wjboeke at gmail.com> 
Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
07/04/08 10:21 PM
Please respond to
State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>


To
State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
cc

Subject
[statecom] Response to Grace re Prop #3 concerns






To Grace and State Committee:

I tracked all the concerns to Prop #3, and found them to be basically
resolved (if you accept the substance of 'the state committee' of the 
29th's
discussion.

The concerns addressed during the virtual meeting include:
legal issues (addressed, perhaps not to the satisfaction of the party
concerned - but resolved by seeking legal counsel w/in 6 mos (6/29))

process of delegate selection (Elie explained)

diversity issues (mitigated by the fact that the MicKinney list was made
available)

CDLC actions were taken by committee co-chairs only (explained by Elie, I
believe)
 
The remaining concerns addressed during the 6/29 in-person meeting 
include:
legal issues (getting legal counsel w/in 6 mos)

diversity issues (they have been provided and accounted for at the 6/29
meeting 

wording of Prop 3 (was different in Prop I in response to this concern)
 
Which leaves: 
co-chair as co-sponsor & also Rainbow Caucus consenter to no delegation
(Merelice response?)

it sounds like only rich people can go to Chicago (GNC list is pointing 
the
way to help delegates go & stay)

Thanks,

Wanda


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