[statecom] Fwd: [adcom] letter sent to candidates?

[Merelice]

Greetings,

This is a further update of Adcom's actions in relation/retaliation to
StateCom's expressed wishes. Jamie O'Keefe confirms that six members
of AdCom sent a followup letter to the candidates telling them to
disregard the letter that had been sent notifying them of their
delegate allocations.

Your distraught and disappointed co-chairs,
Merelice and Nat


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2008 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [adcom] letter sent to candidates?
To: "Green-Rainbow Party (GRP) Administrative Committee"
<adcom at green-rainbow.org>
Cc: Dave England <dvengland at aol.com>, Jill Stein <jstein at massmed.org>

Hi,

 Given Jamie's reasoning, the 5 to 3 vote at the AdCom meeting was
 enough to approve the allocation. But, according to the Bylaws, a
 two-thirds vote is required. Jamie's 6 to 5 "vote" was insufficient
 authority for sending their letters. When were the letters sent?
 Before or after the AdCom meeting?

 So long as six members of the administrative committee are unwilling
 to accept the current allocation of delegates, there will be no
 resolution from AdCom. That is because the allocation is in compliance
 with StateCom's consensus, with the delegate selection plan, and with
 the legal opinion we received from the Elections Division, an opinion
 we have no basis for challenging. (We have already tried an allocation
 that released the delegates of Nader, Brown, and Ball, pending our
 receipt of that Elections Division opinion regarding its legality.)

 The two areas in which Tassinari indicated her office could not
 provide a legal opinion had to do only with releasing delegates. Now
 the unauthorized followup letter brings to a halt the effort of the
 original letter to get withdrawn candidates to release their
 delegates, which could have made the whole subject moot. Instead,
 there was a proposal at AdCom to get another legal opinion. If AdCom
 members are not willing to accept the legal opinion of the Elections
 Division, where is the good faith that they would accept any legal
 opinion unless it tells them exactly what they want to hear?

 Jamie,
 At this point, one must ask, What evidence can you provide that your
 intent for resolution -- more specifically, a resolution that honors
 StateCom and the delegate selection plan -- is sincere?

Merelice


 On 5/30/08, Jamie O'Keefe <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org> wrote:
 > To my fellow Adcom members,
 >
 >  My desire to seek resolution on the allocation is sincere.
 >
 >  As I sent in an email message to Adcom, I asked for Adcom members who
 >  would be willing to sign a letter to the candidates and non-candidates
 >  on our ballot stating that the co-chairs had exceeded their authority
 >  in send the letters announcing the allocation and that a new letter
 >  would be forthcoming.  With a majority of the Adcom agreeing to sign
 >  said letter, I sent it.  For the record the following people agreed to
 >  sign the letter:
 >
 >  Daniel Melnechuk
 >  Grace Ross
 >  Gary Hicks
 >  James O'Keefe
 >  Martina Robinson
 >  Richard Purcell
 >
 >  Jamie
 >
 >
 >  On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:
 >  > Greetings again,
 >  >
 >  > No one has responded to my question below -- which makes me quite
 >  > suspicious. It also makes me wonder if this is the reason we haven't
 >  > heard from the candidates according to the deadline they were given.
 >  >
 >  > Have members of the Administrative Committee sent a second letter to
 >  > the candidates? If so, why haven't you notified all of AdCom of this
 >  > action? How can you expect to build trust and get to any resolution in
 >  > this manner?
 >  >
 >  > An analogy: Let's pretend members of AdCom are among the designated
 >  > keepers of a forest that we wish to protect. The forest has been
 >  > subjected to a major conflagration over a period of time. But most of
 >  > the keepers have chosen not to take steps to stop the conflagration.
 >  > After many months, a few keepers identify a step that could help stop
 >  > the conflagration by a certain deadline. But those keepers get limited
 >  > response from the other keepers. So, according to deadline, they
 >  > proceed anyway to destroy a couple of trees that could keep the
 >  > conflagration from spreading. All of a sudden, the remaining keepers
 >  > become deeply concerned over the couple of trees that have been
 >  > destroyed, saying that their responsibility is to save those two
 >  > trees. And then they try to save those two trees and, in the process,
 >  > continue to fuel the conflagration destroyiing the whole forest.
 >  >
 >  > The whole forest is the delegate selection plan. The couple of trees
 >  > that could save the forest is the step of sending letters to the
 >  > candidates notifying them of the allocation of delegates -- as
 >  > mandated by and thus trying to save the delegate selection plan.
 >  > Suddenly there is concern over "saving" that one step that was taken
 >  > not strictly according to process. And now a letter tries to save
 >  > those two trees while fueling the conflagration of the delegate
 >  > selection plan by subterfuge, and it's sent by people who were
 >  > entrusted by StateCom to implement, not destroy, the delegate
 >  > selection plan (a plan that was originally recommended by Jamie and
 >  > Dan to AdCom and that we have already agreed would be improved on
 >  > before the next presidential election).
 >  >
 >  > Jamie, I was about to answer your email asking for a way to reach
 >  > resolution. I do think there could be a way to proceed. But this
 >  > action makes me seriously doubt the sincerity of the offer. It's
 >  > another delaying tactic and ploy not to carry out StateCom's
 >  > consensus.
 >  >
 >  > As for those people on StateCom who did not know what they were
 >  > consensing to, our consensus experts should use this as an educational
 >  > opportunity. Once you have stepped aside on your concerns, it is a
 >  > cardinal rule of consensus that you not keep bringing up those
 >  > concerns. I would far prefer to have an honest vote than a dishonest
 >  > consensus. And having this behavior come from people like Grace and
 >  > Dan who are considered consensus gurus (and Dan even co-facilitated
 >  > that particular StateCom consensus) makes their commitment to the
 >  > whole process even more suspect.
 >  >
 >  > To say we have not "had enough time" at meetings to bring this to a
 >  > close is disrespectful of the hundreds of hours spent at and between
 >  > many meetings that this subject has dominated. If a four-hour adcom
 >  > meeting is not enough time, then let's face facts and move on.
 >  >
 >  > If the offer to seek resolution is sincere and honest -- and seeks to
 >  > settle the interpretation of "releasing" delegates while accepting the
 >  > StateCom and delegate selection plan mandates for "allocating"
 >  > delegates -- we might have a basis for moving forward. But folks,
 >  > please come clean about your actions. This pattern of letters or
 >  > opinions of opposition or complaint without notice is not conducive to
 >  > building the kind of respect and trust that are needed for true
 >  > consensus (and, when necessary, voting is part of the consensus
 >  > process). It's hypocritical to pretend otherwise.
 >  >
 >  > Merelice