The GRP stands for discussion and Green Unity

For Jill Stein and All's Amended Proposal, please see: https://www.green-rainbow.org/2021_spring_unity_proposal_amendment

Proposal sponsor/shepherd: Matt Andrews

Floor manager: Maureen Doyle

Co-sponsors: Elie Yarden, David Keil, Maureen Doyle

Contact info for floor manager: [email protected]

Summary: StateCom opposes expulsions or dis-accreditations over perceived platform differences.

Background: A complaint against the Georgia Green Party is under consideration in the Accreditation Committee.

Text of Proposal:

The Green-Rainbow Party affirms support for the human rights of transgender people. Transgender people are oppressed, and we need to defend them.

The Green-Rainbow Party opposes the petition for punitive action against the Georgia Green Party being considered by the GPUS Accreditation Committee, which is not based on explicit rules, but rather on interpretations of the GPUS platform.  The GPUS platform is an inappropriate standard for membership or the accreditation of state parties.

As alternatives to censuring, suspending, or expelling state parties or individual members on issues of sex and gender we advocate: education, democratic discussion, and debates. These must be free of insults, slurs, threats, and profane language. In the absence of specific evidence, an assumption of good faith among fellow Greens must be maintained. The right of Green-Rainbow Party members to participate in our democratic process, including the right to make proposals and request a vote, shall not be infringed by bureaucratic maneuvers or peer pressure campaigns.

Democratic discussion will be facilitated if participants' race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, self-identification, dis-ability, and good faith disagreements of opinion are respected.

Implementation: The text of this proposal as adopted will be sent by a member of our National Committee delegation to the “NatlComAffairs” list.

Financial Implications: none.

 


Showing 307 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-26 11:17:24 -0400
    My response to Matt’s comment

    Use of Semantics & Misleading and Contradictory language:
    Quote: “As you can see below, the rules are extremely general and lax.  The first point states they must accept the four pillars of the international Green Party movement or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles.  No details are spelled out over how these pillars or values must be interpreted on any particular issue.”
    - Just like the claim that water-boarding was not torture because it was not explicitly written into the anti-torture policies…
    - It would also seem that this argument is calling for more rigid and restrictive rules while also claiming the issue with GAGP has shown the GPUS has too much top down power at the same time.

    Misleading and Contradictory language:
    Quote: “It is clear these rules are not designed to be tools of political discipline.  Nothing here should lead the GRP or GAGP to believe that policy positions we adopt will be vetted by the GPUS for approval.
    So even if the GAGP is politically 100% wrong, we cannot look to the GPUS accreditation process to force them to change their position.  This doesn’t mean we have to sit back and do nothing either.  The policy we are suggesting the GRP adopt advocates “education, democratic discussion, and debates.”  I hope we can agree that persuasion is Greener and better for the Party than discipline.”
    - Yet, the sponsors of the proposal are saying there should not be political discipline wielded by the GPUS on any member or state party. Which is it to be then?…
    - It has been clearly demonstrated that “education, democratic discussion, and debates.” have occurred for over 16 months on the NC and over 2 months within the GRP. When is this going to stop?
    “Persuasion” WITHOUT clear and written Healthy Boundaries, in some cases, can also be considered to be obsessive harassment.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-04-26 06:17:46 -0400
    A critical piece of background information StateCom members should consider leading up to the vote on Sunday is the criteria for state membership in the GPUS. There are 10 criteria the Accreditation Committee is charged with measuring. They can be found here: https://gpus.org/committees/accreditation/accreditation-committee-requirements/

    I am also pasting them below.

    Let’s assume that the Georgia Green Party was politically 100% wrong when they adopted two platform amendments and signed the Declaration on Women’s Sex Based Rights. What oversight powers does the GPUS have over affiliated state parties? As you can see below, the rules are extremely general and lax. The first point states they must accept the four pillars of the international Green Party movement or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles. No details are spelled out over how these pillars or values must be interpreted on any particular issue.

    The most specific requirements are very practical, such as supporting national candidates and making a good faith effort to achieve ballot status. In fact, the term “good faith” is used four times in this list of ten criteria. So this is clearly an important concept to interpret. The American Heritage Dictionary defines good faith as “The sincere intention to be honest and law-abiding…” and also, “Good, honest intentions, even if producing unfortunate results.”

    The only reference to a state platform is to require that it be submitted when applying for accreditation. There is no reference to reviewing its content.

    Furthermore, the committee’s rules require only a simple majority to approve new states, while recommendations to “de-accredit” a state requires a 75% vote. (https://gpus.org/committees/accreditation/accreditation-committee-policies-procedures/)

    It is clear these rules are not designed to be tools of political discipline. Nothing here should lead the GRP or GAGP to believe that policy positions we adopt will be vetted by the GPUS for approval.

    So even if the GAGP is politically 100% wrong, we cannot look to the GPUS accreditation process to force them to change their position. This doesn’t mean we have to sit back and do nothing either. The policy we are suggesting the GRP adopt advocates “education, democratic discussion, and debates.” I hope we can agree that persuasion is Greener and better for the Party than discipline.

    In Solidarity,

    ~Matthew Andrews

    II. Criteria for State Party Membership in the Green Party of the United States.

    1. Acceptance of the four pillars of the international Green Party movement [ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, non-violence] or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles.

    2. Organized and run in accordance with these values.

    3. A statewide organization open to, and reflective of, a statewide membership.

    4. Agrees to support national candidates selection by Green convention.

    5. Makes good faith effort, where reasonable, to achieve ballot status.

    6. Makes good faith effort to run state and local candidates.

    7. Has applied to GREEN PARTY for accreditation, and has included written by-laws, platform, and other documentation with that application.

    8. Has a history of networking with other environmental and social justice organizations.

    9. Evidence of commitment to, and good faith efforts to achieve, gender balance in party leadership and representation.

    10. Evidence of good faith efforts to empower individuals and groups from oppressed communities, through, for example, leadership responsibilities, identity caucuses and alliances with community-based
    organizations, and endorsements of issues and policies.
  • Maureen Doyle
    commented 2021-04-23 19:53:01 -0400
    In response to this:“Don’t forget it was Juan and Jamie’s sacrifice that gave ALL of us the opportunity to tick Hawkins/Walker on the ballot this past election” I will add so let’s make sure all states within the GPUS can vote; let’s keep all member states. Thanks for pointing that out, carole!!
  • Maureen Doyle
    commented 2021-04-23 19:46:03 -0400
    Nice rewording Matt. Let’s all remember that this is about due process of law which has not been adhered to but needs to be. All member states of the GPUS need to be treated fairly (as do all members, but that goes without saying: Respect is part of the 10 key values of the GP).
    peace, maureen doyle
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-04-21 14:39:20 -0400
    Hello everyone,

    I’m happy to announce that the sponsors of the Discussion and Green Unity proposal have taken constructive feedback from members and accepted a number of friendly amendments. We affirm the human rights of transgender people at the very beginning. We also cut a poorly constructed sentence that attempted to address when people express personal feelings or opinions. We also added a couple sentences to strengthen our party’s internal democracy. I hope State Committee members will take the time to read this updated version so we can have a focused and productive discussion.

    Thank you to everyone who is engaging in the consensus building process. I look forward to bringing this process to a conclusion with a vote at the next State Committee meeting.

    In Solidarity,
    ~Matthew Andrews
  • Carole Oyler
    commented 2021-04-18 14:13:42 -0400
    Matt,
    The following are the start years for 3 of the 4 …Don’t forget it was Juan and Jamie’s sacrifice that gave ALL of us the opportunity to tick Hawkins/Walker on the ballot this past election

    GRP Membership ran for state wide office
    Lisa 2002
    Juan 2016 2018
    Jamie 2016 2018

    I am new, I found this out, what is up with your information gathering skills?

    Thanks for reading,

    Carole
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-18 13:26:18 -0400
    The reason is because they should have the same right to vote as you. Imo I felt like your argument for not letting them vote was based on fear of them voting against your proposal. I didn’t thibk it was coincidence that the floor manager would have issue with seating members who were openly against his proposal nor a coincidence your attempt to implement this policy that is used at times but again it just didn’t seem like a coincidence. To me it felt like yoy were scared these people would be seated then vote down your proposal and that’s why you made it a big stink. Had it been a member not a supporter or Signer on this proposal I probably wouldn’t have questioned it as then it would seem more neutral and wanting to enforce the rules as opposed to the clear Manipulation you were doing. Is that honest enough for you?
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-18 13:16:32 -0400
    I’m with Mike H. This needs to stop. We are going into the third statecom meeting for the Spring and NOTHING has been done. We have to add YET ANOTHER 4th meeting to get basic business done. For the millionth time, this needs to be withdrawn and this endless back and forth needs to stop. It’s a broken record and it isn’t even good mucic! It’s like a broken pop country record or Kenny G or something.

    Its awful

    I, as someone who has tried to grow a HEALTHY NON TOXIC party since say one, have been trying to get people like Sean and Juan and Lisa reactivated in our party for a while now. The dosrespect of these veteran members and heavy lifters is APPALLING! Juan and I were both to be seated even before this damn proposal was ever submitted. Others were reacted by their commitment to social justice and human rights. How terrible if them (sarcasm) the projection is blatant at this point and is almost humourous.

    Stop acting like a bunch of petulant spoiled babies! I’m a single mother of 5 so I will say this out loud! Vibe me and hold it against me all you want. This is sickeningly toxic and over the top at this point and Jill Stein as much as I respect her, is
    attempting to jump in and save the day at the last minute and is NOT helping. But you say WE ALL stacked the meeting. Ha!

    Withdraw this unpopular, and poorly rated proposal. Vetting process should have killed it already had this been a functional party that cared about the democratic process
    I’m speaking for many here when I say We are sick and tired of this but we won’t be worn down and beat into surrender. So don’t count in that either.

    Signed:
    “the trans faction”
    Nickname courtesy of yo’ Daddy.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-04-18 12:32:14 -0400
    I have not challenged anyone’s motives. I reminded StateCom of the well-known practice that voting bodies never immediately seat new members before a vote. There should not be even the appearance of stacking State Committee to influence a vote. Democracy depends on commonly agreed upon practices like not seating new members until the following meeting. I would never ask new people to be immediately seated before a vote. Since you volunteer your honestly Juan, why are you so dead set on seeing new State Committee members immediately seated to vote?
    Let’s clarify where we are. Sean Connell was added to StateCom and immediately seated with full voting rights. Now he is drafting a substitute proposal that would do the opposite of what Elie, Maureen, David and I intended with our properly submitted proposal. Folks can draw their own conclusions.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-17 22:48:34 -0400
    Briefly replying to Mike H.:

    The proposal by you and Sean C. sharply contrasts with the no-expulsions proposal for discussion and unity, saying among other things: “After being given the opportunity to self-correct three times, there must be consequences for continuing to push bigoted and narrow-minded narratives up to and including expulsion from the party.” Much more could be cited that adds to and justifies your view that expulsions must occur.

    I appreciate that you may not desire anyone’s expulsion; you would desire for them to retract their ideas, or to be silent, as you desire us to withdraw our motion.

    Your proposal sets up a mechanism for expulsions on ideological grounds. Among those who would be expelled under your mechanism are those you are addressing.

    Perhaps you would like to say that you are opposed to such expulsions. Perhaps you would wish to make a proposal instead along such lines. In that case, let’s talk about a possible consensus proposal.

    Clarity requires that we acknowledge when we disagree and must cast divided votes. Our proposal is clear that we can coexist in the same party while having different views of sex and gender. Your proposal is clear in taking the opposite view. Your request that we withdraw our proposal makes as much sense as a request that we resign from the GRP. In contrast, we differ with you, we see no need for you to begone, and we don’t request that you withdraw your proposal if it reflects your view. Let’s vote and move on to build the GRP.
  • Jack Swindlehurst
    followed this page 2021-04-17 20:01:48 -0400
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-04-17 19:22:34 -0400
    Response to David K from Mike H

    1. Please point to where I call for the expulsion of GA or anybody from our party. If you want, please go through all of the comments that I have made in the archives of this discussion. Let me once again make it clear that I have not made any statements calling for the expulsion of Georgia or the expulsion of anyone in our party. I fully reject what you wrote. I oppose driving anyone out of our state party.

    2. Since the birth of our party in 2002, I have been one of the most active members of our state party-an active member of statecom, and at different times an active member of the CDLC, Platform, Membership and ComCom. I have actively supported many of our statewide campaigns. I have been the most active member who lives in Boston. Because of the disfunctionality of my chapter especially around the Corona Virus, I have boycotted my chapter meetings. One consequence of this controversy has been the resignation of two members of ComCom. I resigned from your committee because of the lack of support for my/ComCom proposal to attempt to reach out to our membership in order to encourage our members to support our positive statewide program (passed by StateCom in February). I believe that there was not enough support for my proposal because most of the positive energy for our state party has been exhausted by this latest uncivil war. Except for this controversy and attending Maha’s meetings, I consider myself a homeless member. I have not been expelled from active membership. I have not been driven out of the party. Instead, my face has been driven into the shit so often that I have come to the conclusion that it would be unhealthy for me and delusional to believe that I should spend any of my limited positive energy in support of my/our party.

    3. Juan Sanchez is one of the faces of diversity that our party says that it wants to be in the leadership of our party. His candidacy for statewide office brought our party status back to our party. He has not been expelled from our party. I will leave it up to him to come up with the words why he has resigned as a candidate for statecom membership and then resigned as a member. His departure is disheartening and shameful!

    4. David, we have and are now cooperatively working together on another project. One of the reasons why I joined ComCom was to support your leadership. I don’t want you or anyone who supports your proposal to leave our party. GRP comrades on both sides of the controversy, including you, have complained about being disrespected and harmed. I don’t want you, Matt, Maureen and Elie, and your supporters to experience further harm.

    5. I supported Sean’s proposal because I wanted to support a positive alternate to your proposal and to Jill’s Compromise. However, I have wanted and still want is for this destructive controversy to end. It is in the hands of the co-sponsors whether or not they want to end this controversy. Withdraw your proposal and you will simultaneously dissolve Sean’s proposal and Jill’s Compromise.

    6. You ask how we can heal. My response:

    We can’t heal when members like Juan and myself leave the party because of this controversy. David, you have been very clear – you are against expulsion. What word would you choose to use to describe our “departure”? How many other members would you like to see “depart”?

    Your idea of healing is to discuss differences and coexist. David – how are we doing with our endless discussions over our differences? Please show me examples of healing. With all of the discussions of differences that we have had, I’m looking forward to seeing your long list.

    What if we don’t want further discussions of our differences? I don’t think that I’m making this up when I believe that a number of our comrades have made it clear that they have had enough of discussion of our differences. Insisting on continued discussion is abusive behavior. Mandatory conversion therapy is not what many of us need or want.

    If you don’t withdraw your proposal, do you think that healing will take place before the next statecom meeting? I don’t think so. If you don’t withdraw your proposal, do you think that healing will take place in round 3 of the next statecom meetings? I don’t think so. Wasn’t there any plans of the statecom doing anything positive at these 3 statecom meetings?

    Do you want healing? Then withdraw your proposal.

    Mike Heichman
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-17 15:10:32 -0400
    This is to address one question that Juan raised about my personal views of the policies of the Georgia GP that are in question. It is a reasonable question.

    I agree with the GaGP that female persons are oppressed as a sex and have sex-based rights. I disagree with the GaGP’s decision to endorse the long theoretical document, the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. I don’t think that it’s wise for state parties to try to define words like “woman” for all their members, because different members use different definitions. We agree on some things, Juan, and disagree on others.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-17 13:48:49 -0400
    Did you not accused people of trying to stack statecom? Did you not then try to make it so new members couldn’t vote? Did you not question people’s involvement?

    If that’s not questioning of intention then idk what is. The difference is that im.honest about my intent and whem questioned I’m honest. I don’t need to ignore questions and play semantics .
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-17 13:43:32 -0400
    Good faith? Really? Withdraw this proposal in GOOD FAITH then Matthew Andrews. Intentions are CRYSTAL CLEAR and unveiled at this point. Enough projection.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-17 13:40:09 -0400
    Matt as I recall you and a few others questioned peoples intentions on joining statecom…You’d like me to do as you say not as you do. I’m glad you’ve finally come to this realization though.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-04-17 13:37:53 -0400
    Juan, I suggest that as a matter of civil debate, we not question the intentions of others. We have to assume the good faith of fellow Greens or we will destroy the bonds that make the GRP, regardless of what position we take on any particular issue. If challenging each other’s intentions becomes a normal practice in the GRP, I fear we will not be able to discuss any controversial issues at all, nor work together even when we agree.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-17 12:50:01 -0400
    Whats destroying this party is people hiding their true intents and capitalizing on a party weakness to push their own agenda.

    You don’t care about Unity David. Far from it if you cared about unity you would see that your proposal is dividing the state party and withdraw it. All you care about is you getting your way finally somewhere after x number of years of your crusade of trying to force the sex and gender issue into different groups.

    Your loyalty is to your causenbot the party. So much so that you push the idea of fractures all based on what? You and 10 delegates who side with you on national? Your dne project? What do you base this idea on? Where is the proof, David?

    Also important to note you made no reference as to whether or not you agree with what Georgia did/their openly expressed views? Cab you finally answer that or are you going to continue to waste time trying to find a word or sentence you can tear apart while playing tippy toe around the question.

    You speak of Unity through education but we have been clear we don’t need you to educate us nor anyone who has beliefs aligned with Georgia to educate us, ee don’t need to entertain discussions that makes us feel like we are compromising our deeply rooted beliefs, and yes for all our sanity and the health of the party sometimes its necessary to even rid of the common denominator that is causing so much pain and harm. Your suggestion is to stay with the abuser because eventually you’ll learn something through discussion dialougue and education and thays what you call Unity. We won’t stand for abuse whether it’s directed at us or our brothers and sisters. Whether it’s perpretated in a gp state party or any party or really in any shape or form.

    To ask us to do otherwise is to put your values above ours, and you abd supporters of this proposal have no ownership on our values. You want to find people to brainwash, the D and R party tend to welcome that.

    For the party and peace,, withdraw your proposal. As I proved in the last meeting no one else is signing on to support Georgia and have a discussion, which to me shows Green Unity against them.and their allies of which you and some of the supporters of this proposal are included.

    What a shame how the GRP is being looked at right now by other state parties and other left orgs and individuals? It’s not me making yall look bad no matter how belligerent I get.

    Ps. I also through this experience had a reconfirmation that hate is taught and this really gave me insight where some supporters of Georgia and anti trans rhetoric get it from. Generations of hate in the GRP
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-17 12:23:45 -0400
    Mike Heichman’s comment baffles me. This is to ask him to clarify it.

    Mike, you have co-sponsored a proposal to establish some slogans and doctrines that you say cannot be discussed and to establish a mechanism for expelling people who question them.

    Why in the world would you think that StateCom members who have co-sponsored a proposal to oppose ideological expulsions would even consider withdrawing that non-expulsion proposal?

    Because you “ask, beg, and plead” for that?

    Or because you predict that our proposal will not be passed?

    Or because you are telling us that, if it prevails, a non-expulsions policy will “destroy our party”?

    What world do you live in?

    We all live in a world of wounded people and wounded groups of people. Our party is wounded as are its members. Let us discuss how to heal.

    One proposal for healing, yours, is to identify bad people and to expel them. First the “Georgia supporting” bad people, then the next candidates for expulsion, then the next, and so on. Splitting parties and driving out dissenters is a commonly sought remedy in politics.

    Another proposal for healing, ours, is to discuss differences and to coexist.

    Please work for your proposal if that is your choice. Others will work for ours and will try to discuss and coexist with you. If you try to drive us out, and even if you succeed, we will continue to work for unity of the Green movement.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-17 12:20:16 -0400
    Thank you for putting words to my thoughts Mike H.
    Your comment below is absolutely perfect!! 💚
    I find it is possible to keep the unity (unity we used to have anyway) with others and work around slight differences in groups working together towards the same goals, as long as everyone in that group “is in at least the same book if not the same chapter”; however, how does one find cohesion with those who “are not even in the same section of the library”? I do not think this is possible or practical to ask of others..
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-04-17 09:03:32 -0400
    WHICH WAY FORWARD: CHAOS OR COMMUNITY?
    REFLECTIONS ON THE RECENT STATECOM MEETING
    Mike Heichman 4/17/21

    I was late for the 4/15-Round Two of the Spring StateCom Meeting. Before the meeting, I had attended a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Boston Education Justice Alliance. I’m grateful that I’m doing important work with other comrades in both BEJA and the Boston May Day Coalition. I wish that I were also doing important positive work with my GRP comrades. Instead we fight with each other in forever uncivil wars. I have talked with people who are in both sides of the current controversy. Both have been complaining for many months of being insulted, threatened and disrespected.

    I have 3 main goals in writing this message.

    In this dispute, I want to make a couple of “partisan” remarks explaining why I remain strongly opposed to “THE GRP STANDS FOR DISCUSSION AND GREEN UNITY proposal.”

    2. I want to make some comments about our process and especially how our consensus process, in this controversy, has been part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

    3. I want to give some arguments why this controversy should and must end. I want to ask, plead and beg the co-sponsors, who I believe are the only ones who have the power to end this controversy, to withdraw their proposal.

    Partisan Remarks

    The co-sponsors of THE GRP STANDS FOR DISCUSSION AND GREEN UNITY proposal have two major objectives. 1) They want to protect Georgia from punitive action. 2) They want to have “education, democratic discussion, and debates. … free of insults, slurs, threats, and profane language.”

    Why do they want to protect Georgia from punitive actions? Because the 4 cosponsors are sympathetic/supportive of many of the ideas of the GAGP.
    What’s wrong with their requests that all of us have a nice, pleasant and respectful discussion? Please forgive my attempt to summarize what I believe is the response of many of my comrades who are on the other side of the aisle. We don’t want to be “educated” by you. We find your arguments to be insulting to us, a personal attack on many of us and an attack on those who we love. We had believed that we had a shared understanding defined by the GPUS platform and by past actions of our party. We have been hurt and feel betrayed by our comrades. We do not apologize for our lack of politeness.

    My best guess is that many of us had belonged to the Democratic Party at some time in our adult life. We had harbored the illusion that there had been some hope in this path to help create a better world. Some of us may have had fantasies about being elected officials, and without question, being a Democrat instead of being a member of our party provides a more likely path. The Democrats also are in a position to offer patronage.

    We joined and are active in the GRP for other reasons. Our party is a community. We are siblings. We are comrades. 97.2% of us agree with each other on important issues 98.4% of the time. We seek to do important work with each other in behalf of our communities and for “People, Planet and Peace”.

    What’s next after this controversy? Should we re-examine our platform when it comes to reproductive rights? Should we be educated and embrace “the right to life” instead of abortion rights? There is nothing in our by-laws that would prevent 2 StateCom members from making this proposal? There is nothing in our current practice that would stop them from paralyzing our positive energy and work for many months. Should this discussion also be polite?

    2. Process, especially Consensus

    I’m sure that there are others who can better explain the purpose of our consensus process. However, I will give it my best shot.

    We certainly have a very detailed step-by-step process to follow. Our wonderful comrade, Danny, certainly knows how to follow these procedures. (One can see why our Danny is a wonderful lawyer as well as a wonderful mench.)

    The HEART of the consensus process is to create a stronger agreement by listening to each other and being open to incorporate their ideas. After all, we are on the same team. We are siblings. We are comrades. Well, that’s the theory.

    Many times the consensus process works very well.

    But, what if one side really wants to win? And the casualties on the road are acceptable costs? They pursue victory over our minds, hearts and souls.

    Let’s remember that any ratified proposal must have the support of at least 2/3 of those voting. My belief is that the proposal with the most support at the last StateComm meeting was Sean’s. I believe that it is the only proposal that has the potential of being ratified. I don’t think that Jill’s Compromise has that much support. I also believe that the co-sponsors have far less than majority support.

    I acknowledge that my readings of StateCom might be totally wrong. Because we followed the procedures of the consensus process, there was no way to test my belief

    Imagine that our intention had been to see if there were enough support to adopt any of the 3 proposals. We could have had a straw poll. Let’s say that none of the 3 proposals had majority support. At that point, the chances for a ratified decision would be minimal, and the wisest thing to do, if moving ahead with other party business were important, would be for the cosponsors to withdraw their proposal. Let’s say that one of the 3 proposals had a majority support in the straw poll. Then that’s the one that we should have gone through the process of seeing if a ratification were possible.

    This is NOT what the co-sponsors want. It’s their proposal—not StateCom’s! Sean’s proposal was “unfriendly” and would not be considered. They want to win, despite the costs.

    Are we on the same team? Are we siblings? Are we comrades? No! The lines of battle have been drawn. “To the Victors belong the Spoils”

    3. I ask. I plead. I beg the co-sponsors. Please end this controversy. You can do this by with drawing the proposal. Hasn’t there been enough pain and suffering BY ALL OF US?

    Why am I not making this request to the other side of the aisle?

    Because the cosponsors are in charge. Sean’s proposal is not “friendly”. The other side will have to determine whether they can make a deal with Jill—an agreement that the other side of the aisle has rejected.

    Why should the cosponsors withdraw their proposal?

    I am a founding member of the GRP and have been the most active member of our party who lives in Boston since 2002. For months now, I have boycotted meetings of the GBC. I have resigned from ComCom because I believe that there is little energy in our state party to move forward with our mission and plan ratified by the February StateCom meeting. I tried, and there was not enough support at Adcom for my/ComCom’s proposal. The last two StateCom meetings this month that there is little positive energy left in our state party because we are bogged down in our forever civil war. Continuing the controversy, more pain and suffering is guaranteed. If the co-sponsors would withdraw their proposal, we would be able to move on. I believe that all of us want to work together to build a bigger, stronger and more effective party. This Uncivil War is in the way.

    2. If the cosponsors continue their campaign within our party, they will most likely loose. But, what if you win? Would you take your victory into the GPUS and no doubt, bring more havoc into our national party? Would the reputation of our GRP in our national party be enhanced by the resulting carnage? Would your victory energize our state party?

    3. Are we Siblings? Are we Comrades? Are the cosponsors willing to pursue a Pyrrhic victory? What does it mean to gain your victory if you destroy our party?

    I ask. I plead. I beg. Cosponsors, please withdraw your proposal.

    Love, Mike Heichman
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-08 09:31:16 -0400
    The membership of StateCom has chosen the date of April 15 for its second Spring session, at which the co-facilitators, following the instructions of the April 1 session, scheduled presentation, discussion, and vote on the “Discussion and Unity” proposal submitted March 11 by four StateCom members.
  • Owen Broadhurst
    commented 2021-04-05 18:56:06 -0400
    This whole entire thread helps illuminate why the party that I bolted serves no useful purpose and must be destroyed
  • Owen Broadhurst
    tagged this with Bad 2021-04-05 18:56:05 -0400
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-05 12:09:48 -0400
    For the greater good and CONSENSUS.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-05 12:08:40 -0400
    That’s right David Keil…
    May the Universal Love move us in the direction of the greater good.

    So mote it be to HARM NONE and for the GREATER GOOD OF ALL.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-05 11:21:01 -0400
    :-) May the earth spirit help us find peace.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-05 11:13:07 -0400
    Okay. I guess i will need a different outfit. Now we are being made out to be puritans who want to purge heretics and hunt witches. Okay, got it.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-05 11:03:17 -0400
    So I, the all powerful green witch of the valley, should advice my coven, i mean chapter, not to summon that demon to defend the green party platform (which was the reason we all joined this party to begin with) because it’s Y’all swho are the evil witches. Oooh. Okay.
    This changes everything.
    Alexa, please cancel black mass plans!
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-05 10:54:44 -0400
    Nobody, for or against the proposal, has demonic powers or is demonic.

    To say that making a proposal to reject a split is “causing splits and resignations,” however, attributes demonic power to those making the proposal. We are said to have the power to control the actions of others, and at a distance!