The GRP stands for discussion and Green Unity

For Jill Stein and All's Amended Proposal, please see:

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 299 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
  • Juan Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-05 09:00:06 -0400
    Again David is fearmongering. No one said we are expelling members. Stop trying to push this false narrative. Stop trying to scare people to vote your way.

    The difference between our arguments is clear. One is actually happening the other is smoke and mirrors meant to cause fear. Nowhere has anyone suggested even once expelling members well no one but David K.

    If David K fears expulsion of members then let a starecom member write a proposal to address that but these portraying of us as the boogeyman here to kick people out is disrespectful to all of us who consistently do work that aligns with the GP and GRP directly and indirectly and are representative of the people the GP and GRP claim to fight for and represent.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-05 08:53:45 -0400
    Those who have been driving for a split, and those who have boarded the split train, are narrowing the room for compromise daily.

    They say that making a proposal to reject a split is “causing splits and resignations.” What demonic power is attributed to dissenters the power to control the actions of others!

    The GRP offers a non-bullying, non-threatening way to oppose a bad proposal: speak and vote against it!

    It is becoming evident that rejection of the proposal made March 11, “Discussion and Unity,” would empower the expulsion not only of another state party, but of GRP members. The position of not expelling the GaGP is now being falsified as a “support Georgia” proposal. Those for not expelling another state party are being labeled as expellable for their ideas.

    State Committee members: What is the difference now between okaying the expulsion of Georgia and okaying the expulsion of GRP members?

    The expulsion-and-split wildfire will touch those who try to run from it. You will be asked why you hesitated to drive out the heretics. The wildfire has consumed many other states of the GPUS, but not all, contrary to Jamie.

    Who is standing up for the right to make or oppose proposals? Who remembers the value of “grassroots democracy”?
  • Lois Gagnon
    commented 2021-04-05 08:21:40 -0400
    How can the implementation of this proposal prevent splits in the party when it’s already causing a fracture and resignations before implementation? That makes no sense. If the sponsors don’t want fractures in the party, they should tell Georgia to reverse its platform changes that have caused the complaint against them. The onus is on those who are causing splits and resignations right now, not on those who are fleeing the party in disgust that the Green Party and the GRP would even entertain “discussing” the validity of trans human rights.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-05 07:15:06 -0400
    Mike isn’t the only only that doesnt support either the original proposal or “Jill’s Compromise”. Mike isn’t the only one who finds this to be abusive. Mike isn’t the only one to resign ans I fear won’t be the last. What we all have been saying from the start still is true and we are witnessing what we feared would happen simply by ENTERTAINING the thought of defending someone’s rights to strip rights from others. Many of us supported Mike H. ‘S first amendments/counter but he isn’t Jill so it wasn’t entertained. That’s too bad because he is showing much more conviction.
    No wishy washy business when it comes to human rights. Stand up firmly.
    16 months of dialoge and attempted mediation and due process on National and this is where we are at. GAGP still have time to remove their anti-trans amendments and end this balltle natiionally. The sponsors of this proposal in this state (the ONLY state entertaining this by the way) have time to withdraw and also end this madness.
    My suspicion is that neither one will, which says A LOT about how they actually feel about “unity” or keeping the party “together”.
    Beating someone into submission is not unity.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-04 23:42:50 -0400
    Mike Heichman asks about the status of the proposal that is to be presented, discussed, and voted on at the next StateCom session, titled, “The GRP Stands for Discussion and Green Unity.” It states that the GRP will not resolve political differences by expulsions. Its status is unchanged. I expect it to obtain a majority, helping the GPUS to avoid expelling a state party for ideological reasons.

    Jill Stein’s draft has obtained some backing. If it obtains enough commitments of support to predict a Steering Committee 2/3 majority, it may be considered as a friendly amendment by sponsors of the Green Unity proposal.

    I’m sorry that Mike cannot support either draft and that he seems OK with the use of expulsions and splits to resolve differences. In my opinion, unless StateCom opposes these disruptive methods, our party may fracture and decline further. If different views can coexist, then our party can grow.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-04-04 23:10:48 -0400


    Since the recent StateCom meeting, I’m not sure what is still in front of us. Are we still debating the “Support Georgia” proposal or are the co-sponsors withdrawing this and embracing Jill’s Compromise? It would be helpful to know,

    Speaking only for myself, the withdrawal of the “Support Georgia” proposal would be a major step forward.

    The positive thing that happened at our recent StateCom Meeting was the addition of four veteran members of our party and their return to the leadership of our party. Each one will add to our diversity and to our strength.

    Unfortunately, the decision to admit them took a long. Long time. Each of them said that they wanted to return to the leadership of our party in order to build and strength of our party. Some of them said that they felt disrespected by those who raised concerns.
    Just before the meeting, Jill had submitted her Compromise, which I did not see before the meeting.

    Jill’s Compromise:

    The GRP affirms the civil, human, and economic rights of the trans community, and respect for self-identification.

    The Green-Rainbow Party has overcome divisive issues in the past through civil dialogue, education and respectful persuasion, rather than bullying or expulsion. We are committed to achieving that unity going forward as well.


    State committee will work with Maha Visnu to establish a process for further dialogue and education, including reading lists.
    The leadership of our party is deeply divided and pained about this controversy. I am in solidarity with those who do not want our party to make a statement supporting GAGP, do not want to continue this harmful and painful dialogue, continue to request that the co-sponsors withdraw this proposal, and that we should move forward together in positive ways to build and strengthen our party.

    One of those nominated, Juan Sanchez, withdrew in disgust his request to join StateCom. The next day, he angrily resigned from our party. I believe that Juan Sanchez ia a representative of the diversity that we want to welcome into our party and into our leadership. All of us should be in mourning over his resignation and our loss.

    2 members of ComCom have resigned. One because he wanted to protest and be in solidarity with members of his chapter. The second was me. I resigned because it is my belief that this latest Un-Civil War is crippling most of our positive energy. I believe that efforts to build and strengthen our party have been sacrificed because of this latest Uncivil War.

    I do not know David Kohlmeir, who also has resigned.

    There may be others.

    I address my question to the Cosponsors of this proposal: Has this struggle been worth the cost? How much more pain and suffering are you willing to stomach?


    When it comes to Jill’s Compromise, I believe that their position remains the same and I will remain in solidarity with these comrades. However, I know that I am making an assumption. If I’m wrong and they instead want to embrace Jill’s Compromise, I withdraw what I am going to write below.

    Why I’m opposed to Jill’s Compromise:

    Imagine for a moment that the issue before us was domestic violence and those in authority called for mandatory dialogue between the abuser and the abused. The woman screamed, “I’m sick and tired of being abused. I’m sick and tired of dialogue. Been there and done that. I want the battering to stop. I want the dialogue to stop. No Mas!

    I know that the situation that we as a party are dealing with is not the same as above. Comrades, for me, it feels very similar. Some of my comrades have been saying for quite some time now—- This discussion has been harmful and painful. Maha organized two separate discussions that many of us participated. We have communicated endlessly by email. This discussion has been harmful and painful. STOP IT!

    If my comrades want to continue this dialogue, they will say so. In this case, the proposal should be withdrawn because it willl not be needed, because Maha would be very happy to organize such a discussion.

    However, if I’m right and my comrades object to further dialogue, then the adoption of Jill’s Compromise would be ABUSIVE!

    2. Jill’s Compromise begins with a brief positive statement.

    The GRP affirms the civil, human, and economic rights of the trans community, and respect for self-identification. Normally, I would be supportive of this statement. Unfortunately, given what has been happening, it feels hollow to me.

    I will now offer a DRAFT counter-proposal to the Co-Sponsors and to the StateCom:

    The Co-Sponsors withdraw their initial proposal.
    The Co-Sponsors thanks Jill for her efforts and decline to embrace her Compromise.
    The Co-Sponsors offers the following proposal for reconsideration at the next StateCom Meeting




    BACKGROUND: Our Transgender Siblings are under attack across the country.



    StateCom will elect at least 2 Co-Chairs for this Committee.
    ComCom will send out a message to our membership by every reasonable means possible inviting our membership to join this new committee.
    StateCom will request that our co-chairs sign this invitation letter.

    Financial Implications: Matt and Brian will be in charge of raising the necessary funds. (Only kidding!)

    Proposal Lovingly Submitted by Mike Heichman
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-04 14:25:25 -0400
    Well, this is an interesting point of view from a Green… I think we all know where “All Lives Matter” comes from…
  • Jordan Stewart
    commented 2021-04-04 05:41:11 -0400
    We don’t need to “talk out” whether nor not trans lives are valid and worthy of protection with the GA party. I am not normally one for expulsion straightaway, but we don’t need to have a debate with GA about it… They should simply be told they are not in line with the Platform and that their accreditation could be endangered if they continue to support oppressive, transphobic policies. Intentionally putting trans lives in danger is not something to have discussions and debates about. It is something that is to be shut down immediately.
  • Jack Swindlehurst
    commented 2021-04-03 21:25:31 -0400
    I like Jill’s (purported) proposal, though, it is a bit general, both in description and implementation.
    Can we get a formal proposal so as to avoid misunderstanding it’s relevance in present commentary?
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-03 20:37:05 -0400
    Who moderates this website page?
    The comment I just posted below on April 3, 2021 at 8:19pm was posted earlier today by David Kohlmeier date & time noted in my post. Why was his post censored for no reason that I can see that would violate any of our written policies.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-03 20:19:18 -0400
    Orwellian censorship happening in the GRP
    WOW… how much more disturbing can this “dialogue” get. I am deeply dismayed.

    Date: April 3, 2021 at 6:42:32 PM EDT
    To: Green-Rainbow Party
    Subject: Re: New comment on The GRP stands for discussion and Green Unity

    I am deeply disturbed to hear that transphobia is now  an accepted position in this party. I said I was going to leave, but was talked into staying. I will now actually withdraw. I can’t believe the Democrats are now officially more progressive than Massachusetts Greens, but here we are. You have found an issue of agreement between your party and white nationalists. Congratulations. 
    If you feel that right wing talking points and outright falsities (anti trans pseudo-science being promulgated by right wing forces) are a valid point of view, then you have no more moral leg to stand on. You have declared yourself at best to be unsafe for queer people, and at worst an enemy. 
    I am beginning to wonder if the Greens rather vague liberal “environmentalism” hasn’t led to an odd kind of proto eco-fascism, where whatever is defined as “natural” is privileged over what is just. This is the only way I can imagine how the outmoded idea that “women” are defined by genitals and biology (in direct contradiction to what numerous feminists have said for decades, not to mention in outright rejection of what science actually says about the fluidity and spectrum of biological) has been able to gain such prominence and power. 
    Without intersectional justice, without a firm and explicit rejection of capitalism and white supremacy, without centering an ethic of radical interdependence and eco-socialist justice, I fear the Greens may soon become irrelevant and even an obstacle to the future our planet needs.  
    Good bye
  • Lois Gagnon
    commented 2021-04-03 19:53:59 -0400
    Why is David Kohlmeier’s comment not posting here? He just left the GRP because of this proposal. Congratulations. People are resigning on a daily basis. So much for unity. Do the proposal sponsors even care that we are bleeding members? Unity at the cost of party values is no victory. At this rate, the GRP will wind up consisting of 8 people.
  • Jack Swindlehurst
    commented 2021-04-03 19:06:38 -0400
    I fully support the idea that we DO NOT CONSIDER EXPULSION before we’ve had a chance to talk it out.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-02 22:25:25 -0400
    No proposal has been withdrawn. The status of the document Mike posted is as Matt describes it, as far as I know.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-04-02 15:27:05 -0400
    I did not know about Jill’s attempt to find a compromise until the meeting. Have the co-sponsors of “The GRP Stands For Discussion and Green Unity” Proposal withdrawn their original proposal and substituted Jill’s “Compromise”.

    I submit this so we could have the document in front of us.

    Mike Heichman


    Matt Andrews sent this to StateCom:
    I look forward to our meeting that will begin in a few minutes. Jill Stein has put in a lot of work today to try to develop a compromise proposal that all sides can accept. She has made a heroic effort that I think we should applaud. Unfortunately, we aren’t quite there yet. This is the draft of a new motion as it currently stands. I am willing to offer this as a substitute motion (and I am hopeful my co-sponsors will also agree) IF State Committee members who haven’t committed to supporting the original motion would be willing to accept this alternative. This is an effort to build a broader unity that on StateCom and to preserve the unity of the GRP. Please look it over in addition to the original proposal:

    In Solidarity,

    ~Matthew Andrews


    The Green-Rainbow Party affirms trans rights and commits to overcoming current divisions through civil dialogue and respectful persuasion.


    Concerns have arisen over the prospects of a split in the GRP. This proposal is offered as a pathway towards preserving unity and an expression of our commitment to justice for all.

    Text of Proposal:

    The GRP affirms the civil, human, and economic rights of the trans community, and respect for self-identification.

    The Green-Rainbow Party has overcome divisive issues in the past through civil dialogue, education and respectful persuasion, rather than bullying or expulsion. We are committed to achieving that unity going forward as well.


    State committee will work with Maha Visnu to establish a process for further dialogue and education, including reading lists.
  • Carole Oyler
    commented 2021-04-02 12:31:13 -0400
    In reading your ‘parts’ of the compromise im seeing i can be a racist, a homophobe, Against any and all the 10 key values and I can’t be expelled. Sounds like a free for all to me, but hey as long as there is no expulsion , you are cool with that.
  • Lois Gagnon
    commented 2021-04-02 11:59:53 -0400
    Some people think misrepresenting people’s proposal comments on the discuss list is clever. It’s not. It’s revealing of their character.
  • Lois Gagnon
    commented 2021-04-02 11:41:44 -0400
    Forget last comment. Ugh.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-02 11:41:27 -0400
    A compromise would include contending groups of members and others, would affirm solidarity with trans people, and would affirm that members with different ideas and those with uncertain views would go forward together without splits or expulsions.
  • Lois Gagnon
    commented 2021-04-02 11:41:03 -0400
    I meant cannot accommodate.
  • Lois Gagnon
    commented 2021-04-02 11:38:12 -0400
    I also do not support a compromise. This toxic environment will drag on indefinitely. Accommodation of this kind of disruption to our work is what prevents the GRP from moving forward and keeping new members. Compromise at the expense of standing up for universal human rights is not something I can accommodate. As Juan has said, actions have consequences. The GRP is on the verge of becoming a pariah party because of this. You good with that?
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-02 11:23:20 -0400
    I do not support a compromise.
  • Andre Gray
    commented 2021-04-02 10:57:23 -0400
    I would vote for Dr. Jill Stein’s compromise proposal (as forwarded to me at 7:00pm April 1, 2021) and would do all in my capacity to implement it.
  • Juan Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-02 09:18:47 -0400
    So yay yall won I’m good. I hope yall have the same level of energy you had in attacking me when it comes to saving your party from what I have planned next. Now to reveal my cards, I have been working with Lgbtq+ orgs to release a statement condemning the GRP which will be released in the next couple of days. Every action has consequences.
  • Juan Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-02 09:00:51 -0400
    I have always advocated for people to join the Green party, pronoted Green values, and had them vote GRP because I truly believe in the GP. However after last night I no longer feel I can contribute to this party any longer.

    I withdrew my nominayion because I knew it would be controversial. I unenrolling from the GRP because I can no longer have my name associated with this party. You speak of diversity as you propped up an educated white gay man and shut me down. My emotions and truth were sidelined for what made yall feel.good.No shade to Sean as he is amazing but it reeks of classism and underlying racism. Find anew token brown person to use to make yourselves look good.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-04-02 08:42:13 -0400

    Imagine that all of the time and energy that we have spent in our uncivil war had instead been used in the defense of our trans siblings.

    We spend so much time and energy fighting with each other and so little time and energy doing positive work in our communities.

    Yesterday’s StateCom meeting was another example of this.

    We now have a larger and more diverse leadership of our party.

    What are we going to do with this?

    I repeat my request to the co-sponsors that they withdraw their divisive proposal. Instead, let’s use our power in behalf our positive vision and program.


    Mike Heichman
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-01 19:52:31 -0400
    I agree with the sense of David Rolde’s comment immediately below. I don’t think proposals can be changed at the last minute at the request of one member; i.e., other than as an emergency request.

    Again I’m concerned about the language used in this discussion. Concern about language is valid because democratic deliberations don’t include the types of communication that I cited earlier. One participant claimed that incivility would be a “point of pride.” Democratic discussion is respectful and excludes name calling, threats, ad hominem attacks, and personal attacks.
  • David Rolde
    commented 2021-04-01 17:10:54 -0400
    I would like to suggest a couple changes to the text of this proposal. The proposal implies that the Georgia Green Party has contradicted the GPUS Platform. As I pointed out in my post on this board a couple days ago, the GPUS Platform has a long section (The Women’s Rights platform near the beginning of the Social Justice section) that is clearly based on women’s sex-based rights, so it can’t be contradictory for the Georgia Green Party to recognize women’s sex-based rights. I believe that the Georgia Green Party’s 2020 positions on sex and gender issues are not in contradiction with the GPUS Platform.

    So I would like the first paragraph of the ‘GRP Stands for Discussion and Green Unity’ proposal to be changed.

    How about: “The Green-Rainbow Party affirms the right of its members and those of other state parties to differ with aspects of the Green Party US platform while accepting the platform and Ten Key Values overall. Accordingly, we oppose the petition for punitive action against the Georgia Green Party (GAGP) being considered by the GPUS Accreditation Committee. The GPUS Lavender Caucus alleges that the GAGP’s 2020 platform’s positions on sex and gender are in contradiction to the GPUS Platform. Others believe that the GAGP is not in contradiction with the GPUS Platform which does recognize women’s sex-based rights. Regardless of whether the GAGP is in contradiction with part of the GPUS Platform or not, GAGP should not be disaccredited because of this disagreement with other Greens over sex and gender issues”

    In the third paragraph I would like the phrase “self-identification” to be changed either to “gender identity” or "self-declared gender identity. " It should be clear that respectful discussion includes respect for all participants’ self-declared gender identity.

    ~ David Rolde
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-01 15:16:58 -0400
    In my opinion, the text and implementation of this proposal falsely CLAIMS, that if we can all agree to disagree, and have the conversation, of which nature can be seen by scrolling down these comments, we would achieve unity in the party.

    I have found the contrary to be true and in fact, I have actuality found this unity they seek in the act of NOT agreeing to disagree and refusing to entertain a conversation/debate on human rights with a faction who stands in defense of the GAGP.
    (faction is used here as defined in the Cambridge Dictionary: a group within a larger group, especially one with slightly different ideas from the main group)

    Since the submission of their proposal, I have connected with, gotten to know personally, and have had detailed ideological conversations with GPUS members all over the US; that until this proposal, I did not even know their names.
    I found the unity the authors of this proposal seek through a deep and broad understanding of the GPUS platform and our 10 key values without having to agree to disagree on aspects of said platform and values because our differences were not outrageously different but different as in how two people are different but the same.

    In my defiance and resistance of the desired actions of this faction, I found a unity that did not lead me to question my conscience and overall belief system, or my membership in the GRP & affiliation to the GPUS.

    So in the spirit of this comments, please withdraw this proposal.

    Elizabeth Humphrey
    PVC [GRP] Co-chair
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 14:00:48 -0400
    That was supposed to say
    “What people pee through” read that correctly