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.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-30 16:14:37 -0400
    It should never get to the point where we are trying to boot members out do their is no reason to entertain your hypothetical scenario. This is one situation and has been addressed in one way. To entertain what thr chapter will do in the future for further situations is a disservice to the GRP. Your attempt to corner us is for naught Mr Keil because we are all about solidarity. At no point has anyone said they want to kick out members and yet you continue to entertain this possibility. Some would say that someone who fears something that hasn’t been proposed may have a guilty consignee and fear their doings may cause a conversation to happen in the future but it is not my call to determine why you continue to insist nor do I or any other member I’ve spoken with intend on kicking GRP members out. Asking you to resign isn’t telling you to leave but if you did I wouldn’t fight for you to stay so their is that. Hope that answers you r question.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-30 16:02:08 -0400
    I didn’t accuse. I wrote: “Am I mistaken to perceive possible bullying of a chapter member by virtue of false public claims that the chapter would unanimously ‘secede’, after the chapter member abstained on that secession threat? Will that chapter later threaten secession on some other issue, such as its possible future wish that dissenters in the GRP be expelled for dissenting?”

    The first question has been addressed and not the second.

    And indeed the threat to walk out has been very effective in influencing the pre-voting discussion of this proposal.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-30 15:39:43 -0400
    For the record David Keil,
    I believe in your most recent comment you are referring to the section of the PVC statement posted on the first page of comments under this proposal (see quoted section below).

    PVC Members have had serious and unanimous discussions around seceding the chapter from the GRP if this proposal passes. We believe passing this proposal will create an unsafe place and hostile atmosphere for trans people.”

    The member you mention from our chapter, who first voted abstain and voluntarily without prompt, voiced their reasoning for their vote as they had not been able to familiarize themselves enough and fully evaluate the issue and the background of Matt’s proposal (their exact reasoning is logged in our chapter meeting minutes and is available upon request).

    That member was then RESPECTFULLY asked if they were willing to step aside.

    Later, that member communicated their willingness to step aside via email, even after we had already posted the chapter’s statement that does not require their decision to step aside.

    Yet again, we hear from you the slanted, manipulation of facts in order to support your false claims to paint those with strong convictions to their values – values we thought were unanimously held by our party – standing in solidarity with a vulnerable identity group under attack politically on the far right of the US political stage.

    Please stop belittling our convictions of our values and twisting them to support your narrative of bullying, “name calling” and “purge”.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-30 14:16:46 -0400
    Again with the gaslighting from David Keil. No one bullied any of our members, we reached out to understand why he chose to do so and then why he chose to announce it and expressed our thoughts on him doing so.No one told him to change his vote or called him.any names or threats etc. Mr Keil loves to throw the word around bullying so much.

    Fascinating for someone who has such a narrow view of the term women they sure have a broad view of what constitutes bullying. I’m no expert but as a person who was bullied, co founded my hs gsa, served 2 terms on the Mass council for lgbt youth, helped find and run more then 2 lgbtq+ youth groups I can tell you their experience of bullying.

    Getting kicked out of their home to the streets

    Being told to kill themselves that they are abominations by family and acquaintances

    Being told that hey are a shame a pariah to society.

    Being chased home after school.

    Getting jumped, spat on, and the list goes on

    None of this or anything even remotely close was done to Bryan C who Mr . keil states we’ve bullied.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-30 14:08:43 -0400
    Using the word “callous” to describe proposal sponsors is consistent with voting “no”. Kind of a super-no. Sounds like the loss of a state party is of no concern in our wish to avoid callousness, or perhaps to escape bullying.

    The issue at hand is under consideration in a national body, with caucuses and other states having taken positions already. The next StateCom would be perhaps in July, too late to affect deliberations in the Accreditation Committee but not too late for NC deliberations … on expelling a state party and setting up a basis for expelling any dissenting member of any state party.

    I repeat that it seems mandatory for NC members and others to facilitate the expression of members’ opinions on this crucial matter of the expulsion of Georgia. Your “no” vote, David Spanagel, will not be recorded in GRP history as a vote against callousness, but a vote for accepting the expulsion of a state party for ideological offenses with all that this implies. Be sure that’s what you want.

    Am I mistaken to perceive possible bullying of a chapter member by virtue of false public claims that the chapter would unanimously “secede”, after the chapter member abstained on that secession threat? Will that chapter later threaten secession on some other issue, such as its possible future wish that dissenters in the GRP be expelled for dissenting?
  • David Spanagel
    commented 2021-03-30 12:01:49 -0400
    From the most recent comments posted by Matt Andrews and David Keil, I am hearing that the desire for an “up or down” vote is more important to the proponents of this proposal than allowing enough time and flexibility to craft a proposal that could possibly achieve a consensus. Fine, if that is how things stand – I will reluctantly shift my position from “abstain” to “no.”

    Here is why I oppose the passage of this proposal at this time: I am even more deeply concerned about the health and vitality of our local and state GRP organizations than I am about the shambles that the GPUS seems to be making of itself.

    Incidentally, our consensus process has also eroded so far from what a consensus process is supposed to provide any organization, that we now behave more like partisan legislators jockeying for votes than we do members of a group with some deeply felt common values, trying to make the best possible decisions by listening to each other carefully and modifying proposed actions to take into account the principled objections of highly respected colleagues. We have perhaps too often seen the assertion of a “blocked consensus” be used petulantly or frivolously in recent years at the State committee level, and this is a shame because that experience seems to have distracted us from the essential message being conveyed by anyone who says in the most extreme manner “if the group chooses to take THIS action then I will feel compelled to the leave the group.” Such extreme expressions of dissent are within the bounds of appropriate consensus discourse, but they should really only ever occur rarely, and have their full effect of splitting a group when circumstances make such a fundamental choice to part ways inescapable.

    So here, with this proposal, I see on one hand a group that is insisting some action must be taken, and on the other hand a group who is clearly warning that (from their perspective) taking that action will sacrifice such a deeply held values conviction that they are prepared to leave the group over this issue. This proposal is not “ready” for approval, by any measure.

    Regardless of my own slowly evolving understanding of the principles at stake in this dispute, I will not turn a deaf ear towards those who say they cannot abide by this proposal’s passage. It is not as if these are GRP members who have constantly disrupted the effective action of the party. The opponents of this proposal include, instead, the only two Green party candidates who have surpassed 100,000 votes in a statewide election since our party’s high water mark year of 2006. In 2010 Nat Fortune received over 108,000 votes for Auditor. In 2018 Juan Sanchez received over 100,000 votes for Secretary of the Commonwealth. The prospective departures from the party of our most prominently successful recent candidates for public office is not a thing to entertain cavalierly. Juan has expressed his objections to the proposal with great passion and persistence. Nat joined in the Pioneer Valley chapter’s deliberations and supported their collective decision to articulate a fundamental objection to the proposal’s implementation.

    From my position as a Co-Chair of the neighboring GRP regional chapter in Central Massachusetts, I interact regularly and gratefully with the members of the Pioneer Valley GRP chapter. We have worked effectively together within the past 12 months on: 1) collecting and distributing warm clothing to Springfield area residents; 2) successfully rallying on behalf of dropping the chrages against peaceful demonstrators and bystanders at a June 1, 2020 Worcester Black Lives Matter protest; 3) organizing support for and marching in solidarity with the St. Vincent nurses’ strike in Worcester. The members of the Pioneer Valley and Central Massachusetts chapters are finding productive ways help each other to live the Ten Key Values on the ground, in our communities.

    I see nothing to gain but plenty to lose by voting in favor of a proposal about national party procedures at the State Committee level, if it so callously disregards the deeply held concerns of these constructively active GRP colleagues such that they would even consider disassociating themselves from the party. Therefore, the impatient anticipatory vote counters may now consider me a reluctantly pinned-down “no” voter.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-30 11:33:48 -0400
    Looking forward to Thursday when we can address this essential matter on Zoom and then move ahead with Massachusetts issues.

    What is up for vote is whether to go on record as a state party that opposes punitive action against another state party for adopting platform planks on matters under discussion.

    Yes, there will be discussion in 2021 or 2022 of current legislation and other matters. No-discussion-allowed isn’t even a Green concept.

    Hopefully our discussion focus can turn away from this particular issue soon. The only reason for the current focus is that a split has been proposed. We can vote Thursday to reject a split. I’d prefer consensus to reject a split, but perhaps that won’t happen.

    The broader question Thursday will be, as Matt says, whether the GRP will accept imposition of ideological discipline in the GPUS. As Maureen puts it, “Why can’t this all be simplified to: Respect everyone.”
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-30 10:49:33 -0400
    We have also been counting votes by the way and the party has a real choice here. Splinter the party and become another issue for national to handle and get distracted form.the real work to coddle to you and a few others whims on sex and gender or say that hate in all forms is not welcome in the GRP and send a message of solidarity with all the state parties and caucuses. 90% of the national party is against these discussions and Georgia’s stance, will we join the 10% and send a message of bigotry? I truly hope our statecom members make the right decision here
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-30 10:25:30 -0400
    To clarify they are not requesting to kick out parties that don’t align with them. They are stating they want tohwr parties and chapters to have these discussions and sign on to the women’s declaration on sex based rights as put in Hr3 in their state changes

    Amend the Human Rights plank further, by inserting at the end, a new paragraph, to read: "#. The Georgia Green Party here endorses the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights, as developed and publicized by the Womens Human Rights Campaign, and encourage our members, our national party, policy makers and the general public to do the same.

    Their is no mistake. They signed the Declaration and wrote that they also want to promote it. Where is the mistake Matt claims Georgia Gp did?

    As they continue to double down on social memistake. National their stances, not one bit of remorse has been shown by Georgia Gp Not one time have they even acknowledged that they’ve made or possibly made a mistake.

    A mistake is done on accident. Their is no accident here
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-30 06:35:48 -0400
    What will happen if this passes? Look at all the scenarios and ask yourself what will be the best thing that will.come out of this?

    A state chapter will secede, otheremebrs will leave, and you will be exposed as being an abti lgbtq+party whether you think you are or not. We will be the only GP chapter to align with Georgia GP the ONLY one and entertain these “Discussions” Where is this huge movement of people ready to leave the party if we don’t stand up for Georgia? Nationally where is this huge movement amongst state parties to leave the Green Party if we don’t take Georgia’s stance which by the way is part of their request in their bylaw changes?

    Again supporters of this proposal are fearmongering and gaslighting calling Lavender Caucus complaint unlawfulness yet it followed every procedure the GP requires for complaints. It also was signed onto by several.caucuses and other state parties. Are we to belive that the GRP members who support this have some levwl.of understanding or insight that would justify putting us against the rest of the countries chapter’s and caucus? Are we to believe that this isn’t about how Matt and David fee labout trans women and what rights they think trans people deserve?

    All we have to do is to look at the larger picture like Brother Mike H. Did and see that this is a small faction trying to make this into a big issue locally loke they’ve continued in the party nationally by using the same arguments that Matt and David are presenting here and and that it has been shut down over and over and over again. 84-11 was the most recent vote on 1401. This order was the Steering committees findings on the orders Georgia put together including one which would ban identities from.voting on issues that affect them. The steering committee found several faults in Georgia’s orders and 84 national.commitee members concurred with them. Only 11 voted against accepting these findings, 2 of which were David K and Maureen. So again where is this large group of greens fearing this will.shatter the party? The dne document perhaps which when you eliminate all.thw non greens, international, and anonymous signers abd those who signed it without understandinghow it was going to be used is not a real stand. Not to mention that the whole website is run by Hugh Esco from Georgia and David Keil the same individuals who have been pushing the anti trans crusade nationally and statewide in their local.chapters.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-03-29 22:17:17 -0400
    Michael,
    It is difficult enough to manage this proposal without entering into negotiations with every individual member of the party who expresses an opinion. I assure you that I am counting votes and StateCom looks evenly split. Some important voices have still not been heard even once. Others, I believe, hope to side-step the fire rather than take a position. For those of us who are critical of both the lawless prosecution of the GAGP and the ideological discipline demanded by the Lavender Caucus, we feel we are fighting for our right to be members and any hope of being a mass party that doesn’t splinter into a million pieces. Dis-accreditation means divorce. It’s the ultimate weapon in the hands of any faction. Once we open Pandora’s Box, it may be impossible to close again. There is no way to duck out of a fight to defend democratic rights. As has been said, removing the proposal would rob us of a chance at resolution.
    It is clear that the Georgia Green Party did not break any rules because no rules of ideological discipline exist in the Green Party beyond adhering to the 10 Key Values. They may have made mistakes which need to be corrected, but it is not our place in Massachusetts to make ultimatums on Georgia. We could still exercise our right to pass judgment on them, but any such action would first require a civil dialogue on the complex issues raised by sex and gender based rights. So until we agree that these are issues we can discuss in a civil manner, we must return to the original proposal. I am concerned that State Committee members who have not yet taken a position, have not offered any friendly amendments that might strengthen our support. But perhaps it just means our proposal accurately reflects the issue at hand.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-29 18:24:57 -0400
    We are all tired of this battle and will be relieved to take a vote Thursday, accept the result, and leave the matter for national bodies to decide once they hear our results.

    I’m afraid that one thing Mike says would block that: “Instead of defeating this proposal, I urge you to use your power to refuse the consideration of this proposal.”

    NC delegates and others have brought this proposal before StateCom as part of a necessary consultation with state-party members, who have the right to register their views. Refusing consideration Thursday would unfortunately set off a truly unending battle for the democratic rights of StateCom members to make proposals and to vote on them.

    Looking forward to Thursday and refraining for now from commenting on other matters raised here.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-29 17:51:17 -0400
    Comrades,

    In my last post, I wrote the following:

    “Clarifying question about the author of this “revised” proposal. Who in the Georgia GPUS Party wrote this proposal? it’s everything that Georgia would want. I’m so impressed with our comrades attempt to reach out to the other side of the aisle in their attempt to find common ground.”

    I want to apologize for my sarcasm. I want everyone to know that the authors of the proposal that we have been discussing endlessly and forever was not written by anyone from Georgia. It was written by our GRP comrades.

    The point that I had wanted to make was that this revised proposal has not changed anything of importance. In this GPUS controversy, where it seems like almost the entire party is on one side of this dispute and the other side you will find the Georgia Party and a few of our comrades who support their cause. Thankfully there is nothing in this proposal which proclaims that Georgia is right and the rest of our party is wrong. However, this “revision” continues to give their full support to Georgia, without one word of criticism.

    Some of us in this forever discussion had made an attempt to offer a compromise. We had offered to go on record opposing dis-accreditation, but it was conditional on Georgia taking affirmative steps to remedy the problems that they alone had created. I honestly do understand why this compromise proposal was unacceptable to the co-sponsors of this proposal.

    As of this moment, the sponsors of this proposal have made it clear that they have no intention of withdrawing their 100% pro-Georgia proposal. There is not ANYTHING in their proposal that is negative or critical of Georgia. There has been no attempt to offer an olive branch to those of us who are horrified by their unconditional and total support of Georgia.

    Why is it that the sponsors of this proposal, who also have the support of some other GRP leaders, refused to withdraw this proposal or even offered an olive branch in an effort to find common ground? I must be careful here that I don’t unfairly impugn the motives of these comrades, and these are my comrades. They sincerely believe that the Lavender Caucus, Women’s Caucus, Diversity Caucus, Youth Caucus, as well as a very long list of co-sponsors of the proposal against Georgia are wrong, and that Georgia is right. Not only is Georgia right, but they must persuade all of us to continue to support Georgia’s forever discussion until all of us see that Georgia’s light is right.

    Has “our” side ever called for a resolution endorsing the anti-Georgia proposal? NO! Has our side ever called for Georgia to be dis-accredited? NO! Has our side ever called for Georgia to be condemned to eternal damnation? NO! But I wanted to.

    What has our side called for? We have repeatedly begged and pleaded for you, our comrades, to withdrawal this one-sided pro-Georgia proposal. We have repeatedly begged and pleaded to you, our comrades, to end this forever excruciatingly painful discussion within our state party. We have called for healing. We have called for us to come together and work together to grow our party and to do important work for our community and Commonwealth.

    We have begged and we have pleaded. And you have moved forward because the success of Your Holy Crusade is more important to you than the survival of our party.

    The StateCom will meet this Thursday. While I have little hope that this proposal will be withdrawn or an acceptable compromise will surface before then, I will pray that I am wrong. I know that StateCom plans to meet three times this coming month. On 4/01, there will be an enormous pile of shit in the middle of the meeting. I urge you to clean up the mess very quickly and then hopefully move on with the positive work of the party.

    Many members of StateCom have not been involved in this contentious and excruciatingly painful debate. Instead of defeating this proposal, I urge you to use your power to refuse the consideration of this proposal. That would be far more preferable.

    Comrades, let us end this uncivil war. Let us heal our wounds Let us work together to build a stronger and more effective political party.

    Love,

    Mike Heichman
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-29 16:23:30 -0400
    And to be completely transparent some of us have taken how we are being portrayed and run with it because it makes us laugh. Yes we are a Faction we have a ring leader we are here to purge everyone who disagrees with us. We are the overlords Beware Beware Beware

    I hope everyone can see my sarcasm and how ridiculous it is when you put how we are being portrayed in one sentence.

    Fearmongering, gaslighting, and hypocrisy at its finest my friends.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-29 16:04:09 -0400
    I also want to be clear here. My stance on Georgia is is my Stance on Georgia .

    However every situation needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. In studying Georgia’s case, my conclusion is that suspension or disaccredidation is the best solution. This doesn’t mean that I want ot disaccredit every state or every violation deserves disaccredidation. Some people would like you to belive that we are here as somehow warriors of the “Purge” instead of looking at what Georgia did and didn’t do abd how we got to this point which is the most important part for me. Also the Green Unity around the complaint against Georgia with few dissenters.

    It’s important to read the women’s declaration, Georgia’s New Hr Additions, the Lavender caucus complaint to understand how we got here. Some would like you to think that we are some faction here to kick out people with ideological differences instead of our true mission which is to expose what is happening here before our party ends up putting the nail in ita own coffin with this issue.

    Where do you think the young people stand?
    Envision a young person excited about the Green party and GRP and walking in and we are having discussions around sex and gender identity….Big recruitment getter huh.

    Envision our candidate having to defend this from the Dem candidate who would use this to not only tarnish them.but the GRP as a whole

    Asking you to resign isn’t asking you to leave its us saying we no longer have faith in you as a delegate for us and we have rights as members to express those sentiments and explain why. When you chose to be a delegate you put yourself up for scrutiny of what you do as a delegate and I at least have seen more then enough to ask for your resignation.

    I ask again how is this beneficial to the party? Mr keil will tell you it’s good to have discussions without telling you howany years hes been trying to force these discussions. He will tell you we must stand up for deaccredidation while aligning with the same Sentiments that got Georgia in this predicament to begin with, abd he will bombard you with word smiting abd emails attacking our stance, manipulating our characters, and the list goes on howeve only r one of us amongst all our members has a history of being on this anti tranas crusade or “Sex and Genderr” discussion for years and others have not .
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-29 09:21:15 -0400
    David Gerry’s comment is correct. The Steering Committee of the GPUS is not considering the formal complaint against the Georgia state party.

    The discussion so far indicates that members have an urgent need to be aware of the arguments for and against this proposal and to express their views. That can be done via StateCom members participating constructively in StateCom proceedings and by members communicating with StateCom reps. It seems that members on both sides consider this proposal to be life or death for the GRP, and that’s my view.

    The proposal isn’t going to be withdrawn, and indeed that would deny StateCom members the chance to register their views on whether to split the Green Party of the US.

    The list of proposals submitted by March 11 lacks a positive consensus draft on this issue and also lacks an affirmative proposal reflecting the view that the Georgia party should be expelled. To remedy this, I have suggested that StateCom allow submission, on an emergency basis, of one or two other proposals on this topic, for vote.

    The proposal was written in Massachusetts by Massachusetts residents who belong to the GRP. I hope that discussion will focus on relevant serious issues. Discussions are already underway across the country among parents about girls’ sports and about the safety of children who request life-changing procedures on their bodies. We can expect public hearings and even protests in Massachusetts. The issue isn’t going to go away.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-29 09:20:31 -0400
    One side is offering compromise in the compromise Mike H. Put together and I contributed to. This would allow us to stand with the Lavender Caucus in their complaint and Georgia Gp against disaccredidation. The other side only wants amendments that allows them to get what they want in the name of “Green Unity”. putting in some more positive words in the proposal doesn’t negate the intention. It’s been made clear that their is no unity on this topic and again the sponsors/writers of the proposal double down in their solidarity with Georgia on their stances.

    Does anyone genuinely think that following a similar path to what Georgia Gp is doing in its “discussions” in is beneficial to our state party?

    The word Unity gets thrown around alot but as anyone who wants to get access to how national.has voted on these issues you will find a small number of dissidents of which David and Maureen are a part of.

    The majority continues to speak not only in the state party but the national party on this….That’s Green Unity. Several caucuses, state parties, and GP members throughout the country have spoken against Georgia and ehat they did….Thats Green Unity.

    Forcing others to talk about your issues aroubd sex and gender is not Unity. Telling others that if we don’t allow you to speak its silencing and pushing out people? That’s not unity.

    The most friendliest thing you can do is withdraw this proposal in the sprit of Solidarity with the majority and move on as we have so much work to do.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-29 09:07:22 -0400
    Yes, please. I agree with Jamie.

    A closer look at the GAGP (but be careful to notice the warning of the phishing virus on their official GAGP website) will also bring you to the conclusion that they are not responding to Georgia green members requests to stop their donations or even join the party or any listservs, mtgs, conventions, etc…

    So besides the anti-trans ideology we are being asked to agree to disagree with, is the GAGP acting forthright in all things?

    That may be the better question to ask ourselves before we advocate to keep them affiliated with the GPUS and therefore affiliated with the GRP.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-29 09:04:00 -0400
    Clarifying question about the author of this “revised” proposal. Who in the Georgia GPUS Party wrote this proposal? it’s everything that Georgia would want.
    I’m so impressed with our comrades attempt to reach out to the other side of the aisle in their attempt to find common ground.

    Mike Heichman
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-29 08:52:04 -0400
    The only thing “friendly” I can think of regarding this proposal is that it should be withdrawn.
  • David Gerry
    commented 2021-03-29 08:47:10 -0400
    “Accordingly, we oppose the petition for punitive action against the Georgia Green Party being considered by the
    GPUS Accreditation Committee and Steering Committee.”
    The GPUS Steering Committee is not considering any proposals regarding this issue. The GPUS Steering Committee can only make determinations on proposals as to whether or not they fulfill the requirements set forth in the GPUS rules, policies and procedures. Please remove reference to the GPUS Steering Committee.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-03-29 07:57:14 -0400
    Good morning everyone. The sponsors of this motion have accepted some friendly amendments. Most of the changes are minor, but I hope they help people feel more comfortable casting an affirmative vote. The deadline for accepting friendly amendments is tomorrow, March 30th, so I hope the discussion here can return to the substance of the original proposal. Once again, we welcome friendly amendments that will help us unite behind a statement for civil dialogue, the right to critically discuss complex issues related to sex and gender, and Green Party unity.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-28 20:22:07 -0400
    Maureen, please stop your manipulations and your misinformation.
    Don’t worry, I have the documentation to prove that statement .

    Maureen, I ask you what would you call LOBBYING the NC as an elected delegate to represent the GRP, for an ENTITY OUTSIDE the GPUS & GRP?
    (don’t worry I have those documents too as well as files upon file of documentation that will clear up any misinformation about who is lying here)

    There has been much misinformation reaching the GRP; however, it is not coming from Juan.
    As I understand it the two proposals submitted by GAGP (1039 & 1040) have been shared with the GRP officers and is available for anyone to see on the GPUS website as well as proposal 1041 which was actually submitted by the GPUS Steering Committee with the committee’s findings of GAGP’s proposal 1039.

    I believe Juan’s communication was not misinformation, as anyone can see these proposals and procedures can be confusing so I think it would have been more accurate of you to inform us of your understanding of these proposals & procedures instead of accusations of dishonesty when clearly it was an honest mistake .

    I’m pretty sure that Dick V. would not have used ALEC in comparison if he wasn’t already familiar with it. But here are two links one may use to read more about ALEC if one is not familiar with it.

    https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

    Peace be with you Maureen
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-28 19:54:58 -0400
    Also, the “rainbow” aspeft of our membership is declining Maureen
    LOOK AROUND YOU.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-28 19:49:23 -0400
    Maureen Doyle is accusing Juan Sanchez if being a liar. If Maureen were to read a few comments down she would see where this was cleared up about the 2 (but really 3) proposals GAGP made to NC (One absolutely is about having the affected community recuse themselves from a vote) and one regarding the Steering committees findings. This is confusing but was clearwd up so there was no need to use VITRIOL Maureen and call Juan Sanchez a liar. You should know about these proposals from GAGP Maureen as we have evidence of you, an elected National Delegate for the GRP, using your position to LOBBY the NC for an OUTSIDE GROUP (the DNE) to support all the proposals from the GAGP. (Including the one that asks the affected community to recuse themselves from the vote)
    Now I ask you Maureen, why are you lobbying the National Committee to pass the proposals for GAGP if you were elected by the GRP.
    PLEASE withdraw this proposal and let’s put our energy and work into the GRP not GA.
    Peace, Jamie
  • Maureen Doyle
    commented 2021-03-28 13:50:34 -0400
    Hi! I responded to Juan Sanchez’s misinformation yesterday but I did it on my email so it didn’t come here. This is what it says:

    “Georgia put out an order to keep LBTQ+folks from voting on their accreditation? Really? I am on the NC and if you are talking about the recent vote on #1041, that was NOT what it was about: The vote was about sustaining the steering committee’s findings. Please do not write inaccurate information about NC votes.

    Increasing our ‘rainbow’ membership is something we are working on and have been working on ever since the GRP formation. LYing about what is happening in the party is NOT the way to attract new members.
    Peace, maureen"

    I just read Dick V’s post and he does have it right about the background info. Yes, reading the entire document is imperative as well as reading ALEC to know the comparasion.

    why can’t this all be simplified to: Respect everyone.

    There is no background reading involved, your posts about it aren’t going to follow you to whatever election /position you want to get, and it is simple enough for everyone to understand.

    Just respect everyone. bastante.
    Peace, maureen
  • Richard Vaillette
    commented 2021-03-27 12:26:05 -0400
    Although I don’t know if any in our group are really bigoted and certainly hope that none are; I feel compelled to point out the following:

    In order to even partially understand the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights I needed to read the whole document. Had I read just the summary or just the headings; I would conclude that it was a sincere attempt to achieve it’s stated purpose. Unfortunately, after a close reading of the whole document, I can only conclude that it protects no one’s rights and serves only to eventually control all women, CIS, LGBT etc.

    There is an uncanny resemblance to the justifications used in some ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) anti LGBT proposals now being taken up in some state legislatures:

    LGBT women are refereed to as men even after altering surgery.
    Female and mother hood are tied to gestation despite the fact that both men and woman are often incapable of conception.
    Hormone surgery for young adults is rejected due to possible harm even though all surgeries present possible risks.
    And the list goes on.

    Rather than providing straight forward solutions, this document contains too nanny well crafted subtle shifts below the headings that are not in keeping with either platform of our values and does not belong on any GP website. I also ask that this proposal be withdrawn.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-27 12:20:04 -0400
    Jamie,

    And another would force people to out themselves and recuse themselves from any vote about their identity group. For example, if we were to vote about LBGTQ+ issues, (the DNE that some of you signed only recognizes the LGB by the way) all LGBTQ+ people would have to recuse themselves from the vote which defeats the very purpose of a caucus ans erases “nothing about us, without us” concept.

    This is outrageous!

    Those most impacted would have to recuse themselves!?!?

    The obvious direction of this thinking is to have only white heterosexual males be the party’s decision-makers.

    Mike H
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-27 11:50:51 -0400
    The vote was on 1041.
    GAGP put forth 2 ridiculous proposals (actually 3 because one is very deceptively a duplicate of another that will fail hence wasting the NC’s time). One was about prosecution of penalties for purgury. And another would force people to out themselves and recuse themselves from any vote about their identity group. For example, if we were to vote about LBGTQ+ issues, (the DNE that some of you signed only recognizes the LGB by the way) all LGBTQ+ people would have to recuse themselves from the vote which defeats the very purpose of a caucus ans erases “nothing about us, without us” concept.
    1041 was the particular findings of the steering committee on one of these proposals for GA. The steering committee found multiple flaws in the GA proposal and the NC voted wether or not to accept those finding about the flaws.
    83 people voted YEA
    11 voted NO including David Keil and Maureen Doyle and the GAGP/DNEsupporters
    7 abstainwd
    This shows the overwhelming dossaporoveal on the NC of what the GAGP and the DNE campaign is attempting to do. We are bracing ourselves for more horrible proposals coming from GAGP and I am very afraid that this is NOT GOING TO STOP….just like we are seeing right now in MA.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-27 11:13:58 -0400
    Juan’s concern about voting in the national Accreditation Committee appears to be about motion #1040, which is under discussion in the National Committee and is to be voted on April 12-18 (https://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=1040).

    The vote that ended yesterday in the NC was on motion 1041 (https://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=1041), which in turn referred to another motion, #1039, which will be up for vote in a revised version. These three motions are relevant to the proposal that StateCom oppose the expulsion of the Georgia party because that expulsion issue is in the Accreditation Committee right now.

    It’s appropriate for members of a state party to follow NC proceedings and to share their opinions with other members and elected delegates. Juan, you have been given some false information, but your concern about #1040 is appropriate and should be heard. The question in #1040 is whether members of the national Accreditation Committee should be recused from voting on complaints, if they are members of identity caucuses that are parties to the complaints being voted on.

    I think that NC delegates may want to hear discussion on this in the NC and among GRP members before declaring how they will vote on #1040. That’s the case for me.

    As an aside, I’m noting Juan’s comment yesterday that dis-accreditation “is a real issue that I and several members would love to work on”. I welcome that. Silencing of voices and driving members out will not solve our problems. The Green movement will not gag or shrink itself to greatness.

    I hope that the context of all this discussion will be agreement that we have work to do together as members of this party despite our differences of opinion. In that context, discussion can help to resolve our state party’s current crisis.