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?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • 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 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 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 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 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
    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

    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.


    Mike Heichman
  • Juan 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 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 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.

    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
  • 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
  • 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

    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 (

    The vote that ended yesterday in the NC was on motion 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.
  • Juan Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-27 09:51:44 -0400
    I also want to point out that as a delegate for the GRP what you input into national is a representation of what the GRP believes and the disservice Mr Keil has done in that role.

    National committee can become a debate room very easily and too often delegates take their own personal views and beliefs and use their position to further push these believes.

    Definition of delegate-a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.

    Where in Mr Keils statement to national commitee do you see any sense that he is representing us and not his own views?

    I’m tired of the back and forth. Intentions have been made clear and people’s views widely expressed. It’s now up to statecom to decide what the future of the party will be.

    My final point is one I’ve made several times and that is to look at the intentions and moves of those that support this proposal and see that this is not about deaccredidation and never has been.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-27 09:39:12 -0400
    Comrades and Siblings:

    I have made a good faith effort to offer a compromise in an attempt to find common ground. I have attempted to point out that this controversy has harmed our party.


    David K, below, a white male heterosexual, has offered us a summary of areas of where we agree and areas of disagreement (See his comments below.) What is the purpose of sharing such a summary? I submit that it is to encourage further endless discussion?

    I repeat what I believe are important things for us to consider that I posted on 3/25: My new comments are in capitals.

    I wonder how much this controversy has slowed down the positive energy and work of our party. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING MORE POSITIVE ENERGY INTO OUR PARTY?)
    I wonder how much this controversy has moved us into 2 warring camps at the expense of deepening our comradely spirit. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING PEACE INTO OUR PARTY?)
    I wonder how many of us will believe that this controversy was worth it when there is no light and life left in our party. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING MORE LIGHT AND LIFE INTO OUR PARTY?)
    I wonder how much love and respect still lives in our party. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING MORE LOVE AND RESPECT?)
    Sisters, Brothers, Siblings, I repeat my request that the sponsors of this proposal withdraw it before the upcoming statecom meeting.
    I wonder how many of you are looking forward with positive anticipation the upcoming 3 statecom meetings starting on 4/01-April Fools Day!
    Please withdraw this proposal. Please stop this uncivil war.
    Mike H

    I believe we have two choices?

    1. We can continue to endlessly discuss David K’ list and very possibly discover additional questions that we want to endlessly discuss.

    (David K’s list). We differ on:
    - definitions of words like “man,” “woman,” “gender,” and “sex”;
    - whether persons have the right to have different definitions;
    - whether females have the right to define female-only spaces;
    - whether the age of informed consent for irreversible elective medical procedures should be lowered below 18;
    - whether body parts may be designated as “abnormal structures” at the request of minors for the purpose of underage hormone treatment and surgery;
    - theories of gender identity

    2. We can take positive action to end our uncivil war.

    ====. ====

    Our party has been engaged in numerous uncivil wars including the
    a. 2020 presidential campaign and its numerous aftermath
    b. Regional Conventions and the seating of the new statecom reps, especially from the GBC
    c. Covid
    d. Georgia

    Please help me—There must be more.

    Please! Please! I’m getting bored. Would somebody please, please come up with a new controversy-one that would promise to be even more excruciatingly painful?


    Mike H
  • Juan Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-27 06:20:13 -0400
    I want to point out to everyone that Georgia put an order forward to ban anyone who is lgbt even if they aren’t a memebe of a national caucus from voting on their deacrredidation.

    It failed miserably with only 11 delegates voting for Georgia’s order and 84 against. Guess who three of those delegates are?

    It’s important to point this out to understand the toxicity that has soaked up all our energy not only in the GRP but national as well from our delegates. Mr. Keil below let you know where he stands on this issue which again I’d showing you his exact intentions which is to entertain and adapt Georgia’s stances not a conversation about deaccredidation.

    What is our future? Will it be the party of David Keil and Matt Andrews or a diverse party with people from all life backgrounds. Look around at your membership, other then me and Maha their are Hardly any people of color involved. Other then me and Sean and maybe a couple others,, The LGBT community isnot represented, the lack of involvement of younger individuals or effort to bring them into the party is minimal, and the list goes on.

    For a party with the name.rainbow in it their isn’t much of a rainbow in membership. And now you have another chapter ready to secede so ask yourselves is this discussion going to be helpful to the party and our mission?
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-27 00:13:03 -0400
    I posted the following to the GPUS NC list.

    A. We agree on the following:
    - solidarity with trans people against harassment, violence, or discrimination;
    - support for the rights of all people to present and identify as they wish;
    - opposition to sex stereotyping that discriminate for gendered behavior and dress;
    - no demonization of categories of people as alleged sexual abusers or abusers of children

    B. We differ on:
    - definitions of words like “man,” “woman,” “gender,” and “sex”;
    - whether persons have the right to have different definitions;
    - whether females have the right to define female-only spaces;
    - whether the age of informed consent for irreversible elective medical procedures should be lowered below 18;
    - whether body parts may be designated as “abnormal structures” at the request of minors for the purpose of underage hormone treatment and surgery;
    - theories of gender identity

    Anyone who disagrees with an item in list A, please name the item.

    Delegates have demonized other delegates by claiming to find lack of agreement on these items and by claiming that some delegates bizarrely reject the “right to exist” of others.

    Irresponsible claims that our differences are about items in list A have brought us to the brink of an ideological purge and a split. Responsible leaders of this party need to step in here.
  • Juan Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-26 10:37:16 -0400
    I wanted to make sure everyone is able to read it and leave you with a few questions Was the process unfair?

    Do you belive that Georgia’s stances align with our party and GP values in general?

    If the Women’s caucus of the GP also agrees with the LGBT+ Lavender caucus complaint are they also anti women?

    My second suggestion is to look at Mr Keils own words

    “. I joined the editorial board of the SP’s magazine ‘The Socialist’ in 2011, helped start a local of that party in 2015, was elected in that year to its national committee, and resigned from the party in 2018 over the lack of discussion of “sex and gender” and due process.

    Ask yourselves

    is this a coincidence that someone who left another party due to sex and gender stances is now trying to guise his own admitted beliefs into a stance against deaccredidation.?

    Would you say that someone who admittedly has been focused on issues around this topic of sex and gender since at least 2018 prob longer isn’t passionate about this specific topic?

    Deaccredidation is a real issue that I and several members would love to work on but right now as has been pointed out several times is that we are taking Mr Keils Personal mission to inject his stances into left wing parties and allowing it to divide us under the guise of deaccredidation
  • Juan Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-26 10:07:18 -0400
    Again I post the Lavender caucus complaint for everyone to read. Also signed by the Women’s Caucus, Diversity Caucus, and 17 other states. It