[Sosfbay-discuss] Alameda Co restructuring proposal for the GPCA Coordinating Committee

[Drew Johnson]

Subject:   	[G-C-F] Alameda's CC Restructuring Proposals
From:   	Rioryon at aol.com
Date:   	Sat, March 29, 2008 13:25
To:   	cal-forum at cagreens.org


John, Mato, Marc, All,

    These "restructuring proposals have been discussed a bit already on
the CC and Agenda-Team lists, and a number of concerns have been
raised in addition to those raised by Mato and Marc (below)...

    To me, there are several immediate problems with these proposals...:

1) -   TIMING - The proposals involve a complete overhaul of the CC, and
that should be done with the kind of care that promotes a sustainable
solution or outcome...
        Personally, i don't see that happening now, especially while we're
in the middle of an election cycle, when most activists are, or
should be, focused on voter outreach, registering voters, raising
money, recruiting and supporting candidates, scheduling events,
etc...
        Instead, we are being asked to focus on a significant internal
issue, and make a relative snap decision that can't possibly be
thoroughly vetted, IMO, in one single General Assembly...
        Meanwhile, i have no problem with alerting members that this
proposal is on the horizon, while referring it to working groups
and locals for further comprehensive study and discussion...

2) -   DECENTRALIZATION -  One of the most important of the 10 Key Values
is Decentralization -  and for good reason...
        There is an exceedingly dominant global trend afoot and that is in
the direction of a centralizing, global, "new world order"... 
This fascist trend is prevalent and over-arching everywhere, and
it is insidious in the sense that it seeps into even well-meaning
progressive organizations (under the banner, "we need to be more
efficient")...
        The allegedly more effecient model proposed here is basically that
of a board of directors - composed of 12 members, who will then
probably be asked to elect the equivalent of a CEO to coordinate
and make the type of executive decisions that won't require
consensus-seeking decision-making...
        It is no secret that Mike Feinstein favors this model, having
stated as much on this listserve, and thus it is not surprising
that his allies in Alameda are bringing forth this proposal now,
shortly after Mike Feinstein has been replaced by new CC
co-coordinators (Christina Olague, Adrienne Prince, Larry
Mullen)...
        So we are now being asked to *centralize* the CC from
approximately 32 reps and alts, to a 12 member board, with NO
ALTERNATES...!
        Furthermore, there is a VERY good chance that the new CC co-cos,
who, in the brief period they've been at their posts, have been
operating in a new spirit of teamwork and inclusiveness, and may
be able to bring improved functionality back to the CC...
        Shouldn't we at least give them that opportunity ?!

3) -   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION - One of the most egregious problems i
have with the restructuring proposals is the creation of completely
artificial north and south regions from which members will be elected to
this newly restructured board -- 6 members from the north and 6 members
from the south...
        And yet if you look at the registration figures there are
currently 127,000 Greens in California... Approximately 84,000
from the north and approximately 43,000 from the south...!!
        Proportional representation(PR) is one of the most, if not THE
most important electoral reforms we can advocate for as Greens... 
How can we in good faith advocate for PR if we don't practice it
internally as well ??

4) -    John Morton writes, speaking of the proposed restructuring :

"This is the only proposed solution on the agenda to an urgent problem
that has been getting worse, so please discuss it with your County's
delegates."

        It is just NOT true that "this is the *only* proposed solution on
the agenda"...
        In fact, the Standing General Assembly(SGA) has been proposed
previously and is on the agenda for further discussion... and a
decision, if the GA so desires...
        The SGA does not abuse the value of Decentralization...
        The SGA does not abuse the practice of Proportional Representation...
        The SGA leaves the concept of Grassroots Democracy intact by
allowing the General Assembly delegates (elected by local
Grassroots counties) a way of making decisions in between
face-to-face meetings...
        The SGA provides for direct oversight of the CC by the GA without
requiring a complete, time-consuming (if we want to do it right
and do it sustainably) overhaul of our current structure...

Peace/Unity

tim smith
rioryon at aol.com



In a message dated 3/29/2008 11:00:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jlm108 at yahoo.com writes:

    Message: 3
    Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
    From: John Morton <jlm108 at yahoo.com>
    Subject: [G-C-F] Renewal of the GPCA
    To: CAL-Forum <cal-forum at cagreens.org>
    Message-ID: <735863.3062.qm at web51807.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

    California Greens,

    This is a crucial time for the GPCA.  With the growing
    understanding by the voting public that the country is
    on the wrong track, it should be a time of growth and
    outreach for the party.  However, the reverse has been
    true as our registration and voter numbers decline, as
    valued members abandon GPCA activities, and as party
    functions become more sporadic and distracted at the
    state level.

    Over the past several years, we have seen the state
    Coordinating Committee, the executive body of the GPCA
    between Plenaries, become increasingly dysfunctional,
    unable to properly do its administrative work for the
    General Assembly.  Although the roots of the
    dysfunction go back to 2001, it was at the Sylmar
    Plenary in May 2005, where long hours were spent
    arguing over the agenda before business could begin,
    that the extent of the problem became obvious.  This
    was reinforced by the failure of the CC to schedule
    any plenary at all in January 2007, as they argued
    over minutia.  In frustration, a proposal to ?reboot?
    the entire CC membership was presented from the floor
    at the San Francisco Plenary in May 2007, achieving
    77% of the 80% necessary to pass.  And at last
    December?s plenary in Riverside, both before, during,
    and after, the disarray has continued.

    We think that the major reason why the CC has drifted
    into factionalism and not been able to carry out its
    most basic functions is because its behavior has not
    been held directly accountable to the state party.
    Rather, since individual CC members are elected by
    obscure "regions?, collections of neighboring counties
    with no formal political structure, they need only
    convince a handful of active Greens in their own
    region that they are doing a good job in order to keep
    their seat on the CC.  They have little incentive to
    make the interests of the entire state party their
    paramount priority, because they are not electorally
    accountable to the state party as a whole.

    The General Assembly, delegates of the County Parties
    and the highest authority in the GPCA, would be
    irresponsible to allow this crippling situation to
    continue.  So the Green Party of Alameda County has
    put a pair of relevant proposals on the agenda of the
    April 5-6 Plenary to be held at the UC Berkeley
    campus.  The basic idea is to take the election of CC
    members away from the artificial ?regions?, and give
    it back to either the General Assembly itself, for
    whom the CC exercises its fiduciary authority, or to
    the County Councils (by online vote), the publicly
    elected foundation of the GPCA.

    We believe that either of these proposals would
    correct a major structural flaw in the party, and help
    reverse the trend toward increasing divisiveness and
    preoccupation with personal power in the most
    influential committee of the GPCA.  Please review
    these two Bylaws change proposals, consider their
    merits and weaknesses, and be prepared vote on them at
    the upcoming Plenary.  The presenters are willing to
    entertain friendly amendments, so please contact us if
    you have questions or suggestions to help improve the
    language.  The proposals can be found on the GPCA
    website in the Plenary Agenda packet at
    http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/archives/agendas/0804proposals.pdf,
    under ?Proposal #1 ? Bylaw on CC Elections? and
    ?Proposal #2 ? Bylaw on CC Elections?.

    The winning proposal will need an 80% vote to pass.
    This is the only proposed solution on the agenda to an
    urgent problem that has been getting worse, so please
    discuss it with your County?s delegates.

    Thank you for your attention to the ongoing evolution
    of the Green Party of California at this crucial time
    in our history.

    /On behalf of the Green Party of Alameda County

In a message dated 3/29/2008 11:00:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
m_zehr at hotmail.com writes:

    Message: 5
    Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:38:31 -0600
    From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr at hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: [G-C-F] Renewal of the GPCA
    To: John Morton <jlm108 at yahoo.com>, California Greens
        <cal-forum at cagreens.org>
    Message-ID: <BAY131-W5349CFABE39E6E08210387F8F80 at phx.gbl>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"


    John,
    Personally I would recommend that county party organizations come to
some agreement on how to address this issue. I would encourage
establishing more paid staffers so that accountability can be defined
contractually and consistency and qualifications can be based on the
need to increase the party's voter registration and candidate
recruitment. I am NOT suggesting it doesn't have pitfalls as well, but
we need to recognize the administrative tasks that we need to address
to maintain the influence of the GPCA and to play a greater role on
behalf of our supporters and voters. Outreach includes voter
registration, candidate recruitment, financial support for candidates
and the party's local bodies, legislative lobbying, building electoral
and issue coalitons, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moving beyond the
advocacy group mentality of the last twenty years means focusing on
the strategies and vision that brings forward new blocs of voters to
support the Platform and candidates. No
    political party can survive if it fails to deliver victories to its
constituents or to demonstrate its ability to promote REAL change.

    The weakness lies not in acting as a state organization; it goes
beyond that. It goes to the point of failing to act as an organization
once we come to a decision. It is in our interest to increase our
influence by acting in unity. Why is the old motto: IN UNITY THERE IS
STRENGTH so abhorent to so many party officials and representatives?
We marginalize our own ability to have our voices impact on decisions
and policies if we fail to establsih priorities, whether they are
statewide or by county, and act in unison to accomplish them.

    Mato Ska
    GPSF

In a message dated 3/29/2008 11:00:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
marc at cybre.net writes:

    Message: 6
    Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:06:04 -0700
    From: marc <marc at cybre.net>
    Subject: Re: [G-C-F] Renewal of the GPCA
    To: John Morton <jlm108 at yahoo.com>
    Cc: CAL-Forum <cal-forum at cagreens.org>
    Message-ID: <47EE68EC.7020305 at cybre.net>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

    The reason Sylmar melted down was not due to CC dysfunction, rather due
    to Peter Camejo's insistence on forcing the GA to devote time to his GDI
    jihad.

    In no other party would the primary governing body (GA) allow a former
    candidate who had run against the party's presidential ticket to hijack
    a plenary with intent to dictate the terms of his reintegration into the
    party.

    John is correct that the GPCA-CC was further dysfunctional after Sylmar.
    During the few months that I served on the CC, it was used as a proxy
    for other faction fights, fights largely carried out by the trotskyoid
    faction within the party.

    The notion of having the GA select GPCA-CC members is flawed because the
    factionalism also runs north/south, and a GA election of CC members
    would just teeter back and forth depending on where the plenary was
    located in the state which selected CC members.

    I would prefer to devolve the matter of selecting GPCA (and GPUS)
    delegations to county councils based on registration. In SF, of course,
    the CC would further devolve the elections to the general membership.

    Whatever we come up with, we are going to need to trotsky-proof the
    party so that the GPCA (and GPUS for that matter) don't end up on the
    scrap pile of organizations divided by trotskyists and other sectarian
    vanguard leftists.

    At the end of the day, there needs to be so little that can be "taken"
    of one gets a majority on the GPCA-CC so as to make such efforts not
    worth the while.

    -marc