[Sosfbay-discuss] FWD: Renewal of the GPCA

[Drew Johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [G-C-F] Renewal of the GPCA
From:    "John Morton" <jlm108 at yahoo.com>
Date:    Sat, March 29, 2008 12:37
To:      "California Greens" <cal-forum at cagreens.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mato,

Yes, there is plenty we should be doing now.  And paid
professional staff is a great idea, one that was also
promoted by Kenny Mostern when he was Treasurer of the
GPCA a year or two back.  But take a look at this
year's budget and tell me where you would find any
money for paid staff?  Fundraising has dropped off
precipitously under the chaotic "leadership" of the
current CC.

There are plenty of good ideas to move the GPCA
forward at this crucial time in history, but until we
clean up our administrative infrastructure, precious
few of any of them will ever be put into practice.

John Morton

--- Martin Zehr <m_zehr at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:52:27 -0700
> > From: jlm108 at yahoo.com
> > To: cal-forum at cagreens.org
> > Subject: [G-C-F] Renewal of the GPCA
> >
> > 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