[Sosfbay-discuss] Drew's Latest [WAS Re: How We Elect Silicon Valley Regional Representatives]

[Jim Stauffer]

Drew -

Has this behavior always worked for you? Just making up stories and 
fabricating lies about people? Has this gotten you what you want?

I love your comment about "ending the Plenary in relative peace..." I 
guess that peace was relative to your series of outbursts on the 
plenary floor and in the IT meeting. You certainly made the vibes 
watchers' job challenging. And thanks for the great job of 
representing this county with those embarrassing demonstrations.

Jim

P.S. I won't follow your lead in copying this thread to the cal-forum 
list. That's a typical example of your abuse of discussion lists.



Drew Johnson wrote:
> Jim Stauffer wrote:
>> This is being driven by Drew. He has harassed me relentlessly since I
>> removed him from the regional list last year. He's succeeded in running
> me out of the local meetings, and is harassing me at state meetings.
> This is just more of his pettiness.
> 
> What utter rubbish.
> 
> Well I feel saddened that after an apparent point of positive movement by
> Jim Stauffer to find it in his heart to work out a compromise w/ his
> archenemy Mike Feinstein at the Venice Beach Plenary and (after some
> uncalled for angry and aggressive behavior against me) ending the Plenary
> in relative peace towards his fellow Greens including me, now writes this
> garbage.  I thought we might be moving forward but I guess not.
> 
> No Jim, you were the one who announced that you didn't want to do this job
> any more and you are the one who has failed to come to but one General
> Meeting for almost a year now.  Those are your choices entirely
> independent of me.  While its true that in complete pettiness you threw me
> off the regional e-mail list and have failed to reinstate me, treating the
> list and your positions as a petty tyrant, I have hardly raised a finger
> to 'run you out'.  The factionalism you've participated in with Jo
> Chamberlain and the Peter Camejo (R.I.P.) and Naderite / anti-Mike
> Feinstein fanatics has run its course and now has very little support in
> the party.  You find yourself increasingly isolated and your unGreen
> angry, tyrannous, arbitrary behavior unaccepted in the Green Party as it
> should never have been.
> 
> One of the first things you ever said to me when I came to a Green Party
> meeting was to the effect that politics is a rough business and that if
> people can not handle the heat they should not be in politics.  Since that
> has apparently been your operating philosophy I guess that may mark your
> exit from the Greens as well.  My preference would be that you just make
> peace w/ the Greens around you including me but if a simple 'I'm sorry' is
> just a phrase you can't ever bear to utter (unlike me since I've
> apologized to you a number of times for things I did I didn't feel good
> about later), and you find yourself unable to evolve, its much better for
> the sake of the Party and all involved that you find another way for your
> political involvement.  All the beaureaucratic skill and talent in the
> world is destroyed by inability to play well with others.  We can witness
> the exact same principle with Mike Feinstein himself.
> 
> 
> Green is Negotiation!
> 
> Drew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, June 9, 2009 19:31, Jim Stauffer wrote:
>> The County Council might want to consider the efficacy of a Regional Rep
>> election at this time. For those not plugged into our structure, the Reg
>> Rep
>> is a person elected from the Santa Clara / San Mateo region to serve on
>> the
>> state Coordinating Committee.
>>
>> As decided at last month's state meeting, the current Coordinating
>> Committee
>> is going to be replaced by a new body. This will likely occur by the end
>> of
>> the year, or perhaps early next year. Do you really want to put the effort
>> into organizing an election just to replace me for the last 6 months of
>> the CC?
>>
>> You might also consider if replacing me - one the the party's best
>> bureaucrats
>> - during a major re-organization of the party infrastructure is in the
>> best
>> interest of the party.
>>
>> This is being driven by Drew. He has harassed me relentlessly since I
>> removed
>> him from the regional list last year. He's succeeded in running me out of
>> the
>> local meetings, and is harassing me at state meetings. This is just more
>> of
>> his pettiness.
> 
> 
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Caroline Yacoub wrote:
>>>
>>> --- On *Tue, 6/9/09, Caroline Yacoub /<carolineyacoub at att.net>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     From: Caroline Yacoub <carolineyacoub at att.net>
>>>     Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] How We Elect Silicon Valley Regional
>>>     Representatives
>>>     To: WB4D23 at aol.com
>>>     Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 5:26 PM
>>>
>>>     Okay then, there needs to be a Council meeting 15 days before the next
>>>     general meeting, somebody willing to do the job needs to be there,
>>>     and somebody needs to get the agenda out in plenty of time. This is
>>>     all going to have to happen short a council member--me. I could give
>>>     you my cell phone number if it looks like the council is short of a
>>>     quorum, or you could work with Wes, which would probably be easier,
>>>     as I will be in the Blue Ridge mountains and may not get a signal.
>>>     Good luck to you. Can I vote for Tian now?
>>>     Caroline
>>>
>>>     --- On *Tue, 6/9/09, WB4D23 at aol.com /<WB4D23 at aol.com>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         From: WB4D23 at aol.com <WB4D23 at aol.com>
>>>         Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] How We Elect Silicon Valley Regional
>>>         Representatives
>>>         To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
>>>         Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 4:51 PM
>>>
>>>         During last Wednesday's GPSCC meeting, there was discussion
>>>         about whether our GPCA Coordinating Committee member and
>>>         alternate could be chosen by delegates at a plenary or whether
>>>         we are required to use the rules we adopted a few years back.
>>>
>>>         My recollection is that when the GPSCC adopted Article 9 of its
>>>         Bylaws, and San Mateo County adopted similar bylaws, we opted
>>>         out from the default procedure in the GPCA Bylaws.  Under those
>>>         rules, any candidate needs to be approved at meetings in each
>>>         county.  In SCC, the Bylaws state that the County Council has to
>>>         put the matter on the agenda, there needs to be 15 days notice,
>>>         and the item has to be included in the emailed agenda.
>>>
>>>         The change in procedure was based upon the collective sense that
>>>         a few delegates at a plenary should not have the responsibility
>>>         or burden of appointing a reluctant volunteer...  which had been
>>>         the pre-existing practice.  At least with required meetings, any
>>>         candidate is required to meet with each County GP and present
>>>         their case that she or he is up to the job.
>>>
>>>         Warner
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>