[GPSCC-chat] [SC-SM] Notice of Intention to Resign from the GPCA Coordinating Committee

Tue Jun 26 18:40:48 PDT 2012

Since I now appear to be the official representative of the Green Party in the 
Single Payer Coalition, I frequently find myself  the only non-democrat in the 
room--what I call the "lonely little petunia" syndrome. Everybody there is 
working toward the same goal. But I am not one of "them". When I identify myself 
as a member of the Green Party during the intros, I get some "I didn't know we 
allowed aliens in here" looks. But I don't care. Single Payer is a Green thing, 
and these are hundreds of people working to bring it about. They are also going 
out to minority communities, and I can go along, and I can be Green. We don't 
seem to be doing much of that, although we should be. If I can work with 
democrats, I can work with weird Greens, if necessary, to help accomplish Green 
things. I don't have to be like them to work with them.
Caroline

________________________________
From: Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
To: sosfbay-discuss <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Sent: Tue, June 26, 2012 1:14:59 PM
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] [SC-SM] Notice of Intention to Resign from the GPCA 
Coordinating Committee

I don't mean to belabor the point, but...

The "internecine warfare" is not limited to internal conflicts, it also affects 
the external parts of the party, such as the positions we officially support or 
oppose. Accordingly, I've had to ask myself if the GP really represents my 
values anymore.

If the bylaws have become a just relative reference document, do you think the 
platform is still the authoritative statement of our policies? Here's a couple 
examples from my last days on the CC that make me ask this question.

Mike F submitted a proposal to the CC to oppose a bill in Sacramento. Mike's 
proposal described the bill, rather vaguely, as prohibiting paid signature 
gathering. In fact, the bill sought to prohibit pay-per-signature schemes, not 
paid signature gathering in general. This reform has already been enacted in 
several states, who now use pay-per-hour. Pay-per-signature has a long history 
of fraud, coercion and abuse. My two messages explaining this to the CC were 
ignored and the proposal was to declared to be passed by consensus. The GPCA is 
now officially on the side of scammers and frauds who make a living with 
pay-per-signature.

Now that Marnie is "Managing Director of the GPCA," she uses that position to 
represent the GPCA at various meetings she attends. Most of these meetings 
appear to be with her old allies in the liberal Democrat camp. I don't have a 
big problem with the GPCA working with that crowd occasionally, but the 
relationship can be tricky. Is there adequate oversite and feedback for these 
meetings? From what I saw, Marnie seems to be acting on her own at these 
affairs.

Have you read Marnie's contract with the GPCA? It does give her authority to 
represent the GPCA to external organizations. But, that contradicts the bylaws, 
which give that responsibility to the Liaison. The contract also requires all 
committees and working groups to report to Marnie for coordination/unification 
of all party work. But the bylaws say that's the job of the CC.

With all policy decisions now under Marnie, does the GPCA really stand for the 
issues the rest of us care about?

Sorry for all the negativity, but I devoted 20 years to building this 
organization and it feels like half that time was spent trying to keep Mike and 
his friends from taking it over. It was obviously a futile battle. Now I join 
the ranks of so many others whom I admired and worked with, but who gave up on 
the GP because of the never-ending conflicts with the Feinstein crowd.

Jim

On 6/21/2012 9:55 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote:
> Ever since the coup, I have thought about whether or not the Green Party of
> California is my party anymore. The conclusion I have reached is that there is
> no other party that represents my beliefs better than the Green Party. I am
> here in Santa Clara County. I can do things that I believe further the
> interests of the Green Party, America, and the planet without having to have
> anything to do with "those people." I am very sorry if we lose our Regional
> Rep, because I think he does, truly represent us. But I am going to keep using
> the energy I have to try to reach my goals, not to wage internecine warfare.
> Caroline
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org>
> *To:* sc-sm at cagreens.org
> *Sent:* Thu, June 14, 2012 4:15:10 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [SC-SM] Notice of Intention to Resign from the GPCA
> Coordinating Committee
> 
> I've already expressed my opinion on whether or not the GP is worth supporting
> anymore.
> 
> The nullification of bylaws started in earnest last year after the Berkeley
> GA. That's when the new CC members were elected. That's the group that was
> hand-selected by Marnie, and took their places on the CC with no experience
> with the GPCA.
> 
> Several members of this group openly stated their purpose on the CC was
> implement Marnie's Green2012 plan, even though that plan had never been
> submitted to a GA for decision. I wrote a detailed report demonstrating that
> the CC implemented Marnie's contract and Green2012 plan while ignoring most of
> the GA decisions.
> 
> This all came about when the CC abrogated its authority to a controlling group
> consisting of Barry, Mike F, Sanda and Marnie. This small group has literally
> been running the party, with the Marnie's CC reps rubber stamping most
> everything the controlling group wants.
> 
> Have you noticed that our long-time press secretary, Cres Velucci, is no
> longer here? He didn't resign. The controlling group's implementation of
> Marnie's contract simply eliminated Cres by turning over all his jobs to
> Marnie. After his years of dedicated professional service he was just booted
> out without so much as a "thank you." The same thing happened to the IT Group.
> Mike/Sanda/Marnie just took us over and told us to leave. Not only was there
> no recognition of all we had done for the party, we were called every name in
> the book and told we were nothing but a problem.
> 
> Examples of bylaw violations and usurpation of power would fill a page. My
> only surprise is that more people haven't left by now.
> 
> 
> Jim
> 
> P.S. Someone really needs to volunteer to take over as admin of this list. I
> can't do it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/6/2012 12:04 PM, Gerry Gras wrote:
>  >
>  > I suppose some may consider this an inappropriate question,
>  > but here it is anyways.
>  >
>  > FWIW.
>  >
>  > Is it appropriate to find a replacement to send to a group
>  > in violation of its own bylaws? Wouldn't that just enable
>  > further violations of the bylaws?
>  >
>  > I don't have an answer for the question. But somehow I
>  > think that just sending a replacement means ignoring the
>  > basic problem. I don't know what bylaws were broken,
>  > and how serious the violations are, but I can easily
>  > believe that there are chronic nontrivial problems with
>  > the CC. And I would not be at all surprised if MANY
>  > Greens have similar concerns to Warner's.
>  >
>  > Gerry
>  >
>  >
>  > WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com <mailto:WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com> wrote:
>  >> June 5, 2012
>  >> To GP of San Mateo County and GP of Santa Clara County
>  >> County Council members:
>  >> This email is to notify you that I intend to resign from the GPCA
>  >> Coordinating Committee effective not later than September 15, 2012, or
>  >> upon the earlier designation of a replacement Silicon Valley Regional
>  >> Representative by the County Councils / members of the respective County
>  >> GPs.
>  >> I will send a longer message about this after first writing a year end
>  >> status report, but basically after last night's CC teleconference I am
>  >> unwilling to remain a member of that group which, in my view, acted in
>  >> violation of GPCA Bylaws. I did not anticipate this circumstance when I
>  >> volunteered to take the position, and I regret that events have resulted
>  >> in the need for me to leave the CC before completing the full term.
>  >> It is important that the two County Councils begin recruiting
>  >> a replacement immediately.
>  >> Yours truly,
>  >> Warner S. Bloomberg III
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >> sc-sm mailing list
>  >> sc-sm at cagreens.org <mailto:sc-sm at cagreens.org>
>  >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-sm
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > sc-sm mailing list
>  > sc-sm at cagreens.org <mailto:sc-sm at cagreens.org>
>  > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-sm
>  >
> _______________________________________________
> sc-sm mailing list
> sc-sm at cagreens.org <mailto:sc-sm at cagreens.org>
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-sm

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120626/97eefc54/attachment.html>