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

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

I'm glad Caroline found a way to do Green work in the name of the Green 
Party.  That's the right thing to do.  I'm sad that the Green Party of 
California has become just another "liberal" junk mail operation, but it 
doesn't bother me too much.  As a junk mail operation they are motivated 
to hold onto the brand name against truly evil people who would misuse 
it much worse than Mike and Marnie do.  It's a place holder, like the 
greens.org domain.

Greens get elected where people are really desperate after their habitat 
has been destroyed.  Madagascar elected a Green head of state in the 
'80s.  If you look at satellite pictures of the place you can see why.  
Haiti would elect a Green if they didn't have the Lavalas machine 
there.  Likewise Richmond, CA.  California's just not desperate enough 
yet.  Our time will come again, it's just not now.

I'd like to clarify something Jim alluded to.  I have no idea what 
communications went on between Jim and the new controlling group, 
regarding the IT group we were part of.  I am on good terms with Tim 
Laidman, who is now the admin for the virtual machine where cagreens.org 
runs.  I'm still backing the thing up, because I still haven't got 
around to moving that function off the incredibly obsolete PC in my 
garage.  It's automatic, and it's been remarkably reliable.  (cron, ssh, 
and rsync.)  I resigned from that group at the same time Jim did, but I 
suspect not for the same reasons.

I came to the Green Party in the early '90s because I wanted the 
movement for software freedom and personal information security ("Free 
Software" as a proper name) to be part of the Green transformation of 
society.  But that didn't happen.  Most Greens were so anti-technology 
that they'd thrown away their Whole Earth Catalogs ("access to tools") 
and embraced proprietary commercial software, digital "rights" 
(restrictions) management, and service bureaus.  (Strange but true.)  
The rest were too busy to learn anything about the Internet or computer 
software.  I stuck around to do the work for them, instead, but that 
didn't scale.  Marnie made it clear that they simply had no use for 
anything I do.  Jim may have quit, but I was laid off!  So now they're 
dependent on service bureaus whose main customers are Dem Party 
electoral campaigns and Dem satellite enviro junk mail operations like 
Sierra Club.  Of course there are profound security and social 
engineering problems there, but that's Marnie's problem now.

I'm looking forward to hearing from Warner about his decision.

-/Cameron in San José/




On 06/26/2012 06:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote:
> 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
> >
>

>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
> > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Jim Stauffer <jims at greens.org <mailto:jims at greens.org>>
> > *To:* sc-sm at cagreens.org <mailto: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> 
> <mailto: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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120626/f332afbb/attachment.html>