[GPSCC-chat] Critique of SGA for Santa Rosa Plenary

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

THE  STORY OF AN ILLEGITIMATE “SGA” (SO  FAR) 
Written by Warner S. Bloomberg III  November 15.  2013 
For  years there have been discussions and draft proposals about forming   
a  GPCA Standing General Assembly (SGA) that would operate electronically 
to  conduct administrative and other state party business, and thereby allow 
time  for more “political”  and organizing work at state party meetings 
(aka General Assemblies of  Delegates, aka GA; aka Plenaries).  At the May 2012 
San Francisco Plenary, such a proposal was placed on the  agenda by the 
Bylaws Committee as part of an overall revision of the GPCA  Bylaws.  The 
proposals were  discussed during the Saturday morning session, and numerous 
concerns were  expressed.  The Presenter (Michael  Feinstein) then separated the 
SGA part of the proposals from   
the  others and called for a vote on the non-SGA proposals.  When a vote 
was taken, those draft  Bylaws amendments received only about 50% support –  
well under the 80% required for a Bylaws amendment. 
That  discussion and vote was held on May 12, 2012.  No record of the 
discussions and  concerns is included in the record of decisions for that 
Plenary.  However, Michael Feinstein placed what  he characterized as a Bylaws 
interpretation on the agenda for the next meeting  of the GPCA Coordinating  
Committee (CC) on June 4, 2012 (night before the Primary Election).  The 
operative language of the proposal  was as follows: 
“…the  CC interprets the existing bylaws that allow it to set the next GA, 
to set   
the  next GA as an SGA based upon the SGA proposal of May 13, for the 
following  purposes:  …voting upon the  individual sections of the SGA proposal , 
to address the outstanding concerns  from the San Francisco General 
Assembly (and in the process allow the SGA to  conduct its review of the CC 
interpretation).” 
The  proposal was approved by the CC on a 10-1-1 vote.  Based on this vote, 
  
a  SGA was formed.  As part of its  activation, an on-line vote was 
conducted self=approving itself and various  amendments of GPCA Bylaws were 
assertedly enacted; including revision of GA  voting procedures to reduce the 
previous 2/3rds threshold for ordinary decisions  to 60% and to reduce the voting 
threshold for policy matters and Bylaws  amendments from 80% to 2/3rds.  
The  SGA also eliminated the Regional Representative members on the 
Coordinating  Committee and replaced those with an all at-large CC elected by the  
SGA. 
At  the June 2013 Napa Plenary, I objected to the Agenda on the ground that 
  
the  supposed CC Bylaws interpretation was required to be presented to an 
actual GA  for confirmation or rejection.  As  expressly noted at the 
beginning of the proposal considered by the CC on June 4,  2012: 
“Bylaws  7-3.2 Bylaws Interpretation specifies that ‘In cases of bylaw 
ambiguity or  procedural disagreement, the General Assembly shall decide for 
itself the  meaning of its bylaws or or the appropriate procedure to be 
followed.  Between General Assembly meetings, the  Coordinating Committee shall 
decide these questions subject to review at the  next General Assembly meeting…
.’ 
After  discussion, the vote to approve the Agenda was 19-12-5, or 61% for  
approval.  Under the GPCA Bylaws as  published on June 4, 2012, the Agenda 
would not have been approved as less than  2/3rds; but because the 
Facilitators used the SGA changes, the Agenda was deemed  to be approved by a vote 
above the “new” 60% threshold.  Of particular note, the CC members did  not 
dispute any of the concerns about its failure to allow the GA to affirm or  
reject the CC’s Bylaws “interpretation”; instead they argued that there 
simply  was not sufficient time to add it to the Agenda given other matters that 
had  been scheduled for the Meeting (e.g., adoption of a budget).  But the 
vote to approve the Agenda, even  using a disputed threshold, did not resolve 
the objection – it only left it off  the GA Agenda and the objection 
remains unresolved.  (In Robert’s Rules of Order terms, the  item was “tabled”.)  
And the CC  again has failed to place this issue on the Agenda for the 
current November 2013  Plenary (where the expediency excuse of “not enough time”
 will not be  credible). 
The  GPCA Bylaw that supposedly was “interpreted” by the CC was:  “Section 
5.1.  Regular Meetings.  Section 5-1.1  Meeting frequency.  The General 
Assembly shall meet at least  twice a year. Date and location for next meeting 
shall be determined by the  close of each meeting.”  So there  were many 
problems with  
the  CC June 4, 2012 “interpretation” of this (or any other) Bylaw as an 
excuse to  grossly exceed its authority to restructure the GPCA through what 
amounted to  the CC making Bylaws amendments – which is only allowed to be 
done by a General  Assembly of Delegates. 
First,  there was no “ambiguity” in the Bylaw.  And although it was argued 
that  
the  “interpretation” was needed because a date and location for the next 
GA had not  occurred at the May 2012 Plenary, that circumstance has occurred 
many times in  the past and the CC simply has recruited a host and 
proceeded with the  scheduling of the next Plenary on that basis.  So the “
interpretation” not only  violated the Bylaw it purported to interpret because the 
language of the Bylaw  itself was plain, the “interpretation” also was  
unnecessary. 
The  “SGA” proposed by and organized under the rationale of the Bylaw 
interpretation,  was not and is not a “meeting”.  It  is an email subscription 
list that conducts electronic discussions and votes on  an electronic 
bulletin board.  At no  time is any individual at the same place with anyone else 
at the same time.  It operates only by internet  communications.  Therefore, 
there is  no such thing as  
an  SGA “meeting” and the SGA created by the CC vote could not be a 
substitute for   
a  Plenary.   
Second,  and most importantly, the CC engaged in conduct that was 
unauthorized by the  GPCA Bylaws.  The “interpretation”  was more than considering 
the GPCA Bylaws text; it created a totally new  structure in the GPCA 
amounting to Bylaws amendments that had not been approved  by any GA.  Even the 
proposal for  the CC meeting admitted that there had been no consensus at the 
May 2012 San  Francisco Plenary.  The  long-followed practice in the GPCA 
under such circumstances has been to review  the concerns and bring back a 
similar proposal or set of proposals at the next  GA.  So, adding to the 
violation of  the Bylaws, the proposal, itself, was speculative and conjectural 
about what the  Delegates at the Plenary occurring just weeks earlier had been 
thinking either  individually or collectively.  And  the CC vote failed to 
follow the long-standing practice of a measured  consideration of Bylaws 
amendments – as had been the case with all previous  Bylaws amendments proposals 
(i.e., there was no urgency to create a “SGA” in  June 2012).  While one 
can assume  the “best intentions” on the part of the CC members who voted to 
approve the  “interpretation”, those votes also can be described as a 
recourse to expediency  and a betrayal of trust by those holding that office. 
Third,  the CC failure to include its Bylaws “interpretation” on the 
Agenda for the Napa  June 2013 meeting was an additional violation of the GPCA 
Bylaws.  That Plenary was the first GA since the  June 4, 2012 CC vote.  In 
the  meantime, the SGA “self-approval” of the CC “interpretation” that 
invalidly  created the “SGA” by violating the GPCA Bylaws was itself invalid and 
 illegitimate.  These kinds of  shenanigans are sometimes referred to as “
boot strapping”.  Another way of describing it is  “circular thinking” (a 
kind of illogic used for self-justification).  Whatever words you want to call 
it, the  failure and then obstruction by the CC to allow GA consideration 
of the  “interpretation” has created a question of illegitimacy on all 
actions by the  SGA and GPCA decisions using SGA created procedures. 
At  minimum, the Santa Rosa November 2013 Plenary needs to confront this 
issue.  Unless the CC will relent and place the  issue as the first item on 
the Agenda, GA time needs to be taken just to get the  matter before the 
Plenary Delegates.  Then, at least an hour of Agenda time will be needed to 
discuss the  issues and reach either confirmation or rejection of the CC June 4. 
2012  “interpretation.  There is time to  do this.  There is no need to 
spend  time on whether an illegitimate SGA should even consider endorsement of a 
 cannabis legalization initiative.  The GPCA approved such a position at 
the San Jose Plenary (which was put  on the Agenda by Green Issues Working 
Group at the GA in the same session when  it was approved).  This GA can  
quickly endorse a similar initiative (although the failure to describe the  
initiative is another flaw in the proposed Agenda).  Likewise, as in the past, 
the Plenary  Delegates can endorse candidates for state office – even with the 
Governor  position having two candidates (e.g., endorse both as proposed by 
the Alameda  County GP).  Sending those  endorsements to an illegitimate 
SGA should be avoided. 
What  happens if the GA rejects the CC “interpretation”?  GPCA Bylaws as 
existed on June 4, 2013  would need to be republished as the current GPCA 
Bylaws.  The GA also would need to appoint the  current (or other) CC members 
on an interim basis to serve until the next  GA.  That would be necessary 
because  the current CC members were “elected” by a process created by invalid 
SGA Bylaws  revisions.  The currently  constituted SGA could be authorized 
to conduct votes on specific limited issues  (e.g., candidates and ballot 
issues), but given how the SGA has been manipulated  to accomplish what some 
have characterized as a “coup”, any other SGA authority  needs to be 
carefully specified and expressly limited by future Bylaws  amendments approved by 
previous Bylaws authority and procedures.   
Yes;  the situation is a “mess” and correcting it will take time and 
energy and  patience and persistence.  But we  are a community supposedly guided 
by  
the  Ten Key Values.  Continuing the  charade of an illegitimate “SGA” 
makes us  
a  political party of expediency with the “ends justifying the means”.  I 
thought that was somebody  else!!! 
Warner S. Bloomberg III joined the GPCA as a disaffected Democrat in 1994  
and served four years as a County Council Member of the Green Party of Santa 
 Clara County.  He also served four  years as the Coordinator of the 
Campaign and Candidates Working Group and served  four years as  
a GPCA Delegate to the GPUS Party National Committee.  He also served over 
a year on the GPCA  Coordinating Committee, including twice on the Budget 
Committee, and resigned  from the CC in 2012 in protest over the matters 
described above.  The opinions expressed are solely those  of the writer, 
although they also may represent the opinions of at least other  GPSCC members.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20131115/cf5471f7/attachment.html>