<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 10.00.9200.16736"></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Cambria; COLOR: #000000"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=4 face=Cambria>
<DIV><FONT size=4>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
align=center><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'">THE
STORY OF AN ILLEGITIMATE </SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-CN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family: Cambria">“</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'">SGA</SPAN><SPAN
lang=ZH-CN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family: Cambria">”</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'"> (SO
FAR)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
align=center><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Written by Warner S. Bloomberg III<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>November 15.
2013<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></I></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">For
years there have been discussions and draft proposals about forming
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">a
GPCA Standing General Assembly (SGA) that would operate electronically to
conduct administrative and other state party business, and thereby allow time
for more </SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-CN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">“</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">political</SPAN><SPAN
lang=ZH-CN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">”</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">
and organizing work at state party meetings (aka General Assemblies of
Delegates, aka GA; aka Plenaries).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The proposals were
discussed during the Saturday morning session, and numerous concerns were
expressed.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Presenter (Michael
Feinstein) then separated the SGA part of the proposals from
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">the
others and called for a vote on the non-SGA proposals.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>When a vote was taken, those draft
Bylaws amendments received only about 50% support </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">–</FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">
well under the 80% required for a Bylaws amendment.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">That
discussion and vote was held on May 12, 2012.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>No record of the discussions and
concerns is included in the record of decisions for that Plenary.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, Michael Feinstein placed what
he characterized as a Bylaws interpretation on the agenda for the next meeting
of the GPCA </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">Coordinating
Committee (CC) on June 4, 2012 (night before the Primary Election).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The operative language of the proposal
was as follows:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">“…the
CC interprets the existing bylaws that allow it to set the next GA, to set
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">the
next GA as an SGA based upon the SGA proposal of May 13, for the following
purposes:<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>…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).”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">The
proposal was approved by the CC on a 10-1-1 vote.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Based on this vote,
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">a
SGA was formed.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">At
the June 2013 Napa Plenary, I objected to the Agenda on the ground that
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">the
supposed CC Bylaws interpretation was required to be presented to an actual GA
for confirmation or rejection.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As
expressly noted at the beginning of the proposal considered by the CC on June 4,
2012:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">“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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Between General Assembly meetings, the
Coordinating Committee shall decide these questions subject to review at the
next General Assembly meeting….’<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">After
discussion, the vote to approve the Agenda was 19-12-5, or 61% for
approval.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(In Robert’s Rules of Order terms, the
item was “tabled”.)<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">The
GPCA Bylaw that supposedly was “interpreted” by the CC was:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>“Section 5.1.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Regular Meetings.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Section 5-1.1<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Meeting frequency.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>So there
were many problems with <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">First,
there was no “ambiguity” in the Bylaw.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>And although it was argued that <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">The
“SGA” proposed by and organized under the rationale of the Bylaw interpretation,
was not and is not a “meeting”.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It
is an email subscription list that conducts electronic discussions and votes on
an electronic bulletin board.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>At no
time is any individual at the same place with anyone else at the same time.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It operates only by internet
communications.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Therefore, there is
no such thing as <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">an
SGA “meeting” and the SGA created by the CC vote could not be a substitute for
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">a
Plenary.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">Second,
and most importantly, the CC engaged in conduct that was unauthorized by the
GPCA Bylaws.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Even the proposal for
the CC meeting admitted that there had been no consensus at the May 2012 San
Francisco Plenary.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That Plenary was the first GA since the
June 4, 2012 CC vote.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>These kinds of
shenanigans are sometimes referred to as “boot strapping”.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Another way of describing it is
“circular thinking” (a kind of illogic used for self-justification).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">At
minimum, the Santa Rosa November 2013 Plenary needs to confront this issue.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>There is time to
do this.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>There is no need to spend
time on whether an illegitimate SGA should even consider endorsement of a
cannabis legalization initiative.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>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).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This GA can
quickly endorse a similar initiative (although the failure to describe the
initiative is another flaw in the proposed Agenda).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Sending those
endorsements to an illegitimate SGA should be avoided.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">What
happens if the GA rejects the CC “interpretation”?<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>GPCA Bylaws as existed on June 4, 2013
would need to be republished as the current GPCA Bylaws.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The GA also would need to appoint the
current (or other) CC members on an interim basis to serve until the next
GA.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That would be necessary because
the current CC members were “elected” by a process created by invalid SGA Bylaws
revisions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">Yes;
the situation is a “mess” and correcting it will take time and energy and
patience and persistence.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But we
are a community supposedly guided by <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">the
Ten Key Values.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Continuing the
charade of an illegitimate “SGA” makes us <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin">a
political party of expediency with the “ends justifying the means”.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I thought that was somebody
else!!!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><FONT
size=3>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He also served four
years as the Coordinator of the Campaign and Candidates Working Group and served
four years as <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Cambria','serif'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-latin"><FONT
size=3>a GPCA Delegate to the GPUS Party National Committee.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The opinions expressed are solely those
of the writer, although they also may represent the opinions of at least other
GPSCC members. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>