PLEASE MOVE TO DISCUSSION (FORUM) LIST*****RE: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not.

Wed Sep 19 08:48:44 EDT 2007

Amy Vas Nunes <amyvasnunes at hotmail.com> wrote:  Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS
http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/

to unsubscribe click here
mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org
This is not about Sexism or Racism but about unclear uneven non transparent 
Policy and Procedure in an "advanced" GP the most advanced. All the more 
reason to patch holes in CTGP, The ByLaws were manipulated to kick me out! I 
have seen the same thing happen at our most recent convention and at least 2 
others in the past that went on in Calif.! Nader is Brilliant,cagey and coy 
, we use him he uses us. And what about that bullshit "I am not Green 
because I swore on my father's death bed. Grow up! He is all we have that 
people have name recognition of, look at all the loses we took last time 
with an unkown to ballot access and funding and "safe state "{devised by Tom 
Sivigney in CtGP's name with no discussion} stragey. I heard the SCSU 
Environmental group were calling us spoilers at the recent exposition. What 
can we do ?AMY

>From: "Clifford Thornton" 
>To: "ctgp-news" 
>Subject: {news} Are we ready? Apparently not.
>Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:56:02 -0400
>
>Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS
>http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/
>
>to unsubscribe click here
>mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Hugh Esco
>
>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:43 PM
>Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not.
>
>
> >From hesco Mon Sep 10 15:09:16 2007
>To: natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
>Subject: Are we ready? Apparently not.
>Reply-To: hesco at greens.org
>Status: RO
>
>Are we ready? Apparently not.
>
>About a week ago I posed the question: "Is the Green Party Ready
>for a McKinney Campaign". I have to look at this weekend's
>action by the California Green Party and suggest already that
>the answer is likely: "Apparently not".
>
>In that letter, I asked:
> Are we ready to open our Platform development process,
> leadership bodies and slates to the leadership which would
> emanate from those communities ready to coalesce around a
> McKinney campaign?
>
>I'd say that judging from how the business transpired on the
>floor in California this weekend, at least with respect to the
>inclusion of Ms. McKinney on the slate, the answer seems to be
>"yes". But her access to that ballot was made available in
>a disparate way which seems to privilege one candidate over
>all of the others.
>
>The formulation of the motion to be presented as a unified
>ballot to the General Assembly of the California Green Party.
>The motion was to include every candidate, among the ten
>vetted (for inclusion in the Candidates' Forum at the Reading
>Convention) by the Presidential Campaign Support Committee of
>the Green Party of the United States, who was deemed viable
>and Green by the Campaigns and Candidates Working Group of
>the Green Party of California. That gave us a five member
>slate including: Jared Ball, Elaine Brown, Jesse Johnson,
>Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift.
>
>Understanding that draft efforts were under way for additional
>candidates, the process adopted provided for two additional
>ways to access the ballot.
>
>The CCWG delegated to their Chair the power to amend the
>unified motion to account for any additional candidate who
>declared their intention to seek the nomination of the Party.
>Georgia Green Party member and former Congresswoman Cynthia
>McKinney qualified for inclusion under this provision, giving
>the motion six candidates.
>
>The process agreed to in the setting of the agenda provided
>that if this motion failed to achieve the support of two-thirds
>of the body, the question was to be split, with each candidate
>standing for a two-thirds up or down vote on their inclusion.
>
>The Chair was also authorized to entertain a motion from a
>draft effort to add any candidate who had not declared their
>intention to seek the nomination, with their inclusion on the
>California Green Party's Presidential Preference Primary ballot
>subject to a stand alone vote at the same two-thirds threshold.
>
>Cat Woods of Sonoma County made such a motion, except that
>she insisted, in spite of the agreed to process, that Ralph
>Nader's name be included as a part of the unified motion.
>Participants suggested that she lost quite a bit of credibility
>when she cursed and blew up during the debate. But in the
>end the bully tactics prevailed.
>
>Nader is not a member of the Party. He has not stated his
>intent to seek the nomination of the Green Party of the United
>States. But he did apparently deliver a message, by way of Cat
>Woods with whom he had spoken by phone, that he was 'flattered'
>to be considered and while he has not yet made a decision with
>respect to his intentions for 2008, he would not object to be
>included on the ballot.
>
>Objections were raised, but Cat persisted. Everyone was
>exhausted. And the CCWG Chair relented, in a confused moment,
>and then there were seven.
>
>Asked why this breech of process was not more strenuously
>resisted, I'm told over and over, "Its the LA thing", referring
>to a controversy over the composition of the delegation from the
>state's largest county. The issue, a long standing one riddled
>with long held personality conflicts managed to distract the
>Party from its essential work yet again. The previous General
>Assembly had by a narrow margin rejected a resolution asking
>for the resignation of the state committee. But this time,
>delegates elected by their counties sat at home, avoiding
>the long drive down for the meeting, and even more grueling,
>the endurance test of attrition which has characterized the
>Party's General Assemblies.
>
>By the time the bullied manipulation of the process worked to
>carry Nader, on the coattails of the six Party members declared
>for our nomination, onto the ballot, Delegates were exhausted.
>
>But one keeps coming back to the fact that a former six term
>Member of Congress, who has also served two terms in the Georgia
>Assembly was subjected to a disparate standard for entry to
>the ballot, when compared to the hurdle for entry faced by
>another candidate added to the ballot at the Riverside Plenary.
>
>Cynthia McKinney, who since December 21st, 2003 has been
>a member of the Georgia Green Party, and was seeking our
>nomination for President of the United States faced one hurdle,
>advertised to her by the CCWG. But privileged access to the
>California ballot was granted to the candidate who after the
>successful 2000 campaign had abandoned his commitment to help
>us build the Green Party, and in 2004 actually dispatched
>his hired staff to sabotage the ballot lines of our Party in
>Vermont and Utah (while trying to do likewise in Florida and
>California and New York, that I am aware of).
>
>Is this what the racism and sexism looks like, that I was
>concerned about when I asked: Is our Party Ready? I'd suggest
>that our Party, if it is to develop its relevancy, must grapple
>with those questions. All the good intentions, explanations,
>circumstances and stories are not going to change the facts
>that we have offered disparate access to our ballot in a way
>which significantly threatens our integrity and our credibility
>as a Party which is actually committed to its values.
>
>And if we are not prepared to acknowledge that, then perhaps
>we are not ready for a McKinney campaign.
>
>-- Hugh Esco, Delegate
>Georgia Green Party
>

>To be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org
>_______________________________________________
>CTGP-news mailing list
>CTGP-news at ml.greens.org
>http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news
>
>ATTENTION!
>The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and 
>intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this 
>transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the 
>original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or 
>face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or 
>legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal 
>legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of 
>the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is 
>solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party 
>hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members.
>
>NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential 
>messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a 
>message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible 
>that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally 
>assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general 
>mischief.
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
>immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail 
>transmission may contain confidential information. This information is 
>intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is 
>intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files 
>if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance.
>
>To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe@ml.greens.org

To be removed please mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org
_______________________________________________
CTGP-news mailing list
CTGP-news at ml.greens.org
http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news

ATTENTION!
The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members.

NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly. Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you for your compliance.

To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe@ml.greens.org

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tim McKee cell (860) 778-1304 or (860) 643-2282
   National Committee Member of the Green Party(Connecticut)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20070919/50e44541/attachment.html>