{news} USGP-INT Calif Rep.some of my thoughts about the current situation in the IC

[Amy Vas Nunes]

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:42:29 -0700
From: sanda at greens.org
To: usgp-int at gp-us.org
CC: gpus-del at lists.cagreens.org
Subject: USGP-INT some of my thoughts about the current situation in the IC

Dear International Committee,

I started writing this letter in mid-March, but for various reasons, did not get around to sending it.  Aimee's questions about my concern about the election prompted me to think about it again...but I just was not finding the time, and I also felt that most of my reasons were already stated in the GPCA proposal 386 about IC Rules, Policies and Procedures, particularly after we voted to amend it.  It was brought to my attention, that many people thought all of the concerns were just Mike Feinstein's issues so perhaps I needed to let people know how I felt.  So I decided to take some of my time that I hoped to be in the garden today, to finally get this out.

*******************

I have been thinking about this issue a lot....not just over the past few weeks but since October 2008 when I first became aware of the difference in approach of Mike (and more recently my state party’s GPUS delegation) to the Mexican Greens’ support of Death Penalty and that of Tony and Julia. I am often able to see and sympathize with more than one side of an issue, and from this perspective I would like to share some of my thoughts and feelings on this issue with you..



I love the IC.  Like I have said before, it is the whole reason I got involved with GPUS.  I admire Julia. My experience with Tony has been quite positive, and while I don't always agree with Mike, I acknowledge his experience internationally.  Knowing her a little better, I adore Jill Bussiere, and we have agreed to not let our relationship suffer over any difference in opinion about this situation.



Please don't make this about MIke, because then you risk not looking at the real issues involved.  Yes, Mike tends to like being in control, but that can be a good thing, too.  He has done lots of good work for this party, not the least of which being his excellent writing skills and his handle on by-laws, rules, and procedures. I also feel safe in asserting that the current issues he is bring up: the lack of approved P&Ps, the lack of following unapproved P&Ps, the lack of a stronger position about the Mexican Green Party's position on the death penalty, and however else he is pushing your buttons, has nothing to do with 190.


Mike is a strong personality, but so are the "leaders" of this committee.  They have got into the practice of acting autonomously over the years, before and after the creation of GPUS.  They have asserted for years that because IC existed before GPUS, the IC did not have to get its rules and procedures approved by the NC.  I even had some sympathy for that position until it became apparent that the IC wasn't even following its own rules and procedures, particularly as it related to co-chair elections. 

I was at the meeting in Chicago in July 2008 where Julia acknowledged that there had not been a call for an election before that year's ANM as stated in the IC rules.  She asked if we could wait until after the FPVA meeting  and our presidential election in November.  Mike questioned her ability to make that delay based on our rules. People agreed I think because it seemed like a reasonable request, not because it was permissable. 

But not only did Julia not announce those intentions to the rest of the IC after Chicago, so that people could prepare for the elections (Justine’s seat had also expired a year and half earlier), but no election happened in November or December and neither Julia nor Justine mentioned anything about even scheduling an election during that time, even though the FPVA meeting had come and gone the first week in November.

It wasn’t until Mike and Marnie started pushing the Co-chair election issue in mid-December that the issue was even raised before the IC, and maybe it would not have happened even when it did without their pushing.  I would have at least liked to see an acknowledgement, and maybe even an apology, at the lack of following rules.  I know the IC is not the only place in the GP where people are behind schedule, but one seat being six months overdue and another 18 months overdue is extreme.


I know there is some disagreement whether BRPP has the mandate to write policies and procedures for another committee or not. However I am not sure the IC would even be talking about writing its own without this push from Mike, BRPP, and the GPCA.  As I said to Jill a few weeks ago, Mike is a great writer;  I wish IC would stop freaking out about BRPP doing it and just get involved with the process.  What is the old expression, if you're given lemons, make lemonade.  Mike, and the other BRPP members who have worked on this have given you a great draft. Start working with it.  See where you think it needs tweaking.  Get involved and stop blaming.  Make believe BRPP can "help" IC (that’s part of the reason our party has a bylaws committee in the first place.)


Part of the difficulty I have seen with IC process in general – and why I think the BRPP’s draft is so valuable and timely,  is that it does not appear that the IC has a good online discussion/voting procedure set up.  Ironically the BRPP’s draft provide for that and because the GPCA already has such a procedure, it was able to easily and effectively debate and decide upon its death penalty proposal and bring it forward to the SC and NC.  While the IC can be debating whether or not it would be a good idea...CA was able to act on it.  

Our delegation’s original intention with the death penalty resolution was to get the draft done and then ask the IC to co-sponsor it; I, Mike and many others insisted on this, because even though under GPUS Bylaws a state party is able to bring forward such a proposal directly to the NC, our GPCA delegation also felt it was within the mission of the IC to address the issue.  However my support for that abated, when the unelected co-chairs of this committee kicked Mike off the election committee. 

As I wrote to Julia at that time,
"What I am doing is questioning the procedure. When I was on elections committee for NWC, I did have the responsibility to verify eligibility to vote. When Mike and I and Jay were on the credentialing committee for the convention, we were responsible for verifying voting eligibility. How is what Mike doing that different? I know he can also be a real stickler for bylaws. He is trying to defend the concept of two year terms. I suspect that some may think that he has his own agenda for the outcome of the election and that is why he is pushing the concept of terms and timeliness, but we in the GP have been slack on this issue. I don't understand why it is not the responsibility of an elections subcommittee to verify eligibility of voters. I also question your ability to continue to act as co-chair, when your terms, by your own rules, are up." 



Jay Parks agreed with Mike that they should be verifying who is eligible to vote, but he was not kicked off the committee. Maybe he is not as ‘threatening’ as Mike and doesn't have as much history with this committee’s in-crowd as Mike, but I thought the IC wasn’t supposed to be about personalities or censoring whistle-blowers. I giveJay a lot of credit – he had the integrity to remove himself from the electoral committee and stated his many concerns about the election process in doing so.



I was also deeply concerned at how the election was held.  I was concerned that after people began submitting their votes, they were told that whoever got the most votes would get the two year term and the second candidate the one year term – and this was just announced to us without discussion and has no precedent in the IC rules, which call for electing the Co-chair seats separated in staggered terms.  

I strongly felt that in this transition person, Justine, whose term was up in August 2007(!), should have offered to run for the remaining time on her unelected 2007-2009 term and give the IC a chance for some new leadership ..Instead the way the election process was altered ended up limiting Steve instead. Everything I have read from him has been quite encouraging.  But I did not feel the election procedures were legitimate, so did not choose to vote.  I felt I could not in all honesty even abstain.  I was appalled when I was told by Tony that I, and several others who had not voted, were considered as having "participated" in the election because we commented on it....when it was reported to the NC that there was 2/3 participation in this election.


So only about two dozen people really participated in this election....and these same people feel they have a right to make international policy for GPUS.  The fact that the Gaza proposal was so delayed point again to a lack of a clear online discussion/voting procedure.  A straw poll was taken....and then, shockingly again, there was inference that the IC felt that they could just go with the intent of the straw poll and not even bring it to a formal committee vote.  And then there is the talk in the IC, that it is felt that because of Resolution 190, the IC does not have to bring this important new statement to a vote by the NC.  Certainly 190 gave an indication of the strong GPUS support for the plight of the Palestinians, but it does not cover the full intent of the Gaza proposal. As both an IC and SC member,  and I strongly feel it must be submitted to the NC for approval.  

After my March draft of this letter, the IC did set up a procedure to vote on the Gaza proposal after IC leadership finally agreed that it needed to at least bring it to the SC for approval rather than just issue it independently, and was willing to let the SC decide whether or not it needed to go to the NC.  However that statement that it would be sent to the SC was not included in the proposal so I felt that I could not vote on it.  At the end of the vote it was reported to the IC and SC that "I refused" to vote.  I had a long "talk" with Steve. I told him that I had never seen a GPUS vote that included more than yes, no and abstain, and that I was not comfortable with the connotation that I had refused to vote.  He agreed to change that language to my declining to vote.

Talking about international policy, that brings me back to the death penalty.  I had a long talk with Tony back in October and understood what he and Julia believed to be a diplomatic approach, and that they believed Mike was sabotaging that effort. (Of course now Julia is arguing that she never heard about Mike’s proposal until November 5th, but that is another story). With a little white liberal guilt, I bought into their argument that the US and Europe should not be like white colonialists, laying out their imperialistic values on Mexico.... but David McCorquodale rebuttted this well in his recent post to the NC discussion list:


Julia,

I have to disagree with the sentiment you are expressing in the below
copied paragraph.  We do not represent the United States, but GPUS.
we don't have the imperial power to the U.S. military to enforce
"dominance" and I can't accept the suggestion that because we are
from the United States, we can't criticize a Green party in another country.
European Greens don't represent colonial powers, but their parties.
We are speaking Green Party to Green Party.  Support for the death
penalty is inimical to our values.

David McCorquodale
GPDE delegate



I agreed and supported Proposal 382 when it went to a vote. We are not the US government, we are part of the family of Green Parites world wide and have to confront each other within that family.  Within the US, we are just a minor political party that has nothing to stand on but our values.  Non-violence is one of our strongest values, and we have an unequivocal stand against the death penalty.  Besides, Mexico agreed to that stance when they signed the Global Charter.  I am very sympathetic to the extreme violence in Mexico currently, but we all know that the death penalty is neither a disincentive nor a solution to that violence.  

Ironically, for all the talk of diplomacy last October, the GPCA’s resolution is very diplomatic, in that it doesn't rub the Mexican Greens’ nose in the issue by naming them directly, nor by threatening their expulsion from the FPVA. Rather it makes a more general statement that the GPUS opposes the death penalty and expects the same from all other FPVA members who signed the Global Charter. In this way the GPUS would be taking a principled high road in this very necessary dialogue, yet not retreating from standing behind our values when Green Parties around the world have been contacting us to ask what is going on with our Green neighbors to the south.. 

Of course as US citizens, we also have to address US imperialism where it exists. In this case, we would be at fault if we didn't also acknowledge that it is our country's appetite for drugs that fuels much of the violence. 



As for how the IC has been representing the GPUS on this issue, a a couple of weeks ago, I thought, ‘gee Tony and Julia and the rest of our delegation must have written the IC either before or while they were in Canada and asked our input on some issues, maybe even the volatile Mexican death penalty, and I must have missed it.’ Well I did a search, and I was appalled that it was NEVER mentioned to this body. No draft agenda for the FPVA meeting was circulated to the IC beforehand, nor was the IC consulted on whether there were any issues we wanted our Delegates to submit to the draft agenda process, nor was there a request from IC members about whether the IC wanted the Delegates to address death penalty issue on behalf of the IC. I know I have read a few responses from folks more recently that they might have handled it differently, but we were never consulted.  Again, I am concerned about the power to make decisions for all of us made by a very small in crowd in the International Committee and it has been going on for years.  I know those folks are hard working, and mostly do it on their "own dime" and I have been looking forward to retiring and hoping I could get more involved internationally.  I think I didn't say some of this earlier, because I hoped those "big kids" would let me play when I had the time.


Basically, although I have expressed great concerns about the process here, I also have great admiration for Julia, Justine, Tony Affigne, John Rensenbrink and others who have been the backbone of the IC, and GPUS, for many years.... but I also admire Mike Feinstein .... though his power, or need for power, has sometimes intimidated me.  The Green Party would not have grown as it has without these powerful leaders, and to talk about Mike being simply divisive and destructive is not worthy of you, John.  Put the shoe on the other foot, and who is being controlling?

Finally I want to say that I have extreme concerns when people talk about the proposal by BRPP as ‘interfering with the internal affairs of the IC.’  The IC exists only as it is accountable to the NC. Its practices are not the ‘internal affairs’ of the IC, but are the affairs of the NC and the GPUS as a whole. As a fan of the IC, I unfortunately must conclude that the attitude of many IC members appears to be that the IC has the right to do whatever it wants without accountability to rules or the party as a whole – and this seems to exist on both levels of policy and practice.

Please don’t miss that this is a growing concern among NC members – not just in my state party but in others as well. The outright rejection of the BRPP’s effort will only add fuel to this.  Whether or not IC members can win procedural fights to stop the BRPP draft from advancing, the unnecessary ill-will and time wasted will not serve our party.  Already the lack of Green process regarding the co-chair elections (let alone the overdue FPVA delegate elections) has weakened the IC. 

I encourage you in the strongest terms to look at the BRPP draft with an objective eye, suggest amendments, and only oppose it when it gets to the NC, if it truly would not advance the international work of the GPUS, and not because it is a proxy for personality fights which do no one any good.

Respectfully,
Sanda Everette, GPCA delegate to GPUS International Committee






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20090418/8b5777c9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00000
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20090418/8b5777c9/attachment.ksh>