[Peace-discussion] FW: [GPUS-PAX] Re: [usgp-media] Re: GPAX Press Release

[Joni LeViness]

This was talked about on the media release list.
as well as the following:
190 might be clear in its statement, and in its charge to the GPAX, but it
is not clear that that gives GPAX or any other committee blanket authority
to make endorsements.  If that were the case, the proposal would have said
so and the GNC would have had an opportunity to make that clear.  They did
not.

If GPAX wants to amend 190, or its PNP's, they are free to introduce a
proposal to that effect.  Otherwise, if they had simply followed procedure
and submitted the endorsement to the SC for quick approval then none of
this, including the LC objection, would be an issue. 
 I've yet to hear an SC member voice opposition to this endorsement and I'm
sure the approval would have taken place within 24-48 hours. 
 Instead this is now dragging on for 3 weeks and there still won't be a
press release announcing GPAX's endorsement.

Not sure why the prodecures in place, that every other committee respects
and honors in relation to endorsements, isn't good enough for GPAX.  Your
insistance that GPAX, above all other committees, is not accountable to the
GNC has only caused more delay, confusion and frustration when none of it
was necessary.

Marc Sanson
Co-chair, Green Party of the U.S.
Campaign Manager, Rae Vogeler for U.S. Senate msanson@gp.org
217-415-7641

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:04:41 -0500
  "Joni LeViness" <myths16@cox.net> wrote:
> My points interspersed below with*
>For those on this committee and list who are here to edit and pass 
>press  releases, i apologize for all the discussion, but it needs to 
>take place.
>For those with no time to read further, i would just like to say that 
>190 is  very clear in it's statement, when it comes to press releases 
>the gpus must  be steadfast in it's resonance with that statement.
> Peace,
> joni
*after re reading this, i came off pretty hard headed on this, which wasn't
my
intention...but there we go. All in all endorsements and procedures have
definitely 
got to be revisited by gpax!


-----Original Message-----
From: peace-admin@lists.gp-us.org [mailto:peace-admin@lists.gp-us.org] On
Behalf Of Marc Sanson
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 1:27 AM
To: michelle; peace@gp-us.org
Cc: Joni LeViness; 'Aimee Smith'; hhart@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu; 'Nan Garrett';
'Scott McLarty'; office@gp.org; starlene@greens.org; brent@gp.org;
usgp-media@gp-us.org; jakeschneider@myexcel.com; gwenwages@gmail.com;
jodyhaug@hotmail.com; prop190@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GPUS-PAX] Re: [usgp-media] Re: GPAX Press Release

Apparently the previous posts had been forwarded to prop190@yahoogroups.com
and peace@gp-us.org, which I cannot post to. 
 I'd be grateful if someone could forward the reply.
Marc Sanson
Co-chair, Green Party of the U.S.

---

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:11:39 -0600
"Marc Sanson" <msanson@gp.org> wrote:

--- Michelle J. Kinnucan <michelle@usol.com> wrote:
> The NC has explicitly endorsed boycotts against Israel and has 
> directed GPAX to implement Res. 190 and GPAX has done so.

I don't dispute that. Nor do I think your argument is without merit. 
Yet I'm not convinced that gives a committee blanket authority to endorse
every event, action or organization related to the issue.

But in the case of this press release it doesn't really matter, because the
SC needs to approve releases anyway.

> The delay of the press release on strained--at best --procedural 
> grounds is ridiculous and gives opponents of Res. 190 an unfair and 
> undemocratic opportunity to thwart established GPUS policy.

No one I'm aware of is delaying this release. In fact I've yet to hear
anyone express a concern with the endorsement. I really don't care if we are
approving the endorsment in the form of a proposal or in the form of a
release. Once I see a draft sent out for approval, I'd likely approve it.

But a little more explanation of the endorsement would have been helpful,
and a casual proposal beforehand would have been customary. 
It was an odd route for this to travel the media committee, and didn't come
with much explanation or background for the SC to work with. I think both
had legitimate questions and concerns, and see no basis for the
characterization above nor the general tone of this thread.

Marc Sanson
Co-chair, Green Party of the U.S.
msanson@gp.org
_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace@lists.gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace