[Peace-discussion] RE: [usgp-nc] [GPUS-PAX] Re: GP-US Committees making endorsements
Joni LeViness
myths16@cox.net
Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:32:49 -0600
There are two conversations going on here, I'm just catching up on email
and saw this thread, the common thread is Definiton: Definition of Caucus,
Committee and Action Committee.
It seems that these definitions may need to grow as the party grows.
I signed onto GPAX after listening in on a few calls and energized by the
sense of empowerment within the Peace and Justice Community...i was under
the impression it was already an accredited committee, for over a year I've
seen that we as individuals Drawn to GPAX because they resonate with the
idea to be part of a larger whole that embodies our political beliefs, are
not "legal" with that larger whole, I've seen Good, Really Good people come
and go only to come back again, seemingly looking to see if we could operate
within a framework or if we were still in a jumble in regards to NC standing
and indeed within GPAX as knowing for whether or not we can or can Not do
things. As the secretary and Aimee and Ann as co chairs have been working
hard on turning this around within our p and p's and our mission statement
while taking into concerns raised by Mato and others. What it comes down to
each time tho is How are Committees Defined in GPUS bylaws? Frankly What are
the parameters of an Action Committee? If those aren't clear we come through
frustrations, such as th 10% you read on this list and the 90% that we at
GPAX have been dealing with with a flux of individuals *brave and active
Activists looking for a home with our party.
My Question: How do we resolve this?
Peace,
Joni LeViness
gPAX secretary
-----Original Message-----
From: natlcomvotes-bounces@green.gpus.org
[mailto:natlcomvotes-bounces@green.gpus.org] On Behalf Of David McCorquodale
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:12 PM
To: USGP-COO@gp-us.org
Subject: Re: [usgp-nc] [GPUS-PAX] Re: GP-US Committees making endorsements
Roger, Let's get down to basic definitions:
Caucus: A group within a legislative or
decision-making body seeking to represent a specific interest or influence a
particular area of policy.
Committee: A group of people officially delegated to perform a function,
such as investigating, considering, reporting, or acting on a matter.
By definition a caucus takes advocacy positions. It doesn't have to be
written into the rules; it's right to do this is in the nature of being a
caucus. When the Congressional Black Caucus takes a position, no one is
foolish enough to think it represents the House of Representatives as a
whole.
Farthermore, caucuses are created to influence the internal policies of an
organization, which can then influence the public stances the organization
takes.
I am not aware of an instance when a GPUS caucus has attempted to present a
pulic statement that could be misinterpreted as representing GPUS as a
whole.
GPUS didn't create the Women's Committee or the Disability Comm. It created
caucuses.
David McCorquodale
Delaware
--- Roger Snyder <rogersnyder@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/07 16:50, "David McCorquodale" wrote:
>
> > Roger,
> > You're having a little fun with this question.
> > Right?
>
> No, it is a serious question. The first discussion begs the
> question of this second.
>
> As has been said of committees, if a GP-US caucus makes a
> endorsement, it will be seen as if the GP-US makes an endorsement.
>
> >
> > It's pretty obvious
>
> Actually, I don't see it as any more or less obvious than as is
> the situation concerning committees.
>
> > that once a caucus has been
> > approved, it has the rights of a state party
> within
> > GPUS.
>
> I don't see that in the rules. What seems more to be the case is
> what Holly Hart was leading to, " Caucuses = state party, in this
> regard." That is causes are like state parties in some regards.
>
> But states Green parties are Green Parties.
> GP-US caucus are caucuses of
> the Green party of the US. They are not independent parties; not
> parties at all.
>
> > Unlike a committee, state parties and, therfore, caucuses have the
> > right to make their
> own
> > endorsements on positions without consulting the
> NC(or
> > the SC).
>
> I can see the GP-US making a rule that said this was so, but I
> don't see such rule. Perhaps I can be informed of such?
>
> It seems to me that the caucus situation is analogous to what
> Holly says the committee situation is.
>
> It would be good to have clarity on all, based on the bylaws, not
> just say so.
>
> -Roger
>
>
> >
> > David McCorquodale
> > Delaware
> >
> > --- Roger Snyder <rogersnyder@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This includes caucuses also?
> >>
> >> -Roger
> >>
> >> On 2/22/07 11:19, "hhart@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu"
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some people may be confused, but the policy can
> >> hardly be "interpreted"
> >>> any way else. The few items the NC does *not*
> >> approve are
> >>> specifically spelled out. It follows that the
> >> absence of any
> >>> specifation for one or all GPUS committees would
> >> be a pretty clear
> >>> indication that they go through the same
> approval
> >> process and
> >>> everything else. Nowhere is it specified that
> >> committees grant their
> >>> own endorsements or policy.
> >>>
> >>> Outside of a few individuals who demand their
> >> "right" to use a
> >>> particular committee or type of activity as a
> >> vehicle for
> >>> self-expression or policies that have failed to
> >> gain general NC
> >>> support, no GPUS committee except GPAX seems to
> >> have had difficulty
> >>> understanding this this policy. Concern over
> >> that, along with the
> >>> lack of the usual policy included in most other
> >> committee P&P's,
> >>> prompted GPAX to promise last August to come up
> >> with a clear mission
> >>> statement and revised P&P's. They were written
> up
> >> and sent to me and
> >>> Jody Grage for the voting queue, then pulled at
> >> the direction of one
> >>> of the committee co-chairs. Can someone on GPAX
> >> explain the hold-up?
> >>>
> >>> Holly Hart
> >>> Secretary, GPUS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Elena Everett
> <greentararaider@yahoo.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> The policy is not clear regarding committee
> >> endorsements -- this
> >>>> issue has been debated several times within the
> >> NC over the past
> >>>> year and the only thing that *is* clear is that
> >> people are divided
> >>>> over the interpretation. As Aimee points out,
> we
> >> really need a
> >>>> solid proposal clarifying the policy to be
> >> brought before the NC -
> >>>> some folks are working on such a proposal, but
> in
> >> the meantime, it's
> >>>> not accurate to say that the policy is clear.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>> Elena Everett
> >>>> Alt, North Carolina
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>>> From: "hhart@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu"
> >> <hhart@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
> >>>> To: alsmith@hvgreens.org
> >>>> Cc: natlcomvotes@green.gpus.org;
> peace@gp-us.org
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:12:46 AM
> >>>> Subject: [GPUS-PAX] Re: [usgp-nc] GP-US
> >> Committees making endorsements
> >>>>
> >>>> You avoided addressing my response: a
> committee
> >> is created for
> >>>> specific purposes and is responsible and
> >> accountable to a particular
> >>>> organization. There is nothing that grants GPUS
> >> committees to endorse
> >>>> anything separately from the GPUS and/or
> outside
> >> the specified
> >>>> endorsement process, unless I missed some
> really
> >> tiny print. And as a
> >>>> matter of practical concern, any GPUS committee
> >> will be understood by
> >>>> any reasonable person to be speaking on behalf
> of
> >> the GPUS.
> >>>>
> >>>> The policy is clear. My feelings have nothing
> to
> >> do with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Holly Hart
> >>>> Secretary, GPUS
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Quoting alsmith@hvgreens.org:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear Holly,
> >>>>> I did read it rather carefully. I read the
> >> bylaws doc here:
> >>>>> http://www.gp.org/documents/bylaws.shtml
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and the Rules and Procedures doc here:
> >>>>> http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They are both silent on the point of
> subentities
> >> endorsing or
> >>>>> acting on behalf of that subentity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is fine for you to feel it *should* be one
> >> way, but you
> >>>>> claimed these documents were clear on the
> point
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________
________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Natlcomvotes mailing list
To send a message to the list, write to:
Natlcomvotes@green.gpus.org
To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes
If your state delegation changes, please see:
http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html
For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:
http://gp.org/committees/nc/