From gerritt@mindspring.com Wed Feb 16 11:17:04 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 24194 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2005 11:17:03 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao02.cox.net (68.230.240.37) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 16 Feb 2005 11:17:03 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050216111633.RKNN22208.lakermmtao02.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:16:33 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:16:21 -0500 From: Greg Gerritt To: Presidential Nominating WG Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [Pnp-wg] test Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: From gerritt@mindspring.com Wed Feb 16 11:18:40 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 24238 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2005 11:18:39 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao12.cox.net (68.230.240.27) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 16 Feb 2005 11:18:39 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050216111809.SBNA20159.lakermmtao12.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:18:09 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:18:09 -0500 From: Greg Gerritt To: Presidential Nominating WG Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [Pnp-wg] start the show Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Forthe archives. Lets start this process. greg From gerritt@mindspring.com Thu Feb 17 09:56:32 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 32501 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2005 09:56:32 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao10.cox.net (68.230.240.29) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 17 Feb 2005 09:56:32 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050217095559.HIFP17761.lakermmtao10.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:55:59 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:55:16 -0500 From: Greg Gerritt To: Presidential Nominating WG Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [Pnp-wg] getting started Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: About 75% of the people who are signed up for the working group have signed up for the list, hopefully everyone will be signed up soon. But as we have tight deadlines we might as well get started. First let me note that while I will manage the list for the wg, I do not think it appropriate that I manage the wg. But I do believe we need some sort of management. Either co chairs, or an idea that came to me last night, maybe rotating co chairs, such as every two weeks 2 new people manage the process of the wg, keeping us on task. As for the actual substance of our work, it might be helpful to review what we actually know about the processin 2004, one to refresh our memories, two to help get up to speed those who were not intimately involved in the process between 2002 and 2004. When we organize ourselves I hope that is the first task on the agenda. Just so you all know, since november I have been writing a book on the Green party presidential process from 2002 to 2005. I have finished the first draft and am editing now. It should be done by april. I have therefore pondered the process considerably and it will influence what I say in this wg. It is the fact that I have been writing so extensively about the Green Party process that encouraged my state party to nominate me for the wg. greg gerritt From phil@mcleancountygreens.org Fri Feb 18 21:27:43 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 22574 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2005 21:27:43 -0000 Received: from chococat.sd.dreamhost.com (postfix@66.33.201.151) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2005 21:27:43 -0000 Received: from webmail.mcleancountygreens.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chococat.sd.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1183E10039 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:27:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from 198.92.227.126 (SquirrelMail authenticated user phil@mcleancountygreens.org) by webmail.mcleancountygreens.org with HTTP; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:27:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <31189.198.92.227.126.1108762062.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:27:42 -0600 (CST) From: "Phil Huckelberry" To: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org User-Agent: DreamHost Webmail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I wanted to offer a few remarks about the working group and where we could be going. I'll keep them relatively brief. First, I should note that I was and still am a member of the Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) and am also a member of the Bylaws, Rules, Policies & Procedures Committee (BRPP). I was one of the first people to start formally tackling the issue of the Floor Rules for the national convention. I believe that in evaluating the entirety of the Presidential Nominating Process, we have to break it down into various components: * The actual nominating rules (floor rules) used at the convention. * The delegate apportionments for the convention. * Other matters related to the conduct of the national convention, including but not limited to matters involving site selection, time alotted for things, etc. * The national party's handling of the "primary" season. * The different ways that state parties conducted votes. * The work of the Presidential Exploratory Committee (PEC). * Other national party matters that preceded the "primary" season. * The roles of various candidates and outside groups. Many of the complaints, especially in the aftermath of the Milwaukee convention, related to either the floor rules or the delegate apportionments. But to focus on these is to lose sight of the big picture. The floor rules must be understood in the context in which they were drafted - after some state "primaries" had already begun, with little to no comprehension of how state parties were handling things like binding delegates, with rampant confusion about the intentions of the Nader campaign. Charges that the floor rules were somehow "fixed" to block Nader are categorically false. But I think we must agree that a number of confusing matters slammed together that soured the relationship between the party and the Nader camp - and I think we have to start at the beginning. Specifically, I feel that the national party's overall handling of the presidential preference process (or "primary season") was horrendous. State parties were horribly confused regarding basic matters like who the candidates were, how delegate votes should be bound - they were routinely told to do it however they saw fit, and then a lot of them got grief for it after the fact. The lack of national-level coordination regarding primaries and the confusion over who the candidates were contributed to woefully low turnouts at state conventions. Many state parties were unprepared to deal with a lot of issues and very few attempted things like mail-in ballots. It is my opinion that the bulk of the problems with our process in 2004 can be traced to things that happened before January 1, 2004, including a confusing "exploratory" process, the refusal/inability of the national party to clearly designate up front that a nominee would be selected (which created the NOTA mess), the refusal of the national party to assist state parties with putting together rules, the ridiculous wait until after the first of the year to tackle floor rules questions, and much more. The national party dropped the ball in 2002 and 2003, and this led to the mess we had to deal with in 2004. Rather than focus narrowly on the particulars of the mess of 2004, we need to start with what went wrong in 2002 and 2003. As I said, my comments here are kept relatively brief. I look forward to seeing more initial feedback from all of you. Phil Huckelberry Co-Chair, Illinois Green Party Delegate, GPUS From fx2386@peoplepc.com Sun Feb 20 22:01:27 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 12725 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2005 22:01:27 -0000 Received: from jacob.mail.atl.earthlink.net (207.69.200.63) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2005 22:01:27 -0000 Received: from user-2injl2b.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.212.75] helo=fred029g823e48) by jacob.mail.atl.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1D2z8l-00062I-00 for pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:01:24 -0500 Message-ID: <001201c51797$b1e088b0$0501a8c0@fred029g823e48> From: "Fred" To: References: <31189.198.92.227.126.1108762062.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:45:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I think that Phil raises a good list of items that we should discuss. It seems to me we need to start from the place of the Green Party in the upcoming elections 2006 and 2008. What is the place of the Green Party nationally in the changing political scene? I think the Green Party occupies a unique place. We are the only national electoral alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties, the parties of corporate domination. In this way we occupy a unique role in the political life of the country. We are the only national electoral expression for progressive social movements -- the antiwar movement, the pro-choice movement, social justice movements. And of course, we are the only electoral alternative for millions of people in the U.S. who are sick of Bush, the Democrats and the Republicans. At the same time, we are very much a party with potential as opposed to actual ability to be this national electoral alternative. It has been very difficult, actually impossible, for the Greens to mount a serious nation-wide campaign -- anyone who was intimately involved in either of the Nader campaigns or the Cobb campaigns knows this is true. All the campaigns failed to be really national campaigns. So I think we need to discuss a little about what are our goals in the 2008 elections for the presidential campaign before we can work through the important questions that Phil raises. These goals should be based on the recognition that it is extremely unlikely that a Green will win the election. The goals may be expressed in things like a very clear electoral platform that speaks both to the progressive movements and to constituencies in the country that we wish especially to reach, influence and/or recruit. They may include special efforts to gather information from the states that might help making a more organic and synergistic link politically and organizationally between the national campaign and the state and local campaigns, including prominent local candidates. They may include projected financial goals. They may include a systematic literature effort and plan for the progressive media to address key questions that we know will come up, for example: whether a Green presidential campaign is the best response to the Democrats or Republicans or whether we should have a different, nuanced strategy; recognizing that discussion will take place inside the Green Party as well outside it. We should be developing our process so that we act commensurate with the resources we have, not those we would like to have. I hope that Green Party candidates are announcing much earlier than last time and that we have our convention in late 2007. These thoughts are meant to spur discussion and not limit it or raise the temperature of it. Fred Michigan Green Party ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Huckelberry" To: Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:27 PM Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments I wanted to offer a few remarks about the working group and where we could be going. I'll keep them relatively brief. First, I should note that I was and still am a member of the Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) and am also a member of the Bylaws, Rules, Policies & Procedures Committee (BRPP). I was one of the first people to start formally tackling the issue of the Floor Rules for the national convention. I believe that in evaluating the entirety of the Presidential Nominating Process, we have to break it down into various components: * The actual nominating rules (floor rules) used at the convention. * The delegate apportionments for the convention. * Other matters related to the conduct of the national convention, including but not limited to matters involving site selection, time alotted for things, etc. * The national party's handling of the "primary" season. * The different ways that state parties conducted votes. * The work of the Presidential Exploratory Committee (PEC). * Other national party matters that preceded the "primary" season. * The roles of various candidates and outside groups. Many of the complaints, especially in the aftermath of the Milwaukee convention, related to either the floor rules or the delegate apportionments. But to focus on these is to lose sight of the big picture. The floor rules must be understood in the context in which they were drafted - after some state "primaries" had already begun, with little to no comprehension of how state parties were handling things like binding delegates, with rampant confusion about the intentions of the Nader campaign. Charges that the floor rules were somehow "fixed" to block Nader are categorically false. But I think we must agree that a number of confusing matters slammed together that soured the relationship between the party and the Nader camp - and I think we have to start at the beginning. Specifically, I feel that the national party's overall handling of the presidential preference process (or "primary season") was horrendous. State parties were horribly confused regarding basic matters like who the candidates were, how delegate votes should be bound - they were routinely told to do it however they saw fit, and then a lot of them got grief for it after the fact. The lack of national-level coordination regarding primaries and the confusion over who the candidates were contributed to woefully low turnouts at state conventions. Many state parties were unprepared to deal with a lot of issues and very few attempted things like mail-in ballots. It is my opinion that the bulk of the problems with our process in 2004 can be traced to things that happened before January 1, 2004, including a confusing "exploratory" process, the refusal/inability of the national party to clearly designate up front that a nominee would be selected (which created the NOTA mess), the refusal of the national party to assist state parties with putting together rules, the ridiculous wait until after the first of the year to tackle floor rules questions, and much more. The national party dropped the ball in 2002 and 2003, and this led to the mess we had to deal with in 2004. Rather than focus narrowly on the particulars of the mess of 2004, we need to start with what went wrong in 2002 and 2003. As I said, my comments here are kept relatively brief. I look forward to seeing more initial feedback from all of you. Phil Huckelberry Co-Chair, Illinois Green Party Delegate, GPUS _______________________________________________ Pnp-wg mailing list Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg From gerritt@mindspring.com Sun Feb 20 22:51:51 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 14666 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2005 22:51:51 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao03.cox.net (68.230.240.36) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2005 22:51:51 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050220225123.RTIB4448.lakermmtao03.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:51:23 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:51:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments From: Greg Gerritt To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001201c51797$b1e088b0$0501a8c0@fred029g823e48> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I think we need to do several things. ONe is coordinate ourselves so that we can move through our work somwhat systematically. SEcond we might want to review what the proces swas for the early stages last time. If folks like I can provide something of an outline. third we ned to think clealry, as Fred notes, about our goals for 2008 so we can think about how we shall get there. greg > From: "Fred" > Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:45:02 -0500 > To: > Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments > > I think that Phil raises a good list of items that we should discuss. > > It seems to me we need to start from the place of the Green Party in the > upcoming elections 2006 and 2008. What is the place of the Green Party > nationally in the changing political scene? > > I think the Green Party occupies a unique place. We are the only national > electoral alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties, the parties > of corporate domination. In this way we occupy a unique role in the > political life of the country. > > We are the only national electoral expression for progressive social > movements -- the antiwar movement, the pro-choice movement, social justice > movements. And of course, we are the only electoral alternative for millions > of people in the U.S. who are sick of Bush, the Democrats and the > Republicans. > > At the same time, we are very much a party with potential as opposed to > actual ability to be this national electoral alternative. It has been very > difficult, actually impossible, for the Greens to mount a serious > nation-wide campaign -- anyone who was intimately involved in either of the > Nader campaigns or the Cobb campaigns knows this is true. All the campaigns > failed to be really national campaigns. > > So I think we need to discuss a little about what are our goals in the 2008 > elections for the presidential campaign before we can work through the > important questions that Phil raises. > > These goals should be based on the recognition that it is extremely unlikely > that a Green will win the election. The goals may be expressed in things > like a very clear electoral platform that speaks both to the progressive > movements and to constituencies in the country that we wish especially to > reach, influence and/or recruit. They may include special efforts to gather > information from the states that might help making a more organic and > synergistic link politically and organizationally between the national > campaign and the state and local campaigns, including prominent local > candidates. They may include projected financial goals. They may include a > systematic literature effort and plan for the progressive media to address > key questions that we know will come up, for example: whether a Green > presidential campaign is the best response to the Democrats or Republicans > or whether we should have a different, nuanced strategy; recognizing that > discussion will take place inside the Green Party as well outside it. > > We should be developing our process so that we act commensurate with the > resources we have, not those we would like to have. I hope that Green Party > candidates are announcing much earlier than last time and that we have our > convention in late 2007. > > These thoughts are meant to spur discussion and not limit it or raise the > temperature of it. > > Fred > Michigan Green Party > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil Huckelberry" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:27 PM > Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments > > > I wanted to offer a few remarks about the working group and where we could > be going. I'll keep them relatively brief. > > First, I should note that I was and still am a member of the Presidential > Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) and am also a member of the Bylaws, > Rules, Policies & Procedures Committee (BRPP). I was one of the first > people to start formally tackling the issue of the Floor Rules for the > national convention. > > I believe that in evaluating the entirety of the Presidential Nominating > Process, we have to break it down into various components: > > * The actual nominating rules (floor rules) used at the convention. > * The delegate apportionments for the convention. > * Other matters related to the conduct of the national convention, > including but not limited to matters involving site selection, time > alotted for things, etc. > * The national party's handling of the "primary" season. > * The different ways that state parties conducted votes. > * The work of the Presidential Exploratory Committee (PEC). > * Other national party matters that preceded the "primary" season. > * The roles of various candidates and outside groups. > > Many of the complaints, especially in the aftermath of the Milwaukee > convention, related to either the floor rules or the delegate > apportionments. But to focus on these is to lose sight of the big > picture. The floor rules must be understood in the context in which they > were drafted - after some state "primaries" had already begun, with little > to no comprehension of how state parties were handling things like binding > delegates, with rampant confusion about the intentions of the Nader > campaign. Charges that the floor rules were somehow "fixed" to block > Nader are categorically false. But I think we must agree that a number of > confusing matters slammed together that soured the relationship between > the party and the Nader camp - and I think we have to start at the > beginning. > > Specifically, I feel that the national party's overall handling of the > presidential preference process (or "primary season") was horrendous. > State parties were horribly confused regarding basic matters like who the > candidates were, how delegate votes should be bound - they were routinely > told to do it however they saw fit, and then a lot of them got grief for > it after the fact. The lack of national-level coordination regarding > primaries and the confusion over who the candidates were contributed to > woefully low turnouts at state conventions. Many state parties were > unprepared to deal with a lot of issues and very few attempted things like > mail-in ballots. It is my opinion that the bulk of the problems with our > process in 2004 can be traced to things that happened before January 1, > 2004, including a confusing "exploratory" process, the refusal/inability > of the national party to clearly designate up front that a nominee would > be selected (which created the NOTA mess), the refusal of the national > party to assist state parties with putting together rules, the ridiculous > wait until after the first of the year to tackle floor rules questions, > and much more. The national party dropped the ball in 2002 and 2003, and > this led to the mess we had to deal with in 2004. Rather than focus > narrowly on the particulars of the mess of 2004, we need to start with > what went wrong in 2002 and 2003. > > As I said, my comments here are kept relatively brief. I look forward to > seeing more initial feedback from all of you. > > Phil Huckelberry > Co-Chair, Illinois Green Party > Delegate, GPUS > _______________________________________________ > Pnp-wg mailing list > Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg > > _______________________________________________ > Pnp-wg mailing list > Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg From corvallisgeorge@comcast.net Mon Feb 21 05:30:50 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 1754 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2005 05:30:49 -0000 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (204.127.202.55) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2005 05:30:49 -0000 Received: from georgehky0mwib (c-24-22-20-4.client.comcast.net[24.22.20.4]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2005022105301901100su8ppe>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:30:20 +0000 From: "George Grosch" To: "'Greg Gerritt'" , Subject: RE: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:35:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcUXnsqG71bGwq+LRq68FjtygWYKzwANA0sg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Greg and Company I like the idea of Greg going back and developing a timeline from the last election cycle so we can discuss how to best meet the needs of the next General Election cycle. I appreciate Fred's comments and agree with much of what he says but would like to offer some comments as to the assumptions he makes: "It has been very difficult, actually impossible, for the Greens to mount a serious nation-wide campaign -- anyone who was intimately involved in either of the Nader campaigns or the Cobb campaigns knows this is true. All the campaigns failed to be really national campaigns." Yes it has been hard for Greens to mount a serious national campaign but for the purposes of planning I am assuming that part of what we are charged to do includes setting a clear path to running a truly national campaign. "So I think we need to discuss a little about what are our goals in the 2008 elections for the presidential campaign before we can work through the important questions that Phil raises. These goals should be based on the recognition that it is extremely unlikely that a Green will win the election." I agree we need goals but I am opposed to basing those goals on a presumption of not being able to win. Our strategy should assume and frame the circumstances under which a Green Candidate could win. As an elected official I always understand that I can lose an election but I always run to win. If the day ever comes when I run to make a point without the incentive or desire to win I will retire. We should expect no more or less from our parties candidate. To do so would be to insult the intelligence of the candidate and the electorate. "The goals may be expressed in things like a very clear electoral platform that speaks both to the progressive movements and to constituencies in the country that we wish especially to reach, influence and/or recruit. They may include special efforts to gather information from the states that might help making a more organic and synergistic link politically and organizationally between the national campaign and the state and local campaigns, including prominent local candidates. They may include projected financial goals. They may include a systematic literature effort and plan for the progressive media to address key questions that we know will come up, for example: whether a Green presidential campaign is the best response to the Democrats or Republicans or whether we should have a different, nuanced strategy; recognizing that discussion will take place inside the Green Party as well outside it." All good ideas that should be considered for discussion. "We should be developing our process so that we act commensurate with the resources we have, not those we would like to have. I hope that Green Party candidates are announcing much earlier than last time and that we have our convention in late 2007." Agreed, although the candidate has some power to influence the amount of money available for the campaign. We must remember that we are the party with Grassroots Democracy as a core value and we can use that to our advantage to run and win at the national level. I believe that no amount of money can beat a grassroots movement with a mobilized electorate ad well organized campaign. When the people of America begin to take up the cause of the Green Party the media and money will follow. My set of assumptions about the process and product: * Greens can and will win at the national level * People follow LEADERS who articulate VALUES that represent their values and GREEN VALUES (Ten Core Principles) ARE the values of America! * Greens can win at the national level without money and major media exposure * To accomplish this we must develop a national strategy that builds the Green Movement by registering voters, building state Green Parties, and getting ballot access in all 50 states. Our job is to help clear the path to building this movement. Look at the reform movement of the Progressive era, no money, no media, just feet on the street in city after city, factory after factory, mine after mine...We are the grandchildren of that movement and we can and will win. Thanks for listening. I look forward to working with all of you. George Grosch Pacific Green Party Corvallis Oregon --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From forrest_hill@comcast.net Mon Feb 21 17:39:55 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 27522 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2005 17:39:55 -0000 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (204.127.202.55) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2005 17:39:55 -0000 Received: from comcast.net (c-24-4-35-99.client.comcast.net[24.4.35.99]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2005022117392401100t07voe>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:39:24 +0000 Message-ID: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:39:26 -0800 From: Forrest Hill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi All, I would like to echo George's support for Greg developing a time line form the last election cycle. I also agree with Fred that we need to be clear on what our goals are for the 2008 campaign. In that spirit i offer the following 2 comments on the Presidential race 1. The reasons for running a presidential campaign: This is simple - to build the party. Building the party means creating enough excitement that those who are currently not registered Green want to get involved in the campaign, even though we can't win. This is particularly important for bringing in youth into the party. Building the party also means creating enough of a media presence so those who aren't willing to jump ship yet (and vote third party) know we exist. Once we have lost the attention of the national conscience, the party will decline, no matter how well we do at the national level (current examples are the New and Reform Parties, but history is littered with this same result). A visible presidential campaign will also help us maintian ballot access. 2. The logistics of running a viable Campaign: We must be honest with ourselves. The Green Party does "not" have the resources on its own to run a viable presidential campaign. The problem with our last campaign was not David Cobb's candidacy (he was a very good spokesperson on Green values and did a lot of great work after the campaign on ballot fraud), but the notion that the Greens can't work in coalition with other forces to build the party. We need to be open to the possibilities of working with independent forces who can raise awareness of the Green Party through their campaign (I know that people will assume I am pushing Nader here, but in fact I think we should work with whatever candidate will give us the most visibility on our issues - Cynthia Mckinney running as an independent would be great) . I am very committed to working on local campaigns as my number one priority (I am current working to get the first Green African American women elected to City Council in Oakland). We have grown big enough as a party to win local elections. But at the national level we are not there yet. Let us begin by dropping our chauvinism that our presidential candidate "must" come from our ranks. A candidate who can raise money without massive support from Green Party members means we can put more time and resourses into our state and local races, while keeping the Green Party message relevant at the national level. Best- Forrest George Grosch wrote: >Greg and Company > >I like the idea of Greg going back and developing a timeline from the last >election cycle so we can discuss how to best meet the needs of the next >General Election cycle. > >I appreciate Fred's comments and agree with much of what he says but would >like to offer some comments as to the assumptions he makes: > > "It has been very difficult, actually impossible, for the >Greens to mount a serious nation-wide campaign -- anyone who was intimately >involved in either of the Nader campaigns or the Cobb campaigns knows this >is true. All the campaigns failed to be really national campaigns." > >Yes it has been hard for Greens to mount a serious national campaign but for >the purposes of planning I am assuming that part of what we are charged to >do includes setting a clear path to running a truly national campaign. > > "So I think we need to discuss a little about what are our >goals in the 2008 elections for the presidential campaign before we can work >through the important questions that Phil raises. These goals should be >based on the recognition that it is extremely unlikely that a Green will win >the election." > > >I agree we need goals but I am opposed to basing those goals on a >presumption of not being able to win. Our strategy should assume and frame >the circumstances under which a Green Candidate could win. As an elected >official I always understand that I can lose an election but I always run to >win. If the day ever comes when I run to make a point without the incentive >or desire to win I will retire. We should expect no more or less from our >parties candidate. To do so would be to insult the intelligence of the >candidate and the electorate. > > "The goals may be expressed in things like a very clear >electoral platform that speaks both to the progressive movements and to >constituencies in the country that we wish especially to reach, influence >and/or recruit. They may include special efforts to gather information from >the states that might help making a more organic and synergistic link >politically and organizationally between the national campaign and the state >and local campaigns, including prominent local candidates. They may include >projected financial goals. They may include a systematic literature effort >and plan for the progressive media to address key questions that we know >will come up, for example: whether a Green presidential campaign is the best >response to the Democrats or Republicans or whether we should have a >different, nuanced strategy; recognizing that discussion will take place >inside the Green Party as well outside it." > >All good ideas that should be considered for discussion. > > "We should be developing our process so that we act >commensurate with the resources we have, not those we would like to have. I >hope that Green Party candidates are announcing much earlier than last time >and that we have our convention in late 2007." > > >Agreed, although the candidate has some power to influence the amount of >money available for the campaign. We must remember that we are the party >with Grassroots Democracy as a core value and we can use that to our >advantage to run and win at the national level. I believe that no amount of >money can beat a grassroots movement with a mobilized electorate ad well >organized campaign. When the people of America begin to take up the cause of >the Green Party the media and money will follow. > > >My set of assumptions about the process and product: > >* Greens can and will win at the national level > >* People follow LEADERS who articulate VALUES that represent their >values and GREEN VALUES (Ten Core Principles) ARE the values of >America! > >* Greens can win at the national level without money and major media >exposure > >* To accomplish this we must develop a national strategy that builds >the Green Movement by registering voters, building state Green Parties, and >getting ballot access in all 50 states. > > >Our job is to help clear the path to building this movement. Look at the >reform movement of the Progressive era, no money, no media, just feet on the >street in city after city, factory after factory, mine after mine...We are >the grandchildren of that movement and we can and will win. > >Thanks for listening. I look forward to working with all of you. > >George Grosch >Pacific Green Party >Corvallis Oregon > > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >_______________________________________________ >Pnp-wg mailing list >Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org >http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg > > > From phil@mcleancountygreens.org Mon Feb 21 18:16:20 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 29727 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2005 18:16:20 -0000 Received: from chococat.sd.dreamhost.com (postfix@66.33.201.151) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2005 18:16:20 -0000 Received: from webmail.mcleancountygreens.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chococat.sd.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F926FFFA for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:16:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from 198.92.227.126 (SquirrelMail authenticated user phil@mcleancountygreens.org) by webmail.mcleancountygreens.org with HTTP; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:16:19 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <36145.198.92.227.126.1109009779.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> In-Reply-To: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> References: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:16:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments From: "Phil Huckelberry" To: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org User-Agent: DreamHost Webmail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Forrest Hill writes: > 2. The logistics of running a viable Campaign: > We must be honest with ourselves. The Green Party does "not" have the > resources on its own to run a viable presidential campaign. The problem > with our last campaign was not David Cobb's candidacy (he was a very > good spokesperson on Green values and did a lot of great work after the > campaign on ballot fraud), but the notion that the Greens can't work in > coalition with other forces to build the party. We need to be open to > the possibilities of working with independent forces who can raise > awareness of the Green Party through their campaign (I know that people > will assume I am pushing Nader here, but in fact I think we should work > with whatever candidate will give us the most visibility on our issues - > Cynthia Mckinney running as an independent would be great). I think this is a discussion that needs to take place but only a narrow component of it can take place here. Specifically, this working group is not designed to debate the relative merits of Forrest's argument above, but rather, needs to focus on how such a debate can actually be conducted. There are some people who agree with Forrest and others who disagree with him. But if the debate continues into, say, April 2008, it may completely undermine whatever decision is eventually made. Of course, the problem here is that the only mechanism we have in place for a systematic survey of our membership across the country is our primary/preference process - and that is not a particularly effective way of gauging support for Forrest's position because the issue is too tied up with whomever the actual candidates are. In retrospect it should have been clear as of mid-2003 that Ralph Nader's intention was to run an independent campaign of some form, seeking support from a lot of disparate groups. The confusion over how to deal with that never went away, and the party's way of handling that was to put off decisions until far too late. Many questions regarding what endorsing Nader might mean vis-a-vis the party were never cleared up - one major example that comes to mind is the ballot line issue, where several state parties found themselves in competition with the Nader campaign for signatures. Because of the imperatives of things like ballot access, we literally can not wait until June 2008 or whenever the next nominating convention will be held to make formal decisions about some of these questions. It therefore falls to this group to try and come up with some ideas about when and how such a decision-making process might take place. Those of us who are working on ramping up ballot access work believe that ballot access initiatives designed to secure ballot lines _for 2008_ should begin _this year_. We are interested in more than just presidential ballot lines, but literally, the wheels are already in motion to think in terms of securing ballot lines in every possible state for a theoretical presidential candidate come 2008. This group needs to understand that in the context of the other issues at hand. Phil Huckelberry Illinois Green Party From kamva@allvantage.com Mon Feb 21 20:36:56 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 7133 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2005 20:36:56 -0000 Received: from hsb104.xlccorp.com (66.37.197.104) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2005 20:36:56 -0000 Received: from hsb104.xlccorp.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hsb104.xlccorp.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j1LKasrO019416 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:36:54 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by hsb104.xlccorp.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id j1LKasja019413 for pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:36:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hsb104.xlccorp.com: nobody set sender to kamva@allvantage.com using -f Received: from pool-138-88-69-106.res.east.verizon.net (pool-138-88-69-106.res.east.verizon.net [138.88.69.106]) by webmail.allvantage.com (IMP) with HTTP for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: <1109018214.421a46664e003@webmail.allvantage.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:36:54 -0500 From: kamva@allvantage.com To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org References: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> <36145.198.92.227.126.1109009779.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> In-Reply-To: <36145.198.92.227.126.1109009779.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.4 X-Originating-IP: 138.88.69.106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I appreciate the introductory comments so far especially those from George and Fred (new voices to me at least). Briefly, I am a co-founder of a Green local (www.arlingtongreens.org) and one of the current delegates to the CC for my state party. Before we get into any sort of issues debates, I plan to go back and re-read the working group's mission as approved by the CC. I do think the historical framework of the 2004 process is important but for myself I plan on thinking of it in terms of Candidate A,B,C,D,etc. as the specific personalities (i.e. Cobb, Mesplay, Nader, Salzman...) are irrelevant to the mission of improving our process. Peace, Kirit VA ps. I attended the July '03 national meeting in DC and remember that many of the candidates for President were already announced so an earlier start next time would mean by end of 2006! From bicyclesax@earthlink.net Tue Feb 22 01:22:55 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 24609 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2005 01:22:55 -0000 Received: from pop-a065c10.pas.sa.earthlink.net (207.217.121.184) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2005 01:22:55 -0000 Received: from user-12lcq9s.cable.mindspring.com ([69.86.105.60] helo=D6LB1711) by pop-a065c10.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1D3OlH-00064o-00 for pnp-wg@gp-us.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:22:51 -0800 Message-ID: <002201c5187c$cc7c0ba0$6401a8c0@D6LB1711> From: "Steve Greenfield" To: References: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> <36145.198.92.227.126.1109009779.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> <1109018214.421a46664e003@webmail.allvantage.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:21:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: From Steve Greenfield, representing New York State A few things I've been thinking about: 1) I don't ever want to hear the word "nuanced" again in connection with the Green Party, and probably not elsewhere either. 2) This group should not be thinking at all about what we want or don't want out of a presidential campaign. Our job is to try to come up with a fair, open, and productive nomination and election process. Period. My state didn't send me here to have discussions about the role of the national candidate in overall Green Party strategy. Any determination of what we may or may not want out of a campaign will inevitably inform the process we end up recommending. This in turn will bias the process towards candidates who conform to the rules best (again) rather than being open to a pure selection by the grassroots of the Party. There is another working group dealing with strategy, and the work of the two committees should not even be known to each other for either to do its assignment properly. 3) I know a delegate to Milwaukee last year (ain't gonna say from where) who, when asked just prior to departure whom he planned to support, said "well, Cobb doesn't inspire me, and I'm not too pleased with the way Nader has been handling all this, and somehow I just think I'm leaning towards voting for a woman." If there is one thing that this working group needs to do, it's to make sure that a delegate like this should never be credentialed to vote unless he or she can prove they were bound by a primary vote or similar democratic process to vote NOTA or otherwise simply exercise indiviual judgment on the spot. We're supposed to be proponents of grassroots democracy. The Party's own processes must always reflect a commitment to that. We must transfer as much of a delegate's voting power to the electorate as possible. 4) There are bylaws in Texas that place restrictions on what candidates GPUS may select if Texas is to allow the candidate onto the Texas Green Party line. They place prior restraint on candidates requiring that they take an oath to turn over both donor lists and names and addresses of all campaign volunteers. They also actually place burdens on other states' right to determine party membership status in their own state. I don't know if Texas is alone in having such bylaws, but we should check. Part of this committee's work should be to establish that all states must share the national standard for candidate qualification. Such acceptance must be a requirement for affiliation. That is not the same thing as requiring that any state must accept the nominee once the nominee is selected. It just means that no state should be able to rule out certain candidates in advance, since to do so would unfairly influence the other states' primary/delegate selection process. Steve Greenfield New Paltz, New York From oldbogus@ris.net Tue Feb 22 03:34:00 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 32402 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2005 03:33:59 -0000 Received: from smtp.vanion.com (66.113.1.111) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2005 03:33:59 -0000 Received: from [5.0.42.32] (209-94-95-1.amigo.net [209.94.95.1] (may be forged)) by smtp.vanion.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j1M3cbx0049176 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:38:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from oldbogus@ris.net) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.298 [266.1.0]); Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:33:36 -0700 Message-ID: <421AA80F.6090601@ris.net> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:33:35 -0700 From: Charlie User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: pnp-wg@gp-us.org Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments References: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> <36145.198.92.227.126.1109009779.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> <1109018214.421a46664e003@webmail.allvantage.com> <002201c5187c$cc7c0ba0$6401a8c0@D6LB1711> In-Reply-To: <002201c5187c$cc7c0ba0$6401a8c0@D6LB1711> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: My comments interspersed. Charlie "What am I doing here?" Green BRPP liaison and GPCO rep Steve Greenfield wrote: >>From Steve Greenfield, representing New York State > > A few things I've been thinking about: > > 1) I don't ever want to hear the word "nuanced" again in connection with the > Green Party, and probably not elsewhere either. > Either yer fer us or agin us. No Nuancing. > 2) This group should not be thinking at all about what we want or don't want > out of a presidential campaign. Our job is to try to come up with a fair, > open, and productive nomination and election process. Period. My state > didn't send me here to have discussions about the role of the national > candidate in overall Green Party strategy. Any determination of what we may > or may not want out of a campaign will inevitably inform the process we end > up recommending. This in turn will bias the process towards candidates who > conform to the rules best (again) rather than being open to a pure selection > by the grassroots of the Party. There is another working group dealing with > strategy, and the work of the two committees should not even be known to > each other for either to do its assignment properly. > Well said but I prefer the "candidates decide strategy" approach. Unless our candidates are droids. Or fully funded by the GPUS. Neither of which has happened yet. > 3) I know a delegate to Milwaukee last year (ain't gonna say from where) > who, when asked just prior to departure whom he planned to support, said > "well, Cobb doesn't inspire me, and I'm not too pleased with the way Nader > has been handling all this, and somehow I just think I'm leaning towards > voting for a woman." If there is one thing that this working group needs to > do, it's to make sure that a delegate like this should never be credentialed > to vote unless he or she can prove they were bound by a primary vote or > similar democratic process to vote NOTA or otherwise simply exercise > indiviual judgment on the spot. How is this group or the GPUS gonna enforce such a thing? This seemingly elitist response to a seemingly sexist response is really kinda scary for a national Green source. States are autonomous. Telling them how to assign/choose/bind their delegations is a no-no. Some had no binding. Mine had a two-round binding (which some are still whining about). Ideological screening was enforced in no states I have heard of. [further comments deleted] We're supposed to be proponents of > grassroots democracy. The Party's own processes must always reflect a > commitment to that. We must transfer as much of a delegate's voting power to > the electorate as possible. > Or else. > 4) There are bylaws in Texas that place restrictions on what candidates GPUS > may select if Texas is to allow the candidate onto the Texas Green Party > line. They place prior restraint on candidates requiring that they take an > oath to turn over both donor lists and names and addresses of all campaign > volunteers. They also actually place burdens on other states' right to > determine party membership status in their own state. I don't know if Texas > is alone in having such bylaws, but we should check. Part of this > committee's work should be to establish that all states must share the > national standard for candidate qualification. Such acceptance must be a > requirement for affiliation. That is not the same thing as requiring that > any state must accept the nominee once the nominee is selected. It just > means that no state should be able to rule out certain candidates in > advance, since to do so would unfairly influence the other states' > primary/delegate selection process. You are suggesting this WG should recommend altering the Accreditation agreement unilaterally for the member states to include all these demands? How grassroots. > > Steve Greenfield > New Paltz, New York > From bicyclesax@earthlink.net Tue Feb 22 15:03:26 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 28477 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2005 15:03:26 -0000 Received: from pop-a065d01.pas.sa.earthlink.net (207.217.121.248) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2005 15:03:26 -0000 Received: from user-12lcq9s.cable.mindspring.com ([69.86.105.60] helo=D6LB1711) by pop-a065d01.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1D3bZI-0005vO-00 for pnp-wg@gp-us.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:03:20 -0800 Message-ID: <001901c518ef$6b9e3d30$6401a8c0@D6LB1711> From: "Steve Greenfield" To: References: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> <36145.198.92.227.126.1109009779.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> <1109018214.421a46664e003@webmail.allvantage.com> <002201c5187c$cc7c0ba0$6401a8c0@D6LB1711> <421AA80F.6090601@ris.net> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:01:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I think this was unusually combative for replying to something called "introductory comments." But this is the Green Party, and I know what to expect. I don't particularly find your writing in dialect to be amusing or leading me to expect a spirit of cooperation in this WG. It should be possible to disagree agreeably. But again, this is the Green Party. I didn't say we couldn't BE nuanced. I just said I didn't want to hear the word. It's been beaten to death. It's a word the ossified left media elites, in the ABB deferment led by Norman Solomon, assigned to us by mid-year and quickly became institutionalized vernacular to spin the Green Party abandoment of political independence and national aspirations (whether it was temporary or not) into a kinder, gentler capitulation, something warm, fuzzy, introspective, subtle, delicate, sophisticated, intellectually refined, even brilliant. It is a word so intellectually positive yet accomplishment-neutral that its repetition will weigh upon our capacity to freely examine the pre & post Milwaukee timeline we have been offered. Just because "nuanced" was the big media buzzword doesn't mean we need to keep using it. Please bear in mind that nobody in the Green Party who was unhappy about the Milwaukee process, results, and consequences has ever used the word "nuanced" to describe them. If an overwhelming majority of Greens had been thrilled by Milwaukee, this Working Group wouldn't even exist. This group is supposed to be looking at fundamentals of democracy. We can let the membership consider the "nuances" when they decide which candidates they want to support. In the meantime, let's do whatever we can to assist the process of learning to work cooperatively with each other. > Well said but I prefer the "candidates decide strategy" approach. Yep, me too. That's why I want the nominating process to be completely free of strategic considerations. The candidates' strategies will then be a) theirs to decide and b) ours to consider when we collectively decide which one to select as the national candidate. > How is this group or the GPUS gonna enforce such a thing? Credentialling rules. No delegate should be seated without documentation that some democratic process was used to select them, and that some democratic process was used to bring them to an awareness of what the preferences of the Green membership they claim to be representing at the convention are. > This seemingly > elitist response to a seemingly sexist response is really kinda scary for a > national Green source. You misunderstood what I was saying. The point is that this guy went to Milwaukee stating right up front that he had made no effort whatsoever to discover the preferences of his constituents. He was going in as an independent kingmaker. This is undemocratic and he should not have been seated at the convention on those terms. > States are autonomous. Telling them how to > assign/choose/bind their delegations is a no-no. Some had no binding. Mine > had a two-round binding (which some are still whining about). States are not 100% autonomous. If they were, we wouldn't need a convention at all, and we wouldn't need this working group. We could just have all the candidates go to all 51 parties and let the states pick independently. We are trying to create one common national candidacy, and that cannot be done without an agreement from the participants to share a common framework in which that candidacy will be decided. > Or else. Don't be cute. We're the Green Party and Grassroots Democracy is one of our Four Pillars. Agreement with and working to advance the 4 Pillars and Ten Key Values are accreditation requirements. If a state can't (or won't) show they are operating under some semblance of grassroots democracy, then they are violating basic accreditation requirements and their delegates must not be seated. > You are suggesting this WG should recommend altering the Accreditation > agreement unilaterally for the member states to include all these demands? There is nothing unilateral about it. It would take a 2/3 vote of the CC, the representatives of the entire GPUS. And the short answer is yes. While states may be accorded as much autonomy as possible within the context of accepting the basic set of articles of agreement that constitute affiliation, no state may under any circumstances adopt bylaws that burden another state. The Texas bylaws burden other states. Do you want to read them? Steve Greenfield New York ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie" Cc: Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments > My comments interspersed. > > Charlie "What am I doing here?" Green > BRPP liaison and GPCO rep > > Steve Greenfield wrote: > >>From Steve Greenfield, representing New York State > > > > A few things I've been thinking about: > > > > 1) I don't ever want to hear the word "nuanced" again in connection with the > > Green Party, and probably not elsewhere either. > > > > Either yer fer us or agin us. No Nuancing. > > > 2) This group should not be thinking at all about what we want or don't want > > out of a presidential campaign. Our job is to try to come up with a fair, > > open, and productive nomination and election process. Period. My state > > didn't send me here to have discussions about the role of the national > > candidate in overall Green Party strategy. Any determination of what we may > > or may not want out of a campaign will inevitably inform the process we end > > up recommending. This in turn will bias the process towards candidates who > > conform to the rules best (again) rather than being open to a pure selection > > by the grassroots of the Party. There is another working group dealing with > > strategy, and the work of the two committees should not even be known to > > each other for either to do its assignment properly. > > > > Well said but I prefer the "candidates decide strategy" approach. Unless > our candidates are droids. Or fully funded by the GPUS. Neither of which > has happened yet. > > > 3) I know a delegate to Milwaukee last year (ain't gonna say from where) > > who, when asked just prior to departure whom he planned to support, said > > "well, Cobb doesn't inspire me, and I'm not too pleased with the way Nader > > has been handling all this, and somehow I just think I'm leaning towards > > voting for a woman." If there is one thing that this working group needs to > > do, it's to make sure that a delegate like this should never be credentialed > > to vote unless he or she can prove they were bound by a primary vote or > > similar democratic process to vote NOTA or otherwise simply exercise > > indiviual judgment on the spot. > > How is this group or the GPUS gonna enforce such a thing? This seemingly > elitist response to a seemingly sexist response is really kinda scary for a > national Green source. States are autonomous. Telling them how to > assign/choose/bind their delegations is a no-no. Some had no binding. Mine > had a two-round binding (which some are still whining about). > > Ideological screening was enforced in no states I have heard of. [further > comments deleted] > > > We're supposed to be proponents of > > grassroots democracy. The Party's own processes must always reflect a > > commitment to that. We must transfer as much of a delegate's voting power to > > the electorate as possible. > > > > Or else. > > > 4) There are bylaws in Texas that place restrictions on what candidates GPUS > > may select if Texas is to allow the candidate onto the Texas Green Party > > line. They place prior restraint on candidates requiring that they take an > > oath to turn over both donor lists and names and addresses of all campaign > > volunteers. They also actually place burdens on other states' right to > > determine party membership status in their own state. I don't know if Texas > > is alone in having such bylaws, but we should check. Part of this > > committee's work should be to establish that all states must share the > > national standard for candidate qualification. Such acceptance must be a > > requirement for affiliation. That is not the same thing as requiring that > > any state must accept the nominee once the nominee is selected. It just > > means that no state should be able to rule out certain candidates in > > advance, since to do so would unfairly influence the other states' > > primary/delegate selection process. > > You are suggesting this WG should recommend altering the Accreditation > agreement unilaterally for the member states to include all these demands? > How grassroots. > > > > > Steve Greenfield > > New Paltz, New York > > > _______________________________________________ > Pnp-wg mailing list > Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg > From gerritt@mindspring.com Tue Feb 22 18:27:33 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 6550 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2005 18:27:33 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao10.cox.net (68.230.240.29) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2005 18:27:33 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050222182706.NGDP17761.lakermmtao10.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:27:06 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:26:51 -0500 From: Greg Gerritt To: Presidential Nominating WG Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8AEBA168-84DC-11D9-AC70-00039399EE66@gwi.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [Pnp-wg] FW: Julia Sawtelle has been nominated Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: A little late, but we are going to add a member. As soon as I get her email address I will add her to the lsit. greg ---------- From: John Rensenbrink Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:54 -0500 To: greg gerritt Subject: Julia Sawtelle has been nominated Hi Greg, Julia Sawtelle has been nominated unanimously by the MGIP to the Green Party's Working Group on the Presidential Nominating Process. John From oldbogus@ris.net Tue Feb 22 18:45:25 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 7255 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2005 18:45:25 -0000 Received: from smtp.vanion.com (66.113.1.111) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2005 18:45:25 -0000 Received: from [5.0.42.81] (209-94-95-1.amigo.net [209.94.95.1] (may be forged)) by smtp.vanion.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j1MIo6x0068632 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:50:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from oldbogus@ris.net) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.298 [266.1.0]); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:45:08 -0700 Message-ID: <421B7DB4.3040307@ris.net> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:45:08 -0700 From: Charlie User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Presidential Nominating WG Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] FW: Julia Sawtelle has been nominated References: In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I thought nominations were closed. Charlie Green Greg Gerritt wrote: > A little late, but we are going to add a member. As soon as I get her email > address I will add her to the lsit. greg > > ---------- > From: John Rensenbrink > Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:54 -0500 > To: greg gerritt > Subject: Julia Sawtelle has been nominated > > Hi Greg, > > Julia Sawtelle has been nominated unanimously by the MGIP to the Green > Party's Working Group on the Presidential Nominating Process. > > John > From gerritt@mindspring.com Tue Feb 22 18:53:26 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 7783 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2005 18:53:26 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao12.cox.net (68.230.240.27) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2005 18:53:26 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050222185257.ZOZK20159.lakermmtao12.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:52:57 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:52:58 -0500 From: Greg Gerritt To: Presidential Nominating WG Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [Pnp-wg] time line Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Time line for the 2004 election season, with a few editorial comments. Spring 2002. Developed a questionnaire for stae parties. Questionnarie asked severaldiffent things, primarily what does your state party want to see in 2004, and what are y'all prepared to actually do. It also asked state parties who they wanted to see run for President as the Gren candidate. Summer 2002 questinnarie was sent to state parties, Novmber 2002 (after the 2002 elections, when the committee could reconvene) collated data fromthe 20 questinnaires that were returned. Assembled the list of potenital candidates the state parties sent in (about 35 candidates) December 2002 drafted letter ot all potential candidates Set up a system to do follow up calls to all receipients after the letter went out. Set up Initial Point of Contact program so that any potential candidates would have a person to be referred to so they could start setting up a campaign in each state. IPC person in each state (ended up with 35 or so states covered) agreed to provide information and contact lists of Greens in their state to all potential candidates who asked. Jan 2003 letters to potential candidates went out and follow up phone calls July 2003 candidates forum at summer gpus meeting November 2003 candidates had to say yes or no to getting on the ballot in early primary states Jan to June 2004 Primaries June 2004 convention editorial comment. I know some folks have asked that the convention be moved up, but it shold be at least considered that it would be bad form to hold the convention and nominate before ballot access states hold their primaries. The fact that we are in transition between a party not particularly covered by state laws and ballot access states where the full force of the election laws falls on us makes out task a little bit more difficult but we need to make sure we do not undercut the primaries where we can hold them. editorial comment: While some might like the process to get a much earlier start for 2008, it is hard to do much before the 2006 elections except what we can do before spring 2006. I suspect most of our problems in 2004 were not the result of our process but rather the result of the world around us. greg gerritt From gerritt@mindspring.com Tue Feb 22 18:55:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 7977 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2005 18:55:59 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao07.cox.net (68.230.240.32) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2005 18:55:59 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050222185531.ETOS5499.lakermmtao07.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:55:31 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:55:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] FW: Julia Sawtelle has been nominated From: Greg Gerritt To: Presidential Nominating WG Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <421B7DB4.3040307@ris.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: We have had complaints about how few women there are on thjis wg, and the ruels say that every state party was allowed to designate someone for the wg, so it only seems logical that if a stae party wants to send a women to join us before we really get anything done, she should be welcomed. If we were already in the middle of our work, I could see saying no. greg > From: Charlie > Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:45:08 -0700 > To: Presidential Nominating WG > Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] FW: Julia Sawtelle has been nominated > > I thought nominations were closed. > > Charlie Green > > Greg Gerritt wrote: >> A little late, but we are going to add a member. As soon as I get her email >> address I will add her to the lsit. greg >> >> ---------- >> From: John Rensenbrink >> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:54 -0500 >> To: greg gerritt >> Subject: Julia Sawtelle has been nominated >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> Julia Sawtelle has been nominated unanimously by the MGIP to the Green >> Party's Working Group on the Presidential Nominating Process. >> >> John >> > _______________________________________________ > Pnp-wg mailing list > Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg From gerritt@mindspring.com Wed Feb 23 00:20:01 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 26829 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 00:20:01 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao10.cox.net (68.230.240.29) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 00:20:01 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050223001933.NJFW17761.lakermmtao10.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:19:33 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:19:37 -0500 From: Greg Gerritt To: Presidential Nominating WG Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Subject: [Pnp-wg] moving forward Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: So far this working group has not developed a plan for pulling its work together. We have already gottien into a discussion of important issues, but we appear to be doing it without a strong grounding or an understanding of how to use the information. I would like to suggest a work plan. I believe that first we need good information. We need to know exactly what was done last time. We can divide the timeline events, and a few others (Note I left off the time line the passage of rules laying out the size of the various stae delegations Nov 2003, and the passage of convention rules may 2004. both were done rather late in the game and should be finished much earlier next time.P) up and small teams can do more intensive research into what was actually done. While issues of strategy can beimortant, this working group has a wide divergence on strategy issues, and it may be that no two peolle on it would have done these thngs exactly the same way. Therefore to bring up strategy until the wg has developed a habit of working together and found some common ground is likely to create tensions that make it nearly impossible to do much productive work. Therefore I reiterate. Let us do some serious research, divide up into small gorups to research and report on the various segments of the tie line. After we have knowledge about what was actualy done, we can look at it for weaknesses ands strengths. At that point we can also integrate strategy into the mix. I am willing to work on almost any segment of the timeline to go back to the voting page and recover the original documents, to look into impementation and write a short report laying out first the facts, and then some analysis. As a way to getting this started I volunteer to fully research and describe the Initial Point of Contact program unles someone else really has a jones to look into that. If so i will volunteer to lok into the materials available on how the size of each states delegation was determined and to provide a chart of options for determinig delegation sizes. Is there someone who would be willing to keep a record of who volunteers for which topic that are listed in the timeline (please note I am most open to anyone adding a similar type of topic to the list laid out in the timeline and for research to be undertaken on that topic) ? I will also suggest that each of these reports be circulated to the working group by March 10. greg gerritt From thomasleavitt@hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 00:53:30 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Received: (qmail 28249 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 00:53:30 -0000 Received: from bay1-f16.bay1.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (65.54.245.16) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 00:53:30 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:53:01 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 207.111.215.62 by by1fd.bay1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:52:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [207.111.215.62] X-Originating-Email: [thomasleavitt@hotmail.com] X-Sender: thomasleavitt@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: From: "Thomas Leavitt" To: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org Bcc: Subject: RE: [Pnp-wg] moving forward Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:52:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2005 00:53:01.0202 (UTC) FILETIME=[062C2720:01C51942] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I agree. We can talk all day, but without a structure, it is just noise and rendundant to discussion that has already taken place. I haven't even read all the emails that immediately went flying out. Do we have co-chairs? Do we have agreed upon teleconference dates (or is that a suitable mechanism)? Do we have a Secretary that is going to co-ordinate all the paperwork, prepare agendas, etc.? Do we have access to a web site to post rosters, agendas and minutes, etc.? How do we know what the work we are supposed to do is? It seems we have a lot we still have to agree on. Is this mailing list going to be our only communications infrastructure? I think some of the topics might work better in a web based forum environment, or being hashed out via phone conference. I think it makes a lot more sense to hold on, before plunging into things, and plan out the next few weeks of work in detail. Thomas -- Thomas Leavitt -- thomasleavitt@hotmail.com, Sr. Systems Admin For Hire Resume at http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/resume/ Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since 1993. Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :) >From: Greg Gerritt >To: Presidential Nominating WG >Subject: [Pnp-wg] moving forward >Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:19:37 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from greens.org ([216.27.184.14]) by MC6-F18.hotmail.com with >Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:23:01 -0800 >Received: (qmail 26910 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 00:22:02 -0000 >Received: from localhost (HELO petra-k.cagreens.org) (127.0.0.1) by >localhost with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 00:22:02 -0000 >Received: (qmail 26829 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 00:20:01 -0000 >Received: from lakermmtao10.cox.net (68.230.240.29) by >cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 00:20:01 -0000 >Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by >lakermmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 >201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id ><20050223001933.NJFW17761.lakermmtao10.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> >for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:19:33 -0500 >X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jHHIJuhfSD4E/LDaDkITlys18nVy2f9oU4= >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org >User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 >Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org >X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 >Precedence: bulk >List-Help: >List-Post: >List-Subscribe: >, >List-Id: list for working group, nominating process > >List-Unsubscribe: >, >List-Archive: >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2005 00:23:01.0525 (UTC) >FILETIME=[D57B3C50:01C5193D] > >So far this working group has not developed a plan for pulling its work >together. We have already gottien into a discussion of important issues, >but we appear to be doing it without a strong grounding or an understanding >of how to use the information. > >I would like to suggest a work plan. I believe that first we need good >information. We need to know exactly what was done last time. We can >divide the timeline events, and a few others > >(Note I left off the time line the passage of rules laying out the size of >the various stae delegations Nov 2003, and the passage of convention rules >may 2004. both were done rather late in the game and should be finished >much earlier next time.P) > >up and small teams can do more intensive research into what was actually >done. > >While issues of strategy can beimortant, this working group has a wide >divergence on strategy issues, and it may be that no two peolle on it would >have done these thngs exactly the same way. Therefore to bring up strategy >until the wg has developed a habit of working together and found some >common >ground is likely to create tensions that make it nearly impossible to do >much productive work. > >Therefore I reiterate. Let us do some serious research, divide up into >small gorups to research and report on the various segments of the tie >line. >After we have knowledge about what was actualy done, we can look at it for >weaknesses ands strengths. At that point we can also integrate strategy >into the mix. > >I am willing to work on almost any segment of the timeline to go back to >the >voting page and recover the original documents, to look into impementation >and write a short report laying out first the facts, and then some >analysis. > >As a way to getting this started I volunteer to fully research and describe >the Initial Point of Contact program unles someone else really has a jones >to look into that. If so i will volunteer to lok into the materials >available on how the size of each states delegation was determined and to >provide a chart of options for determinig delegation sizes. > >Is there someone who would be willing to keep a record of who volunteers >for >which topic that are listed in the timeline (please note I am most open to >anyone adding a similar type of topic to the list laid out in the timeline >and for research to be undertaken on that topic) ? > >I will also suggest that each of these reports be circulated to the working >group by March 10. > >greg gerritt >_______________________________________________ >Pnp-wg mailing list >Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org >http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg From peterson@lakeland.ws Wed Feb 23 01:26:31 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 30322 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 01:26:31 -0000 Received: from sa-3.airstreamcomm.net (64.33.192.163) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 01:26:31 -0000 Received: from lakeland.ws (mil-dr-pm3-1-40.dial.airstreamcomm.net [64.33.152.119]) by sa-3.airstreamcomm.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D77217FE9 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:26:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <421BDBF3.4060708@lakeland.ws> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:27:15 -0600 From: Jeff Peterson Reply-To: peterson@lakeland.ws User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments References: <31189.198.92.227.126.1108762062.spork@webmail.mcleancountygreens.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Phil, I appreciate your attempt to help frame our discussion. You've hit on most of the important points, I think. Perhaps it would be helpful to restate your "components" below as broad questions, which could then be parsed into more narrow ones. I would find it helpful to approach our committee's work if I were more clear on the questions we were setting out to answer, rather than trying to respond to this and that historical fact. Of course, "How could we do it better?" is the overarching question, but one that only leads to many others. Jeff Peterson Wisconsin Phil Huckelberry wrote: >I wanted to offer a few remarks about the working group and where we could >be going. I'll keep them relatively brief. > >First, I should note that I was and still am a member of the Presidential >Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) and am also a member of the Bylaws, >Rules, Policies & Procedures Committee (BRPP). I was one of the first >people to start formally tackling the issue of the Floor Rules for the >national convention. > >I believe that in evaluating the entirety of the Presidential Nominating >Process, we have to break it down into various components: > >* The actual nominating rules (floor rules) used at the convention. >* The delegate apportionments for the convention. >* Other matters related to the conduct of the national convention, >including but not limited to matters involving site selection, time >alotted for things, etc. >* The national party's handling of the "primary" season. >* The different ways that state parties conducted votes. >* The work of the Presidential Exploratory Committee (PEC). >* Other national party matters that preceded the "primary" season. >* The roles of various candidates and outside groups. > >Many of the complaints, especially in the aftermath of the Milwaukee >convention, related to either the floor rules or the delegate >apportionments. But to focus on these is to lose sight of the big >picture. The floor rules must be understood in the context in which they >were drafted - after some state "primaries" had already begun, with little >to no comprehension of how state parties were handling things like binding >delegates, with rampant confusion about the intentions of the Nader >campaign. Charges that the floor rules were somehow "fixed" to block >Nader are categorically false. But I think we must agree that a number of >confusing matters slammed together that soured the relationship between >the party and the Nader camp - and I think we have to start at the >beginning. > >Specifically, I feel that the national party's overall handling of the >presidential preference process (or "primary season") was horrendous. >State parties were horribly confused regarding basic matters like who the >candidates were, how delegate votes should be bound - they were routinely >told to do it however they saw fit, and then a lot of them got grief for >it after the fact. The lack of national-level coordination regarding >primaries and the confusion over who the candidates were contributed to >woefully low turnouts at state conventions. Many state parties were >unprepared to deal with a lot of issues and very few attempted things like >mail-in ballots. It is my opinion that the bulk of the problems with our >process in 2004 can be traced to things that happened before January 1, >2004, including a confusing "exploratory" process, the refusal/inability >of the national party to clearly designate up front that a nominee would >be selected (which created the NOTA mess), the refusal of the national >party to assist state parties with putting together rules, the ridiculous >wait until after the first of the year to tackle floor rules questions, >and much more. The national party dropped the ball in 2002 and 2003, and >this led to the mess we had to deal with in 2004. Rather than focus >narrowly on the particulars of the mess of 2004, we need to start with >what went wrong in 2002 and 2003. > >As I said, my comments here are kept relatively brief. I look forward to >seeing more initial feedback from all of you. > >Phil Huckelberry >Co-Chair, Illinois Green Party >Delegate, GPUS >_______________________________________________ >Pnp-wg mailing list >Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org >http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg > > > > From peterson@lakeland.ws Wed Feb 23 02:16:38 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 32629 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 02:16:38 -0000 Received: from sa-3.airstreamcomm.net (64.33.192.163) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 02:16:38 -0000 Received: from lakeland.ws (mil-dr-pm3-1-40.dial.airstreamcomm.net [64.33.152.119]) by sa-3.airstreamcomm.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A736218619; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:16:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <421BE7B2.4070109@lakeland.ws> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:17:22 -0600 From: Jeff Peterson Reply-To: peterson@lakeland.ws User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Forrest Hill Cc: pnp-wg@gp-us.org Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments References: <421A1CCE.9060505@comcast.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I don't think anyone is saying that a candidate "'must' come from our ranks" -- but some of us are quite firm that any candidate we support must, at the very least, be willing to accept our nomination (if not join the party). Supporting an independent candidate may help keep our message out there, but I'm not sure how we ensure that it is linked in the public's mind with the Green Party. From what I've observed, even Greens who run as independents or Democrats tend to downplay their Green affiliation in order to appeal to the widest possible constituency. Cynthia McKinney might be an excellent progressive candidate, but unless she runs as a Green there's no way she's going to help build the Green Party simply because we might choose to endorse her. Jeff Peterson Wisconsin Forrest Hill wrote: > I am very committed to working on local campaigns as my number one > priority (I am current working to get the first Green African American > women elected to City Council in Oakland). We have grown big enough as > a party to win local elections. But at the national level we are not > there yet. Let us begin by dropping our chauvinism that our > presidential candidate "must" come from our ranks. A candidate who can > raise money without massive support from Green Party members means we > can put more time and resourses into our state and local races, while > keeping the Green Party message relevant at the national level. > > Best- > Forrest > > From scooter@guisarme.net Wed Feb 23 04:58:39 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 7179 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 04:58:39 -0000 Received: from krage.01.dios.net (HELO shaft.guisarme.net) (12.183.13.116) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 04:58:39 -0000 Received: from shaft.guisarme.net (localhost.guisarme.net [127.0.0.1]) by shaft.guisarme.net with ESMTP id j1N54ClC030473 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (scooter@localhost) by shaft.guisarme.net (8.13.0/8.12.1/Submit) with ESMTP id j1N54Cse030872 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:04:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shaft.guisarme.net: scooter owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:04:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Kramer To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introduction, announcements, and (proposed) organization Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I'm Steve Kramer of Columbia, Maryland, a Green since only 2001, I'm afraid (previously unaffiliated/Independent)! I'm former Coordinator of the Howard County Green Party, the current GPUS Delegate from Maryland, a former member of the GPUS Dispute Resolution Committee, and an assistant in the founding of the West Virginia Green Party. I have been campaign manager for Lise Mendel for Howard County Board of Education (2004) and Maryland's field coordinator for the Cobb/LaMarche campaign, also in 2004. I have represented the Green Party to local Muslim organizations in the Baltimore and D.C. areas, and to the Howard County Coalition for Peace and Justice. I am the founding member of the Fellowship of Christian Greens, a member of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee for Central Maryland, and an applicant member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. I'd like to thank everyone for allowing me the opportunity to serve as Maryland's representative to this Working Group - and ask everyone's forgiveness for being so longwinded. The Maryland Green Party is keeping a close eye on our democratic process, across the spectrum. I think it's an important quality for us to cultivate, because it differentiates us so strongly from the "major" political parties in this country. One of our Baltimore County Greens, Dick Ochs , is convening a meeting on the democratic process in the MGP and GPUS in Baltimore on March 6th at noon. The specific location has yet to be announced, and I will be slightly late because I'll be coming from church, but I will be there, and will convey our findings to this WG. Dick hasn't responded to my question as to whether others are invited, but I honestly don't see him saying no, so I'm making this a general announcement, and I will keep everyone informed as to the venue. So far, we've had some interesting proposals, and I must say that I appreciate the tone that they have been phrased in. I think more than anything else, we must operate in a climate of mutual respect. That's a very big point in our favor so far. However, Greg had a good point in that we need to establish a few things before charging right ahead into strategies. I'm not certain I agree with Greg that extensive fact-finding is necessary - a review of the Bylaws, Delegate Selection Process (Formula), and Floor Rules of the 2004 Convention should be all that is required, and that can be accomplished with an hour or so of Web searching. I would instead like to suggest an overall process that we can follow. This is just a suggestion at this point, and I'm spelling it out here as something that we can begin kicking around as a precursor to consensus. 1. Rules of conduct First, we should choose a facilitator or facilitators, and agree on how we will discuss matters. If we wish to form sub-groups or schedule discussions in some way other than this list, then we would do so in this phase. We should choose who will speak for us, and under what circumstances (such as status reports), and what will constitute consensus. I believe that we should choose a very few rules of discussion which are as open as possible, to allow for the broadest expression of opinion. 2. Statement of purpose Second, I would like to ask that we draft a *short* statement of purpose and release it publicly. This would be a very plain statement of what we will decide, and what we won't. The actual decisions shouldn't be made at this time, nor should any strategies be discussed. 3. Goals I suggest that we then discuss what our goals are in the Presidential Nominating Process. I think this is the big discussion that we didn't have before, and perhaps should have - we developed different strategies because we were working toward different goals! I would like to see this be a "brainstorming" session; there should be **no wrong answers** at this time! Everything should be written down, and everything should be considered. 4. Priorities In this stage, I suggest that we decide what goals are most important to us, and which should take priority over the other. Again, I believe we should avoid labeling a goal as "wrong", but instead advocate why a different goal should have priority. We should think of priorities in terms of essential (as in, we could not proceed at all without this goal in mind), important, preferable, or incidental - or some similar fashion. By the end of this phase, we should have an ordered (or nearly so) list of priorities. 5. Strategies Now, we get to the nitty-gritty, and discuss specific voting methods, consensus methods, polling methods, vote-counting techniques, and the like to meet our priorities. Discussion should center around how the strategy addresses that list that we spelled out in the last phase - starting with the most important goals first. 6. Final report At the end, we produce a report, review it, and publish it. Significant minority views should be included, and we may wish to have a session on how to incorporate some of those views in the final recommended methods, in keeping with Green consensus. Again, this is not set in stone! These are just my ideas on how we might go about conducting our business. I'd like to hear any comments or questions on them. -- Steve Kramer || scooter (at) guisarme dot net || _____________________ =================================================== | __/^\__ ,-^,| "The white man says there is freedom and justice |/~ \_ { / | for all. We have had 'freedom' and 'justice', \/\ |! | and that is why we have been almost exterminated. / / ) |___ We shall not forget this." (_ \ \ / ~v^ ?_,-' from the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians From gerritt@mindspring.com Wed Feb 23 11:01:05 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 20213 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 11:01:05 -0000 Received: from lakermmtao08.cox.net (68.230.240.31) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 11:01:05 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.9.130.54]) by lakermmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050223110034.KCDL5415.lakermmtao08.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:00:34 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:59:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introduction, announcements, and (proposed) organization From: Greg Gerritt To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I suggest that maybe Steve be one of the facilitators of this working group. Who else is interested? greg > From: Steve Kramer > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:04:12 -0500 (EST) > To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org > Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introduction, announcements, and (proposed) organization > > First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I'm Steve Kramer of > Columbia, Maryland, a Green since only 2001, I'm afraid (previously > unaffiliated/Independent)! I'm former Coordinator of the Howard County > Green Party, the current GPUS Delegate from Maryland, a former member of > the GPUS Dispute Resolution Committee, and an assistant in the founding of > the West Virginia Green Party. I have been campaign manager for Lise > Mendel for Howard County Board of Education (2004) and Maryland's field > coordinator for the Cobb/LaMarche campaign, also in 2004. I have > represented the Green Party to local Muslim organizations in the Baltimore > and D.C. areas, and to the Howard County Coalition for Peace and Justice. > I am the founding member of the Fellowship of Christian Greens, a member > of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee for Central Maryland, and an > applicant member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. I'd > like to thank everyone for allowing me the opportunity to serve as > Maryland's representative to this Working Group - and ask everyone's > forgiveness for being so longwinded. > > The Maryland Green Party is keeping a close eye on our democratic process, > across the spectrum. I think it's an important quality for us to > cultivate, because it differentiates us so strongly from the "major" > political parties in this country. One of our Baltimore County Greens, > Dick Ochs , is convening a meeting on the democratic > process in the MGP and GPUS in Baltimore on March 6th at noon. The > specific location has yet to be announced, and I will be slightly late > because I'll be coming from church, but I will be there, and will convey > our findings to this WG. Dick hasn't responded to my question as to > whether others are invited, but I honestly don't see him saying no, so I'm > making this a general announcement, and I will keep everyone informed as > to the venue. > > So far, we've had some interesting proposals, and I must say that I > appreciate the tone that they have been phrased in. I think more than > anything else, we must operate in a climate of mutual respect. That's a > very big point in our favor so far. However, Greg had a good point in > that we need to establish a few things before charging right ahead into > strategies. I'm not certain I agree with Greg that extensive fact-finding > is necessary - a review of the Bylaws, Delegate Selection Process > (Formula), and Floor Rules of the 2004 Convention should be all that is > required, and that can be accomplished with an hour or so of Web > searching. > > I would instead like to suggest an overall process that we can follow. > This is just a suggestion at this point, and I'm spelling it out here as > something that we can begin kicking around as a precursor to consensus. > > 1. Rules of conduct > > First, we should choose a facilitator or facilitators, and agree on how we > will discuss matters. If we wish to form sub-groups or schedule > discussions in some way other than this list, then we would do so in this > phase. We should choose who will speak for us, and under what > circumstances (such as status reports), and what will constitute > consensus. I believe that we should choose a very few rules of discussion > which are as open as possible, to allow for the broadest expression of > opinion. > > 2. Statement of purpose > > Second, I would like to ask that we draft a *short* statement of purpose > and release it publicly. This would be a very plain statement of what we > will decide, and what we won't. The actual decisions shouldn't be made at > this time, nor should any strategies be discussed. > > 3. Goals > > I suggest that we then discuss what our goals are in the Presidential > Nominating Process. I think this is the big discussion that we didn't > have before, and perhaps should have - we developed different strategies > because we were working toward different goals! I would like to see this > be a "brainstorming" session; there should be **no wrong answers** at this > time! Everything should be written down, and everything should be > considered. > > 4. Priorities > > In this stage, I suggest that we decide what goals are most important to > us, and which should take priority over the other. Again, I believe we > should avoid labeling a goal as "wrong", but instead advocate why a > different goal should have priority. We should think of priorities in > terms of essential (as in, we could not proceed at all without this goal > in mind), important, preferable, or incidental - or some similar fashion. > By the end of this phase, we should have an ordered (or nearly so) list of > priorities. > > 5. Strategies > > Now, we get to the nitty-gritty, and discuss specific voting methods, > consensus methods, polling methods, vote-counting techniques, and the like > to meet our priorities. Discussion should center around how the strategy > addresses that list that we spelled out in the last phase - starting with > the most important goals first. > > 6. Final report > > At the end, we produce a report, review it, and publish it. Significant > minority views should be included, and we may wish to have a session on > how to incorporate some of those views in the final recommended methods, > in keeping with Green consensus. > > Again, this is not set in stone! These are just my ideas on how we might > go about conducting our business. I'd like to hear any comments or > questions on them. > > -- > Steve Kramer || scooter (at) guisarme dot net || > _____________________ =================================================== > | __/^\__ ,-^,| "The white man says there is freedom and justice > |/~ \_ { / | for all. We have had 'freedom' and 'justice', > \/\ |! | and that is why we have been almost exterminated. > / / ) |___ We shall not forget this." > (_ \ \ / > ~v^ ?_,-' from the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians > _______________________________________________ > Pnp-wg mailing list > Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg From hecker@ecoisp.com Wed Feb 23 15:01:40 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org Received: (qmail 28097 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 15:01:40 -0000 Received: from mail.ecoisp.com (HELO ecoisp.com) (216.126.227.137) by cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2005 15:01:40 -0000 Received: from [4.234.63.162] [4.234.63.162] by ecoisp.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.12) id AACE14B80120; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:01:34 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:04:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introduction, announcements, and (proposed) organization From: "Gary R. Hecker" To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: list for working group, nominating process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hey, All. This is Gary Hecker, from Florida. I'm a Co-Chair of my Local, and also State. I'm a CC member, and sit on the Dispute Resolution and Platform Committees. I've been a Green since 2000, but voted Green in 96. I attended Milwaukee. I concur with Steve's suggestions. Whether we call them facilitators or co-chairs, I think we need to have someone keeping our focus. This is going to be a difficult, contentious process, as if we didn't already know. I would also suggest that each member gather lists of what their state delegates liked, annd disliked about the Milwaukee convention, whether substantiated or not. My view of this process would result in absolute clarity for all future nominating delegates that the results are transparent, fair, and representative of the wishes of individual Greens. Gary Hecker Florida > From: Steve Kramer > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:04:12 -0500 (EST) > To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org > Subject: [Pnp-wg] Introduction, announcements, and (proposed) organization > > First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I'm Steve Kramer of > Columbia, Maryland, a Green since only 2001, I'm afraid (previously > unaffiliated/Independent)! I'm former Coordinator of the Howard County > Green Party, the current GPUS Delegate from Maryland, a former member of > the GPUS Dispute Resolution Committee, and an assistant in the founding of > the West Virginia Green Party. I have been campaign manager for Lise > Mendel for Howard County Board of Education (2004) and Maryland's field > coordinator for the Cobb/LaMarche campaign, also in 2004. I have > represented the Green Party to local Muslim organizations in the Baltimore > and D.C. areas, and to the Howard County Coalition for Peace and Justice. > I am the founding member of the Fellowship of Christian Greens, a member > of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee for Central Maryland, and an > applicant member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. I'd > like to thank everyone for allowing me the opportunity to serve as > Maryland's representative to this Working Group - and ask everyone's > forgiveness for being so longwinded. > > The Maryland Green Party is keeping a close eye on our democratic process, > across the spectrum. I think it's an important quality for us to > cultivate, because it differentiates us so strongly from the "major" > political parties in this country. One of our Baltimore County Greens, > Dick Ochs , is convening a meeting on the democratic > process in the MGP and GPUS in Baltimore on March 6th at noon. The > specific location has yet to be announced, and I will be slightly late > because I'll be coming from church, but I will be there, and will convey > our findings to this WG. Dick hasn't responded to my question as to > whether others are invited, but I honestly don't see him saying no, so I'm > making this a general announcement, and I will keep everyone informed as > to the venue. > > So far, we've had some interesting proposals, and I must say that I > appreciate the tone that they have been phrased in. I think more than > anything else, we must operate in a climate of mutual respect. That's a > very big point in our favor so far. However, Greg had a good point in > that we need to establish a few things before charging right ahead into > strategies. I'm not certain I agree with Greg that extensive fact-finding > is necessary - a review of the Bylaws, Delegate Selection Process > (Formula), and Floor Rules of the 2004 Convention should be all that is > required, and that can be accomplished with an hour or so of Web > searching. > > I would instead like to suggest an overall process that we can follow. > This is just a suggestion at this point, and I'm spelling it out here as > something that we can begin kicking around as a precursor to consensus. > > 1. Rules of conduct > > First, we should choose a facilitator or facilitators, and agree on how we > will discuss matters. If we wish to form sub-groups or schedule > discussions in some way other than this list, then we would do so in this > phase. We should choose who will speak for us, and under what > circumstances (such as status reports), and what will constitute > consensus. I believe that we should choose a very few rules of discussion > which are as open as possible, to allow for the broadest expression of > opinion. > > 2. Statement of purpose > > Second, I would like to ask that we draft a *short* statement of purpose > and release it publicly. This would be a very plain statement of what we > will decide, and what we won't. The actual decisions shouldn't be made at > this time, nor should any strategies be discussed. > > 3. Goals > > I suggest that we then discuss what our goals are in the Presidential > Nominating Process. I think this is the big discussion that we didn't > have before, and perhaps should have - we developed different strategies > because we were working toward different goals! I would like to see this > be a "brainstorming" session; there should be **no wrong answers** at this > time! Everything should be written down, and everything should be > considered. > > 4. Priorities > > In this stage, I suggest that we decide what goals are most important to > us, and which should take priority over the other. Again, I believe we > should avoid labeling a goal as "wrong", but instead advocate why a > different goal should have priority. We should think of priorities in > terms of essential (as in, we could not proceed at all without this goal > in mind), important, preferable, or incidental - or some similar fashion. > By the end of this phase, we should have an ordered (or nearly so) list of > priorities. > > 5. Strategies > > Now, we get to the nitty-gritty, and discuss specific voting methods, > consensus methods, polling methods, vote-counting techniques, and the like > to meet our priorities. Discussion should center around how the strategy > addresses that list that we spelled out in the last phase - starting with > the most important goals first. > > 6. Final report > > At the end, we produce a report, review it, and publish it. Significant > minority views should be included, and we may wish to have a session on > how to incorporate some of those views in the final recommended methods, > in keeping with Green consensus. > > Again, this is not set in stone! These are just my ideas on how we might > go about conducting our business. I'd like to hear any comments or > questions on them. > > -- > Steve Kramer || scooter (at) guisarme dot net || > _____________________ =================================================== > | __/^\__ ,-^,| "The white man says there is freedom and justice > |/~ \_ { / | for al