[Pnp-wg] introduction

[peterson@lakeland.ws]

Greens,=0D
=0D
I am enjoying reading these introductions and will add my own here. I am Je=
ff Peterson from Luck, Wisconsin. I am a =0D
founding member of the Wisconsin Green Party (in '88) and have served more =
or less continuously on our state CC since =0D
then. I've also done a couple terms as spokesperson. We got ballot status i=
n '96 as a result of the Nader/LaDuke campaign =0D
and I was the first Wisconsin Green to run as such when I made a bid for st=
ate treasurer in '98. Four years later I ran for =0D
lieutenant governor. I currently serve as co-facilitator for my local, the =
St. Croix Valley Green Party, here in NW Wisconsin. =0D
(Yes, I'm overextended like the rest of you!)=0D
=0D
Other than working for Nader/LaDuke in '96 and '00 and Cobb/LaMarche last y=
ear, my involvement in national Green =0D
politics has been pretty minimal. I joined the PCSC late in the game last y=
ear and was on the Floor Rules Committee, where I =0D
mostly listened. I did attend national gatherings in St. Paul ('96, I think=
) and Denver ('00) and of course was part of the host =0D
delegation in Milwaukee, though to be honest, it was the local Milwaukee Ar=
ea Green Party who did most of the organizing. =0D
Last fall I was elected to replace Ben Manski (big shoes) on the national C=
C and now here I am in this working group. =0D
=0D
Wisconsin chose its delegates to last year's convention through a combinati=
on of three methods: congressional district =0D
caucuses, a mailed ballot, and a face-to-face caucus. Our identity caucuses=
 -- Lavender, Women, Youth and Diversity -- =0D
were also each allotted one delegate. We muddled through the process as bes=
t we could, and when it was over I think we all =0D
felt that our delegation was representative of the membership as a whole. T=
hat said, it would have helped to have had more =0D
guidance, as we were pretty much making it up as we went. =0D
=0D
I don't know of anyone from our delegation of 30-some who felt that the con=
vention was rigged, though a few were vocally =0D
upset with the outcome. I think we all agree that things could have been ha=
ndled better, especially in the way information =0D
from the candidates was distributed. When we went to our district caucuses,=
 for example, the best information we had =0D
available was the tape of Mesplay, Cobb and Salzman at the college forum. W=
e were especially confused about whether =0D
Nader's name should be on our ballots and finally decided that, if people w=
anted to support him, they would have to write =0D
his name in. Most people knew little if anything about Camejo or Miller at =
that point.=0D
=0D
I'll stop here. I agree 100% with the suggestion that we postpone discussin=
g strategy considerations and concentrate instead =0D
on improving our processes, making them as transparent, efficient, and demo=
cratic as possible. =0D
=0D
=0D
Jeff Peterson=0D
=0D
=0D