[gpva-ic] Fw: [usgp-nc] Apportionment Committee -- informalteleconference forworker bees

[Don Mackler]

I'm inclined to agree with Tom in this discussion.  I respect the concerns
he's brought up, and would feel more comfortable if Charlie would address
them.

-----Original Message-----
From: gpva-ic-admin at vagreenparty.org
[mailto:gpva-ic-admin at vagreenparty.org]On Behalf Of Audrey Clement
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:53 AM
To: gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org
Subject: Re: [gpva-ic] Fw: [usgp-nc] Apportionment Committee --
informalteleconference forworker bees


Tom,

I don't know what GPVA's instructions to Kirit on how to vote on a motion
several years ago has to do with Charlie Jordan's nomination to the Standing
Apportionment Committee [SAC] now.

Are you saying that you want GPVA to adopt a motion to constrain Charlie
Jordan's actions on the SAC? If so, why don't you introduce the motion? Also
please indicate whether you support or oppose his nomination in the absence
of such a motion, as Charlie has indicated that he will not accept the
conditions originally imposed by you for approving his nomination to the
committee.

Regarding your concern that Charlie might sue GPUS, if Charlie Jordan has
the money to hire a lawyer to challenge the apportionment of GPUS, then I'm
going to ask him for something more than directions the next time I drive to
Roanoke.

Regarding your concern that Charlie will balk at pencil pushing on SAC,
yesterday Phil Huckelberry introduced a set of P&Ps for the new committee
lifted from the original DAC proposal. These P&Ps will insure that anyone
who attempts to do other than pencil push will be disciplined or removed
from the committee.

Audrey

----- Original Message -----
From: <vagreen at earthlink.net>
To: <gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [gpva-ic] Fw: [usgp-nc] Apportionment Committee --
informalteleconference forworker bees


> GPVA has not enacted guidelines with respect to the conduct of its
> appointees to the Standing Apportionment Subcommittee.  That committee did
> not even exist until two weeks ago.  GPVA did not have a formal set of
> guidelines in place for NC members when it decided by consensus to direct
> Kirit to vote NO on the proposed GPUS Vice Presidential nomination
> procedure.  Please refer to the minutes of the May 2004 meeting for
> further
> details.
>
> Here's what raised my concerns.  My apologies for not expressing this more
> specifically.
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: <aloe at rev.net>
>> To: <gpva-business at vagreenparty.org>
>> Date: 4/22/2007 8:45:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: [gpva-business] GPUS National Committee Reapportionment
>
> Audrey, if you are not interested in consulting a lawyer, at least
> cooperate when I do. Don't close your mind to the legal remedies available
> without hearing them.
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: <aloe at rev.net>
>> To: <gpva-business at vagreenparty.org>
>> Date: 4/21/2007 6:13:02 PM
>> Subject: RE: [gpva-business] GPUS National Committee Reapportionment
>
>> In other words, they don't want people who understand apportionment
> theory;
>> they want efficient pencil pushers. Institutions preoccupied with their
> own
>> continuity rather than their role in the world seem to prefer people who
>> narrowly perform their tasks to those who exhibit a broader understanding
>> of what their work can accomplish.
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: <aloe at rev.net>
>> To: <gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org>
>> Date: 4/25/2007 9:09:02 PM
>> Subject: RE: [gpva-ic] Fw: [usgp-nc] Apportionment Committee --
> informalteleconference  forworker bees
>>
>> At 11:22 PM 4/24/07 -0400, vagreen at earthlink.net wrote:
>> >I offer no objections to Charlie's appointment on the following
> conditions:
>> >
>> >1.  Charlie agrees to not sue or attempt to sue GPUS or other state
>> >Green
>> >Parties over Proposal 272.
>>
>> Someone with greater knowledge of the law may correct me, but as far as I
>> know, the only individual in Virginia with grounds to sue is Tom's wife,
>> Tamar. She is the only person facing proximate injury, in the form of a
>> demotion. (Ohio is another place to look for delegates with standing.)
>>
>> GPVA as a party also anticipates injury in the form of diminished
>> representation compared with parties in other states. As the bylaws hold
>> the Interim Committee accountable to represent GPVA's interest, I believe
>> it contrary to the IC's mission to forestall future legal action that
>> GPVA
>> might undertake. Therefore, I do not see how the IC can entertain a
>> condition of this nature.
>>
>> For clarification, the courts often hold trustees of unincorporated
>> associations legally and financially responsible for the consequences of
>> decisions they make as a group. They can easily be drawn (even
>> involuntarily) into litigation as named parties. The effect of Condition
> #1
>> would be to reduce the number of people who can serve GPVA as trustees in
>> considering legal action, whether as plaintiff, defendant, or amicus.
>> That
>> would tend to weaken GPVA's legal position and its ability to continue
>> operation as an autonomous entity.
>>
>> I request a ruling on whether it is proper for the IC to impose a
> condition
>> that tends to tie GPVA's hands to its own detriment.
>>
>> >2.  Charlie agrees to not use his position to reopen debate on the
>> >merits
>> >of Proposal 272.
>>
>> I expect Cat Woods to continue to use every position she holds to defend
>> the merits of Proposal 272. Gagging a Virginian without also muzzling
>> California's Cat would tend to prejudice the Apportionment Committee
>> against GPVA's interest, that the IC is supposed to uphold.
>>
>> Just in case there is any misunderstanding about the sensitivity of
>> communication, the Apportionment Committee reached agreement that all its
>> work will be exposed to the public. If a member finds that the effect of
>> Proposal 272 is other than what most delegates believe it is, doesn't
>> that
>> person have an obligation to blow the whistle?
>>
>> Would it be proper for Congress to exact a promise from a judicial
>> nominee
>> not to reopen debate on the merits of the ban on partial-birth abortion?
>> Would it be proper for a city council to place a condition on the
>> appointment of a police chief that there be no investigation of the
>> city's
>> finances? Would it be proper for an inspector general to be hired with
>> the
>> understanding that certain employees or contracts are off limits? While
>> those bargains may occur privately, they are illegal and unenforceable,
>> as
>> they limit the ability of public servants to perform their jobs of
>> serving
>> the public interest. (David Cobb, Ralph Nader, and Mike Wallace have
>> built
>> careers exposing deals like these.)
>>
>> How can it be appropriate for a state party to proscribe the work of a
>> committee that serves others? This is not the IC's purpose.
>
> As I have previously stated, I make a distinction between Charlie trying
> to
> change the delegate apportionment formula and making sure that the formula
> is implemented properly.  I believe that his attention to detail will help
> the latter to take place.  The former is NOT, as I have repeatedly pointed
> out, part of this committee's purview.  If every committee member decides
> to use the committee's time and energy to advance their own ideas that are
> not part of the committee's agenda, then there is no point in having a
> committee.
>
> I cannot read Charlie's mind.  I have been told that my reasonable
> conditions will not be met, that the IC has no right to impose them, and
> that my questions are based on faulty premises and therefore to be
> dismissed without an answer.  I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable to me.
> I'm not sure if Charlie is just being contrarian or if he plans to sue or
> threaten to sue GPUS and use his position on the committee to reopen
> debate
> over Proposal 272.  I must base my decision on the information that I
> have,
> and block consensus.
>
> I really hope that I'm wrong about this.  Charlie, if you let me know that
> I have misunderstood you and that you have no plans to sue or threaten to
> sue GPUS over Proposal 272 or to reopen the debate over the merits of
> Proposal 272, I will gladly change my NO vote to YES.
>
> Tom
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Audrey Clement <aclement65 at hotmail.com>
>> To: <gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org>
>> Date: 4/28/2007 11:15:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [gpva-ic] Fw: [usgp-nc] Apportionment Committee --
> informalteleconference  forworker bees
>>
>> Tom Yager:
>>
>> > E. Representatives and delegates of the GPVA may express personal
>> > opinions,
>> > but must act and vote within the guidelines agreed on by the GPVA.
>>
>> Tom, thank you for pointing me to the section of GPVA bylaws that places
>> conditions on the participation of GPVA member on GPUS committees. My
> next
>> question is when did GPVA enact guidelines with respect to the conduct of
>> its appointees to the Standing Apportionment Subcommittee?
>>
>> > I asked Charlie if he would agree to not use his position on the
> committee
>> > to reopen debate on the delegate apportionment enacted under Proposal
> 272.
>> and
>> > I asked Charlie if he would agree to not sue GPUS over Proposal 272.
>> > So
>> > far, he has refused to do so.
>>
>> Tom, these questions sound like asking a man to agree not to beat his
> wife,
>> i.e. they insinuate the integrity of the person without presenting
> evidence
>> to support the presumption. If you have such evidence, please present it.
>> Otherwise don't presume it.
>>
>> > How do you plan to vote on these policies and procedures [policies and
>> > procedures of the new Standing Apportionment Committee]?
>>
>> I voted against Proposal 175, which implemented the policies and
> procedures
>> of the original apportionment committee [DAC], primarily because I do not
>> believe it is feasible to implement One Green One Vote fairly across
> state
>> lines, especially in non-partisan registration states like Virginia. I
> also
>> objected to the DACs policies and procedures with respect to the
>> disciplining of members, because the sheer scope of these procedures
> [more
>> than 30 percent of the text of the proposal] suggests that the DAC
>> considered the suppression of dissent within its ranks a key priority. If
> a
>> similar set of procedures is advanced for the Standing Apportionment
>> Committee [SAC], I plan to vote against them. But this should not be
> cause
>> for concern for you or anyone else who may support them, as California
> and
>> its sycophants on the list can easily muster the votes it needs to pass
> any
>> resolution it wants from here on out.
>>
>> Audrey
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <vagreen at earthlink.net>
>> To: <gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: [gpva-ic] Fw: [usgp-nc] Apportionment Committee --
>> informalteleconference forworker bees
>>
>>
>> >> Tom, please direct me to the section of GPVA bylaws that says that
>> >> GPVA
>> > can
>> >> place conditions on the participation of GPVA members in GPUS
> committees.
>> >
>> > V. Political Practices
>> >
>> > C. Chairs, officers, delegates and other representatives of the GPVA
> shall
>> > be recallable at any meeting of the GPVA, by consensus or
>> > three-quarters
>> > vote.
>> >
>> > E. Representatives and delegates of the GPVA may express personal
>> > opinions,
>> > but must act and vote within the guidelines agreed on by the GPVA.
>> >
>> >> This prescription sounds like when did you stop beating your wife. On
>> > what
>> >> basis do you suppose that Charlie Jordan will disrupt the
>> >> Apportionment
>> >> Committee's work?
>> >
>> > I asked Charlie if he would agree to not use his position on the
> committee
>> > to reopen debate on the delegate apportionment enacted under Proposal
> 272.
>> > The task of the new committee is to IMPLEMENT the apportionment, NOT to
>> > come up with its own apportionment scheme.  So far, Charlie has refused
> to
>> > do so.  The committee will have enough work to do without having one or
>> > more of its members attempting to oppose its mission.
>> >
>> > I asked Charlie if he would agree to not sue GPUS over Proposal 272.
>> > So
>> > far, he has refused to do so.
>> >
>> >> I am pasting below the section of the DAC's policies and procedures
>> >> governing the disciplining committee members. If these P&P's are
> carried
>> >> over to the new Standing Apportionment Committee (SAC), I don't think
> it
>> >> will have any difficulty suppressing dissident members.
>> >
>> > How do you plan to vote on these policies and procedures?
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> [Original Message]
>> >> From: Audrey Clement <aclement65 at hotmail.com>
>> >> To: <gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org>
>> >> Date: 4/28/2007 8:50:13 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [gpva-ic] Fw: [usgp-nc] Apportionment Committee --
>> > informalteleconference  forworker bees
>> >>
>> >> Tom Yager:
>> >>
>> >> > Audrey, I don't think that the co-chairs (either singly or together)
>> >> > can
>> >> > issue a unilateral ruling telling the state party what powers it
>> >> > has.
>> >>
>> >> Tom, please direct me to the section of GPVA bylaws that says that
>> >> GPVA
>> > can
>> >> place conditions on the participation of GPVA members in GPUS
> committees.
>> >>
>> >> > Disruptive members might be removed from a committee, but it takes
> time
>> >> > and
>> >> > energy that could better be spent on the committee's assigned tasks.
>> >> > It
>> >> > also reflects poorly upon a state party to appoint members to a
>> > committee
>> >> > with the knowledge that they plan to disrupt the committee's work.
> If
>> > we
>> >> > are going to become a serious political party, than we have to
>> >> > behave
>> > like
>> >> > one.
>> >>
>> >> Tom,
>> >>
>> >> This prescription sounds like when did you stop beating your wife. On
>> > what
>> >> basis do you suppose that Charlie Jordan will disrupt the
>> >> Apportionment
>> >> Committee's work?
>> >>
>> >> I am pasting below the section of the DAC's policies and procedures
>> >> governing the disciplining committee members. If these P&P's are
> carried
>> >> over to the new Standing Apportionment Committee (SAC), I don't think
> it
>> >> will have any difficulty suppressing dissident members.
>> >>
>> >> Audrey Clement
>> >>
>> >> ***********************************
>> >> III. Membership Status
>> >>
>> >>   A. Sanction or Removal of Members
>> >>
>> >>   1. The committee is expressly prohibited from using disagreements
>> >> regarding
>> >> differing views on issues and/or business before the committee as a
> cause
>> >> for sanction
>> >> or elimination of membership privileges.
>> >>
>> >>   2. The committee and its members have a responsibility for
> maintaining
>> > an
>> >> open, civil, productive working environment, whether meeting in
> person,
>> >> by
>> >> telephone, online, or by any other means. The committee shall not
>> > tolerate
>> >> actions
>> >> including:
>> >>
>> >>   a. Misrepresentation of the committee's or a member's work;
>> >>   b. Financial improprieties;
>> >>   c. Violent personal attacks and/or threats, verbal or physical;
>> >>   d. Discrimination against federal or state (where applicable)
> protected
>> >> classes;
>> >>   e. Harassment, meaning, criminal sexual harassment or criminal
>> > harassment
>> >> based on racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual identity, age or
>> >> disability, as
>> >> well as verbal harassment as constituted by continuous behavior that
>> >> undermines
>> >> participation and is clearly and unequivocally beyond the bounds of
>> >> political
>> >> disagreement and discourse;
>> >>   f. Any other unethical or illegal activities related to committee
>> > business
>> >> or function.
>> >>
>> >>   3. Inappropriate actions as outlined above can lead to sanction,
>> >> suspension
>> >> of privileges, or termination of membership via the processes
>> >> described
>> >> below.
>> >>
>> >>   4. If at all feasible, the committee shall take steps to maintain a
>> >> productive working environment prior to sanction, suspension of
>> > privileges,
>> >> or removal.
>> >> These steps may include:
>> >>
>> >>   a. Communication with the member's state party or caucus requesting
>> >> they
>> >> intercede with the committee member regarding the behavior(s) in
>> >> question.
>> >>   b. Use of facilitation, counseling, mediation, and/or arbitration
>> >> services,
>> >> as provided through the Dispute Resolution Committee or a mutually
> agreed
>> >> upon
>> >> outside source if necessary, which shall be encouraged and expected.
>> >>
>> >>   5. A petition specifying charge(s) and proposed action(s) may be
> filed
>> > by
>> >> any three or more members of the committee from three different states
>> >> (hereafter
>> >> known as "the petitioners") to require the committee co-chair(s) to
>> > initiate
>> >> and
>> >> administrate formal action to curtail membership privileges. Upon
> receipt
>> >> of any such petition, the co-chair(s) shall forward the petition to
>> >> the
>> >> state party
>> >> or caucus that the member represents.
>> >>
>> >>   6. A 2/3 quorum and 2/3 vote of the committee, shall be sufficient
>> >> to
>> >> confirm the charges and the initiate the action(s) detailed in the
>> > petition.
>> >>
>> >>   7. The committee co-chair(s) shall initiate and execute the approved
>> >> action(s) and notify the member immediately following the vote.
>> >>
>> >>   8. In limited cases such as violent threats and/or harassment, the
>> >> co-chair(s) have the discretion to suspend listserv privileges pending
> a
>> >> vote of
>> >> the committee.
>> >>
>> >>   9. After the member has been informed of disciplinary action, the
>> >> co-chair(s) shall, in writing, notify the GPUS National Committee and
> the
>> >> state party
>> >> or caucus the member represents of the action taken.
>> >>
>> >>   10. The committee member in question may, within seven (7) days of
>> >> these
>> >> postings, appeal the committee's action by notifying the GPUS
>> >> Secretary
>> > of
>> >> the appeal.
>> >> The Secretary shall forward the appeal to the National Committee.
>> >>
>> >>   11. Per GPUS bylaws and rules, any state party or caucus may put
>> > forward a
>> >> proposal to the National Committee to lessen or overturn the action of
>> > the
>> >> committee.
>> >> A majority vote of the National Committee shall be sufficient to pass
> the
>> >> proposal.
>> >>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org
>> To change your subscription options, see:
>> http://lists.vagreenparty.org/mailman/listinfo/gpva-ic
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org
> To change your subscription options, see:
> http://lists.vagreenparty.org/mailman/listinfo/gpva-ic
>

_______________________________________________
Sent via gpva-ic at vagreenparty.org
To change your subscription options, see:
http://lists.vagreenparty.org/mailman/listinfo/gpva-ic