I have blogged previously here about the impeachment proceedings of GPUS steering committee members, the charges of which were issued by four GDIers, one of whom has since defected (or returned) to the Democrats to run for office against Hillary Clinton. The whole ordeal has created a mess and has stalled more important business of the GPUS. Clearly, this move was an intentional one to create chaos and disruption with the intent to bring the GPUS to its demise.
Fortunately, most members states and delegates see through this, insist on adhering to process and prohibit those who are creating these sitatuations from taking over.
Steve Kramer, a GPUS Steering Committee member and one of the unaccused, issued a statement on the impeachment ordeal yesterday.
In his statement, Steve says,
….we must return to the issue of trust. It is my belief, borne of observation, that GDI did not adopt these goals merely to promote a good idea, but because they felt that the GPUS lacked these things. They banded together to accuse the Green Party of not being democratic, of not being independent, of not promoting its own Key Values, and in this case of not following its own Bylaws. They banded together, separately and apart from the body, because they did not trust the Green Party enough to be together and united. They used the language of those who trusted each other against those whom they themselves did not trust.
By their very presence, GDI prompts us to ask serious questions of ourselves. This constitutes GDI’s “case against the Green Party”, of which this impeachment is only a part. And it is good that we should question ourselves – for only then will we know that our outward mission, to bring a Greener country and world, is on solid footing. Indeed, the very name chosen – Greens for *Democracy* and *Independence* – outline the full basis of this indictment: that the Green Party, particularly during 2004, was not independent enough from the Democratic Party, and acted in an undemocratic fashion to make it so. But these complaints not only remain unproven, but are seriously belied by the actions of the Green Party, and by the actions of GDI itself. The particulars of these charges, whether laid in formal complaint, as the impeachment proceedings have done, or informally levelled in the several postings by their delegates on these lists, are a matter of record, and those who have been on this committee for a relatively short amount of time are familiar with them, and need not be reminded of them.
It has been levelled in turn that those who have pursued these various accusations against the Green Party have done so not because they seek to effect change, but because they simply wish to disrupt our workings…that they are in effect no better than allowing saboteurs into the factory of our democratic experiment. It is true that some from outside the party are indeed demonstrably aiding this impeachment effort against the Green leadership; however, I remain unconvinced until now. I personally will always err on the side of allowing criticism, particularly of my own leadership, rather than stifling it – but not to the point of it detracting from the Green Party’s electoral mission. I would not oppose it solely as a personal affront, but as a matter of the sacred trust of my office, I cannot permit it. I would also not oppose an entire group based on the actions of individuals.
Fortunately, there is before us a clear choice, which may distinguish dissent from opposition. Our tribunal, duly constructed by the uncharged Co-Chairs of the Party, have unanimously agreed that the elected, indicted leaders of our Party should not be removed from their offices. They were not unanimous on the question of motive for either the plaintiffs or the accused. At this point, nothing further should be pursued; a functional organization, or a functional faction within said organization, should simply exonerate the leaders, decline to fix blame, and grow from this point forward with an idea of how to solemnly solve the differences – in strategy, as there are none within ideals – which separate us.
Deanna Dee-Dee Taylor 