The Proposal by California to the GPUS on Utah is now in the official discussion phase on the GPUS National Committee discussion list.
There are insconsistencies and myths throughout the proposal. Here are examples:
1. The title of the proposal itself is misleading:
It presents itself as “Formation Of An Independent Investigative Committee Regarding the Affiliated Green Party of Utah “. Upon reading the proposal there is nothing “independent” about it. It calls for an “investigation” made up exclusively of GPUS members. Far from being independent the committee will initially be composed of two known partisans with the balance of the committee being potential partisans and likely partisans before the committee’s “task” is completed depending on the pursuasive abilities of the initial known partisans.
This is the antithesis of “independent”.
2. The Background information is false:
In court, the state of Utah found in favor of the GPUT group being the continuing Green Party of Utah with the right to use the name. The Deserts Greens group, however, was granted
the status of affiliation with the national party and given both of Utah’s delegates and votes on the GPUS National Committee (NC).
First, the court did NOT find “in favor of the GPUT group being the continuing Green Party of Utah”. Clearly the presenters of this proposal have not read the court documents and are basing their background on hearsay. The court decided in FAVOR OF THE ELECTIONS OFFICE, which was being sued BY the GPUT, in upholding the elections office decision to continue recognizing the state liaison who had been recalled and replaced in accordance with state law and GPUT Bylaws (That person that had been recalled and replaced stood up in court and lied to the judge, who had obviously not read our bylaws, stating that the GPUT makes all its decisions by consensus. What this person did not say, and what the judge obviously had not read, and what our lawyers failed to point out (disappointingly) is that the EXCEPTION is in the elections of candidates.).
Thereby the state refused to accept the certification of our presidential candidate and printed the ballots without a Green Party Presidential Candidate.
Second the GPUS never “granted the Desert Greens affiliated status”. There was no Desert Greens name until February, 2006. Up until that time the GPUT remained the GPUT, continuing its business with the state, until ballot access was lost at which time a ballot petition drive began. When the drive was completed the GPUT was denied its legal name (it is incorporated and trademarked) because the suspended group of individuals completed a petition drive first and the Elections Office decided to “remain silent” on the name issue, ignoring all state of Utah commerce laws with regards to the GPUT name.
Read the entire set of court documents from the Utah Supreme Court.
3. The math in the actual proposal is incorrect for the number of individuals to serve on an “independent” committee:
The committee shall consist of eight persons, including one representative from each party (the GPUT group and the Desert Greens group), one member appointed by the
Accreditation Committee (AC), and four members elected at large by single transferable vote by the NC.
Uh, do the math. 1+1+1+4=7.
4. The Voting for this proposal, according to the criteria set forth on the voting page will be by A Majority of Yes and No Votes. This would go against the GPUS Bylaws.
There is already a set of GPUS rules defined method for matters dealing with accreditation (the Accreditation Committee), forming a new method or committee to deal with these issues is a fundamental change to the exisitng rules. This would require a two-thirds majority vote, not simple majority.
The Green Party of Utah (dba Desert Greens) has provided a timeline of events, including documents and evidence, even those that were not in favor of the GPUT at the time, that if one actually reads it, clearly (not confusingly, clearly) points out what happened and how this group of individuals who insist on dragging this out are continuing to manipulate the situation to get their way. This set of documents was provided to ALL NC members, ALL AC members, and ALL state parties councils. This group of individuals who are continuing to drag this out denied the GPUT and the citizens of Utah their right to have a presidential candidate on its ballot by manipulative and deceitful tactics. They will stop at nothing, including lying, securing the services of individuals from the outside (including bringing them in to cause trouble and getting their out of states cohorts to do the same), create scenes at public events, and publicly and privately threatening the affiliated members of the GPUT (dba Desert Greens).
The way I see it, this is not only yet another situation to keep Utah’s Greens from moving forward, it is yet another ploy to keep our national Green Party from focusing on the business of getting Greens elected and growing the party on a national level by a faction of individuals who want to see the GPUS crumble.
Now, I ask, who is violating the green party key values here?
Deanna Dee-Dee Taylor 