Since the last time I wrote about The Proposal by California to the GPUS on Utah, there have been changes and amendments. The proposal has now been amended to include Texas, which withdrew its single proposal to counter the CA proposal and then joined forces with CA to provide a proposal for an “independent” investigation.
The proposal is FAR from proposing an “independent” investigation, by virtue of the fact that it calls for a “resolution committee” to examine the results of such an “independent” investigation, including members from “both sides” of the Utah split. Additionally, the background information continues to remain erroneous.
Here is the text of the Formation Of An Independent Investigative Committee Regarding the Affiliated GPU Amended:
Green Parties of California and Texas
Background
In 2004, the GPUS-affiliated Green Party of Utah split into
two groups, each claiming a direct lineage from the original
party and each claiming to have the sole bylaws authority to
continue the party under the Green Party of Utah name. These
two groups have each attained ballot status since then, one
in August 2005 under the name of “Green Party of Utah,” the
other in March 2006 under the name “Desert Greens.” For
convenience’ sake, this proposal will refer to the former
group as “the GPUT group” and the latter as “the Desert
Greens group” in order to distinguish them, although the
latter name was not used until 2006.
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). This decision was made without consulting
the GPUT group for their side of the story and without
consulting the NC for a decision. Despite repeated questions
regarding who in the GPUS made this decision, how, and on
what authority, the events behind this decision have never
been investigated or reported to the NC.
During the July 2005 national meeting in Tulsa, the
California delegation formally requested an investigation
and report on what happened in Utah in 2004; yet a year
later, this investigation still had not occurred. At the
July 2006 national meeting in Tucson, a discussion item on
the Utah parties was added to the agenda by a majority of
the delegates present. California proposed the idea of
forming a formal investigative committee to research the
situation, publish a report for the NC, and propose a
solution. Both Utah parties expressed approval of the idea
of a formal investigation to bring forth the facts, and many
other delegates also expressed support for the idea.
This proposal involves more than the grievance of one
disenfranchised state party. The intent of this proposal, in
addition to helping resolve the conflict about Utah, is to
lay the groundwork for a general process for handling
instances where states have more than one Green Party or
irresolvable division among an affiliated party.
Note: The current version of this proposal includes
provisions of the Texas proposal regarding the investigation
of the Utah dispute, in cooperation with the presenter of
that proposal. The presenters are also working with the
Accreditation Committee (AC) to ensure that this
investigation proceeds in cooperation with the AC’s efforts.
Proposal
The GPUS shall investigate the history of the conflict in
the originally affiliated Green Party of Utah and draft
proposals for settlement of the contention in the following
manner:
PHASE 1: PROFESSIONAL FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION
A. Choosing the Investigator(s)
The GPUS shall choose a competent professional to conduct a
fact-finding investigation into the steps leading to the
recognition of one faction inside the originally affiliated
Green Party of Utah. Ideally this person will be retained on
a pro bono basis. This individual will meet the following
criteria:
1. The investigator must be a person with professional
experience in law or investigation; for example, a licensed
attorney, retired judge, active or retired detective, or
professional mediator. An ideal first choice might be a
professor of Law in the state of Utah and the interns or
associates to whom the investigator might delegate work.
2. The investigator must not be currently be serving as a
publicly-elected official, a volunteer or staff member of a
campaign for publicly-elected office, a member of a
political action committee, or a hired counsel or legal
adviser for a political action committee or campaign for
publicly elected office.
3. The special investigator must also have no current or
former close friends, relatives, or close personal
associates who are or who have ever been involved in the
dispute in the Green Party of Utah.
4. The investigator must be a person who has maintained
neutrality on the conflict in the Green Parties in Utah and
the related political divisions within the Green Party.
To safeguard neutrality, both parties in Utah will be given
a veto right over nominees for investigator. They must state
grounds for a veto and may not veto more than one nominee.
If more than one nominee for investigator meets these
criteria, the GPUS National Committee (NC) shall choose the
investigator through an IRV vote.
If no investigator who meets these criteria can be found
after a diligent search by the NC, nominations will be
accepted, of people considered neutral and competent, for a
3-person investigation team to be elected by single
transferable vote (STV) by the NC.
B. Investigation
The investigator(s) shall thoroughly research the history of
the conflict in Utah, and collect oral and/or written
testimony and evidential documentation from both parties, in
order to publish a report on their findings for the NC.
The investigator shall be empowered and given approval to
request documentation from all involved parties, including
but not limited to: the GPUT group, the Desert Greens
group, current and former GPUS staff and NC Secretaries,
current and former members of the Accreditation Committee
(AC) and Steering Committee (SC), the State of Utah, Utah
courts of law, and individual Greens.
The GPUS strongly urges Green Party individuals and groups,
from whom testimony or evidence is requested by the special
investigator during the course of the fact-finding
investigation, to respond in a thorough and timely fashion.
The special investigator will conduct her or his
investigation in accordance with all applicable local, state
and national laws and all applicable rules of legal ethics.
The fact-finding investigation will be conducted during a
period of time not to exceed four months.
C. Report
Within 30 days of the conclusion of the fact-finding
investigation, the investigator(s) shall release a full
report to the NC of their findings on the history and facts
of the Utah dispute. The report must include all submitted
evidence and documentation, a statement from each party and
any other point of view considered significant, a timeline
of the events, and, where facts are contested, a description
of the nature of these discrepancies.
PHASE II: FORMATION OF SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE
The GPUS shall form a Settlement Committee to carefully
review the investigative report, consider the history and
relevant issues and bring a proposal to the NC within three
months to settle how to handle the two parties in Utah.
If the Settlement Committee members deem it possible, the
committee is further requested to propose, separately, a
formal policy for handling splits in state parties on an
ongoing basis. If the committee members choose to do this,
they may work beyond the 3-month timeline on the general
policy proposal, with the recommendation that they consult
and work with the AC on any proposed solutions before
proposing them to the NC.
The Settlement 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
AC, and five members elected at large by STV by the NC. Any
member of a Green Party or registered Green Party member may
run for the five at-large seats. Candidates may send in
their statement of candidacy through any NC delegate.
The committee shall elect two co-chairs by STV, shall hold
regular teleconferences in addition to online
communications, and shall give regular reports on their
progress. Teleconferences shall be scheduled to allow as
many members to attend as possible, with sufficient notice
to all members and rotation of times to accommodate those
who could not attend a previous call. General business
decisions of the committee shall be by consensus-seeking
process with a simple majority backup vote. Decisions on the
content of the final proposal(s) shall be by
consensus-seeking process with a 2/3 majority backup vote.
The final proposal(s) presented to the NC must have
two-thirds support of the entire committee, with consensus
sought.
The settlement proposal shall go before the NC for a simple
majority vote. Any proposed amendments to GPUS bylaws shall
be proposed separately, requiring a 2/3 majority from the NC
in order to pass, as specified in Article 5 of the GPUS
bylaws.
It is the expectation that through examination of this
specific case the National Committee can become yet more
effective at generally encouraging Green candidacies and
participation within the electoral process.
Resources
CONTACTS:
Kent Mesplay (CA) 858-752-9918, kentmesplay@presidency.com
Cat Woods (CA) 415-897-6989, cat801@mindspring.com
Bill Holloway (TX) 512-744-7487, bill.holloway@gmail.com
Doug Reber (TX) 512-669-2654, doug_reber@yahoo.com
TIMELINE: Upon passage of this proposal, commencement of the
nomination process for investigator. If no candidates
meeting the criteria A-1 through A-4 can be found within 5
weeks, then the nomination process for a 3-member
investigative team of neutral persons should commence. Prior
to the conclusion of the 4-month investigative phase,
announcement of the Settlement Committee, invitation to the
2 Utah parties and the AC to appoint their committee member,
and announcement of the nomination process for the 5
at-large seats. Nominations shall remain open for 3 weeks.
As soon as possible thereafter, an election shall be held
for the at-large Settlement Committee members. The
three-month timeline for the Settlement Committee shall
commence upon the posting of the results of the election.
RESOURCES: At the NC’s discretion, it may choose to pay a
professional, if no one is available to do the investigative
work pro bono, or it can choose to convene a neutral
3-person investigative team without cost. Possible listserv
for Settlement Committee members.
References
None
Here is the response, via our delegate to the GPUS, of the Desert Greens Green Party of Utah:
Greetings and salutations to the NC,
I am writing today to express some reactions to proposal 244 elicited from the grassroots of the Green Party of Utah (Registered Political Party “Desert Greens”).
First, even if there were no other objections, we all agree that the simple majority threshold is wrong, as Audrey and Mato Ska have pointed out with citations from the GPUS bylaws.
Secondly, while I as a representative of my party did indeed wholeheartedly agree to a truly objective and independant investigation of the Utah dispute, approval of a “Settlement Committee” was not given. I support an investigation, but do not support the creation of such a “settlement committee”. Especially one of such composition as to include partisans from both sides of the dispute. Such a committee would not be able to objectively deal with the situation, and would risk being pushed or pulled in directions that might not be in the best interests of all. It might amount to whichever side provided a person of superior shmoozing and debating skills would be able to sway the decision of such a group towards the interests of that side. We of the currently and historically affiliated Green Party here in Utah STRONGLY object to this segment of the proposal. We plead with our fellow delegates to defeat this proposal on these grounds.
Thirdly, the “Background” of proposal 244 is transparently slanted in favor of one side of this dispute. For example, the reliance on the “Court Decision”. What the courts decided for when they upheld the State Elections office’s refusal to recognize the Recall and Replacement of our State Liaison, was based on the fact that the Emergency Statewide Convention that had been participated in via email by over 2/3 of our Membership, was not EXPLICITLY allowed for or defined in our bylaws at that time. Although it was and is evident to us that it was implicitly allowed (since the CC of our Party was explicitly allowed to conduct business via email, why would a grassroots party deny to its membership that which was granted to its administrative servants?). Therefore, even though there was no prohibition of conducting a Statewide convention via email, the Court found that it couldn’t recognize its validity since it was not explicitly defined. That is all the court decided in fact.
What was explicitly defined by our bylaws current at the time however, is something that the courts didn’t take into consideration. This is the specific and explicit prohibition against using “Formal Consensus Decision Making Model” for the “election of candidates” and this is something that the “Background” to this proposal fails to mention. The fact is, that those now being identified as “GPUT” in these discussions, did indeed claim to have made the decision regarding the “election of candidates” specifically who our party elected to fill our Presidential line on our ballot line, by consensus. Our bylaws have always called for such matters to be decided via IRV, with a specific prohibition against using consensus for such decisions. Also, it is well documented (as well as common sense and deduction can tell you) that there was if anything only a contrived consensus at the August 22 meeting of our CC. Had there truly been consensus, then there wouldn’t have been a majority of our membership, including a majority of the members of our CC participating in a well documented Emergency Statewide Convention to overturn the certification of NO CANDIDATE that resulted from the alleged consensus.
The only claims to legitimacy offered by this rival faction being championed by the authors of this proposal is the court case and the “minutes from the August 22, 2004 meeting of the CC”, and even the person who wrote those minutes, Joan Gregory, realized within a few days after sending them out that she had been manipulated into doing so.
The reality is very simple. A small minority of our party in Utah were adamantly against having David Cobb on our ballot. This same small minority of our membership contained the individual that had been entrusted to represent the wishes of the membership of our party to the State of Utah as our State Liaison. Unfortunately for our party and the National, he betrayed this trust. This small minority was augmented by a couple of individuals of note, right around the time of the “split”. These were by name, Dayne Goodwyn (a long time friend and associate of Peter Camejo who had not been participating in our party for the three years previous to the dispute) and Jeff Beardall (who had never been a member of any Green Party in Utah as of August 2004). One might find it interesting to google Jeff Beardall. Also try entering “jeff beardall cat woods” into the google search.
Support for this proposal, with its evident slant towards the position of a faction of Utah Greens that acted to keep the GPUS presidential candidate off the ballot, is tantamount to supporting the violation of the Accreditation Agreement clause that calls for supporting such candidates. This faction acted to keep the GPUS candidate off the ballot against the will of the majority of Utah Green Party Members. That the court did not find in our favor during our struggle to uphold our affiliation agreement, does not change the fact that we have continued to function as a cohesive and continous Green Party of Utah, and have done our best to honor our affiliation with the GPUS. It also does not alter the fact that we acted without violating any explicit clause of our bylaws, and legitimately recalled and replaced our errant State Liaison with one who submitted certification of the GPUS candidates. The only thing that the court case truly decided was that Utah Voters would have one less choice printed on their ballots.
So, if you support this proposal, then you are in fact supporting a proposal slanted towards reducing the number of choices for voters in Utah retroactively.
I would vote in favor of the proposal if it was for what I agreed to on behalf of Utah Greens at the Tulsa Meeting. I earnestly want the entire NC to be privy to an Independant and unbiased recounting of just how the GPUS candidate was denied access to the Utah ballot, and how the majority of our membership took action to overcome this, and failing to do so, then took action to Suspend those individuals (the ones who were legitimately members at the time) for a one year period. I want the NC to see for themselves, and decide for themselves as a body, and definitely object to the creation of a possibly swayable and biased “Committee”.
Please vote NO on Proposal 244.
Sincerely,
Tom King,
Delegate Green Party of Utah (dba Desert Greens)
Deanna Dee-Dee Taylor 