concerning the 2002 EXPANSION DELEGATION
of the GREEN PARTY of CALIFORNIA
to the COORDINATING COMMITTEETimeline & Summary of AC Review of California Applications
prepared by AC chair Art Goodtimes
12.31.01 — Peggy Lewis, state co-coordinator, submits original email application (hard copy sent to AC that same day and arrives shortly afterwards) requesting two alternates be moved up to full delegates (Beth Moore-Haines and Michael Wyman) and stating additional delegates will be affirmed at state meeting in Los Angeles on Jan. 18-19.
1.5.02 — As new chair(as of 1.1.02) I sent the California application via email to the AC for review.
1.23.02 — Peggy writes that the two appointed delegates, Moore and Wyman, were “affirmed” at the Los Angeles meeting, and that the state is accepting further applications for the nine expansion seats as yet unfilled, and will be “selected” at the next state party meeting in May.
Peggy explained that California would be seeking candidates through its listserves and at its plenary the upcoming weekend with hopes of achieving gender and geographic balance. As the delegate selection process was a specific criteria in judging other state applications, I asked the AC for further comment.
Internally the committee discussed what if any criteria we had for judging delegate selection. I noted that diversity had been raised as a concern, but had not been a blocking concern on an earlier state’s expansion delegate applications. It seemed that “election by clusters” was the only criteria specifically called out for delegate selection in our original expansion delegate letter to each state, which former AC chair Tony Affigne wrote.
2.24.02 — Peggy sent me complete information about the two delegates, Moore and Wyman, that I had been seeking, and which had been holding up completing our review of the California application (I had been told the information on the original letter was incorrect). We had required that information of other states, so as to see if delegates had been selected by clusters of chapters. In sending the correct info about the two, Peggy notified me that California would be sending the names and information of the other nine soon — a slightly different process than she had said would happen in her email of 1.23.02 (above).
2.25.02 — I notify the AC that we should now probably await the names of the entire delegation before acting on the two. David Pollard, who represents the AC on a Texas retreat, informs the AC that the SC thinks differently (presumably that we should act on the two separately) but no one contacts me about that direction.
2.26.02-3.10.02 — I go off to D.C. for a legislative conference, and Ron Stanchfield, who hasn’t been officially accepted as co-chair, returns from a trip, but we aren’t able to coordinate. So, the California application is put on hold.
2.28.02 — Peggy sends an email with the names and info of nine new delegates, in addition to the two alternates already affirmed, and the two current national reps. However, no hard copy is sent, as our AC internal process criteria require for expansion delegate applications.
3.2.02 — John Strawn, one of California’s two current national reps, sends this revised expansion delegate application to the CC, which ruffles some AC feathers as it seems outside the established process.
3.8.02 — Jo Chamberlain, California’s rep on the Steering Committee, sends me an email asking when her state’s expanded delegation will be seated as an important vote is coming up that she’d like the full delegation to vote on.
3.10.02 — Upon returning home, I immediately call for the committee to let me know if they feel the California application is complete (correct names, full complement of delegates, etc.) so we can move the application forward, and I notify California that we are trying to reach consensus.
3.11.02 — While most AC members seems disposed to accept California’s revised application, one member raises two blocking concerns — one regarding the changed nature of the process, with the state coordinating committee making appointments instead of delegates being selected or affirmed at a state meeting, and another about the seeming lack of diversity of the delegation in the revised application.
A second AC member retracts previous agreement and echoes the diversity concern, as does a third. I notified Nathalie and Jo that some blocking concerns have been raised in our agreement-seeking process, and that AC wouldn’t be acting in time to recommend seating California’s full delegation for the vote that the state was interested in (a CC vote on vote counting).
3.12.02 — After much internal discussion, I accept the process issue as a blocking concern, but not the diversity issue (a valid concern but not a block for this committee’s actions), and seek clarification from California that their bylaws allow appointment of delegates outside of a state meeting. Moore points out that she and Wyman were affirmed at a state meeting, and they should be accredited immediately.
Jo emails me that she believes the AC is stepping beyond its authority, and seeks immediate accreditation of the full delegation. Jo also submits vote of unaccredited delegates to the CC on “vote-counting proposal”. That raises serious AC objections to California’s apparent attempt to circumvent the process of accreditation entirely, and I write the CC raising the AC objections to California’s actions. And I repeat my request to Jo for bylaw clarifications so we can continue our review process.
3.13.02 — Many emails internally discussing the issues at length, and an email from Jo asking by what authority can the AC stop a delegation from voting.
3.14.02 — Realizing that the hard copy of California’s revised application had yet to be received by me (the AC considered other state’s applications to be incomplete without a hard copy in the chair’s hand) and that one sent to the national office has been misplaced, I ask Peggy to send me a new hard copy.
3.15.02 — The AC discusses sending a letter on the diversity issue to accompany our report to the CC regarding accreditation, since there are differing opinions as to whether it’s a blocking concern or not. One of the minority members of the AC urges immediate seating of the California delegation and is adamantly opposed to any decision that would deny accreditation based on lack of diversity. Jo sends an email again contesting our authority to delay the seating of the California delegation and then another explaining the process of selection vis-à-vis the bylaws, but not why representations about the process that would be used changed between January and February.
3.16.02 — Much discussion internally.
3.17.02 — After more discussion, Ron Stanchfield as nominated co- chair participates in SC conference call, as I have a conflict. In his report, Ron noted that Jo had explained that the delegate selection process had changed because of a decision made in Houston where the state was encouraged to act sooner than waiting for the may state meeting.
3.18.02 — With Jo’s email and Ron’s further clarification, I sought to get committee agreement to begin a vote on California’s revised application, with the understanding that no report would be sent the CC until the application’s hard copy was received by me. Also, I separated the two alternates (Moore and Wyman) from the others, and called for an urgent vote on their accreditation.
3.20.02 — I reported to the CC that Moore and Wyman had by unanimously been accredited as expansion delegates from California in 23 days from the date the application was deemed complete by the chair. There was also discussion of the continuing problems with California’s second application for 9 more expansion delegates, particularly as to process and the change in policies that allowed appointment of delegates by the state coordinating council.
3.21.02 — Due to continuing AC member objections to California’s application, I asked Peggy for any further clarification she might give us on the process issue.
3.25.02 — Beth Moore submits a vote to CC with 4 delegates “recognized by USGP” and 9 delegates “recognized by GPCA”. I again protest to the CC that the 9 are not accredited. And an AC member reports back about his/her take on the expansion delegate issue from his/her five days in California.
3.26.02 — After more internal discussion, I ask Peggy and Jo to provide minutes of the meeting where the change in process was decided upon. There is intense internal discussion all day long on the issues with many parties.
3.27.02 — Having received the Feb. 23-24 Santa Cruz minutes telling of the change of policy towards the full complement of expansion delegates, I immediately call for a vote, saying that the sufficient clarifications have been received, allowing a week for voting.
3.28.02-3.30.02 — After much more discussion, the voting is concluded, with 5 voting against accrediting the 9 expansion delegates from California, and 2 voting for.
3.31-02 — Amidst a flurry of calls, the SC conference call occurs, and the AC is asked to produce a majority and a minority report. And it is decided the issue will go on the CC for resolution, with two weeks for discussion and one week for voting.
4.1.02 — A committee member returns from a two-week vacation. He is offered the ability to vote and voice his opinion by the chair, as the original call for a vote on 3.27.02 allowed a week for voting.
4.2.02 — The committee member sides with the minority changing the final AC vote on the California expansion delegate issue to 5-3 and the member joins in crafting the final minority report.