Green Party of the United States - National Committee Voting

Home	Vote	Results	History	Contacts	Admin
	National Committee Voting

Login

Proposal Details

Proposal ID	212
Proposal	Proposal to Remove Gwen Wages as Steering Committee Co-chair
Presenter	Steve Kramer, Pat LaMarche, Rebecca Rotzler, Budd Dickinson
Floor Manager	Steve Kramer
Phase	Closed - Failed
Discussion	02-27-2006 - 03-12-2006
Voting	03-13-2006 - 03-19-2006
Presens Quorum	Two Thirds of Active Accredited States/Caucuses
Consens Quorum	Two Thirds of Yes and No Votes

Background

On February 26, 2006, the tribunal empaneled to investigate articles of
impeachment filed on September 24, 2005, concluded that the "tribunal has
reached consensus regarding the original and amended articles of impeachment:
The Steering Committee's actions regarding the its election does not warrant
removal of any member of that Committee."

Proposal

Gwen Wages shall be removed as co-chair of the GPUS National Committee.

Resources

Contact Persons:
Steve Kramer scooter@guisarme.net
Pat LaMarche genny_judge@yahoo.com
Rebecca Rotzler rebelrot@yahoo.com
Budd Dickinson budd.dickinson@greens.org

The Floor Manager for this proposal would like to instruct delegates that these are votes to *REMOVE* the member in question.

== A vote of YES for this proposal means that you are in favor of the member being removed from office.

== A vote of NO against this proposal means that you are not in favor of removing, or, to put it in another fashion, you are in favor of retaining, the member in his or her present office.

== An abstention means that you are not taking part in the vote, and will
not be counted towards the votes to REMOVE.

== The sum of the YES and NO votes will be tallied for each member. If two-thirds or more YES votes are obtained in such a tally, then that member shall be removed from office. Any other result means that the member will retain her or his office and will continue the term thereof.

References

GPUS Bylaws, Article VI
Impeachment proceedings declared against Steering Committee members: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/private/natlcomvotes/2005-September/012000.html
Amendment to impeachment articles: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/private/natlcomvotes/2005-October/012737.html
Consensus Verdict of the Grievance Tribunal: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/private/natlcomvotes/2006-February/015741.html
Tribunal Opinion From David Pollard: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/private/natlcomvotes/2006-February/015874.html
Tribunal Opinion from Marakay Rogers: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/private/natlcomvotes/2006-February/015871.html
Official Response to Impeachment Charges by Marc Sanson: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/private/natlcomvotes/2006-February/015376.html
Impeachment Charge Response from Jake Schneider GPUS Treasurer: http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/private/natlcomvotes/2006-February/015373.html

Not on the NC list:
2/4/06

TO: Tribunal Members John Atkeison, Marakay Rogers and David Pollard

In response to your request for statements from the impeached members of the
GPUS Steering Committee:

The articles of impeachment, as far as I can tell, first accuse the Steering
Committee of trying to resolve questions surrounding the outcome of the 2005
Steering Committee co-chair vote in Tulsa by choosing from among several
failed options that had been proposed. This is not correct.

The election in Tulsa was properly conducted, and the results were clear. The
subsequent confusion and current situation stems from the fact that the
original tabulation was done applying an incorrect threshold to determine who
was elected. This error was discovered shortly after the Tulsa meeting. Once
the correct threshold was applied, the results showed that all four co-chair
seats had been filled (not three, as originally thought).

To resolve the confusion and provide the GPUS national Committee with a better
understanding of STV and elections protocol, my personal preference would have
been to consult an organization such as Fairvote or the Center for Voting and
Democracy, or an expert in elections law, that could have provided
knowledgeable and credible information about elections protocol and advice.
Unfortunately, this choice was not an option, and two member state parties had
put forth o the National Committee several resolutions attempting to resolve
the matter:

Proposal #170 (failed, 9/11/05) called for seating two people, Tom Sevigny and
Kristen Olson, in the one position.

Porposal #174 (failed, 9/1/05) called for recognizing the correctly tabulated
outcome of the Tulsa election by seating Tom Sevigny.

Proposal # 175 called for resuming a previously called election to fill a
vacancy which was thought to have occurred because of the mis-calculation.
Importantly, that proposal states that "Furthermore the National Committee
directs the Secretary of the Green Party to **consider all those previously
nominated to fill the vacant seat be considered nominees for the current
election."**

None of these proposals gained approval. The result, then, was a vacancy on
the Steering Committee, upon which he bylaws do instruct the Steering
Committee to act. I do not believe choosing one of the three failed options
was an appropriate choice. (Even though I believed one of them to have been
the correct option, in fact the National Committee had rendered that "un-
approved.") Given a vacancy resulting from the failure of
these options, I believe the clear, appropriate step was for the Steering
Committee to call a new election to fill a vacant chair, per the bylaws (as in
an online election for a mid-term vacancy).

In fact, the Steering Committee did follow the GPUS bylaws and the decision-
making process of the National Committee. There have been several
opportunities for the National Committee to address the bylaws to amend or
suspend them, and the National Committee has not done so.

The second article, adopted by the callers later and for which I do not have
three signatories, makes no sense. The complaint is that the Steering
Committee limited the decision-making power of the National Committee. In
fact, the Steering Committee did just the opposite.

Concerning calls for notes from the 9/5/05 Steering Committee conference call
pertaining to the call for impeachment: there were none. The Steering
Committee noted that a call for impeachment had been made, but
nothing had been put into action, as there were not three signatories at that
time. There were also 2 1/2 hours of other stuff to address that night, so it
was decided to address tehe call for impeachment if it did become official,
and that discussion should take place on the national (not SC) email list.

Please feel free to write or call if you have questions or need further
clarification of this statement.

AS part of the record, I would also like to make the following points
concerning the way this process has unfolded, because I believe these should
be taken into consideration along with the various statements:

- Steve Kramer posted an outline of the process that would be followed. It
has not been followed. One stipulation was that each impeached members should
receive the articles of impeachment signed by the three delegates making the
call. At this time, I have not received three copies of the articles of
impeachment signed by three delegates (or even three delegates and one former
delegate). While I assume that this exists, I have no evidence that this
document has been signed by three delegates.

- Those calling for impeachment have demanded the SC choose among the three
failed options (above), specifically a choice they preferred.
Had this option been their sincere wish, there have been a number of
opportunities to put this option into effect, with a potentially good chance
of succeeding. Instead, they have demanded that their option be adopted,
anyway, with the threat of continuing to support the impeachment. Those
calling for impeachment are trying to use other proposals they want passed as
leverage. In the real electoral arena, this would be called extortion.
I believe it would have been entirely inappropriate and unethical to
choose from among the failed options. Had the Steering Committee done so, by
their own admission, it would have been in violation of the bylaws.

- I have, over the past few months, received a few messages which involve very
clear instances of sexual harassment. One was sent by the individual who
originally called for impeachment, and who has since left the Green Party. At
least one was sent by one of those currentl;y making the call.

- The delay in addressing the impeachment for two months (followed by further
delays, for whatever reasons) was unprofessional and inconsiderate, both to
the impeached members of the Steering Committee and the National Committee,
and I believe has resulted in damage that would not have occurred had this
matter been addressed in a timely manner. If the impeached members are
expected to adhere to whatever ad-hoc protocol is set up (which is not
unreasonable), it would make sense that those responsible for overseeing the
proceedings would adhere to reasonable standards, as well. Some of the delays
may have been inevitable, some were not. I believe the impeached members of
the Steering Committee and the National Committee are owed an apology.

Given the request that these statement not be overly long, I've not gone into
more detail at this time. Again, if you have questions or want further
information or clarification about any of the above, please email or call me.

Holly Hart
2/3/06

2/24/06

You have seen our decision: we found no reason to support the charges
brought against members of the Steering Committee.

Based on experience both on and off the National Committee, it is my
conclusion that the charges were destructive and malicious. I will leave
it to others to express opinions about why supposed leaders of this party
work so hard to tear it down and distract us from the urgent work at
hand. This episode has become an example of why people should *not*
become involved in politics in general, and displays the price to be paid
for those who give above and beyond the call of duty. It has been a
shameful and embarrassing thing to see in the party that is the only hope
for the future of the world as we know it.

This moment is a turning point for the Green Party of the United States--
we cannot continue as we have been. I urge each delegate to vote in
support of the "impeached" members of the Steering Committee.
Please take a stand that supports those who are willing to sacrifice so
much to keep this party alive, and rebuffs those who attack them and
disrupt our work.

Thanks for listening

John Atkeison

Organizer, Officer, Media Producer, Candidate & Campaign Manager
***
Given that the impeachment charges against each of the Steering Committee
members are all the same, I chose to let the statements of others speak to
the charges against me.

Jody Grage Haug
3/5/2006

The voting software used by the Green Party of the United States is free software, licensed under the General Public License v2 (GPL).