Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts

Return to Top Level

Code Green Imperatives for Addressing the Global Warming Emergency
Saturday March 29, @11:21PM, by John Andrews, Tom Flittie, Jill Stein, Nancy Lee Wood
Subject : Global Warming
from the Platform dept.
Summary :
As a result of recent scientific discoveries, it is clear that we have entered a period in which far-reaching emergency measures are required to avert catastrophic consequences from global warming. The actions that must be taken involve systemic changes to the way we operate our economy. They also involve freeing our political system from the grip of fossil fuel lobbyists and rededicating ourselves to economic justice and the public interest. Some climate activists have recently called for an emergency declaration known as Code Green that includes eight imperatives on which action to date is either wholly inadequate or in which we have been moving in the wrong direction. This is a proposal that the Green-Rainbow Party endorse the Code Green imperatives.
Text :
The Green-Rainbow Party endorses the following Code Green imperatives to address the global warming crisis:

1. A FULL-EMPLOYMENT GREEN JOBS INITIATIVE to transform our economy by investing in local business and cooperatives providing energy conservation and renewables, local organic food production, the building of a green transportation infrastructure, and a green community education corp.

2) A GREEN ENERGY TRANSITION PLAN for phased closure of existing fossil fuel based power generation facilities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, beginning with the closure of coal-fed power plants, with the goal of achieving an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020.

3) CLEAN MONEY POLITICAL REFORM to take corrupting fossil-fuel money and energy industry money out of our political system.

4) A WINDFALL FOSSIL-FUEL TAX to ensure the tainted and massive profits resulting from increasing oil prices are used to speed (rather than deter) the transition to a just green economy.

5) AN END TO FOSSIL FUEL INVESTMENTS, including eliminating tax subsidies that promote the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

6) ESTABLISHING ECONOMIC JUSTICE as a core principle of the green economy.

7) PROHIBITING THE CONVERSION OF FOOD TO FUEL. This includes rejecting the use of wheat, corn, and other agricultural crops as feedstocks for biofuel production.

8) RELOCALIZING OUR ECONOMIES to provide thriving, sustainable local economies that provide good jobs, economic security, and a revitalized grassroots democracy while reducing imports of energy and raw materials.

Reply

Re: Code Green Imperatives for Addressing the Global Warming Emergency
Tuesday April 08, @11:43AM, by Mike Heichman (not cosponsoring-raising concerns about the process)
April 8, 2008

Beginning on April 1, I have sent e-mails to Jill Stein and to the CDLC, Platform and State Committee-Discuss e-mail lists. I have repeatedly expressed concerns over the process that has led to 4 questions being submitted for the April 12th State Committee meeting. So far my concerns have not been addressed. I still hope that my concerns will be addressed before the State Committee will meet this Saturday.

I am not the only person who has expressed concerns. Immediately below is an e-mail that Gary Hicks had sent out.

“I am supposed to be co-chairing a sub-committee of the CDLC with
Jill, concerning Ballot Questions. Supposedly, Jill has been way too busy
to be addressing any of the stuff below. And now all of a sudden all of
this stuff pops up in time [barely!!!] for the Statecom meeting. And as
co-chair of the sub-committee this is the first I've heard of any of this,
except for the proposal on sub-prime lending.

With all due respect, I am FUCKING PISSED! I want to know why I
have been bypassed, and WHO besides Jill has been NAVIGATING THIS STUFF AROUND ME------------and WHY???

With all due respect,

Gary Hicks”

On February 21, the last time that CDLC met, Gary and Jill, the new co-chair of CDLC, (who I also have heard is the co-chair of the Platform Comm.-is that true?) volunteered to represent CDLC on this Platform-led committee. The fact that Gary was not even invited to participate is outrageous. As somebody who has been active on CDLC and who is on the Platform Committee’s e-mail list, I saw NO discussion of these issues until Saturday evening, March 29, when this was posted on the GRP website, just before the deadline for submitting proposals for the April 12th State Committee meeting.

So, Gary was not “invited” to participate. I was the author of the proposal that was adopted at the last State Committee meeting, have been active on CDLC and I wasn’t “invited’ to participate. I am unaware of any meetings held by either the CDLC or Platform Committees to discuss these ideas (and other potential ballot questions). I have seen nothing on either the CDLC and Platform e-mail lists.

In response to an earlier question, Merelice said that she was asked to submit a proposal with the members of the Rainbow Caucus. I am very pleased that there was this very appropriate outreach to the Rainbow Caucus. However the larger questions are …
-WHO HAS BEEN MAKING ALL OF THESE DECISIONS AND UNDER WHAT INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY HAVE THEY BEEN OPERATING?

Additionally, it appears that whoever has been in charge has not implemented parts of the proposal that was passed at the January 28, 2008 State Committee meeting.

Below are excerpts from the proposal that I had submitted on January 13. The night before the January 28 State Comm. meeting, Jill and I had a conversation. I was very impressed by her excitement for my proposal and encouraged her and the Platform Committee to take on leadership role if this proposal would be approved the next day (which it was). Below are excerpts from my proposal, which demonstrates my intentions to involve members of our party in the selection of the questions that we would put on the ballot, and the revised proposal written by Jill, which I supported and was ratified by the State Committee on January 28th.

A. “2008 PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION CAMPAIGN (EXCERPTS)
Sunday January 13, @06:34PM, by Mike Heichman, Suffolk County

Text:
Proposal/Timeline:
January 27, 2008:

3. If the State Committee believes that there is a good chance that there will be few GRP members running for the above offices in 2008, it will authorize the CDLC to set up an “Advisory Ballot Question Task Force”, open, of course to all GRP members.

If the above is passed by the January 28 State Comm. Meeting:

February-Early April:

1. CDLC will publicize and organize the Task Force.
2. We will ask the Regional Meetings to discuss this idea.
3. We will contact Local Chapters and ask them to discuss this idea, as well as encouraging them to run candidates.
4. We will solicit ideas for potential ballot question.
5. If support develops for a very small number of issues, we will do some initial outreach to local and statewide groups who might be interested in working with us.
6. The Task Force will become knowledgeable about the appropriate campaign laws.
7. If sufficient support develops for a very small number of issues, the Task Force will come up with a plan and make a proposal for the April State Comm. meeting

April State Comm. Meeting: We will decide whether we will proceed with this project.”

B. DRAFT REVISION OF PROPOSAL (NOTE-EXCERPTS FROM Jill’s revised proposal which was adopted)

“Text: Proposal/Timeline

January 28, 2008:

3. Platform Committee is asked to establish an Advisory Ballot Working Group (ABWG) which will include representatives from CDLC and Membership Committees, SPWG (the Strategic Plan Working Group), the Rainbow Task Force on Housing Foreclosure, interested GRP locals, and interested GRP volunteers.

4. The ABWG is asked to develop and coordinate implementation of a plan for supporting legislative and/or municipal advisory ballot questions in the 2008-2009 time period. The Plan should address the following elements:
- What are potential ballot questions that best serve the purposes of strengthening GRP locals, growing the Party, and furthering the Party’s strategic objectives?
- What ballot questions appear to have a base of support that would make them successful, considering the level of enthusiasm from GRP locals, GRP presence in existing issue-oriented networks, and other factors?
- What resources and support should be supplied by State Committee and its associated working committees.

5. The ABWG will identify and establish the appropriate local committees, assist them with legal issues and with volunteer recruitment.

6. The ABWG will present their plans to the April State Committee, including proposed language for the ballot initiative(s), any funding and support needs, and plans for outreach to locals and activists.

7. An initial progress report will be presented at the April State Committee meeting. The ABWG will attempt to have a commitment to one or more specific campaigns by the time of this report.”

According to the draft minutes of the January 28 State Committee meeting, this proposal was passed by consensus with no concerns.

Comments and Questions about the implementation of this proposal:

A. My memory is that Merelice had done an excellent job of encouraging the regional conventions to discuss potential ballot questions. This was done at the Norfolk/Suffolk Convention and I believe at others. To what extent were the reports of these meetings communicated to whoever was coordinating this project? How did those who did the planning use this information?

(On March 1, 15 members of our party met at the Norfolk/Suffolk Convention and discussed this initiative. Each person could vote for up to 3 issues. The results of our vote:
-Predatory Lending (10)
-Peak oil, Climate Change, Environmental Justice issues (8)
-Universal Health Care (8)
-Full Employment (7)
-Prison population, CORI reform (6)
-Ranked ballot voting; IRV (4)
-Transfer funds from military to human needs (4)
-UN Declaration of Human Rights (2)
-Casinos (2)

Did other Regional Conventions also meet and discuss this issue? I see no evidence that the time that members of our party spent (the people that we will ask to implement our campaigns) mattered. Is this accurate?

B. What local chapters were contacted? What happened with this part of the process?

C. In what ways was the GRP general membership contacted and asked to participate in this process? (GRP website, e-mail lists, etc.)

D. Who contacted what other organizations? What happened with this part of the process?

E. Was the Advisory Ballot Working Group (ABWG) ever established? If no, who did the work and under what authority? If yes, to what extent was their participation from the Platform, CDLC, and Membership Committees, from SPWG, from the Rainbow Task Force on Housing Foreclosure, and GRP locals? How did these different GRP formations keep in contact with their groups? How were other GRP members recruited and what were their roles?

My fear is that a small group of party leaders took this proposal, selected who they wanted to work with, and the issues that they wanted to explore. They met and operated in secrecy and with a total lack of transparency.

I hope that my fears are groundless and that the answers to my questions will put me at ease. It looks to me that the potential ballot questions might merit the support of State Committee. But first, I would like to believe that the process has been kosher. As of this date, my concerns have not been addressed.

Mike Heichman

Reply

Re: Code Green Imperatives for Addressing the Global Warming Emergency
Saturday April 12, @01:58AM, by merelice, Jill Stein, et al
These comments are irrelevant because this proposal has nothing to do with ballot initiatives.
Reply