Ensuring Fair Decision-making
Saturday March 29, @11:29PM, by John Andrews, Jill Stein
Subject : Fairness
from the CDLC dept.
Summary :
The official business of the Green-Rainbow Party should be conducted in a way that is fair to all candidates competing for a nomination. The business organs of the Party should not be a venue for partisan competition. When this occurs, moves by one side trigger responses by the other, and our limited resources are consumed in dealing with issues that should not be on our agenda in the first place. By insisting upon fair and equal treatment for all candidates, we protect democratic principles, protect the value of the vote, and discourage attempts to use insider status and subterfuge to gain advantage in a competitive race. We also avoid bitterness that could erode support for the Party and for its eventual nominees.
Text :
The committees of the Green-Rainbow Party are instructed to observe the following procedures:

(a) If any item of business before a committee involves action that could either clearly injure or clearly advantage the campaign of a candidate seeking a nomination of our Party, then all potentially affected candidates must be notified in advance that the item has been placed on the agenda. They must also be notified of any action taken.

(b) An individual shall be considered “partisan” if they have accepted any position within an electoral campaign, publicly endorsed a particular candidate, taken significant action on behalf of a particular candidate, or taken significant action in opposition to a particular candidate seeking a nomination of our Party. Partisans of any candidate shall be asked to voluntarily recuse themselves from any deliberations or decisions involving the matters identified in (a). Failure to respond positively to such a request shall be taken to constitute refusal to recuse.

c) Members of State Committee and Administrative Committee shall notify the Party co-chairs promptly if they undertake positions/responsibilities vis a vis a particular candidate that could reasonably be interpreted as forfeiting their non-partisan (uncommitted) status.

(d) For the matters identified in (a) above, then representatives of all potentially affected candidates shall be invited to participate in the discussion the matter before the committee. In implementing this provision, committees shall make sure that timely and clear invitations are issued to allow effective participation.

Reply

• Re: Ensuring Fair Decision-making
  Saturday March 29, @11:49PM, by John Andrews, Jill Stein
  Please ignore the "from the CDLC dept" annotation in the heading of this proposal.
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Ensuring Fair Decision-making
  Thursday April 03, @10:53AM, by Mike Heichman (not a cosponsor)
  > Please ignore the "from the CDLC dept" annotation in the heading of this proposal.
  -----------------------
  
  John and Jill:
  
  I think that this should be vetted by the CDLC because it deals with elections.
  
  Often times the word "partisan" is used in a derogatory manner. The GRP is a political party. That means that we are partisans. Especially, at this stage of the development of our party, when we don't have a large active base and most of the active members of our party are part of the leadership of our party, I think that it would be an enormous mistake to pass this proposal.
  
  If this were our policy for the 2006 statewide campaign, for example, both of you would have had to recuse yourselves from active participation in the state party until Jill had been nominated by the convention. (Note: Your proposal does not include candidates, but I think that this is an oversight on your part.)
  Before our slate was nominated, many of us were either candidates (Grace, Wendy, Jill and Jamie) and many of us on the State Committee (including myself) were supporting at least one of the candidates.
  
  I believe that the leadership of our party should be encouraged to be candidates and encouraged to support candidates before they are nominated by the state party. Their behavior should be "public" and transparent.
  
  If there is a situation, where they cannot separate their responsibility to the party and their commitment to their candidacy or campaign, then it would be appropriate for them to recuse themselves.
  
  In the current controversy over the apportionment of delegates, I though that it was appropriate for me to identify myself as a McKinney supporter. I had attended an event during the time of the annual convention, had encouraged her to be a candidate pursuing the Green Party's nomination for the presidency and had made a contribution to her campaign committee to help her retire her old campaign debt. I voted for her on February 5. That's it. I acknowledge that I have a "McKinney lens" as I view the apportionment conflict. At no time have I felt that this lens has distorted my vision to do what is best for the GRP. At the same time, I suspect that there have been others on the State Committee who have their own "preferred candidate lens" and I hope that they also have been able to act in the best interest of the party.
  
  Encouraging the leadership of our party not to be "partisan" (be candidates or support candidates) or not to be transparent about their choices should not become the policy of our party.
  
  Mike Heichman
  
  
  
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Ensuring Fair Decision-making
  Monday April 07, @09:20PM, by Grace Ross
  I posted this to the listserv when this was first posted:
  John - No serious candidate in any party would run without going to the party
  leaders and activists for suport early on. and in fact, our party bylaws require
  it - so do we make all party leaders and activists choose each campaign whether
  to support a candidate or remain active in the party itself?
  
  There are reasons why other parties handle the required and encouraged
  partisanship another way..
  I'd encourage a re-think of this proposal
  
  I would add:
  In other parties people are very public about who they are supporting and when a decision affects the campaigns, they make sure that someone representing each of the campaigns is present so it is all *equally* partisan.
  
  In our party our size, you would devastate the number of active party members and encourage people to hide their preferences (which encourages behavior counter to our bylaws)
  
  I'd encourage a re-think of this proposal...
  Reply