[statecom-discuss] 2 major problems a the convention-request for a respectful discussion

[Mike Heichman]

August 27, 2007

Hi Members of the State Comm.

This letter is about my reflections of only part of what happened at the 
convention. There is much that I want to think about and share, but for 
this message, I want to focus on 2-related decisions that we made. They 
are the decision on who and who would not be able to appear or not 
appear on our ballot line for the MA presidential primary and the 
election of our leadership.

My own reflections have also been deepened and enriched by my discussion 
with Grace yesterday.

1. The MA presidential primary decision

This was the most important issue that was decided by the convention. I 
erroneously and foolishly believed that we could accomplish this 
quickly. I thought that the issue was clear and there were only two 
options.

a. To continue the current policy adopted by the January 21 State Comm. 
which I thought everyone understood meant that only members of the Green 
Party would be allowed to be on our ballot line
b. To revise the policy to allow people like Nader and McKinney to be 
allowed on our ballot line if they were pursuing the Green Party 
nomination and requested that they be placed on our ballot, even if they 
were “Independents” and not Greens.

My purpose in this letter is NOT to discuss the reasons for these 2 
positions, but to discuss what happened with the “process”.

One of my hopes was that we would have a respectful discussion. While I 
was strongly committed/invested in “b”, I also believed that there were 
strong and valid arguments to continue our current policy.

I believe that my memory of what happened is somewhat accurate. I may be 
mistaken by some details and some interpretations. Please correct me, 
especially if this will help us to better understand what happened.

It was a long day and we had fallen behind schedule. I’m sure that some 
of us may have been a little tired and I’m sure that as the discussion 
moved on, we felt the pressure to move forward with our schedule and 
listen to our out-of-state guests (Greg, Jerry and Cynthia) address us 
about the presidential campaign.

I made an opening statement describing the context, my intention and the 
reasons why I believed that the change should be made. We followed our 
process (which many of you know I believe should be revised) and had 
“clarifying” questions. While some of it was useful (especially 
Merelice’s point that there was confusion about the meaning of the 
January 21 decision), as is often the case, “clarifying questions” seems 
to waste a lot of time.

At some point, there was an excellent recommendation to have a straw 
vote. My memory is that, except for 4 of our members, everyone else who 
voted support a changed policy. I was gratified by the results and 
hopeful that we would soon be making a decision.

I believe that it was Merelice who recommended that those who had 
concerns be allowed to speak. I thought that was an excellent idea. The 
speakers (Elie, Eva, Wanda and Grace—I apologize if I forgot anyone) 
spoke very emotionally, passionately and effectively.

My memory is that while this was happening an energy developed by the 
“majority” to also express their ideas. This was legitimate. This 
important decision merited further discussion. However, the clock was 
ticking and I believe we felt the pressure to finish this quickly.

We had another straw vote and this time the vote was 21-7. At some 
point, Grace, who was the parliamentarian for the convention, made a 
point/asked a question—that the 7 members of our party who had voted 
together were all women.

Immediately, some of our members reacted and I heard one comment that 
was disrespectful towards Grace, who was the parliamentarian. I said 
nothing. Shortly after, someone made the suggestion that maybe it would 
be best to table this decision (to the next State Comm. meeting). 
Meanwhile more people (in the “Majority”) waned to participate in the 
discussion and were opposed to tabling this decision.

I was confused. Too much was going on inside and outside me to figure 
out I could effectively do.

Some of my internal process: Why did Grace ask this question/share this 
observation? I’m sure that she was disappointed/hurt by the “decision”. 
Was her comment just an observation? If yes, it certainly was an 
important observation and one that deserved our attention. Or was she 
calling our party sexist, or just the men? What did I/we do to deserve 
blame?

The clock continued to click. Our co-chairs (Gary and Martina) 
conferred. I moved over to listen to their discussion. I was getting 
ready to protest if necessary. I wanted this decision to be made and to 
be made now. I wanted to move forward with our business.


My perceptions have changed since I talked with Grace. This is what I 
believe.

Grace’s observation was legitimate. Her observation was not an attack on 
the men in our party. If those who had stood in opposition were Gary, 
Mel, Chuck, Lloyd, Martina and Wendy, I would have noticed that they had 
something important in common. I think many of us would also have 
noticed. Making the observation/asking the question would have been 
viewed as appropriate.

There is a lot going in our party that urgently and systematically needs 
to be addressed. Collectively, we are having a hard time living and 
practicing our 10 key values. These values are interconnected. Feminism 
is more than one of our key values; it is interconnected with the rest. 
The last two years we have allowed at least two of our sisters to be 
driven out of our party. This is only the tip to a much larger and more 
systemic problem.

We need to develop a consistent practice of educating /training 
ourselves how to more effectively deal with our own internal issues 
around gender, race, class, sexual preference, etc., as well as 
deepening our understanding and practice of the other “key values”. 
Either we become committed to the practice or the heart of our party 
will become as meaningful as the “Pledge of Allegiance”.


2. The Election of our Leadership of Our Party

I want nothing that I say to be interpreted as being critical of any or 
all of our members who stepped forward on Saturday and offered to be our 
officers. The opposite is true-I thank every single person that stepped 
forward.

Once again I thank Grace for the discussion that we had yesterday which 
helped to inform and deepen my thinking.

Grace was the only person who pointed out that in the election of our 
leadership, we should pay attention to diversity. I’m sure that all of 
us were conscious about this, but there seemed to be no room to discuss 
how this could happen.

The problem is not with the individual members of our party. The problem 
is with our structure and our process. Over and over again our rules and 
past practices ties us up in knots.

I had asked/suggested that the nominees be allowed to nominate 
themselves. While some of us knew most of the candidates, at our 
conventions, we always have new people to join us and they know very few 
people. While I objected to David’s attack on Merelice, he did raise a 
legitimate point—how do we address the concerns that we may have about 
the candidates? (This led to a good decision, which allowed some time 
for individuals to be able to talk with the candidates.)

What do we know about the people that we elected and those we didn’t 
choose? What are their visions, plans, priorities, etc? What did we the 
membership who attended the convention want from our elected leaders? I 
think these are good questions. They were not asked and of course not 
answered. All that I am left with is the hope that we chose wisely.

Selecting our leaders is one of the most important decisions that is 
made at our conventions. We need to develop a better process. I think 
that it is good that some of our members surface before the convention 
and get signatures. At the convention, ideally I would like to sit 
around in a circle whenever we attempt to solve problems and make 
decisions.

I would have liked if we had selected the 4 candidates to be our 4 
co-chairs. I would have also said that while I am so grateful that Dan M 
will be our Treasurer once again that it is time for us to have an Asst. 
Treasurer or a Co-Treasurer. Who knows what other creative solutions we 
could create if we weren’t so trapped by our rules and past practice?

Here are the bottom lines:

a. The only woman officers that we elected (co-chairs and NC) were 
mandated positions for women.
b. For our officers: One white woman was elected (Female Co-Chair); No 
person of color; No low-income person; No “Handicapped” Person; No 
GLBTG; Nobody under 50 years old.
c. NO RAINBOW!


There were 2 major decisions that we made on Saturday. Both of them 
reveal that we have deep problems that need to be addressed.

I’m not leaving the GRP. I believe that building an Alternative Party-an 
independent and progressive movement and political party is essential work.

I believe that we can work together to build a healthier and stronger 
organization. I believe that we must do a much better job of solving our 
internal problems if we are to even pretend that we can offer solutions 
to the problems outside our door.

I hope that my letter will lead to a respectful discussion.

Mike Heichman
mikeheichman at verizon.net
617-265-8143