– The Green Party of California — a big organization in a big state — has absolutely -no- mechanism for resolving conflicts.

– There is also no agreement on how to handle internal integrity issues. There is no Code of Ethics, and the Bylaws provide little guidance and have no teeth.

– The Party’s own decision-making processes tend to thwart all attempts to upgrade or repair its structure.

– We don’t even have a Mission Statement or an established function. beyond “political party.” Which can mean many things.

In any organization run by humans, disputes will occur. So will questions about, or true lapses of, integrity. If solutions are nonexistent or blocked, the issues won’t just go away. The organization will falter, or disintegrate completely. And the frustrated humans within it will move them to a personal level because there’s nowhere else to take them.

To simply remove the people without addressing the problem does not necessarily make the problem go away. At best, it leaves a nice hole for more problems to crowd in.

And eventually, the organization may run out of people to kick out.

“Tyranny of Structurelessness” is a classic. I keep it bookmarked and re-read it often. So is Paths to Failure . (Hope the link shows properly.) It’s a longer, heavier read, a socialist view of how the Left faltered in the 70s. It, too, describes many all-too-familiar behaviors.

The factional food fight here does, as Lisa pointed out, seem to be driven a lot by personality. This is dumb and a giant waste of time. Don’t we have more pressing matters to attend to? Shouldn’t we be a much bigger party by now?

We sure could be, if we stopped brow-beating one another.

So let’s take the personalities out of it. I propose both Peter Camejo and Mike Feinstein take the next five years off from any and all participation in the Green Party of California.

I am a lot more seriouser than you think.

Just take a break, guys. Take some time off. You need it. We’ll take it from here. Thanks for your service.

And as for the rest of you factionistas: stop being idiots. Think about what you can concede to this so-called “other side,” bury the hatchet and move on (but without the “.org”). The Dems and Repugs laugh at you, so stop it; just, stop. We’ve got bigger fish to fry than each other.

Oh, and one last question to ask yourselves: Is there a problem? Or are YOU the problem?

I am planning to make a move soon to San Francisco to develop a consulting operation for Greens that will provide financial support, organizational volunteers, internet assistance, FEC accounting assistance, legal support and a variety of support for a new generation of Green candidates. I do not seek to get in the middle of this dispute, but since I supported Nader in NM, I also assured that Cobb’s name would be on the ballot, so there is what I called in the GHQ “A Missing Conversation” that I see being played out here in this discussion.

Contact me at m_zehr@hotmail.com to consider how we can move forward in building a mass-based political party that promotes ecological restoration and ecological democracy.

Speaking for myself, it was not the original incident, nor even the then-existing lack of accountability, that turned me away from the party, but rather the response to the incident by both the GPCLA and the state structure. The fallout from some six years ago apparently continues unabated, suggesting that I made the right decision in leaving. I wonder how many other supporters and potential supporters the party has lost by failing to move on.

I refer you to his blog. He actively blogs on state issues such as water, the Delta and the Green Party-both internally and externally.

http://cagreening.blogspot.com

1. My response to the original letter:

Bleech!

A pox on both their houses, I say - the bad behavior of one party is equaled or exceeded by the bad behavior of the other, leaving the rest of us with little but a bad taste in our mouths. Why should I be forced to choose the lesser of two evils within my own party?!?

The paranoid/lunatic/conspiracy-minded diatribes, jeremiads, and fatwas Camejo has been issuing in response to internal events within the party (at a state and national level) over the past few years have utterly alienated me. Non-violence, in all aspects, is a core Green value, and Camejo’s violent abjuration of this principle (and the tolerance shown for it by those who associate with him) is gravely disturbing to me. I want nothing to do with a political party where this type of discourse is seen as reasonable or tolerable, and quite honestly, I have to seriously question the rationality of anyone who associates with Camejo at this point. Trying to frame this dispute as some “fusionist”/right-wing conspiracy to take over the party and kow-tow to the Democrats is just plain crazy, and Camejo’s habit of labeling individuals as part of the “conspiracy” and “unGreen” is highly problematic in and of itself.

Utterly repulsed is not an understatement of my reaction to this postings, and I can’t imagine that I’m alone in this (at least activists with at least some independently gained understanding of the situation within our party). Seriously, folks, I regard rhetoric of this sort as a far greater danger to the viability, credibility and internal integrity of the Green Party than any attempts to manipulate our internal processes for political gain by one faction or another. I’ve tried to stay out of the line of fire in our internal disputes, but I simply cannot hold my tongue any longer.

- 30 -

… and a later response to a follow up that emphasized the Feinstein accountability issue:

This seems like we’ve gone beyond beating a dead horse, into a perverse form of political necrophilia…

I know, don’t feed the “troll”, but:

I’m baffled as to what benefit even a full admission of “guilt” by Mike F., at this point, would yield to the party as a whole? What magic transformation would occur?

I’ve been in Santa Monica, seen that office (a few blocks from the house I grew up in), been inside it, had others close to me inside it, we’re not talking about some palatial space, but a storefront a few feet away from a bar and a Japanese “massage” parlor, on a relatively neglected boulevard far away from Santa Monica’s main commercial areas… my own mother says that it was furnished with furniture from Mike F.’s mother’s home, and she thinks that he probably spent as much of his own money on this space as the party’s.

Are there no rational limits to the amount of time and energy spent pursuing one particular violation of a “principle”? Is there no ability to calculate cost/benefit ratios?

If this is the sole documented incident of even theoretical financial impropriety in the last decade (it would seem to be, as I’ve heard of little to nothing else, other than another arguable incident here in Santa Cruz, which may be over a decade old by this point), are we as a party not doing fairly well on that front?

Seriously, folks, if the definition of insanity is asking the same question over and over and expecting a different result, doesn’t that fit the situation here to a T? Does anyone sudden expect Mike F. to change his approach after how many years? What does beating the skeleton of this horse accomplish? I’m baffled.

I hear that, in Europe, where rational political systems exist, that minority elements within a party, when they are unable to achieve their political aims, often split off and form their own parties… really folks, there has got to be a process within our party whereby issues are once and for all put to rest, and the folks who are invested in a particular resolution are faced with the choice of simply sucking it up and going on, or leaving and forming their own party if the issue is that significant to them.

- 30 -

Whatever damage to the party Mike F. did by his original action has been far exceeded in scope by those seeking to hold him “accountable”. Neither side’s behavior has been commendable, but the amount of energy expended on this particular “scandal” is well into the range of utterly irrational.

That all said - this is ultimately irrelevant navel gazing.

The Green Party is strong where it matters: on the ground, at the grassroots, in local areas like Richmond and San Francisco, where it is electing people who are making a real difference, and transforming the local political dynamic. Ross Mirkarimi’s successful term on the SF Board of Supervisors, and Gayle McLaughlin’s term as Mayor of Richmond (after service on the City Council), are more than enough evidence of this.

Anyone who thinks the Green Party is “history”, isn’t paying attention.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

Former Secretary, National Lavender Greens Caucus
Former Santa Cruz County, County Council member
Current Accreditation Committee Rep., NLGC
Green since 1990. Attendee at 1996 Green Gathering that nominated Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke.
Fed up and pissed off grassroots Green.

Peter Camejo writes (note - i am not reposting the full text of Peter’s remarks due to “length”, so i hope everyone can refer to those remarks in another message) :

“A small, right-leaning clique has been working for several years to take over the party.
They are led by an open fusionist, Michael Feinstein, who wants the Green Party to put Democrats on its ballots.”

My name is tim smith, i have been on the GPCA-CC for 2+ years; active at State meetings, committees and General Assemblies for 6+ years; and active at the local level for 15+ years…
While i know and respect Peter Camejo, and have worked on his campaigns, i disagree with Peter’s statement as indicated above, that the LA dispute is an issue of right vs left, fusionist vs anti-fusionist, etc… The problem, is multi-faceted, and at least in part, is located in the “psychology of power and oligarchic tendencies of organization”, tendencies universal even in democratic organizations…
While Greens have sought to move beyond these tendencies by incorporating consensus seeking decision-making, and other more inclusive, grassroots, decentralized structures, the problem is ALSO, in part, because so far we still have inadequate and poorly developed mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts and disputes within our organization…
In short, we really haven’t adopted true consensus-seeking… yet…

i believe we can resolve our problems if we all participate in good faith ( NOT naively ! )… and if we recognize that whatever solutions we consider will NOT work if we do NOT make a good faith commitment to incorporate differing points of view and attempt to reach some form of consensus…
We are a very young group organizationally and historically… Compare the abolutionists and how long it’s taken them to achieve their goals; …or compare how many hundreds, or thousands of years native americans needed to refine their inclusive and decentralized tribal councils; …or the Quakers - how long did it take them to create their forms of consensus decision-making…?

Peter Camejo writes:
“At the phantom meeting of five, Feinstein made a statement to the effect
that if anyone tried to challenge this decision, his friends on the
State Coordinating Committee would back him. Which is exactly what they
are doing.”

RESPONSE : While it is true MF has manipulated his way into control of a number of GP committees, it is not true, as i think Peter Camejo implies, that MF’s supporters control the GPCA-CC…
In fact, they are currently in the minority, often using their minority status to “block” and “obstruct” various proposals and efforts to reach consensus, or a super-majority… And unfortunately the independently oriented majority has not quite reached “super-majority” threshholds… yet…

ALSO Note - Peter, a portion of the GPCA (including some on the CC) fears and reacts to your sectarian diatribes, your obsession with fusionists, your access to funding and resources, that have been used to smear and attack GOOD Green activists…

Peter Camejo writes:
“Speaking of the recent events in Los Angeles County, Tim Smith wrote,
‘With these shady power moves, he (Michael Feinstein) invites
criticism.’ In another email he characterizes how Feinstein functions,
‘It is his elitism, hierarchical, unilateral, and manipulative way of
handling Green Party business that alarm me and that have run this party
into a blind alley, that must be reversed and can’t be allowed to
continue . . .’ ”

“Tim Smith complains that Feinstein’s most recent maneuver of using the
non-existing, old County Council trying to usurp the newly elected
council’s rights in LA County was just too much for him and he could no
longer support Feinstein. He voted for Jared Laiti for State
Coordinating Committee co-coordinator. He concludes naming two of the
leaders of the Feinstein current, ‘Cat/Magali/Mike pulled off a coup
d’etat of the CC, by means of scare tactics and peer pressure.’ By Cat,
he means Cat Woods of Marin County and by Magali, he means Magali
Offerman of San Diego.”

RESONSE : Peter, while i basically agree with the above characterizations, you have interspersed quotes from Zack Beatty, confusing them with mine… Note i said, Zack Beatty !
Hopefully, that indicates to you and other CA Greens, the complexities of this problem… It is NOT a black and white issue, it is NOT right vs left, nor fusionist vs anti-fusionist, and your attempts to simplify and villify, IMO, only muddy the real distinctions that need to be made in the effort to find a PEACEFUL resolution to this problem, a problem that belongs to ALL of us…!

“Art ignores History, but asserts to its terror. The events of our time, the banditry of society, are the source of mass graves, the rubble and slag, that assures its foundations.
I go to speak and i know what to say, but what is this hostile echo that interrupts?”
— Rene Char

Peace,

tim smith
rioryon@aol.com

In a message dated 5/5/2007 7:18:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, redwoodsforever@verizon.net writes:
From: Rachel Odes
To: Votecamejo@topica.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: CAMEJO 4 GOV: KEEP CALIFORNIA’S GREEN PARTY UNITED

KEEP CALIFORNIA’S GREEN PARTY UNITED

By Peter Miguel Camejo

The title of Peter’s article is “Keep Calififornia’s Green
Party United,” but his words and actions have only
served to have the opposite effect, fueling divisiveness
and acrimony.

There are Green pursuits far more worthy than this to
which we should be directing our collective attention.

Linda Piera-Avila

A cumbersome decision-making system that can be gamed by a few is exactly what she’s talking about!