1998 Saturday Minutes

Minutes For Santa Fe Gathering Of ASGP
April 25, 1998

Version revised on Tuesday, June 16, 1998 and then further revised on Sunday, February 28, 1999.

To the best of my ability, in the version of the Saturday minutes that follows I have attempted to weave into my original draft ALL the comments, corrections, additions, revisions etc. submitted by SO many people. I am grateful to each of them, too many to list. But you indeed know who you are. And this edition is far more complete and accurate than the first, thanks to these helpful, and patient, people. I do not suggest that this edition is perfect but it is better than my first go-round. I apologize for not doing this sooner. Part of the reason was a genuine lack of time. Perhaps more of a factor was facing the daunting task of dealing with so many e-mail messages and trying to work them coherently into these minutes. But now that I have done Saturday [although I <grin> may still get a message or two], it should be a lot easier for me to work myself up to the task of doing Sunday. As I have said before, if this version has significant failings, the responsibility is mine. My thanks to all of you who have helped. Peace. Richard.

These minutes were taken by Richard Walton [RI]. Although many people helped make them as accurate as possible, as to spirit as well as letter, any mistakes, omissions or misinterpretations are Walton s responsibility alone. They will be presented in two overall sections, one for Saturday and one for Sunday. To the extent possible, they will closely follow the agenda.

The meeting started shortly after 9 a.m. with greetings by Rick Lass, one of the New Mexico co-chairs. Then Melissa McDonald and, later, Cliff Baine conducted the meeting as facilitators. Melissa went over the ground rules for the meeting and then invited the ASGP members and observers to go around the circle to introduce themselves.

Steering Committee Report

Speaking first were members of the Steering Committee. Patrick Mazza [OR] said he wanted to read a couple of quotations that would set the ASGP meeting in context, discuss why we were here. He cited a Washington Post article of April 21, 1998 in which staff writer Joby Warrick reported that 400 scientists polled by Louis Harris believed that The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet s gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer.... The scientists believe that at least one in either known plant species is threatened with extinction.

The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than at any we've seen in the past, including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions, said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and prominent expert in biologic diversity.... Nearly seven out of ten of the biologists polled said they believe a mass extinction was underway and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plan and animal habitats.

Mazza then quoted from a paper by Jane Lubchenco, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and zoologist at Oregon State University. She spoke at the annual meeting of the AAAS on February 15, 1997 of the extent of human domination of Earth.... She reported that (i) between one=third and one-half of the land surface has been transformed by human action; (2) the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; (iii) more atmospheric nitrogen is fixed by humanity than be all natural terrestrial sources combined; (iv) more than half of all accessible surface fresh water is put to use by humanity; (v) about one-quarter of the bird species on Earth have been driven to extinction; and (vi) approximately two-thirds of major marine fisheries are fully exploited, over-exploited, or depleted. Mazza went on to say that we have had our bones of contention; we have our difference. But, he said, there is no other political force on the horizon even beginning to grapple with these problems. He said we are close to getting our internal process worked out with regard to meetings, representation, accreditation, contact among Green organizations, platform and working with international Greens. We done solid work in the last six months on all those issues. But he said we need to improve in media relations and fund-raising but expressed confidence that we d get much better in six months to a year.

SC Secretary Dean Myerson [CO] said that the Coordinating Committee had to take two votes, one to welcome the Green Party of New York [the other New York Green Party, the New York State Green Party had been admitted in October at the meeting in Maine] and to approve Annie Goeke [PA] as representative to the Federation of Green Parties of America. He said that Goeke had represented us well in Brazil just one month ago. Myerson also noted that the Steering Committee had endorsed the statement on Iraq presented by Rhode Island at the time when the US seemed on the verge of bombing that country. Myerson also mentioned three statements endorsed by the Steering Committee: a statement on the Landmine Treaty, support of a public citizen position on MAI and a statement on the Davos Economic Summit.

Tom Sevigny [CT] discussed the work of ASGP committees established at Portland a year earlier. He said the extraordinary work of the Accreditation and Platform Committees demonstrated that the ASGP could do committee work online. But he said it would be necessary for the SC to start monitoring all committees, saying some were very inactive. The SC was looking for people who want to chair committees and said that if a committee were inactive for three months the SC would disband it and start over again. He asked delegates, when they returned home, to let the SC if they were interested in such committee work. Nancy Allen [ME] said she was very proud at how the organization was evolving in working toward a state-based party. She noted that 23 states were there today. She suggested one change to the by-laws that would allow delegates to nominate observers from their own state to the Steering Committee. She said it was often difficult to find women among the CC willing to serve. That, she said, would open up the process. She was, she said, just introducing a proposal. Lorna Salzman [NY] said that if gender balance were the only issue, the problem should be resolved at the state level. If that were the only reason, she would object. Patrick Mazza said it was not only an issue of gender balance but that serving as a member of the SC meant added tasks. Nominating observers would avoid the dual job of being a delegate and serving on the SC. dean: we are suggesting delegates nominate observers from own state. Bern Haggerty [WY] asked if a CC delegate were elected for a term from one conference to the next and he asked Do you have to be a delegate to be on the Steering Committee? Tony Affigne [RI] moved that the matter be tabled to allow further discussion. Al Brooks {AR] commented that since the SC is so sensitive, if the person were known, it was one thing: if unknown, another thing. Basil Kyriakakis {AR] proposed the by-laws be changed so that SC members would not have to be members of the CC. Tammy Davis [NM] wondered whether such a SC member could participate in CC deliberations but not vote. The CC then decided to table this matter until the by-laws discussion. [Rapporteurs note: this matter was not discussed at any length during the subsequent by-laws consideration and no action was taken to change the by-laws in that respect.]


SECTION 1 I. Introduction - Goals of the Accreditation Process 1. To assure that applicants understand: a) the ASGP, its goals, values and plans, b) the criteria we expect them to fulfill, c) the resources available from ASGP to assist them in party-building in order to fulfill the criteria 2. T assist applicants in the application process. 3. To speedily deliberate and make recommendation to the CC. II. Criteria for State Party Membership in ASGP. 1. Acceptance of the four pillars of the international Green Party movement [ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, non-violence] or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles. 2. Organized and run in accordance with these values. 3. A statewide organization open to, and reflective of, a statewide membership. 4. Agrees to support national candidates selection by Green convention.. 5. Makes good faith effort, where reasonable, to achieve ballot status. 6. Makes good faith effort to run state and local candidates. 7. Has applied to ASGP for accreditation, and has included written by-laws, platform, and other documentation with that application. 8. Has a history of networking with other environmental and social justice organizations. III. Role and Duties of Accreditation Committee. 1. To prepare and distribute application materials and instructions. 2. To review applications and make recommendations. 3. To hear appeals and grievances. 4. To review disaffiliation requests. 5. To recommend disaffiliation based on outcome of 3) or 4). IV. Accreditation Process. 1. Application to ASGP Applications should be delivered to the secretary of ASGP, who will notify the CC that the application has been received, then forward the application to all members of the accreditation committee for review. The accreditation committee may request additional paperwork, e.g.. by-laws, platform, etc. and assurances, in order to determine that the applicant party satisfies the criteria listed above. 2. Accreditation Committee Review Process should be speedy and non-bureaucratic. If we are to err, it should be on the side of permissiveness. Applicant should experience us as a welcoming committee and their advocate to the CC. 3. Report to Coordinating Committee. The committee shall makes it report to the CC, except in extraordinary situations, within 60 days of receiving the application. The report may be presented either to a meeting of the CC, or via e-mail, whichever can be done most promptly. The report to the CC should explain the committee s findings for each of the eight affiliation criteria, and recommend for or against approval of the application. 4. Appeals Process An application which is contested by an individual or group may require the gathering of extensive evidence by the committee. This might include an on-site visit by an authorized representative of the committee. A written report should be mailed or e-mailed to the CC and the matter should be discussed and decided and the next general meeting of the ASGP coordinating committee. Should the accreditation committee recommend against approving an application, the committee is obligated to report that negative recommendation to the applicant party, giving the applicant party adequate time to prepare an appeal to the CC. V. Procedures for Revocation of Accreditation 1. A duly-executed disaffiliation application may be granted without discussion. The committee should try to determine the reason and report to the CC. 2. A grievance lodged against an accredited stated by an individual or group should be investigated by the committee as in the appeals process above. A hearing should be held at the next general meeting. The CC should formulate rules for conducting such hearings.


The report was presented by Tony Affigne and Tammy Davis. They noted that the report was in two sections with section one to be considered first. Affigne said that goals of the committee were that the accreditation process be simple, transparent and speedy. And Davis said the committee was suggesting that any applying state party accept either the Four Pillars or the Ten Key Values. Betty Zisk {MA] asked if a state would be admitted if it were strong in one portion but weak in another yet was making a good faith effort to be truly statewide. Affigne said that the committee would err on the side of permissiveness, would be flexible and not require participation by the full state. Linda Martin [VA] asked if the state party did not support a national candidate [as required in the committee proposal] would it lose affiliation. Davis noted that the provision about supporting the national candidate was a bit vague and suggested that if the state did not work against the candidate, it could retain membership. Johann Moore [NY] noted that statewide could refer to demographic as well as geographic criteria and that it would be inappropriate to set such standards. Affigne said that the committee had no intention to set those kinds of standards, that there were no criteria beyond statewide membership. He said any other criteria were state responsibilities, for political reason if not philosophical reasons. Affigne then discussed the steps that would be taken if anyone wish to block a state's affiliation. In that case, he said, the committee could require the gathering of evidence or an on site visit with a report made to the committee. Then the committee would make a report to the CC, giving the applying state party time to prepare a defense. There would, however, be no such process if a state decided to disaffiliate. If the state, following its own procedures, were to request disaffiliation, it would be granted. The committee would, nonetheless, attempt to find out the reasons and report to the CC. Myerson said that the report gives no weight between an individual and a group in challenging a state s application. Affigne responded that all these things are political. If an individual has no credibility, we can act accordingly. But if an individual does have credibility, s/he might indeed have as much clout as a group.

Affigne then moved the acceptance of the committee's proposal. It was seconded by Craig Harvey [MI].

The CC then began discussion of the proposal Harvey said he liked the way it is written now. You can pick either. Affigne replied that was our intention. Nick Mellis [NJ] suggested keep it simple; keep it to Four Pillars. All else falls into place under these four. Affigne replied that suggestion had come up but that giving a choice between the Four Pillars and the Ten Key Values adds only a few words. It s really optional. Am observer from California [Walton did not get his name] had a question about paragraph #2 in V. Procedures for Revocation of Accreditation. Affigne replied that the only thing at stake is affiliation with the ASGP. The complaint has to go through a process of review. The Accreditation Committee serves as a screening body. If it s just sour grapes, we would not invoke the grand jury process. You can trust us not to waste our time with bullshit complaints. Moore [a delegate from the Green Party of New York State {which has one vote as does the New York State Green Party}] asked about the procedure that would apply to such a state. Affigne: If the two delegates can t agree, the state would abstain Bern Haggerty [WY] questioned the term duly executed in paragraph #1 of V dealing with revocation of accreditation. Affigne responded that this was to ensure that the request for disaffiliation actually came from the state party, that the request was consistent with the procedures of the party. Haggerty then said that if there were a mad rush for affiliation just before a convention, that would cause a practical problem. Affigne said that the procedures would have to be followed even then. But that it was necessary to get the information out to nascent parties so they all know the procedure. Haggerty commented that if a party applied in August, and the application were denied, it would be difficult for the committee to meet often enough to deal with short term problems. Kyriakakis [AR] asked if the body were supposed to accept the report in principle or the exact wording. He suggested accepting in principle but returning it to the committee to refine language that would then go to the By-Laws Committee. Myerson [SC Secretary] noted that this report had been distributed two months ago. The proposal now is to accept it fully as is. There has been time. Affigne added that the committee report had been distributed on time, at least 60 days before this meeting. He said there had been ample time for wording changes. This is not a by-law but a working procedure. The committee is asking the CC to approve this report as it stands but it can be amended at any time. These will be the rules governing the accreditation process. Moore said he thought that it was necessary to wait until now to suggest changes. Section One then went to a vote. It was approved unanimously other than an abstention from Moore. Section Two was to be taken up later.


To approve wording proposed for resolutions from previous meeting: ARTICLE VI. SELECTION, ELECTION, AND REMOVAL OF OFFICERS At least two months before a national ASGP gathering, the secretary shall ask members of the Coordinating Committee for nominations for the various offices. One month shall be given for all nominations to be submitted. Once all the nominations have been received by the secretary, candidates shall submit a short biography on-line for all delegates to read at least two weeks before the convening of the next ASGP gathering. Nominations may be reopened at the meeting of the Coordinating Committee if there were insufficient nominations. The official announcement of candidates and the elections will be held on separate days during the ASGP gathering. Election of officers will be conducted by preferential voting. For the position of co-chair the individual with the fourth highest vote total will automatically become the alternate and automatically assume the office of co-chair if a vacancy occurs between ASGP gatherings. The following will be grounds for expulsion of officers: 1. Committing the ASGP to actions, endorsements, and other policy positions outside the decision-making process (see powers of Steering Committee). 2. Misrepresenting the decisions and policies of the ASGP. 3. Misappropriation, embezzlement, or unauthorized disbursement of ASGP funds. 4. Advocacy or practice of discrimination. 5. Advocacy or practice of violent political action. 6. Misrepresentation of self. [This was added during debate.] Any three Coordinating Committee delegates from different states can bring charges of impeachment against an ASGP officer. Such charges must be in writing. Once charges are brought, a grievance tribunal will be selected by the members of the Steering Committee who are not the subject of the impeachment. The grievance tribunal will hear both sides and decide the matter in a manner consistent with the principles of due process. The grievance tribunal shall consist of three individuals from states associated with the ASGP and shall not consist of any ASGP officers or individuals from the states that originally brought the charges. The grievance tribunal will make a recommendation to the Coordinating Committee on-line within a reasonable amount of time. The Coordinating Committee will then conduct an on-line vote with a two-third no vote necessary to remove an individual from office. [The preceding paragraph was amended as follows: Any three Coordinating Committee delegates from different states can bring charges of impeachment against an ASGP officer. Such charges must be in writing. Once charges are brought, a grievance tribunal will be selected by members of the Steering Committee who are not the subject of the impeachment. The grievance tribunal will ... {continue as written originally}] ARTICLE VII. ETHICAL STANDARDS The ASGP accepts that it cannot order the internal politics of its member states. Even so, the ASGP does have a vested interest in ensuring that the internal politics of the Green Parties of the member states meet the highest ethical standards and adhere to Green Values. The ASGP therefore urges member states to: 1. In theory and practice commit to having a membership and leadership reflective of the diversity of the human population within their own states. 2. Commit to opposing racism, sexism, ageism, classism, discrimination against the differently-abled, and other forms of prejudice within the State Green Party and in the larger society. The ASGP recognizes that winner-take-all/first-past-the-post electoral practices serve to maintain an outdated power structure and prevent members of minority groups from having an adequate impact on policy decisions or serving in leadership position. Therefore the ASGP urges member states to: 1. Use (either) [sic] proportional representation, as organizational capability develops, to elect their internal leadership and their delegates to the ASGP and/or Green conventions. [Rapporteur s note: There appears to be no or to go with the either. ] The ASGP recognizes that there are a multiplicity of proportional representation voting systems. As long as the form employed is fair, honest, and does honor the principles that encourage the participation that hold minority viewpoints, are members of minority groups, or are from the various geographic regions of the state, the ASGP shall not discriminate against any of the forms chosen by state parties when examining the applications for membership of newly-joining states or in its dealings with the current membership.

It was noted that amendments to the bylaws require a two-thirds vote.

Mazza [OR] suggested that how the grievance committee is chosen, that it be selected by the Steering Committee. Al Brooks [AR] suggested adding misrepresentation of self. Jenefer Ellingston [DC] proposed that charges be made in writing. Lorna Saltzman [NY] suggested that after charges have been brought, there has to be sufficient evidence to continue the process. Tom Sevigny [SC member and delegate from CT] said that the grounds are cited in sentences 1 through 6 and if the Steering Committee thinks there is little merit, it could ask for more evidence. Moore [NY] asked what was the definition of violence. Sevigny said that that was left to the judgment of the Steering Committee. Mazza suggested as a friendly amendment that two delegates to bring charges was not enough. He suggested three or four. Bern Haggerty [WY] agreed with Moore that we should not have a partial list, that a full list was needed. Sevigny said that under ethical standards there was such a list. He suggested that the original be amended to add Misrepresentation of self as #6 in the list of grounds, that charges be required to be made in writing and that three delegates be required to bring charges. Sevigny moved on Article VI as amended. It was seconded by Betty Zisk [MA] and adopted by consensus. The debate then moved on to Article VII on ethical standards. Myerson noted that the substance of the section had been approved at the last CC meeting and Sevigny added that the Bylaws Committee was charged with writing the exact language. Haggerty called paragraph 2 gutless because it did not say anything about sexual orientation. Several speakers agreed and Annie Goeke [PA] argued that such a reference be added to that paragraph Article VII was put to a vote and passed with 20 in favor, 3 opposed with 3 abstentions.


The report was made by Tom Linzey [PA] legal advisor to the ASGP, vice chair of the committee. Linzey said that a Speakers Bureau would try to book at least 20 engagements a year, with the speaker to receive $1500, with $500 going to the Clearinghouse to support various legal activities. He reported that $5000 had been needed as seed money for the project, with an intern being paid $1500 for each of two six-month stints. The grant had been made by a foundation headed by Elaine Broadhead, who hosted the founding meeting at Middleburgh, Virginia. Linzey said the intern was so excited by the project that he volunteered to work for free. The audience hooted down that idea and Linzey, smiling, said that the Clearinghouse had refused the offer. He noted that Steve Schmidt [NM] had donated a computer system to the Clearinghouse. And he said that two engagements had already been booked. The Clearinghouse, he said, was setting up to non-profit entities, a 501 (c) (3) for non-political activities [such as the Speakers Bureau] and a 501 (c) (4) for lobbying. Harvey [MI] asked when all this would be functioning. Tom: We think we'll be self-sustaining by end of period. Paid through October. Scott Denburg [WA observer] said that he appreciated the news circulator distributed regularly by the Clearinghouse via e-mail. Although he was pleased to see a Speakers Bureau, he wondered why the proceeds were confined to legal programs. Tom: Agree. We have stuff we can send out. When I say legal, I don't quite mean that. Circulating to do the sorts of things you mention. Materials for bylaws, etc. Bumper stickers etc. we don't handle. Have access point to ask about legal questions. Linzey said that although the Clearinghouse does not do bumper stickers, etc., its work was not as narrow as it might seem. It provided materials for state bylaws, was an access point to ask about legal questions, was concerned with ballot access, etc. In response to a question from Mellis, Linzey said the Speakers Bureau never turned down someone who wanted to be listed but that such speakers should have experience. He said that those wanting to be included should send a photo and a short biography. John Rensenbrink [ME] said that if any state party got inquiries, it should send them off to the Clearinghouse. And in response to a question from Mazza, Linzey said a list of those now offered by the Speakers Bureau was being circulated. The main audience would be college students. Linzey also noted that the Clearinghouse had taken control of the Web page There s a niche here for us and the Web site can be much more comprehensive than merely referrals. He noted that the Web page for the ASGP was http://www.greenparties.org and that for the Green Ballot Clearinghouse was http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/celdf.


The committee report was made by Steve Schmidt [NM] and Holle Brian [MN observer] and it was decided that observers would be able to participate in the platform discussion, with one observer being called for each two delegates. Schmidt referred the delegates and observers to the materials each had as distributed by the platform committee. Both expressed the hope that the CC would adopt the Interim Position Statement that would serve the Association while the full platform [Platform 2000 continued to be discussed at the state and local level. Schmidt, from the host state party, welcomed the delegates and observers by noting that Santa Fé translates as the City of Holy Faith of St. Francis Assisi, considered the patron saint of the earth, the poor and the animals, in other words, very much a Green. And it was meaningful to have our platform discussions at the College of Santa Fé. He mentioned that the platform work is about our values and beliefs, that our positions on the issues facing us are, at heart, about how our key values are applied to the issues and how we live our lives. Holle Brian said we should strive for the best possible platform and give people a sense of ownership through this process. I hope you will take this platform back to your states and get it out to as many people as possible for their review and suggestions for improving it. There are a lot of people out there with great ideas; we don t want to shut anyone out. We hope to have a cutoff date of January 1, 1999. Then for two months the Platform Committee would go over the submissions, edit, check for duplications, format them and then send them back to the states. By April 1999, we would have package for this group [the ASGP Coordinating Committee] to discuss. We d need to spend some time on that. It would be a fairly prolonged discussion. After that it would be up for the states and the 2000 convention. Depending on the level of organization this group has reached, we could adopt it state by state if no convention is in place. Schmidt added: We can t get ahead of the curve. Until a national convention, until a national party is form, we have to take it one step at a time. Basil Kyriakakis [AR] said We need an ongoing amendment process. New Items could come up that require the Association to take a position. Brian noted that the draft comprehensive platform in the packet was the same as the one circulated in 96 and at previous ASGP meetings. Tony Affigne [RI] asserted that all documents should have a date on them. When someone addressed the broad comprehensive platform, Schmidt reminded him that it was still under discussion at the local and state level and by the platform committee and that this meeting's discussion was confined to the Interim Position Statement. The current national draft platform document, he said, would be debated at the state level until 2000 and that year s Green Convention. He said that any Green, through the appropriate state party or any Green directly to the Platform Committee could participate in the discussion. He said the incentive was to work through state parties as much as possible. Ultimately state parties would vote on a broad and inclusive platform. Both Brian and Schmidt mentioned the transition committee process that will include recommendations for approving by-law changes, platform and candidates. Both also discussed the draft position papers that had been submitted to the platform committee and included in the materials, as the extension of the long form platform document and requested that the state parties also bring the position papers back to their state parties and locals for further discussion/debate. There was also discussion about the Interim Position Statement flowing from previous ASGP discussion/debate to have the platform committee put forward an action agenda as an interim set of positions, in addition to continuing work on the comprehensive platform. It was noted that the committee had reformatted the comprehensive platform into an outline format, that all the delegates and observers had been given, for reprinting and circulation at the local/state level. Schmidt moved approval of the Platform Committee's Report, including the Interim Position Statement. It was seconded by Nick Mellis [NJ]. Plainly there was little were suggested. Most were accepted in principle by the co-chairs as revisions to the language in the position statement that had been circulated before the meeting. Some changes in language were carried over to Sunday, giving time for delegates to polish their amended language with the co-chairs. The amended statement, except as noted below, passed by consensus on Saturday.:

April 1998

The Association of State Green Parties is dedicated to the values of the international Green movement. Our goal is to create a just and sustainable society based on the ten key values of Ecological Wisdom, Social Justice, Grassroots Democracy, Nonviolence, Decentralization, Community-based Economics, Feminism, Respect for Diversity, Personal and Global Responsibility, and Future Focus. To work toward this goal the Coordinating Committee of the Association of State Green Parties has adopted the following positions reflecting the sense of the Association in the anticipation of the adoption of a national platform.

We support human rights nationally and internationally. We will work to end racism, sexism, discrimination based on gender status and sexual orientation and discrimination against people based on age, disability, religion or nationality. We support affirmative action to remedy discrimination, to protect constitutional rights and to provide equal opportunity under the law.

We advocate the use of true-cost pricing in energy and resource management to protect our natural resource heritage for future generations. We call for a new definition of wealth that includes clean air and water, biodiversity, health, education, and peace as measures of economic security.

We support legislative, institutional and economic policies that will accelerate the development of decentralized, non-polluting renewable energy technologies.

We advocate proportional representation for national, state and local elections, fair ballot access, campaign finance, reform, free media access, and Instant Runoff Voting for single-winner races (mayor, governor, president and district representatives). We will work to increase public participation at every level of government through strategies such as initiative, referendum and recall, and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them.

We advocate the creation of community-supported alternatives to corporate- owned media.

We oppose bioengineering, irradiation and other unsustainable agricultural practices and processes.

We reject the USDA s current proposed organic foods standard. We support decentralized local agriculture.

We support legislative and land use policies that preserve and restore biodiversity (genetic, population, species, ecosystems) at the local, national and global levels. We oppose economic globalization and international trade agreements that threaten workers rights, the environment and local self- determination. We advocate building community-based, fair and sustainable economic systems. We acknowledge the importance of small business and cooperatives for the preservation of local communities, for keeping money circulating within local regions, for providing meaningful jobs, and in providing a counterpoint to multinational globalization.

We will actively work for universal health care, and believe that everyone has a right to decent affordable housing, education and medical care.

We support women's right to choose safe, legal abortion and believe that reproductive and health issues must remain a medical matter between individuals and their health care providers.

We will work to build alliances with environmental groups, labor, social justice groups, and alternative political parties that share our vision of a just and sustainable society.

We support economic systems, resource use and foreign policies that promote world peace.

We need to explore, promote, and institute non-violent solutions to break the cycle of violent crime, and eradicate the inequities inherent in our criminal justice system. We support community-based crime prevention programs that address the roots of crime by creating economic, educational and recreational opportunities for all, as well as protecting the safety and peace of the community. As a matter of conscience, we oppose the death penalty.


Annie Goeke [PA], the ASGP delegate to the recent founding meeting of the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas in Brazil, spoke briefly about the Declaration of Ihla Bela. There were six founding members (countries) that formed the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas. They were Canada, USA, Mexico, Venezuela, Uruguay and Brazil. It was decided that a General Assembly comprised of two delegates from each member country would meet every two years. An Executive Committee was charged with implementing General Assembly and Council [ANNIE, WHAT'S THE COUNCIL? YOU'VE MENTIONED GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.] decisions and to carry out the daily work of the Federation. The first office is located in Mexico City and the Executive Committee's first president is Jorge Gonzalez Torres of the Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico. At Ilha Bela, the newly-formed Federation put forward [ANNIE: DO YOU MEAN ADOPTED?] 1. Addressing the destructive fires which have occurred in the Amazon. Calling everyone to join in overcoming the catastrophe and making sure it does not happen again. 2. To oppose genetic engineering and cloning. 3. To address North-South relations, opposing intentions [ANNIE: ATTEMPTS?] of industrialized countries to weaken international organizations that have wide representation. 4. To address the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. 5. To address the loss of biodiversity. 6. To advocate a halt in the transportation of nuclear waste, to call for the elimination of nuclear arms and immediate reduction in the global military budget. 7. To prohibit traffic in endangered species. 8. To urge protection for sea fauna. Annie Goeke of ASGP was elected as General Secretary "for promotion on the Executive Committee of the Federation. All positions have a two-year term until the next meeting. The objectives of the Federation are: to unify and strengthen Green Parties and Non-Governmental Organizations who share Green values; to facilitate and encourage cooperation among Green Parties; to establish solidarity with movements that share our Green values; to support the work of indigenous peoples, and of social justice, peace and labor groups; to stimulate and give support to newly-formed Green or Ecology Parties; to set up and maintain and urgent information and action network to address issues of international and transnational concern.

Maria [Lupita] Mendez of the Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico and Nancy Allen, co-chair of the ASGP submitted an important international resolution, perhaps the first such. It stated: The Association of State Green Parties of the United States joins the people of Sierra Blanca, Texas, the Texas Green Party and the Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico in support of the struggle against the unjust and dangerous plan of the U.S. Government to transport nuclear waste from Vermont and Maine to a dump site outside Sierra Blanca, Texas. The resolution was enthusiastically, and quickly, passed by consensus. It was noted that it was appropriate that the U.S. sponsor of the resolution was from one of the states [Maine] from which nuclear waste would be transported. Patrick Mazza [OR] referred to a joint statement of the ASGP and the European Greens at the Kyoto Climate Summit that was endorsed by 65 Green Parties worldwide. He said the next step would be preparation for a climate summit this fall in Buenos Aires. The focus would be on the rich countries and the countries of the south. He said the joint statement could form the basis of a position paper for our own country. He suggested putting up on a Web site and soliciting comments. Climate, he said, affects us all; it is a cross-cutting issue. Steve Schmidt [NM] said that the ASGP platform would be in a world context and he suggested that Ralph Monoe, an observer from the European Federation of Green Parties, speak. Monoe announced that there would be a second congress in Paris in the fall and said that Europeans would like to have a meeting with people from overseas shortly before that to help define globalization and have input into that European congress. The body then adjourned for another fine meal by the caterers.



The afternoon began with a discussion of the Transition Committee report. The committee had suggested that the ASGP continue as is with two delegates from each member state. It suggested also, however, that the ASGP CC evolve over the next several years into a more proportional body. It reported that answers to questionnaires it had sent out showed, informally, that there was an almost equal support for continuing with two delegates per state and for becoming a more proportional body. However the body evolved, however, the committee suggest that to prevent the CC from becoming unwieldy, we suggest a cap of five or six to the largest states delegations. Since there were so many criteria for proportional representation and since the committee made no recommendation on this point pending further study, they will not be enumerated here. However, the committee did suggest that this matter be revisited either when 30 states have joined the ASGP meeting or at the fall 1998 meeting. [That there will be such a meeting is far from certain given that the ASGP voted later to have a meeting a year from now, presumably [see the discussion at that point] on a yearly basis.] And since there was little discussion of representation at any future national convention, this account will be very brief on that subject. However, the committee did note that the overwhelming response to the questionnaires was that the body must be proportional. Johann Moore [NY] said the Green Party of New York State was for sending more delegates for diversity rather than two with several votes. Al Brooks [AR] said that an ASGP with two representatives for each state was a good vehicle for coordination. Whereas a nominating convention is whole other thing. I don t see abandoning this structure to one with 120 of us. We need this vehicle. Kyriakakis said he thought the questionnaires were wrong. They channel people no matter how well you try not to. Mazza said I think we do need to move to system of proportionality. Some places have more Greens. We need a more representative formula, one simple, easily understood. If it looks too much like rocket science, people won't get it. Maybe something like population and number of Greens in state.

Rick Lass of NM, a member of the committee said there is a lot of concern as to whether we need to move toward proportionality. We suggest that ASGP reconsider when 30 states or at 99 meetings. One year from now, one and a half years, when 30 states are members. Mike Feinstein, a California observer and member of the committee said In Europe they stayed with two delegates per country for some time until they thought it was time for proportionality. We're suggesting an initial presentation at beginning of next year or later. It is important now to continue the process and decide later when to implement. After the first round though there were a lot of ideas, we were unable to pick amongst them. Not one single idea that managed to incorporate our diversity. If we come back with an ideal, people can respond. There's a lot of room for modification. Give us enough time to work it through. Tony Affigne [RI noted that we had voted at last CC to move toward proportionality, to develop system of proportionality. It is clear that was part of the decision. What was left open was the nature of proportionality. We re talking about when is the appropriate time to make a decision. I think a year is fine. Tammy Davis [NM] interjected that we want to hear from more women. This getting more masculine. Mike Feinstein asked the CC to authorize the committee to continue work and to present draft next April, getting it out as far in advance as possible. Vote: For time frame proposal. 23 yea, 1 against, two abstentions. The CC voted 23 in favor, 1 against with 2 abstentions to accept the proposed time frame.


No objection to diversity proposal. There was no objection to the passage of the Transition Committee report dealing with Diversity in which it recommended that the ASGP encourage but not mandate diversity.


In the discussion of the passage on gender balance, there was some sentiment for mandating it, a widespread concern that there would be a disproportion of men and considerable opposition to mandating requirements to autonomous states. Finally, Lori Adolewski [HI] moved that the ASGP very strongly urge gender diversity, with a requirement that a state, if unable to comply, be required to submit their reasons for doing so. The proposal received 22 votes. There were none opposed with four abstentions.


The discussion then turned to the size of the Coordinating Committee. Feinstein said there was a range of possibilities: stay with 2 people from each state, have 2 delegates from each state cast more than 2 votes, have more people from each state setting a cap with more delegates casting that number of votes. Affigne asked: Isn't this the question the Transition Committee should come back with an answer for? Why not continue with the status quo? Feinstein said we wanted guidance on this matter. There is no immediate need to make a change to make in the status quo. The CC then went into a discussion of the many various possibilities, perhaps too many to list now especially since the Transition Committee has a year to make its next report.


Dean Myerson noted that the bylaws said that members of the Steering Committee must be delegates. But he suggested states could nominate observers from own state, saying he would drop the proposal if there is not immediate consensus. A number of candidates were then nominated. Happily, the CC had earlier amended the bylaws which had required that nominations be made by the states in advance of the meeting. No such nominations had been made. After some to-ing and fro-ing, with a number of nominees declining, there were five nominations for co-chair: Tom Sevigny, Patrick Mazza, Nancy Allen, Annie Goeke and Nick Mellis. The first three were incumbents. Dean Myerson was the sole nominee for Secretary, the post he held. At first there were no nominations for Treasurer and Tammy Davis suggested that maybe one of the co-chair nominees might be willing to serve as Treasurer. None accepted that suggestion. Finally Tony Affigne was nominated for Treasurer, a nomination he accepted with some reluctance. Myerson and Affigne were thus to be elected without opposition. On Sunday proportional ballots were cast for the three co-chair offices. The ballots were counted while other business proceeded. In time the results were reported: Sevigny, Allen and Goeke were elected with Mazza as the alternate.


The Coordinating Committee then considered the second section of the report of the Accreditation Committee, the one dealing with the situation in New York where two separate parties had been provisionally admitted as members, each state with one vote. The New York State Green Party had been admitted provisionally in October by a vote of 27 to 1. At that time the CC made it plain that they thought the two parties should make diligent efforts to resolve their differences, that the ASGP did not want to institutionalize a two-Green Party state. The Green Party of New York State had applied for membership later and had also been admitted provisionally on December 15 by a CC vote of 23-0-1 with delegates from 17 of 21 state parties casting votes. The report was again presented by Tony Affigne [RI] and Tammy Davis [NM]. Davis reported that the two parties had met in January and had made some tentative agreements to work together. But she said there was little prospect of an early merger although they might agree to run some joint candidates. She said there were two possibilities before the CC, to continue the provisional membership of both parties, or to disaffiliate both. Davis said that the committee was recommending that the provisional status be continued with each party having one vote. Affigne moved continuation of the status quo and Mazza seconded. Johann Moore, a GPoNYS delegate requested that both delegates from his party be permitted to speak even though the party had only one vote. Betty Zisk [MA] said that in fairness to other states who might wish they had double speaking it would not be equitable to permit the two one-vote New York parties two have two speaking delegates. Nick Mellis [NJ] suggested that each party have one speaking delegate. That was accepted as friendly amendment. And the motion was adopted by consensus.


The Pennsylvania Green Party proposed that there be just one ASGP national meeting a year, in the spring and that regional meetings be held in the summer or fall. It argued that two national meetings a year constituted an undue expense and travel burden. Also regional meetings would strengthen communication and networking between state Green Parties. Such regional meetings could help organize new state parties or help struggling ones. Annie Goeke[ PA] said her state was putting together a regional meeting. It had made a conscious decision to have regional meetings. Sevigny said there was now no concerted effort to build other state parties. Regional meetings would help people in other states in the region. Annie: Strengthens regional concerns like solid waste. Agreed regional in summer or fall. National in spring. Undue expense and travel burden. Regional helps organizing efforts in region. Goeke s motion was seconded by Basil Kyriakakis. In answer to a question from John Rensenbrink [ME] who wondered if this was a permanent decision or just for this time period, Goeke said we could reconsider it in a year. Tony Affigne [RI] said the regional idea was not bad. However, at this moment it seems a bad idea to meet just once a year. Regional meetings are a separate decision. At this point e-mail sometimes works and other times doesn't. It would be a mistake to do all decision making by e-mail. I think we need two a year. Tammy Davis [NM] said we can't meet every six months and also do regional meetings. No way to do both. Our state is interested. You can't do national, regional and local work at same time. You can circulate ideas better at regional meetings. Patrick Mazza [OR] said I'm undecided. Once a year you d need a longer meeting, maybe twice as long. Maybe three of four business days. Krista Paradise [CO] said that even with longer meetings there would be less air fare. Nick Mellis [NM] said he agreed with once a year. We should change the annual meeting to milder months for colder states to a weather-neutral season. Tom Linzey said it was hard to find host states so it would be more difficult with two meetings. The CC moved to a vote. It was decided by 22 in favor, 4 against, with 2 abstentions to hold the next national meeting in a year. [This was not quite what Pennsylvania had originally proposed, which was that there be one national meeting a year in the spring. The motion as introduced on the floor did not establish a schedule of one meeting a year but mandated that the next meeting be held a year hence. A small difference perhaps but a difference nonetheless and it is not clear to the Rapporteur that the body was entirely clear as to which proposal it was supporting. The body then adopted by consensus that regional meetings be held once a year.


The CC decided to postpone until Sunday a discussion of ballot access.


Before this discussion began, Rick Lass [NM co-chair], one of the facilitators, encouraged those who had not spoken to participate. A Rhode Island resolution prepared by Greg Gerrit was presented by Tony Affigne. It would permit the Steering Committee to make in a timely fashion statements to the media on breaking developments. Affigne said that with Iraq we were lucky. [When the U.S. appeared on the brink of bombing Iraq, the RI Green Party prepared a statement in opposition.] Many states adopted it but we were winging it, there was no policy. If the SC decides it is important to ASGP to respond within 24 hours, SC with consultation will draft a statement and use appropriate spokespeople to get word out. Empowers SC to use its own best judgment to decide if it should respond within 24 hours. A 48 power timetable . If a situation is not that urgent, and the SC determines that a response should be made between two days and one week, a statement would be drafted by SC and sent to state parties. Each state would have to name the appropriate conduit. This person can be whoever state party delegates. Some feel that person should be chair or co chair of state, no one else. At least one half would have to respond and 80% approve for the SC to release the statement. For even less urgent situations the process could take seven days or more. If a state party wants ASGP to weight in, it could draft a statement and send to SC for transmittal to states. Amendments would have to be submitted within five days. Alternately the CC at a meeting could draft such statement. Affigne moved acceptance and Jenefer Ellingston [DC] seconded. Debate followed. Al Brooks [AR] asked who decides degree of urgency? Affigne: It's a judgment call as to how urgent. Have to have trust. Have to balance price and payoff. Lori Adolewski [HI] said that in general she liked the idea. Is 80% of 50% 40?. Affigne: If less than 50% respond it s probably not a crisis. Basil Kyriakakis [AR] said we're beginning to trust one another. Would there be a list of knowledgeable people for the SC to consult. I'd be more comfortable if I knew people on the list. Affigne responded that that was a valid question. It's up to the media committee to develop such lists. Ellingston added that if you haven't built trust by now, what is the point? Something seriously wrong if we can t trust each other. Tammy Davis said that until we have a platform, she was uncomfortable with such statements. Tie any such statements to the interim platform. Affigne: In all cases all statements should be consistent with the interim platform. Patrick Mazza suggested that for both level 2 and 3 there should be a 24-hour period. If no one raises blocking concern within 24 hours, go ahead. If someone does block, go ahead with process. Affigne said that was not a friendly amendment. The RI resolutions calls for affirmative response. The RI resolution went to a vote with 23 In favor, 1 opposed, with 2 abstentions..


The Green Party of New York State proposed: a) Adopt preferential voting of mandated votes for the presidential nominating committee, as well as for party officers; b) Mandate that states choose their Coordinating Committee delegates according to some form of proportional representation to ensure demographic as well as geographic representation.

Dean Myerson [CO], SC secretary, pointed out that preferential voting for party officers was already in the ASGP bylaws. And he suggested that any discussion of a nominating committee be tabled until Sunday. The discussion then focused on part b) of the GPONYS proposal dealing with choosing delegates to the Coordinating Committee. A couple of delegates had already spoken out against mandates. Jesse Perrier [MA] noted that the ASGP had already rejected mandates and Al Brooks [AR] asked how any mandates could be enforced. Bern Haggerty [WY] said he liked b) in its present form. I like constitutional requirements to choose delegates. Betty Zisk [MA] argued that Imperial mandates lead to disaster. Johann Moore [NY] said his party would still support some sort of diversity. There needs to be more effort towards diversity. Basil Kyriakakis [AR] noted that in some states it was necessary to twist arms to get delegates. Dana Harvey [MI] proposed saying strongly suggests. Moore said his party would accept strongly suggests. Steve Schmidt [NM] added that the ASGP position was that We do not mandate. We support state parties and he said that national caucuses, which had come up in the discussion, by-pass state parties. Section b) was then approved by consensus with strongly suggests instead of mandates.


Feinstein reported that GreenPages was paying for itself on the basis of subscriptions and bulk orders. He said he had printed 5000 copies of the first issue and 7000 of the last two. He said he was not yet ready to go to 12 pages because there was not enough material. He had said at the Maine ASGP meeting that he would detail people running in '98 elections. It could be bigger than 8 pages. He said he brought 1600 copies of the latest issue with him. Asking for orders, he said, Please don t send me home with any. And he said, If you have to renew, you know who you are. Finally, Feinstein said that he didn't think he should be handling finances as well as publishing the pager. He then made a proposal to that effect, with the treasurer to handle the money. Dean Myerson [CO] suggested having the next edition come out after the election so we get results. But John Stith [PA] suggested in August or September so GreenPages could be used for tabling. Feinstein said he planned an issue both in the fall and after the elections. Tony Affigne [RI[, the Treasurer Apparent [although the voting was not to be held until Sunday, Tony was the only nominee], said that GreenPages should be budgeted separately with monies reserved for that solely. It should not be subsidized by the Green Party. Feinstein agreed and said the paper would be printed only when there is an income stream. He asked that Affigne provide the labels for mail subscriptions. Affigne said he would reserve judgment on that. The proposal that the Treasurer handle the finances of GreenPages passed by consensus.


Tom Linzey, ASGP legal advisor, presented a substantial written report and spoke about it briefly. He said there are three magic numbers: 20 donors, 20 different states, give $250 each... Tom Fusco of Maine has offered to be the receptacle. Send information to either Tom. With federal matching funds That would give us a base of $200,000. This makes us attractive, help us to shop for candidates. Rick Lass, NM co-chair, asked to whom does the donation go. It has to be made out to an authorized committee but we can t wait till then. It would be too late. Linzey explained that the ASGP should be seeking pledges and then once the candidate were chosen, the donations could be made to the appropriate authorized committee.


Participating in the discussion were two foreign guests, Maria [Lupita] Mendez of the Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico and Ralph Monoe, European Federation of Green Parties. Monoe reported that there would be a Paris Congress which would focus on the upcoming European Parliamentary Elections. Globalization would be dealt with at a preparatory meeting and he invited the ASGP to provide input on your perspective. He said the Europeans wanted to cooperate with US Greens so that Americans could contribute to a document that could be adopted in Paris next year. Mendez, speaking through an interpreter, discussed the situation in Chiapas. She said the Mexican Green Party was asking for an end to violence, that the earlier agreement between the Mexican government and the Zapatistas be observed by the government and that the government respect the customs of the indigenous peoples of Chiapas. She said that the President of the Mexican Greens made frequent visits to Chiapas to check on the situation and that the Greens were supporting the indigenous woman who was on the peace commission. A number of ASGP delegates then joined the discussion, a few of them even speaking in Spanish. Plainly the sense of the meeting was the strongest support for the indigenous peoples of Chiapas and the efforts of the Mexican Green Party. Tony Affigne [RI] was plainly speaking for the body when he suggested that we adopt a resolution in support of the Mexican Greens. There was general agreement and Tony and several other delegates were designated to draft a resolution to be presented on Sunday. The final statement approved is:


April 26, 1998

We the undersigned delegates of the state Green parties of the United States, meeting in Santa Fé, New Mexico, do hereby declare our solidarity with the policy of the Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico, regarding the crisis in Chiapas.

We acknowledge the position of the PVEM, as one consistent with the fundamental Green principles of social justice, non-violence, ecological wisdom, and grass-roots democracy. We endorse the PVEM's call for demilitarization, implementation of existing agreements, and full respect for the human, political, cultural, and economic rights of the Indigenous people of Chiapas. We recognize that the struggle in Chiapas is part of a broader Indigenous struggle in Mexico, the United States and throughout the Americas, and declare our continued support for the region's Indigenous people and their legitimate demands for autonomous cultural and social development.

We call upon the President, Congress, and armed forces of Mexico to immediately demilitarize the Chiapas region; cease the harassment of the Indigenous people; recognize the legitimate voice of Indigenous leaders, formations, and assemblies; implement existing agreements respecting the rights of the people; and immediately end the wanton destruction of the Chiapan environment.

We acknowledge the collaboration of the United States government and U.S.-based corporations in the repression of the people of Chiapas, exemplified by the role of the School of the Americas in training Mexican officers in brutal techniques of popular repression, by Chase Manhattan Bank's 1994 call to "eliminate" the Indigenous uprising, and in the ongoing provision of U.S. military intelligence, war materiel, and training to the Mexican armed forces.

We call upon all Greens in the United States to condemn the U.S. involvement in the repression of the people of Chiapas; to take appropriate actions which will terminate all U.S. support for the Mexican military there; and to encourage the peaceful, respectful, and legitimate resolution of the tragedy in Chiapas.

Approved by the Coordinating Committee on April 26, 1998


Given the lateness of the hour, this discussion was put off until Sunday.


The Steering Committee proposes that the ASGP request a voluntary contribution for all affiliated state parties equal to 1% of their annual budget or gross income. This money will be use solely to fund phone and postal expenses for the Steering Committee and other ASGP committees as directed by the CC or decided by the Steering Committee between meetings of the CC. Dean Myerson said the SC was asking for permission to ask your state parties to contribute. The proposal was passed by consensus.


Howie Hawkins, a longtime leader of the G/GPUSA, was given five minutes to discuss his idea. He said that G/GPUSA had presented a proposal for unity. He said it made no sense to have two presidential candidates. He said that in a national nominating committee half the delegates should come from locals [the G/GPUSA] and half from state parties [ASGP]. He said we should think of it as half elected at large, half by districts. And at such a convention let's do what ASGP suggests in terms of proportional representation. If anybody wants to talk, I d like to talk about it. Hawkins mentioned a grass roots gathering on bio-devastation in St. Louis this summer. He suggested a national slate of independent progressive candidates with a common platform. He also called for a network of independent political parties. His remarks were greeted with applause, perhaps because a representative of G/GPUSA had addressed an ASGP gathering and the discussion on both sides was entirely amicable. Tammy Davis [NM] announced that there would be a women's caucus in neighboring St. Michael s Hall and Brian Holle [MI observer] said the Platform Committee would meet at 6:30 when dinner was being served. And Cris Moore, Green member of the Santa Fé City Council, said there would be an informal gathering for Green Party building at lunch on Sunday. Dinner was followed by rousing Green speeches by Carol Miller and Bob Anderson, New Mexico Green congressional candidates. * * *