2007 ANM Saturday Morning Plenary

2007 GPUS Annual National Meeting – Plenary Session
Saturday morning – 9 am – 5:30 pm
July 14, 2007

9:40 am – Opening and Roll Call
Facilitators – George Martin (WI), Alison Duncan (NY)

36 states/caucuses present out of 48 (welcome WVA!).
AZ – 2 delegates
ARK – 1 delegate, 1 proxy
Black Caucus
CA – 17 d, 17 p
CO – 1d
CT – 5d
DC – 5d, 2p
DE – 1 d, 1p
FLA – 4d
GA – 2d
HI – 2d
IL – 7d, 4p
IN – 1d, 1p
IA – 2d
Lavender Caucus – 1d
ME – 4d, 4p
MD – 2d
MA – 4d, 2p, 2 on the way
MI – 6d
MO – 2d
MN – 1d
MT – 1d
NJ – 3d
NY – 10d
NC – 2d
OK – 1d, 1p
OH – 3d
PA – 6d
RI – 2d
TN – 2d
TX – 3d
UT – 2d
VA – 2d
WA – 2d, 1p
WVA 2d
WI – 4d, 2p
National Women’s Caucus – 1d

Greetings from Jennaro Pullano, Mayoral candidate for Reading, PA. He got 48% of the vote when he ran 2 years  ago.
Greetings from GPPA, welcome from Reading.

Agenda Approval
An Objection was posed by GPCA. They asked for another session for discussion of presidential strategy for 2008.

Jody Grage proposed a friendly amendment to keep the morning schedule as is; change the afternoon so sessions two and three are an hour and a half; and eliminate the recaps, with the understanding that the discussions will continue. That will leave us an hour for this discussion.

Greg Jan, CA, stated that GPCA would agree to an hour for discussion in the afternoon, but not at the end. GPCA asked for time either right after lunch or in the middle of the afternoon.

Greg Gerrit, RI, asked to stick with the original agenda, there is plenty of time to think about 20008 presidential strategy.

Jan Arnold, CA said they wanted to have this discussion as early as possible; the discussion of finance, fundraising and other strategy can be in teh context of the larger discussion

Susan King, CA, stated this was not only a discussion of presidential strategy but overall electoral strategy. There is no overall discussion about how we will position ourselves in the next year around the presidential race. Talk about the thing everyone is thinking about. She suggested that the meeting have this discussion in the morning, to give structure to the rest of the afternoon, to know what our goals and local elections are going to look like in the context of a presidential election.

Amiee Smith, GPAX, stated that a GPAX meeting was overlapping with second breakout session, was concerned about timing and throwing people off who wanted to take advantage of the agenda.

Dave Berenson, OH/PCSC felt it was possibly a mistake not to allow time this time for this discussion.

Anita Rios, OH stated a concern about changing the agenda. She felt is is not fair to people who show up for specific things to change the timing. It’s a good idea to discuss this, but to do it in such a way so that we have the maximum knowlegde before us.

Cat Woods, CA, stated that Greens represent the majority views of people in this country. We have an independent electoral strategy. For us to not discuss thoroughly – this was interrupted by questions about SC election ballots.

Proposal to have an hour of Presidential & Electoral Strategy and Campaign discussion in the morning.
Proposed Revised Agenda – APPROVED, on a vote of 77 Yes; 50 No; 14 Abstain.

10:25-11:25 presidential/electoral discussion

11:25 – 11:45 Elections Tabulation Committee

11:50 – 1:15

1:15 – 2:30

2:30 – 2:40 break

2:40 – 3:55 session 2

3:55 – 4:00:-5 break

4:05 – 5:20 session 3

5:30 – 6:00 recap

10:25 am – Discussion of Presidential/Electoral Strategy 2008 – Hopes and Fears
Cat Woods, CA – in 2000, we had a united, amazing campaign; discussion of pro and con for Ralph Nader about putting him on our ballot again; neither he nor McKinny have decided to run.

Nan Garrett, GA – hope for all our presidential nominations from here on out is that we have a competitive, rewarding nomination (not an endorsement). Concerned that people are more concerned about a name than having true competition for our own ballot lines; to increase the credibility of our ballot, we need a competition. Nader has got to ask for it.

Rodney Philpott, CO – hope that we will start looking for a nat’l candidate that will attract people. Suggested Garrison Keillor.

Rebecca White, NY – hope is that we will put together a structure – note, there are ballot lines, states gain and retain ballot lines; fear is that our love for favorite candidates overcomes the need to maintain our structure.

Fred Vitale, MI – hope to complete work for PCSC from last night. Decided to read statement Elaine Brown had sent [(read the statement].

Leslie Bonnet, CA – hope is that we have a woman candidate for GP presidential campaign; hope is also that if Nader wanted to be part of the ticket, he would be v-p or elder statesman, campaigning and offering advice and ability; want to see a Green building the party; fear is that we would look foolish to run Nader for a 3rd or 4rth election cycle.

Michael Rubin, CA – fear we are heading into another divided electoral cycle. Fear we would run someone with no name recognition.

Julia Willebrand, NY – hope is to see a Green candidate run a Green election from local to national, run it seriously; hope it’s a woman on a ticket with a second woman. Take that females edge and build our party. Foolish to think we’re going to win in 2008, or to have an “endorsed” candidate. Maybe it looks good for 2008, but … think of strategy in long term.

Phil Huckelberry, IL- get beyond hopes and fears,we need action and work; IL with 3 co-sponsoring states iscirculating a proposal to adopt resolution “We Will Run” – Il, MI, WI, RI, WI

Jacqui Deveneau, ME – continues to read the IL resolution; we cant’ win the election, best we can do is get the message out there; the ace needs to be seen as a Green face.

Greg Gerrit, RI – GP nomination for president has obviously turned into something that’s valuable. We had 10 candidates in last night’s forum, 7 more out there. We ought to continue to build that value by being clear that we are running a Green candidate for president. Want to see them organize, see them build. Most valuable campaign is between now and the convention.

Claudia Ellquist, AZ – – fear is that two years from now, she will be collecting signatures again and will not be able to convince others to help her to do it. Fear we will not get a candidate that will get AZ 5%, or a candidate who is incapable but makes us not care.

Matthew ?, NY – doesn’t want unknowns, wants Raph Nader, let’s get behind him again.

Howard Switzer, TN – one of the most important things we need is passion, someone who can make people excited. Saw 2 last night.

Joni Leviness, OK – you’ve gott to trust in the process, give it time to reap its benefits. Trust in he members of our own party

David Strand, Lav – [too much noise to catch the beginning comment] does not support endorsing nomination. Hopes to convince Winona LaDuke to run against conservative right-wing Congressman and win.

Susan King, Ca – biggest concern is that we will not come together as a party in 2008. Hopes we also run strong and aggressive local campaigns across the country, school boards, local offices, enact green legislation on local level, from theground up.

Skip Mendler, PA – fear is that we would focus so much on the question of who would be the candidate that we would overlook the point (addressed in the “We Will Run” document, but it could be more strongly expressed) of the structural flaws in the system that make running anyone so problematic.

My hope is that we would find our way to running an entirely different type of campaign, a team-oriented campaign that would run the entire Cabinet as a group, rather than placing the burden of representing the whole Green vision on one (frail) human being..

Anita Rios, OH – proud of all of us doing this, know this is hard. We have to know that we are the tip of the iceberg. It has to move very much beyond where it is in this room today. In 2000, it looked very much like it does today. Pretty much all white. This year, we need to move beyond that, a person of color, who can galvanize us, who can reach out to the rest of the iceberg.

Elie Yarden, MA – would like to see this party create an alternative politics to the duopoly, and the politics of third parties with their perennial politics. We have a ballot line in MA, we need people to place on that line in the primary.

Liz Arnone, NJ – think we have to look at the reality of the situation. We don’t know what will happen, whether Nader will decide to run. If he runs, then we have to make some serious choices. How can we do this without splitting our party? How can we grow our ballot access?

Tim Willard, MD – hope we will come up with a Democratic process as possble

Jon Olsen, ME – seconds Anita Rios, need much more color, need to be much bolder, more creative, think outside the box. Need people who really want to be our candidate.

Bob Marsh, CA – fear a growing consensus that climate change is the critical issue. May result in a candidate who will alvanize people to do something about it.

Cat Woods, CA – talking about nominating Nader, that he would have to win the convention. Made it clear, if we wants that a possibility, he would have to commit to taking all Green ballot lines. He has had more legislation passed than any person in this country. [Too much noise, to catch the rest – something about backing Democrats.]

Alan Kobrin, FLA – fear that we will allow differences that will prevent us from seeing that the world is in flames, we are part of a world-wide “green party,” we might lose our opportunity to be effective; hope is that we will empower people to get elected and appoint people to go out there and do the damn tasks.

Tom Yager, VA – want clarification of nomination vs. endorsement. If Nader wants to seek our nomination now, so be it. If he decides in February. VA has the concern of two petition drives, one for Nader as a Green, one as an Independent.

Jamie McLaughlin, MA – we cannot put anyone on MA state ballot line that is not a registered Green.

Mirian Michelmas, TX – hope is that the nat’l party would get behind state parties, esp. like TX and OK, that will have ballot access problems.

Ron Kinum, IA – [too much noise to catch the beginning] – hope we will grow candidates and offer office holders support. Hope process will open the process into understanding of 10 Key Values.

Karen Jennings, MD – fear is that we’re becoming a party of personalities, not values.

Tom Smith, DCSG – read statement calling for black/brown coalition with help from the Green Party.

??,? – in 2008, we will campaign as though we do have a chance to win, and when we nominate, we do that with that in mind; fear, when states are divided; hope, we will be united.

Jeff Brewer, HI – hope we will all come together, face truth, take responsibility; fear is that we will get bogged down in what we call our Green Process, small things. Fear that we can’t wait to pull back from the brink of disaster, corporate parties are taking us to disaster.

Lyne Serpe, CA/NY, campaign manager for Cobb ’04 – my goal in 2008 is that millions of people will know the 10KV, 550 candidates, 1000 – then 2, 3, 4,5 000 candidates, each will achieve 5%, double the number of Greens in office.

Michael Drennen, IL – hope to empower my local to choose candidate who will run in IL, who will represent 10KV and who has both funding and time commitment necessary to make such a campaign work. Fear -[too much noise to catch comments.]

Kinamo Curry, CA – we can do this, we got to just go out there; need to be committed. We are in a great position to negotiate.

Tim McKee, CT – think in strategic terms. 5% is a “win.” Open to bringing in Democrats and others who aren’t necessarily what our idea of a “green” is. Need more sophistication, like Euroepan Green Party.

Brent McM, political director – has talked with Nader. If he runs, he will run as an Independent, because he believes the Green Party is not serious. Have told him, if he seeks nomination, needs to build. The ’04 Nader organization left nothing.

Make Feinstein, CA – if McKinney runs…[too much noise to catch the rest]; if not, would like to find way to gracefully let Nader have the nomination.

Jacqui Deveneau, ME – in 2004, we ran David Cobb and Pat LaMarche, worked on their campaign; they worked with the people on the ground, grew the GP. On the Nader end, not one positive thing was said about the GP, ballot lines were taken away from states.

Ann Wilcox, DC – wearing Cobb/;LaMarche t-shirt proudly. Most people recognize the good that Nader has done.

Marc Sanson, IL – hope that we have a strong, well-funded well-organized presidential campaign in all 51 ballot lines, women and people of color. Fear is that Nader is right, we are not serious about running a presidential campaign.

Jim Nashbar, GA – until we reach the 5%, we will not have a big impact. We need to get votes.

Dave Blatte, CA – there is contention, might be some going into the convention. Support your candidate going into the convention, but once we have a nominee, agree beforehand that you will support that nominee. Secondly, ask the nominee to state beforehand s/he will accetp the ballot line

Greg Jan, CA – look at numbers how quickly can we grow; if we have a Name candidate, we will reach 5% sooner.

John Murphy, PA – concerns about words like “community building,” “party-building,” “local races,” “enrolled greens only.” Does not approach strategic goal necessary for the Green Party. Race is not to build party, community, it’s about kicking the other guys, and only people like Ralph Nader can do that.

??, CA – local races [ too much noise, couldn’t catch the rest]. David Cobb was a failure as a national candidate.

The stack was closed. Facilitator Alison Duncan notes there are many committees working on this and encouraged people to get involved.

11:25 am – Election Tabulation Committee
Tony Affigne (RI), Esther Choi (TX), Alfred Mollison (TX), Kai Schwandes (NC), Mike Gillis (WA)
The SC election will proceed according to procedures approved last June in Proposal #222. Tony Affigne explained the method.

A question was raised and discussion followed of whether proxies must state name of the person being for for.
Some Californians shouted their objections when asked to state names on proxies. New Yorkers noted their state party mandates it. [NOTE: GPCA cast “general ” proportionally allocated proxies in at least the last two national meetings. Names of GPCa delegates were included on these ballots. – hh] It was agreed GPCA would vote as they have in the past, but put a name of a delegate as the proxy.

The ETC called for delegates to pick up ballots, then called for them to be turned in, state by state.

12:10 p.m. – Break for Lunch Afternoon Sessions will start at 1:15 p..m