MGP Chair with BoE
Mary Rooker was made the legal chair of MGP with the state BoE while our co-chair election was contested. This is a gross abuse of power and an attempt to legitimize a disputed election using an outside entity. We must ensure that unilateral decisions cannot be made for the MGP.
The chair position with the state BoE is nothing more than a hoop to jump through to be a political party in MD. Therefore, there is no reason not to allow Liv, who is one of two co-chairs (and is undisputed) to occupy that position. Since Mary has taken over, multiple people have lost access to Nationbuilder and we cannot have delay in the operations of our party. I have asked multiple questions of Mary, who has not offered any level of transparency and therefore I believe Liv should occupy the legal chair position as to not allow ourselves to be inhibited in doing the normal functions of the party. Again, this is just a legal hurdle to jump through and it has no bearing on the resolution of this year's elections, however it does have implications on whether or not we want to remain stalled while we deal with the issues before us.
Per our approved decision-making process this proposal should be considered an emergency allowing for discussion to be limited to 24 hours. This is also considered a process issue as it is merely a legal requirement, therefore the threshold for passing the proposal will be a simple majority (50%+1).
Andrew S Eneim Wed 28 Jul 2021 6:24PM
The only blocking concern raised was specifically that the proposal violates the bylaws. However, it is wholly compatible with the bylaws and I have said as much in response. The concern has been addressed.
Timothy Willard, Maryland alternate Wed 28 Jul 2021 6:33PM
There is a major disagreement there. I don't think you just get to say what does and does not violate the bylaws.
Tim
Andrew S Eneim Wed 28 Jul 2021 6:37PM
I agree with you. That is why the bylaws are written down.
You can see Matt’s comment below, which I’ll include here:
‘This proposal is totally compatible with our Bylaws. Selecting who is legal "chair" with the state is a specific power granted to the Coordinating Council in our Bylaws.
"13.2 For the purpose of Maryland election laws: (1) The Coordinating Council established by these Interim Bylaws is deemed to be the “Central Committee,” or other State governing body required by state law. (2) These Interim Bylaws are deemed the “Constitution and Bylaws” of the MGP. (3) The Coordinating Council shall designate one Co-Chair as the Chair of the MGP and/or as the Chair of the Committee of 25."’
It doesn’t get much clearer than this.
Steve Kramer Wed 28 Jul 2021 8:27PM
It is far from clear, and in the past, this status has been used to make unilateral decisions, which is not in keeping with the stated goals behind the Bylaws. Those who have abused this process in the past are part of the effort to press it now.
HCGP wishes to avoid recourse to other options. Please suspend this vote.
Andrew S Eneim Wed 28 Jul 2021 8:52PM
Could you explain how selecting a legal chair with the state of MD (separate from our elections, as we all understand) violates the bylaws? You have failed to do so. It is absolutely within the purview of the CC to determine who will occupy the role of chair for legal, paperwork reasons per 13.2 (3).
Charlotte McBrearty (Maryland Delegate) Tue 27 Jul 2021 7:13PM
You guys are going to destroy the party if you keep this stuff up. Starting to wonder if that's what you want.
Matt Hand Wed 28 Jul 2021 3:50PM
This proposal is totally compatible with our Bylaws. Selecting who is legal "chair" with the state is a specific power granted to the Coordinating Council in our Bylaws.
"13.2 For the purpose of Maryland election laws: (1) The Coordinating Council established by these Interim Bylaws is deemed to be the “Central Committee,” or other State governing body required by state law. (2) These Interim Bylaws are deemed the “Constitution and Bylaws” of the MGP. (3) The Coordinating Council shall designate one Co-Chair as the Chair of the MGP and/or as the Chair of the Committee of 25."
Nancy Wallace (Maryland, Delegate) (they/them/theirs) Wed 28 Jul 2021 8:40PM
Consensus decision making directs us to take the time to continue the discussion until people's concerns are met. Silencing and overriding people's objections - particularly the very strong motion of blocking where a person perceives the motion to be in contradiction of our core values - is not following our decision-making process. The blocking concerns some delegates have expressed includes explanation on how having only one co-chair is in direct violation of our bylaws. If this proposal is attesting there are two co-chairs, in order to conform to the bylaws I addressed in my block, then the discussion should be why it would matter who is listed with the SBE if the co-chairs are to equally share leadership.
There needs to be clear understanding on what additional authority people believe being listed with the SBE brings. There have been four co-chairs between the last person listed with the SBE and Mary who were able to bring leadership and represent our party without being listed with the SBE. Those four co-chairs served as spokespeople and directed the work without being listed with the SBE. Liv herself is calling emergency CC meetings which she is leading on without discussion or inclusion with the person now listed as Chair of the party with the SBE. Loomio accounts have been set up that do not include the person listed with the SBE. Others not listed with the SBE -- and in fact some who are not in the CC -- control our social media, our listserv, and have access to Nationbuilder.
On the other hand, when Andy Ellis declared himself Co-chair of the Party because he was listed with the SBE -- without the support of a single voter in our party since he hadn't even run in the election -- it should give us pause that no one resisted his deleting our historical records on our social media platforms or when he began deleting messages off our internal listserv. He also declared he was going to pause our decision-making platform, Loomio, claiming he could do all of this because of being listed with the SBE -- and no other authority. Moreover, even without declaring himself Co-chair, Andy also revealed how he made copies of every single voter's ballot, downloaded all of the Nationbuilder data and accidentally deleted rows of data -- as our election was still in process -- and he wasn't doing this as Co-chair, or even as a member of the MGP CC, since he isn't in our state party's leadership. So this all just begs the discussion around what the parameters are of control and authority that we as a party believe bring to someone who is listed with the SBE, and we should come to agreement since in our recent past, claims of Chairship were used to defend fairly autocratic behavior that I am hoping no one wants to see propagated in our party.
It is critical that we as a party uniformly respect our decision-making process. There has been no consensus that there is a single Co-chair, and proposals to that effect have been blocked for being in direct violation of our bylaws and the election that was just held. The tabulator of that election said repeatedly that the results they offered were not official and were never meant to be official. Official results have been released and while it is fair to democratically contest those official results, the starting point for the party needs to be with the will of the voters, the official tabulation, and not delayed by our internal fighting based on personal disputes and vendettas.
Andrew S Eneim Wed 28 Jul 2021 8:56PM
This proposal only deals with the SBE listing. It matters because per our bylaws, the MGP CC has the right to determine who is on that paperwork. These bylaws were violated when Mary was made the chair without consultation of the CC. That is not, however relevant to this proposal which is following the process for listing a chair with the SBE per our bylaw 13.2.
This proposal does NOT claim there is only a single chair internally. There are 2 co-chairs. This proposal only deals with our paperwork which I have explained repeatedly on the listserv.
Timothy Willard, Maryland alternate · Tue 27 Jul 2021 6:44PM
According to the decision making process:
MGP CC members are encouraged to arrive at decisions by consensus. CC members wishing to submit a proposal for consideration by the MGP CC shall first perform initial steps of consensus-seeking, such as discussion of a draft proposal during a CC meeting, posting of a draft proposal on the CC listserv for discussion, discussion of a draft proposal among Green Party locals, and/or private conversations among members. In order to give all members an opportunity to participate in the consensus building process, it is expected that all proposals be posted/discussed in an online or phone discussion forum accessible by the CC (i.e. CC listserv, CC conference call, etc) at least once before the posting of a proposal for a final vote. If blocking concerns or requests for amendments are raised during the initial steps of the consensus-building process, they should be resolved prior to the posting of a proposal for a final vote.
Blocking concerns have been raised about this proposal, so according to the approved decision making process it cannot be posted for a vote until they are resolved.
Tim