s/r home | issues | authors | 24 contents
Report on the ASGP Vote on the Boston Proposal
Dear G/GPUSA friends:
I attended the December 9-10, 2000, meeting of the Association of State Green Parties Coordinating Committee in Hiawassee, Georgia, as an observer and as an individual who sat on the G/GPUSA Negotiating Committee in Boston. The ASGP did pass the Boston Proposal, though only after some sharp criticism from members of the Coordinating Committee.
Jane Hunter, a delegate from the Green Party of New Jersey, noted that her state party could support a "sustaining contributor" status in a new national Green Party, but not a "sustaining membership" category, as required in the Boston Proposal.
Deborah Howes, a delegate from the Pacific Green Party of Oregon, stated that her party believes in "one person, one vote" and thus opposes the anti-oppression caucuses that will exist in the new national Green Party under the Boston Proposal.
A delegate from New Mexico [Rick Lass, Ed.] stated that their party strongly opposed Section 8 of the Boston Proposal (creating the caucuses) and Section 2, stating that the question of dues should be left to state parties. The New Mexico Green Party believes that no state Green Party should collect dues, according to the delegate.
Anita Rios, a delegate of the Green Party of Ohio, stated that her party could not agree on a mandate for her to vote at the ASGP meeting, because of concern over Sections 2 and 8.
Mike Livingston, a delegate of the D.C. Statehood Green Party, stated that his party opposed the Boston Proposal because of the creation of caucuses.
In addition to these concerns, there was general confusion on the empowerment of locals through Section 5 of the Boston Proposal. Granting votes at the national level to sub-state regions of Greens, instead of to state Green Parties, was clearly a new concept for many ASGP CC delegates.
There were no votes at the Hiawassee meeting. Consensus was reached on all matters. I attended 90% of the meeting, and I never saw consensus with more stand-asides than on the Boston Proposal. Clearly the plans that G/GPUSA negotiators insisted upon—voting rights for regions, dues in states that want them, and anti-oppression caucuses—were bitter pills for many state Green Parties affiliated with the ASGP.
—John Stith, Centre County, Pennsylvania Greens