Comments on the Draft Proposal for the Bylaws of the Kansas Green Party

First, I want it to be noted that I am listing the problems I see with this document, not the positive things. This should not be seen as an indication that I do not support the document at a whole, or in the sections which are not mentioned.

Note that the sections below refer to the various sections of the document.

Preamble:

I have to object to the inclusion of "Feminism/Post Patriarchal Values" as one of the ten key values. My suspicion is that my objection is more with the wording than with the idea expressed. That is, I would prefer the much simpler "Post Patriarchal Values." The reason is that to add the word "Feminism" carries a lot of baggage that we do not need. I think that it is only fair that the Green party stand for equality, and for a legal system that is blind to a persons race, sex, etc. Unfortunately, the term "Feminism" is usually not seen in this light, rather the term is seen as being a synonym for woman’s rights. Although it is probably not as common, examples can be pointed to where men have had their rights subverted as well because of their sex, and I think the Green party should stand in opposition to both.

The point is that the assignment of this key value needs, itself, to be made gender neutral.

Article 1:

It would be good to specify what a "Cultivator" is in this article. Otherwise someone just glancing at this may get the wrong impression.

Article 2:

This article talks about "local committees in each political subdivision of the state." It would be good to add "where feasible" to this. The reason is that the precinct is a political subdivision of the state, and it is quite believable that there may be precincts with no members (Cultivators) at all. To organize these precincts is a non-issue. Other than that this is good.

Article 2 and 3:

First, article 3 is not needed as it is really already said in article 2. I will admit, however, that is may bear repeating. (The listing of the district boundaries is not a good idea. These are subject to change, and may, in fact, change next year with the new census.) Some of the ideas presented in article 3 are good if applied to article 2. Most notably, "should make their best efforts to have at least one meeting per year." (Actually, there is some argument for leaving out the "best effort" part and just specify a yearly meeting. But I will not impose my idea on other people, particularly people from other districts.)

Article 4:

It should be clarified as to whether a Green party member who attends a Green party Council meeting will be afforded the right to speak, and under what circumstances. For example, can anyone who show up speak (if they can get the floor), or do people require that someone (probably their delegate) calls on them. Or are they to remain silent and be observers only. (I will not push one over the other. The first would give disproportionate representation to those people who reside close to where the meeting is at, the last is stupid, and the middle becomes too parliamentary for my taste [but, hopefully, will be needed at some future date].)

In view of the key value, which calls for grass roots democracy, I would propose that the official endorsement of candidates be left to the organization at the level of the office. That is, the congressional district organization is responsible to endorse the congressional office, the city organization it responsible for endorsing city offices, etc. The State board should only be keeping track of the offices, and endorsing statewide offices.

I do not favor the term "gender-balanced" delegations. The reason is that I do not endorse forcing my ideas of who the delegate should be on people from other districts. It should be stated more as "delegates are chosen without regard to race, gender, or sexual orientation" etc. Again, after all, if you allow gender balanced delegations, why not race balanced? Or balanced by occupation, or socio-economic class.

(Note of interest: It has been pointed out to me, and on reflecting I have found it true, that Roberts Rules of Order are not intended to facilitate consensus. Rather, they are intended to allow people to coexist where there is no consensus. )

I support section c.

Article 4:

While in general I support this article, I would suggest some changes. First, the district committees should be required to submit bylaws and statements of procedure to the state council. The reason is not to impose anything on the districts, but rather so that disputes can be resolved. For example, it would be possible for me to gather a following in the third congressional district, and then present myself as representing that district. In the absence of any rules, the state council would be forced to adjudicate this issue, and any resolution would be seen in terms of political opportunism.

This latter issue could really be important if the Green party were to ever get more than 5? in a presidential election (assuming the rules don’t change). The reason is that some Pat Buchanon type person could get a segment of his followers together, and present themselves as the Green party to the point of totally subverting the process, and if no written process exists, there is nothing that the "true" Greens could do.

Also, I would prefer a statement that, in view of the grassroots democracy value, the organization of the district committees, and the selection of the delegates, is left to each district.

Article 6:

Again, this article calls for "gender-balanced" co-chairs. As above, I would consider this suspect.

In addition, I object to the co-chairs being the sole authors of the agenda for the state council meetings. That is, there should be some way in which the council can overrule an agenda item, either calling up an item not on the agenda, or removing an item. (The latter is possible always by simply not doing anything.) The reason is, again, that with the organization proposed it would be very easy for the co-chair to subvert the entire state organization. All they need do is not put the items they don’t want on the agenda.

Section 4 should say "all Statewide officers" not "all officers." Otherwise, it would sound like you intend to have the local officials elected as well, which I doubt. In addition, someone could take this to mean that the delegates, being "officers" are to be elected in this way, which I also doubt was intended.

I have my doubts about section 5. Again, the reason is that it makes it easy to subvert the process. That is, if some Buchanon type person were to gain control of the council, even for a short period of time, Recall that the Council also would be responsible for replacing this person should the position become vacant. (Maybe that should be changed, again citing the grassroots democracy.) Otherwise we would be in danger of becoming a strictly parliamentary system where the co-chairs would serve at the whim of the council. (Then, again, perhaps this should be the case. Let’s decide.)

Article 7:

(This may not belong here.) When the framers of the constitution envisioned this country, they had the wisdom to require the president to address the congress for a yearly report on how the country was doing. I think that is would be good to require the co-chairs to report on a yearly basis on how the Green party is doing in Kansas. I may not be aware of what is going on in western Kansas despite all my efforts to keep informed.

Article 8:

I agree.

Article 9:

While I very much agree with the gist of this article, I must take issue with some of the specifics. I think that the Green party should have a treasurer to take charge of the money, to see that the party does not go into debt, and to report the financial state of the party each year. Alternatively, these functions could be given to one of the existing officers, such as the secretary. The wording now does not give this responsibility to anyone, or, in other words, if there is a problem, adjudicating it could be very difficult. That is, suppose that the Green party commits more money than it has (which is what going it debt is). There is no one, nor any process to figure out what went wrong.

Suppose the party went into debt despite this article. In all likelihood, what people would see is that at a given time the party is in debt. If it is clearly a case of someone blowing the budget, there is an obvious culprit. But suppose the revenue is down. Then a decision must be made as to who gets paid and who doesn’t. For this reason, there needs to be someone in charge of this. (Maybe the co-chairs.) I think that whoever this is, this person should be charged with writing the report.

Article 10:

Section 1 D: I understand the history behind this, and from that background I would suggest that a statement be made that the contributions from individuals not be coerced. That is, it is possible (and probably illegal) for a company to insist that all employees contribute to a campaign as a condition of employment. More to the point, it would probably be legal for a group which is (maybe even just a small social group) to insist that money be donated as a condition for continuing in the group. This is coercion.

Again, I think that the choosing of candidates for non-statewide office should be left to the people in the district served. That is, U.S. Congressional candidates should be selected by the committees at the congressional district level. I will admit there is some advantage to allowing the choice to be rubber stamped by the state council to prevent local takeovers. Note that "3/4 of the county committees" is somewhat problematic in that the number of counties in some of the congressional districts is too small, particularly districts 3 and 4. If the proposal I suggest were implemented, this would never be a problem.

I would also suggest that any appeal to the state council be made much more difficult than is stated. For example, requiring a ¾ majority to overrule the local committee, or even a unanimous decision.

I would suggest that the rules state that any candidate chosen as a result of a primary be removed only for fraud. This should be the rule with a grassroots democracy because if the grassroot has spoken, then what they say goes, even if I, personally, disagree. The fraud provision is included to protect against someone who goes through the primary process while pretending to be someone they are not for the intention of deceiving the public.

I have to raise my voice in support of Section 3. In view of the realities of the political world today, if someone supports the key values of the Green party, and can get a nomination from the Democratic party (or, better yet, the Republican party) then it really is not in our best interest, or the best interest of the people to run against that person.