Green Pages

Showing how it’s done at the 2008 Nominating Convention and Annual Meeting

By Ruth Weill, Annual National Meeting Committee Coordinator

The convention and annual meeting promise to be a great time being held in the exciting downtown theater district of Chicago, Illinois from July 10-13. In addition to Green Party presidential nominations, there are many inspiring activities and it is also a great opportunity for Greens to come together to share ideas and plans.

A main part of the convention will be the nomination on Saturday of one of these fine presidential candidates:  Jessie Johnson (jessie08.org), Cynthia McKinney (www.runcynthiarun.org), Kent Mesplay (www.mesplay.org) and Kat Swift (www.voteswift.org). 

But the weekend has much more to offer with amazing speakers such as Malik Rahim, former Black Panther and Green Party candidate who has been a long-time community activist on various social justice issues. Rahim also co-founded Common Ground Relief (commongroundrelief.org), an organization that provides short-term relief to victims of hurricane disasters in the Gulf region. Also speaking at the convention is our own Steering Committee member Cliff Thornton Jr., an activist who has won awards for his efforts on drug policy reform (www.efficacy-online.org). 

Another speaker is Kathy Kelly, a familiar name to many Greens. In 1996 Kelly co-founded Voices in the Wilderness, an organization trying to end sanctions on Iraq. Having visited Iraq and much of the Middle East many times, she has transformed the organization into Voices for Creative Non-Violence (www.vcnv.org). 

Attendees at the convention will have many opportunities for learning, as the workshop selection will be top notch, with expert activists from across the country discussing an array of issues. Workshop topics will include foreign policy related to the Middle East and Iran, immigrant and LGBTQ rights, and campaigning on a shoestring budget.  

Don’t forget Green nightlife.  A wonderful international reception is planned for Thursday evening to welcome fellow Greens from across the seven continents.  In 2004 there were over 40 international guests representing at least 15 countries. Friday evening plans include hearing from our candidates, and Saturday evening will be more of a social party. The city of Chicago has a lot to offer as well, from live music, theater, and outdoor gardens to walks along Lake Michigan.  

The main location of the convention is the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, a beautiful historic landmark built in 1871 (www.hiltonfamilychicago.com). The hotel is right around the corner from the location of the nominating convention, the Chicago Symphony Center (www.cso.org), which is  another historic landmark built in 1904.   

The meeting committee along with the Illinois Green Party is excited to host a world-class event, and The Green Party of the United States Presidential Nominating Convention and Annual Meeting promises to be an unforgettable event. We hope to see you in Chicago this July.  

Please visit http://www.greenparty2008.org to register and for all information regarding the convention.

Spotlight on founder Dee Berry

Dee Berry is a founder and still-active member of the Green Party in the United States. She took some time to answer questions for Green Pages on how the Green Party evolved in this country and where she thinks it should go in the future.

 

Why have you joined the Green Party?

I was attracted to the Greens, like so many others, by its ecological, holistic view of the world and its ten key values. During the 60’s and 70’s, I had participated in the various movements that were springing up across the country and the planet in that exciting and pregnant time—the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movement and the anti-war movement. 

1972, I was very active in the McGovern campaign, organizing the 10th ward in Kansas City. It was during that campaign I witnessed first hand how corrupt and unredeemable the Democratic Party really was. Soon after McGovern’s devastating defeat, I left the Democratic Party for good. I realized then how desperately our country needs a new third party. So I was very excited when I found the Greens and I threw my heart and soul into organizing a Green presence in this country. 

I saw the Greens as a place where all of my interests—peace, feminism, the environment, and civil rights came together. By working in the Greens I could be involved in all of them. But even more important, I believed that our society was in a deep crisis. The modern, industrial society has reached its limits to growth and is breaking down. All of the immense, seemingly unsolvable, worldwide problems are related and are symptoms of this dying order. Our very survival depends on our ability to transform the way we see the world and the way we live and play together, and of course, our politics. For me, the Greens are the ones who truly understand this and are inventing the blue print for a new compassionate, connected, sustainable society. 

   I joined the Greens in 1984 long before it was a Green Party. In August of ’84, Charlene Spretnak and David Hanke invited people from across our country to come to St. Paul, Minnesota to organize a Green presence in the U.S. Green parties were emerging in many countries in Europe, especially Germany and Sweden, and green ideas were capturing the imagination of people across the planet, people who realized there was a crisis of modernity and were looking for a new way. Charlene had just published her book Green Politics: The Global Promise, and found there was a great deal of interest in Green ideas in the U.S. as well. From that first meeting came the name, the Committees of Correspondence (CoC), the ten key values, and the organizational structure. 

The U.S. Greens would be organized into bioregional entities that would send delegates to an Interregional Committee (the IC)—and a clearinghouse was established in Minneapolis. The first IC meeting was held in the home of Fritjof Capra and the second was held in Boston, MA. At the third meeting held in Kansas City, it was decided to move the Clearinghouse there and I was named the coordinator, a position I held for over three years. Dur ing that time the Greens grew from a smattering of locals, no one really knew how many, to over 350. 

Some were organized into well functioning regions such as California, New England, and the Prairie; while others were loosely organized into bioregions. This organizational structure lasted for five years and was restructured in 1990.

 

What do you think are the pressing issues of the country?

 I believe our country is on the verge of a collapse beyond anything we have seen before. The pressing issues are all interrelated and the result of the breakdown of industrial society. Our best hope is that this crisis will awaken the American people to the need for fundamental change including a political realignment. Since both the Republicans and the Democrats are mired in the modern corporate culture, which is at the root of the crisis, they are unable to see beyond the tired solutions already proven to be inadequate. Greens have been talking about peak oil, alternative energy, food circles, single-payer health care, simple living, and community building for almost twenty years. A desperate citizenry just might begin to listen and take the Greens seriously. The Greens must be ready for the challenge.

 

What do you think the Green Party should focus on?

 I believe Greens should focus on the grassroots, community level. This is where most of the workable, practical solutions that we have been proposing for years can be more easily put into effect. Also, I doubt many of the huge institutions of centralized power will come through the crisis unscathed, be they  governmental, profit, or even not-for-profit. There will be a devolution of this concentrated power, not only because it is not working, but also because centralizing power and people is becoming prohibitively expensive with the end of the fossil fuel age. 

 

How has the Green Party changed over time?

The Greens, in the larger sense, have changed a great deal over time. We started out in 1984 as a bio-regionally organized movement, called the Committees of Correspondence (CoC) and later changed our name to Green Committees of Correspondence (GCoC). In West Virginia in 1990 the GCoC was restructured into what was called the Green Party/Green Party USA. However, this was the result of a very contentious, heavy-handed process and many activists simply voted with their feet and walked away, I being one of them. The GP/GPUSA continued, but lost much of the energy and exciting promise of the original CoC and slowly lost members. 

Some of us who left did not want to lose contact with the many good Green friends we had enjoyed over the years so we organized the Green Politics Network. This organization has been much maligned and little understood. But we never pretended to be more than what we said we were: a safe home where we could enjoy each other, meet together and discuss Green issues and ways to grow into a vibrant political party without being personally attacked. 

Most of all we wanted to be the catalyst for a Green Party in the U.S. We succeeded in doing that. Through the work of our members with the Third Force Conferences, the Nader run for President in 1996, and the organizing meeting of the Association of State Green Parties in December of ‘96, a new Green Party in the country was launched. 

With the birth of the Green Party, the Green Network’s mission was accomplished and we disbanded. But there was another legacy of the Green Network, this was our organizing idea of connected, separate but autonomous working groups. At present there are many exciting and autonomous Green organizations doing fantastic work like the Green Horizon, Liberty Tree, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, the Green Institute, and Mike Feinstein’s archival project. 

These groups are composed of strong leaders in the Green Party, but with the Green principle of turning over leadership, they have gone to other organizations. As a result, there are a plethora of organizations doing their bit to Green our planet. I would like to see a way for these organizations to be more connected to the Green party while still remaining separate and autonomous. I think they could be a real asset to the party and could help other Green leaders find leadership roles in the larger Green movement.  As I see the evolution of the Greens in the U.S., they began as a movement, re formed almost exclusively into a party, and now I would like to see an integration of the two. 

 

Could you please give a brief biography?

I am a wife of 58 years, mother of five, and grandmother of eight. Finding a balance between my commitment to my family and my equally strong desire to be involved in my larger family—the earth community, has always been a challenge for me. I am a graduate of the University of Iowa and received an MBA from the University of Missouri. I taught at various area colleges and liked exploring green ideas in my classes long before there was a green movement. 

My Green work includes: serving three and a half years as the coordinator of the national clearinghouse of the CoC, organizing along with Ben Kjelshus, the Kansas City Greens, which has been active for almost twenty-five years, helping to organize and coordinate the Prairie Region, participating in forming the Green Politics Network and editing its interactive newsletter “The Song of The Frog,” co-organizing the Missouri Green Party and later the Progressive Party of Mis souri. I just stepped down as co-chair of that party and as its delegate to the National Com mittee of the Green Party of the United States. I am presently secretary of the PPMo, alternate delegate to the National Committee and membership chair of the Kansas City Greens. I serve on the Platform Com mittee and the Committee on Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures of the US/GP.

  One of my main concerns in the Greens has always been to make sure that women’s voices are heard. While I enjoy many things like sewing, reading, playing bridge, cooking for and entertaining my family and friends, my passion is the Green Party/Movement, which I fervently believe, is our best, if not only, hope for the future.

Early Party organizers gather to recall 1980s to early 1990s

By Mike Feinstein, Green Party of California

When and how did the U.S. Greens start? What were the early “salad days” like, in terms of dreams, goals and challenges? What choices were made then that helped lead to where we are today?

These questions and others brought 11 Greens who were active in the 1980s and early 1990s together for a weekend of reminiscing, recalling, and writing U.S. Green history. With no single place where this early history is chronicled, they hoped the product of their weekend would provide an enduring account of the origins of the Greens in the United States.

They proceeded chronologically, year by year, from plans for the founding meeting of U.S. Greens in 1984, through the key meetings and events up to the summer of 1991.

Ben Kjelshus and Charlene Spretnak talked of how the call for a Green founding meeting in the U.S. occurred at the First North American Bioregional Congress in Excelsior Springs, MO, May 1984. Spretnak and Howie Hawkins then recounted the founding meeting itself, when approximately 60 people met at Macalaster College in St. Paul, Minnesota and founded what later became known as the Green Com mit tees of Correspondance (GcoC).

Dee Berry spoke of being the first Coordinator of the GcoC Clearinghouse in Kansas City, MO and its operations after it was first established in 1985, and how after serving for four years, she asked the Interregional Council (IC) to appoint someone new because she believed in rotation of power.

The IC meetings that began in 1985 were also a prime discussion topic. These meetings brought together representatives from large regions of Green locals from across the country. It was at the IC meetings that decisions were made like where to locate the Kansas City Clearinghouse, and to launch the first national Green program process—the Strategic Policy Approaches in Key Areas (SPAKA), which was spearheaded by John Rensenbrink and ran from 1988 to1990.

by former California Green Coordinating Committee member Tom Bolema, the discussions were videotaped and will be used for video production and as the basis for written text. A website has been established at www.studygreens.org/history/us that will chronicle this product.

On Sunday, independent filmmakers Julie Eisenberg and Babette Hogan from Polidoc Productions who are doing a documentary on the 2008 U.S. Green presidential nomination process and campaign called “Seriously GREEN” did interviews of attendees for the film. 

Green History weekend participants plan to continue their work on-line, interactively recounting their history, and are involving other Greens active in the 1980s and early 1990s. They plan to meet next in spring 2009 in Kansas City, with the focus on the early 1990s through the 1996 election and the founding of the Association of State Green Parties.

This article is the first in a series exploring the history of the Green Party in the United States.

By Brian Bittner, Maryland Green Party

The next generation of Green Party organizers is on thousands of high school and college campuses around the country.

  Hundreds of groups are already organized and holding events, recruiting students, and offering hope for training future leaders of Green Party states and locals and the Green Party of the United States. They have spearheaded efforts for fair wages and labor standards for university employees, advocated for fair trade in university stores and dining halls, fought for improved environmental policies in residences, and resisted military recruitment on campus.    

  Yet there is no committee, caucus or working group within the structure of the GP-US whose purpose is to organize on their behalf. We have left the coordination of these hundreds of groups to an independent body called Campus Greens—an unaffiliated non-profit 501(c)(4) organization, which has provided some level of support, but is legally prohibited from partisan political organization. 

Many students know they have an affinity with Green Party values and want to make an impact, but have no experience in setting agendas and leading campaigns. National organization can provide advice from experienced Campus Green leaders and contact with existing student groups who can serve as models for successful campaigns. Campus Greens leaders can only contribute until they graduate. A network of contacts of experienced individuals who can facilitate this turnover of leadership or revitalize a once-organized group is absolutely necessary. National coordination can turn several separate projects into a regional or national success story. 

Organizational support from the GPUS can help Campus Greens thrive. Campus Greens can also help organize support that our national and state Green Parties need. College campuses are a massive, mostly untapped pool of progressive, creative energy looking for options beyond the corporate alternatives. Student groups can strengthen our local and state Green Parties by inviting candidates to campus, holding voter registration drives on campus, and sponsoring educational discussions, film screenings, and debates. A few volunteers can collect several hundred ballot access signatures in an hour in a student union during lunch.   

  The GPUS’s lack of campus organization is based partially on an idea that political groups are not allowed to organize on campus. This is not true. While hundreds of Campus Greens are organized across the country, thousands of college Democrat and college Republican groups have been working for decades. Karl Rove himself chaired the College Republicans as a student in the 1970s. If Greens remove themselves from campus organization, politically minded students have no choice but to join the campus affiliates of corporate parties. 

  There are a few simple steps students, faculty members, parents, and local Green Party leaders can take to provide opportunities for Campus Greens.   

  1. Contact your state and local Green Party and the Green Party of the United States. They can provide contacts to existing groups and resources for getting others involved.    

  2. Contact school administrators about the policies regarding new student clubs. Most universities have an office that coordinates student groups. The main office at your local high school can provide guidelines for starting a student club. Many offices have written the requirements up as an easy-to-follow checklist.    

  3. Find students who are interested in joining a Campus Greens group. Admin istrations may require a number of students to sign a petition to form a group. Talk to friends or use social networking websites to organize a group of students. Many members of a school’s College Democrat club might be willing to join. Look for members at environmental clubs, service groups, Amnesty International chapters, philosophy clubs, and GBLT groups. Most students who live on campus have their mail delivered to the same post office on campus—use state and local contact lists to find groups of people who are registered to vote from this address.   

 4. Advertise. Hang fliers around campus. Many schools allow groups to use university facilities to hold interest meetings. If not, advertise interest meetings at a local coffee shop or bookstore.    

  5. Most groups will need a faculty advisor to sponsor a Campus Greens group. Call local Greens you know who teach at universities or high schools and ask them to sponsor a group. If you don’t know anyone at your school, ask department heads or administrators to suggest someone who might be interested. 

  6. Ask your representatives to the Green National Committee to support efforts to organize Campus Greens under the framework of GPUS. If the Green Party works together to support the next generation of Green leaders and activists, no student will fall victim to Ralph Nader’s warning to the youth of America: “I hear you saying often that you’re not turned on to politics. The lessons of history are clear and portentous. If you do not turn on to politics, politics will turn on you.”

 

Brian Bittner was a faculty advisor to Towson University (Maryland) Campus Greens. He is Maryland Green Party membership coordinator and GPUS office assistant. brian@gp.org. 

Thinking of running for office but not sure how to start? Your Green Party support is right here!

For information on how to run a campaign visit: www.GP.org or contact the Green Party of the United States at 866-41GREEN.

Also campaign resources can be downloaded for free at: www.gp.org/committees/campaign/resources.shtml

By Ron Hardy, Wisconsin Green Party

Wisconsin Greens were on the ballot in elections for County Board of Supervisors across the state April 1—ten incumbents and four challengers. Ten of the 14 were elected. Wisconsin now has 17 Greens holding elected office. 

Among the ten Wisconsin Green victories were two first-time candidates: Wyndham Manning, who won a landslide victory with 66 percent of the vote to take the Dane County Board of Supervisors seat vacated by retiring Green Party member Ashok Kumar, and Kathy Kienholz, who ran unopposed for a seat on the Polk County (Northwestern Wis consin) Board of Supervisors. 

Manning’s victory came in District 5, Madison’s “Student District” and a hotbed of political activity with an engaged electorate. Greens have traditionally done well there—Echaton Vedder first won the seat in 1998. A University of Wisconsin senior majoring in Environmental Studies and Communication Arts, Manning opposed College Democrat Conor O’Hagan, a freshmen Engineering student involved with student government. Manning campaigned on an overall environmental program, including specific focus on solutions to keep the many lakes surrounding Madison clean. 

“The process of making our lakes and watersheds safer has begun by banning phosphorus and coal tar sealant. I will take the lead in the next step by exploring a system of anaerobic manure digesters that co-generate exhausted methane for heat and electricity, as well as evaluating the impact of other negligent runoffs such as pesticides,” said Manning. 

Manning also championed the under-represented in Madison, including support for Domestic Partner benefits, Domestic Abuse Intervention Services, and working with local area groups to expand the availability of homeless shelters. 

Far north of Madison, Kienholz won her first seat and thereby kept at least one Green on the Polk County Board. An active member of the St. Croix Valley Green Party since 2003, Kienholz was first introduced to the Greens by one of her sons. 

Kienholz believes she was unopposed because of the credibility that her environ mental platform gave her, combined with her financial background as a CPA and as Treasurer of the local Lake Association and the local Friends of the Library group.  “My goals are local,” said Kienholz, “Our county board has struggled in the past six to eight years, as anti-tax folks were elected to seats. Their agenda could be summed up in one word—No. No spending, no programs, no building, no nothing.” 

Kienholz intends to continue the work that fellow Green and outgoing Polk County Supervisor Jeff Peterson began by making sustainability a focus for Polk County. “I want to continue his efforts to keep that goal in the forefront. As a CPA I asked for and was elected to a seat on the Finance Committee, where I hope to be an influence for Green goals. My other committee assignment was to the Land and Water Committee, which is right up my street.”

 

Incumbents Re-elected at 80 Percent Rate

Eight incumbent Green County Board of Supervisors won re-election on April 1, including six unopposed—Robert Browne and David Conley (Douglas County), Greg David (Jefferson County), John Hardin (Barron County) and two from Dane County—Kyle Richmond and Barbara Vedder, the mother of Echnaton Vedder. 

Conley has been serving on the Doug las County Board of Supervisors in North west Wisconsin since 1986 and is the longest serving Green in office nationwide at 22 years and counting. His tenure in office predates the Wisconsin Green Party, which will be celebrating 20 years as a Party this October. Conley’s colleague on the Douglas County Board, Robert Browne, has been on the board since 1992, 16 years and counting. 

David in Jefferson County (East Central Wisconsin) has been actively promoting the Natural Step for Communities, a movement that has been sweeping across Wisconsin. He spoke at the Wisconsin Green Party’s Summer Gathering in August 2007 at which the Party officially endorsed the Natural Step and the Eco-Municipality movement throughout Wisconsin.  

 

 

In Dane County, Greens have had between two and four members on the 39-member County Board of Supervisor since 1998. Joining first-time candidate Manning this time were Richmond and Vedder, along with John Hendrick, who successfully fought off his challenger with 83 percent of the vote.

 

A member of the County Board for 14 years and a near east neighborhood community activist for even longer, Hendrick is considered an expert on local land use, planning and zoning issues and is someone other Board members turn to for advice. In recent years he has also championed drinking water quality and bringing living wage standards from Madison to a broader section of Dane County. His opponent Mark Schmitt, a print and mail coordinator for Bethel Lutheran Church, took a more conservative position than Hendrick on transportation, regulations, prisons and police, that clearly did not resonate well with the voters.

Richmond has served on the County Board since 2002, and Vedder since 2006, following six years (1995-2001) on the Madison Common Council. In 2007 the two of them, together with Richmond and Kumar, led a successful effort for the Board to pass a resolution calling for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, becoming the second county in the nation at the time to pass such a resolution. Richmond also had a role in the July 10, 2003 Dane County Board boycott of Tyson Foods in support of striking workers in neighboring Jefferson County. Vedder, in her past role on the Madison Common Council, was instrumental in passing Madison’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, a policy tool that relies on zoning laws to encourage or require developers to provide affordable units in their new housing developments.

Also re-elected in a competitive race was incumbent John Rendall, a member of the Portage County Board of Supervisors for 12 years, and before that a member of the Almond School Board for five years. Rendall supports substance abuse treatment and alternative sentencing as opposed to expanding prison populations. His opponent’s issues were primarily ‘saving the taxpayers’ money’ and opposing a proposed new Justice Center in the county. Rendall won re-election with 62 percent of the vote. 

Two other incumbent County Board Supervisors were not so fortunate. Both Bob Ryan (Door County) and Jeff Peter son (Polk County) were defeated this year. Ironically, Peterson, elected just two years ago, had also been recently appointed vice chair of the Polk County Board and was being asked to consider chairing the new, post-election County Board before he was challenged three days before the election with a well organized, “under the radar” write-in campaign that caught him totally by surprise. 

Peterson’s last minute challenger officially filed as a “write-in” candidate the Friday before the Tuesday election by a man who moved to the area in 2006. He and his supporters were ready to roll first thing Saturday morning with an efficiently coordinated literature drop throughout the district. In the literature, his opponent claimed that the county government was fleecing the tax payers, and that he would cap all taxes and slash county spending. He attacked Peterson for voting for the county budget (which raised property taxes by 13 percent) and for supporting the construction of a new environmentally conscious Highway Shop to replace the 75-year-old facility Polk County currently uses. Peterson, who didn’t have time to adequately respond to his challenger’s charges, lost 192 to 159, with 45 percent of the vote. 

Ryan, who was first elected to the Door County Board of Supervisors in 2002, has been actively involved with Sustain Door, a group of citizens and public officials looking for ways to help make Door County a more sustainable community. He is also involved with the Door County Histor ical Society and is the co-facilitator for the Alternatives to Violence Program, a domestic violence prevention group. “Our county’s future, and the tax burden that its residents are asked to carry, are the two main reasons I’m running,” said Ryan during the campaign. “Two key issues are taxes and maintaining our rural environment.” 

His opponent, a self-employed farmer who was elected to the Clay Banks Town Board in 2007, accused Ryan of being “pressured by special interest groups.” He challenged Ryan in 2006 and lost by a mere handful of votes. This time he defeated Ryan by 56 votes, holding Ryan to 41 percent of the vote. 

Two other first-time Green candidates had impressive results, despite not winning their races: Michael Slattery for the Manitowoc County Board, and Bobby Gifford for the Portage County Board. Both ran strong, issue-based campaigns against well funded opponents. 

Slattery, who farms 370 acres in the predominantly rural Manitowoc County south of Green Bay, ran against the nephew of the incumbent, who outspent him ten to one. Although the district is rural, only 14 farms remain (including Slattery’s), while 25 percent of the population lives in $300,000-$400,000 homes and commute to jobs in Green Bay. 

Against an opponent who didn’t appear at candidate forums and whose primary message was that he would lower taxes, Slattery focused on the nation’s ‘big picture’, promoting non-violence, and opposition to the Iraq war. “I listed issues that we need to deal with: rising energy and commodity prices accompanying a pending recession,” said Slattery. De spite this, Michael Slattery took 37 percent of the vote. 

Gifford, who moved to Stevens Point from Milwaukee several years ago, ran against a long-tenured and well known incumbent. He ran with little money and little organized assistance, but ran on the issues important to him and important to Wisconsin. He ran on issues of the Natural Step, promoting the Eco-Municipality movement in Stevens Point, community supported agriculture and preparing for a post-Peak Oil society. “My opponent actually adopted my own expression ‘make the eco-municipality effort county-wide’ on his campaign literature, although the caveat was ‘if it didn’t impact the tax base.’” said Gifford. “I don’t feel beaten, I feel like the Board is now on notice from the citizens:  get with the program or step down.”  Gifford lost with 28 percent of the vote. 

The Wisconsin Green Party is continuing a history of running and winning in local races that goes back 22 years. Already the party is making plans for 2009 local common council races where seven incumbents will be up for re-election in Madison, Oshkosh, and Stevens Point. 

“We have our greatest impact at the local level where we can apply Green values to local issues.” said Cindy Stimmler, co-chair of the Wisconsin Green Party. “Several dozen communities in Wisconsin are actively working toward becoming ‘eco-municipalities’ through the Natural Step process and elected Wisconsin Greens are taking the lead in their local communities.” 

By Rick Lass, Green Party of New Mexico

The Green Party of Santa Fe scored a major win on March 4 with the adoption of seven charter amendments, including both public financing of elections and ranked choice voting. This victory adds to the local Green Party’s string of policy reforms going back a dozen years, including creation of a local transit system, repeal of the gross receipts taxes on food and medical services and adoption of the nation’s highest minimum wage.

Ranked Choice Voting, also known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), is a proven reform that ensures majority winners and increases voter choice and participation. It has been an integral part of the Green Party election reform agenda for a long time, and in New Mexico there is a rich history of advocacy in its pursuit.

The original Santa Fe city charter, adopted in 1997, failed to include ranked choice on a 5-4 committee vote. Mean while Greens and others were working at the New Mexico state legislature, to get a constitutional amendment to require ranked choice for state elections. While the measure was introduced for six consecutive years, it passed the Senate only once, and failed to get through the House. 

The efforts in the legislature focused on the ‘spoiler’ issue. Democrat State Senator Phil Maloof, who sponsored the measure the one year it passed the Senate in 1999, had just lost a three-way special election for Congress the preceding year. Many Democrats blamed Green Party candidate Bob Anderson, who received 14.9 percent, and saw the solution as “crush the Greens.” But some of the more enlightened ones realized it was the winner-take-all system that had to go.

In Santa Fe, municipal elections are non-partisan and require only plurality winners. Fifteen of the last 35 elected officials won with a minority of the vote, with one receiving a mere 32 percent. Greens are focusing on the undemocratic nature of plurality winners and are pointing out that, like other municipalities that have adopted ranked choice in recent years, there would no longer be expensive, low-turnout runoffs.

In 2006 a specially appointed Charter Review Commission (CRC) reviewed over thirty suggested improvements. After more than a year of meetings, the CRC settled on seven recommended amendments to the charter. Numbers one, two and three relax onerous provisions of existing laws for citizen initiative, referendum and recall. Amendment four requires the city council to come up with a “meaningful” public funding system within two years. Amendment five adopts Ranked Choice Voting for municipal elections. Amendment six gives the mayor more voting power, and amendment seven requires the local judge be a member of the Bar. All in all, these amendments could be grouped as good government and direct democracy improvements.

After the CRC report was submitted to the city council in December of 2006, the council dragged its feet for almost a year, sending it first to the Ethics and Finance Committees before voting last September to send the package to the voters, to be included on the March 2008 regular election ballot.

At its October meeting, the Green Party of Santa Fe endorsed the full package. County Chair Emily Franklin announced that this was a critical issue for the local party, and pledged to make the ranked choice campaign her highest priority. Other Greens quickly followed suit, and the Green endorsement was prominent throughout the campaign. Many individual Greens also did a great deal of the campaign grunt work, including setup and upkeep of the website and list management.

Voting Matters was the lead organization on the Ranked Choice campaign, while Common Cause took the lead on the Public Funding amendment. Voting Matters is a 501(c)4 organization founded in August 2006 to work on electoral reforms in Santa Fe and New Mexico. Short term it focuses on measures to increase voter participation, and in the long term with the goal of implementing Ranked Choice Voting for single seat elections and proportional representation for legislature and city councils. Voting Matters was founded by three Green party members, John Otter, Sheila Sullivan, and Rick Lass [www.votingmatters.net].

The campaign relied mostly on word of mouth, direct voter contact and piggybacking on existing events with little door-to-door campaigning in the cold February weather. The campaign was supported by endorsers’ organizational communications, some phoning and two direct mailings to about 20,000 targeted voters- those who had voted in one of the last three elections and those who registered since the previous elections.

Endorsements came from Peace and Justice groups, election reform organizations such as Verified Voting and Com mon Cause, and groups as diverse as the local independent business Alliance and the Living Wage Network. The campaign mentioned, but did not highlight, national endorsers like FairVote and John McCain, Howard Dean, and Barack Obama.

There was no organized opposition to the amendment, but there were a couple of negative letters to the editor. The media did a good job of explaining the amendments, and there were two poorly attended public forums. 

The first  “Yes” campaign mailer went out three weeks before the election, timed to appear after the media spotlight was off the Democratic Party Presidential Caucus and the state’s legislative session. The mailing also went out first class bulk, so it could get returns of bad addresses in order to clean the database for a more targeted Get Out The Vote postcard, which arrived in voters’ mailboxes the Saturday before the election. A volunteer sent cards to everyone who requested an absentee ballot.

No funds were used for print ads, because the cost effectiveness would not be very high in such a low turnout election. With some money left near the end, the campaign scheduled 36 thirty-second radio ads on the local bilingual station KSWV (!Que Suave!). There was some fear that the amendment might break along racial lines, but the results disprove that. The variation between precincts was less than three percent across the city.

The final results: Charter Amend ment 5 passed with 65 percent of the vote. Unfortunately, the city council inserted a clause that allows it to delay implementation until technology and software are available at a reasonable price. So there is still work to ensure implementation of both Ranked Choice and Public Finan cing. It may be that winning the election was the easy part, for now it is in the hands of elections administrators to implement the will of the people.

Privately-owned voting machine manufacturers and/or election administrators may be less than enthusiastic about enabling this reform.  IRV has been on the ballot 14 times since the San Francisco’s breakthrough victory for it in 2001 and it has passed 13 times. But in almost every case, this implementation issue has come up.  How it is resolved is one of the key next steps in electoral reform.

Presidential campaign ignites many state ballot drives

By Brian Bittner, member of the GPUS Ballot Access Committee

Ballot access—the ability to organize a political party, claim to represent a membership, run candidates for office, and have votes for those candidates counted—is like running water or electric lights. We depend on it for much of what we do without even thinking about it. Only in its absence do we stop to think about where it comes from and how we can live without it. Most of us have constant access to water, light, and ballot access, but some of us do not. 

Just as our commitment to social and economic justice inspires us to work to provide universal access to basic daily needs, our commitment to political justice ought to inspire all of us to contribute to ballot access for all of the state affiliates of the Green Party of the United States (GP-US).

The Ballot Access Committee of the GP-US has taken on the challenge of winning ballot access for Green Parties in as many states as possible in 2008, not only to give our presidential candidate a chance at setting new records, but also establishing the groundwork for mid-term ballot access drives in 2010. 

 

Ballot Access History

In 2000, the Green Party presidential candidate appeared on the ballot in 22 states. In 2004, the Green Party presidential candidate appeared on 28 state ballots. The Green Party currently holds ballot access in 21 states and the District of Columbia. The Green Party allocated only $1,000 to winning more ballot lines in 2004. Since then the standing Ballot Access Committee has been created and the Green Party has committed to raising funds for 2008. GP-US has established a fundraising goal of $100,000 for ballot access efforts in 2008. Only about 5 percent has been raised thus far.

GP-US’s 2008 ballot access drives illustrate both the variety of barriers that have been set up to keep minor parties off state ballots and how the grassroots efforts of Greens from across the country have helped overcome those barriers. Four of this year’s ballot access drives—in Arizona, Hawaii, Virginia, and Pennsylvania—show how Greens have contributed to a successful national ballot access plan.

While many state parties faced and met ballot access deadlines in 2006 and safely enjoy ballot access throughout the 2008 election season, other state parties’ deadlines are set based on presidential elections and will come throughout 2008.

Each state party sets its own legal requirements and allows a party to win or maintain ballot access through different measures, some by registering a certain number of party members, others by earning a certain percentage of the vote. Most states require groups to petition the state government to form a new party or extend the ballot access of an existing party by gathering the signatures of a particular number of citizens to show that public support for that party exists.

 

Arizona

The first state to face a requirement this year was Arizona. Because of this unusually early deadline (similar early deadlines have been overturned as unconstitutional by other state courts) and high number of signatures required (20,449) the situation looked particularly grim. “With just three or four weeks to go and only 13,000 signatures in hand, I thought we were doomed to failure!” said Richard Scott, co-chair of the Arizona Ballot Access Committee. With many potential volunteers and donors not checking the ballot access radar be cause of the early deadline, a handful of volunteers in a geographically imposing state were overwhelmed. Because of state laws that required petitions to be sorted by county and turned in at county boards of election, the few volunteers who were collecting signatures on a regular basis were busy simply transporting petitions to the proper office.

Because no other drives had started, the Ballot Access Committee was able to make a sizable donation of funds to the Arizona Green Party to entice new volunteers to get involved, employ a few professional petitioners to work at high-volume events, and show national support for Arizona’s efforts. More importantly, state and local organizations from all over the country took the initiative to raise funds and send volunteers of their own. All of the candidates for the Green Party’s presidential nomination visited or sent volunteers to help collect petitions. On March 6th, the Arizona Green Party handed in almost 30,000 signatures, well above the legal requirement of 20,449. “I can’t thank all the helpers and contributors enough” Scott concluded. “This shows just what we can do when we pull together.”

Hawaii

The Green Party of Hawaii (GPH) faced a whole new set of challenges in April of this year. The party there had been on the ballot continually since 1992, having worked to establish state law that granted ten years of ballot access for parties that either successfully petitioned or held a ballot line through election results for three consecutive elections. Perhaps because of the lack of need to work for ballot access for the past ten years, the GPH found itself in need of assistance to make the ballot in 2008. 

Because of its low population, Hawaii state law required only 663 valid signatures (one tenth of one percent of the state’s registered voters). The party had to collect several times that number, however, to ensure their petition endured strict verification procedures. As the party was collecting signatures, the campaign of the 2004 Constitution Party presidential candidate and the 2004 independent campaign of Ralph Nader were in court arguing that Hawaii’s verification procedures were overly strict. They lost, but help from the Ballot Access Committee helped the Green Party of Hawaii win ballot access in 2008. 
The major difficulty the GPH faced was geography—most party organizers lived on the least populated of the state’s eight major islands, making mass signature collection difficult. Again, the Ballot Access Committee was able to provide a major financial grant to the party to provide stipends for volunteers and arrange help from experienced petitioners from the mainland. The Green Party was also to cooperate with petitioning teams from the Libertarian Party and the independent campaign of Ralph Nader to share petitioning duties, find popular spots, and share housing for volunteers. At the beginning of April the Green Party of Hawaii was able to turn in more than 1500 valid signatures to maintain ballot access and are awaiting certification from the state elections board.

 

Virginia

The Green Party of Virginia (GPVA) is on its way to becoming the third success story of 2008. The state of Virginia requires 10,000 valid signatures to earn four years of ballot access. While this is a modest requirement compared to Arizona’s, the standard is toughened by the fact that the GPVA must ensure that each of the state’s congressional districts are represented by a certain number of signatures.

  As of June 1, GPVA had already reached over half of its petitioning goal, well before the August 22 deadline. The party plans to have completed its ballot access drive by the start of the Green Party national convention in July and be ready to send volunteers to other states to complete their drives. 

Pennsylvania

The Green Party of Pennsylvania (GPPA) strives to win a spot on November’s ballot in one of the nation’s most restrictive political environments. Courts in Penn sylvania have cooperated with major parties to create a system in which parties and candidates attempting to win ballot access have been forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal penalties for merely presenting a ballot access petition to the state. The GPPA has engaged hundreds of volunteers in petitioning and have already collected several thousand signatures, which it is preparing to defend in court if a challenge arises. 

The Ballot Access Committee is collecting funds to provide legal defense for ballot access drives and to challenge hundreds of restrictive, outdated, and unconstitutional ballot access laws on the books across the country and are working with the Green Party’s legal advisors and new contacts with the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights and liberties organizations to be prepared to defend state Green Parties when a lawsuit should arise.

Each of these states—in their ability to overcome long odds or their ability simply to stand up to them—represents a 2008 success story. There are many others to be told. 

Connecticut (5,000 signatures needed by August 6th), Iowa (1,500 by Aug. 15), Kansas (5,000 Aug. 4th), Kentucky (5,000 Aug 4), and New Jersey (800 by July 28) are currently in the midst of petitioning drives. New York (15,000 Aug. 19), New Hamp shire (3,000 by Aug. 6), Ohio (5,000 by Aug. 21), Rhode Island (1,000 by Sept. 5), and Utah (1,000 by Sept. 2) are currently planning petition drives and waiting for state boards of election to let them begin working. As the successes of early 2008 showed, they can expect success if all Greens make these ballot access drives a national effort.

Minimum Number of Signatures Necessary to List a Green Party Candidate for President in November
State		Deadline
Alabama	5,000	September 8
Alaska	3,128	August 6
Conn.	7,500	August 6
Idaho	5,984	August 25
Iowa	1,500	August 15
Kansas	5,000	August 4
Kentucky	5,000	September 2
Minnesota	2,000	September 9
Missouri	10,000	July 28
Montana	5,000	July 30
New Hampshire	3,000	August 6
New Jersey	800	July 28
New York	15,000	August 19
North Dakota	4,000	September 5
Ohio	5,000	August 21
Penn.	24,666	August 1
Rhode Island	1,000	September 5
Utah	1,000	September 2

By David Doonan, Mayor of the Village of Greenwich, New York

Being a public elected official was never a recurring dream that haunted my sleep. While interested in politics and current affairs, in recent years the interest was more an intellectual exercise than an active pursuit. That began to change after listening to a talk in Glens Falls, New York by Ralph Nader in May 2007.

I sat in the audience as. Nader spoke at length about the need for citizen involvement at the local level. He talked about the example his parents set and told us to attend local government meetings to ensure our elected officials were acting responsibly. But when he said, “I’m going to tell you a Chinese proverb that you’ll never forget,” I rolled my eyes and silently said, “yeah, right.” Instead that proverb: “Those who know, and don’t do, don’t know,” struck home and continued to haunt me for weeks, until I finally decided to accept the challenge and run for office. 

The Village of Greenwich in Washington County is where I’ve lived for the past 17 years. Located about 50 miles north of the state capital Albany, it has a population of 1,900 and is located within the boundaries of two different towns; the more developed portion lies within the Town of Greenwich (population 5,000) and the less developed lies within the Town of Easton (population 2260) on the other side of the Battenkill River. Washington County has no four-lane roads, no enclosed shopping malls, no big box stores, no movie theatres and no television or radio stations, or even a daily newspaper. It wasn’t until the 1980 census that the human population surpassed the bovine population. In other words, the Village of Green wich, NY has nothing in common with Greenwich Village in New York City.

There were four positions I could have run for, Town Supervisor, Town Coun cilor, Village Mayor or Village Trustee. Ultimately my decision was made for me when the Village Mayor was quoted as saying that decisions are easier to make when the public isn’t present.

Village elections in Greenwich have been officially non-partisan for the past 20 years. But in New York State Village elections, non-partisan can be a misleading term. In essence, it means that one has the choice of running for office under the party to which you’re registered or one can run under the name of a non-existing party, pretending that the actual state recognized party system doesn’t exist. For instance, in the nearby town of White Creek, a local Democrat has been twice elected to office on the Woodpecker Party. When choosing a non-partisan party name, candidates must be careful that they don’t pick the same name as their opponents. That happened in this election when three candidates choose to run on the Greenwich Party; the public saw them as a slate, which they weren’t. Finally, to make matters even more confusing, if a candidate chooses to run non-partisan but does not write a party name on the petitions, then by State law, the village clerk has to assign a party name. 

I could have run as a Green. But instead I decided to run a non-partisan campaign. Most residents were upset at how the local government has been run and I knew they were looking for someone who would provide answers and a direction. For most voters, partisan politics was purely a secondary concern at best. My original intention was to run on a slate with one Demo crat and one Republican, but I ended up with two Democrats. Why did I choose to run on a slate? Quite simply, I was hoping to influence who would end up serving on the board with me. 

chose the name “Open Government” for our slate. However I did not hide my affiliation with the Green Party. At the initial volunteers meeting I made it very clear how committed to the Green Party I was (and still am). Every time I went door-to-door, my Green Party button was worn prominently and the local press repeatedly mentioned my membership in both the Green Party and the Industrial Work ers of the World. Many lifelong Re publicans who had probably never voted for a Democrat, told me that they were not only going to be voting for me, but that their entire families would be as well.

This was a very winnable race—one neighbor described the general attitude as “throw the bums out.” However, I decided not to run against the then current administration, but to put forward a positive message and attempt to provide realistic solutions for improving the community. 

Real estate was among the issues facing the community. Six years ago the Village Board secretly voted to purchase the largest piece of commercial property in the Village, the site of a former IGA food store. Today it still sits empty. Also our Village Hall is on the National Register of His toric Places by the United States Department of the Interior, but has been allowed to deteriorate since its purchase 40 years ago. The building lacks handicapped access and bricks are literally falling out of the buildings exterior walls. The Fire Depart ment is housed in the Village Hall, and is only allowed to operate because of very sympathetic inspectors.

James “Kim” Gannon, who wrote the words to the 1943 American classic “I’ll Be Home for Christmas,” left a bequest together with his wife of $750,000 to be used for the youth of the Village. A commission of community members spent countless hours conducting surveys and interviews to determine the best way to go forward. A report was submitted to the Village Board, which said ‘thank you’ and promptly put it in a drawer. It was only during this past March 2008 that the community finally saw something tangible happen, half a decade since the Village received the bequest.

The costs for a new firehouse, rehabilitating Village Hall, and repairing or replacing the Village Water Tower, are expensive propositions, which is why none of the previous administrations dealt with them. Before beginning to actively campaign, I met with a local administrator of the Rural Communities Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to get a handle on what types of grants and low interest loans might be available. I also attended a monthly meeting of the fire department, not just to put myself forward, but also to listen to them. 

In the 17 years we’ve lived in Greenwich, there have only been two contested elections for Trustee positions; the Mayor was never challenged. This year there were two of us running for Mayor and six candidates running for two open Trustee positions. 

While two weeklies and a bi-weekly serve our community, the daily papers in nearby Saratoga Springs and Glens Falls ignored the election. Because of the lack of daily coverage and the absence of a League of Women Voters willing to organize a de  bate, I decided to get the ball rolling on a candidate’s forum. I proposed a format to the high school principal and the rest of the candidates, which they all agreed to.

In essence, meeting with the USDA, an aide to our local congresswoman, the fire department and organizing a candidate’s forum, I was acting as if I were already in office.

For my campaign I held an open house to kick off the ballot petitioning and three supporters hosted “meet the candidate’ events. Greenwich requires 50 signatures to be listed on the ballot for village elections. The final weekend was spent going door-to-door. Money was donated by the state and national Green Party, as well as by the Greenwich Democrat Committee (my wife is vice president of the committee) and used to purchase advertisements in the local weeklies, lawn signs and palm & post cards. I also created a campaign web site from which I linked videos of the campaign forum.

Throughout the course of the month-long campaign, I tried to focus on three main issues: 1) Resolving the IGA property, determining the site of a new Fire House and repair of the Village Hall. 2) Seeking additional revenue streams to finance the above without burdening the taxpayers. 3) Opening up the government, allowing citizens a voice in shaping our community’s future.

On Election Day, March 18th, it was pretty strange walking into the voting booth and seeing my name on the ballot. When the votes were counted, our slate swept the results, with myself receiving 74 percent of the votes for Mayor.

To their credit, the outgoing administration received offers from two real estate brokers in January interested in purchasing the former IGA property, but decided to put off the matter until after the election. Unlike the secret decision to purchase the property six years ago, at the first Board Meeting I presided over, both brokers made presentations in public session. Rather than acting upon either offer, the Board decided to seek an independent appraisal of the property at my urging before proceeding. 

Three other items of note also happened at our first meeting. The meeting was videotaped for the first time, as will be all future board meetings, in anticipation of being uploaded to a future Village web site. Second, I submitted a written Mayor’s report of my activities. The Mayor is a public servant. Since the heads of the police, fire and public works departments are required to issue written reports, then so should the Mayor. It was a simple and effective way of demonstrating my desire to be held accountable for my actions. Thirdly, when the Trustees were given their committee assignments, I assigned them a list of tasks to accomplish. I wanted it clear to everyone that the new administration was not going to be a one-person show; that everyone had a voice.

Since the election, the number of people who have stepped forward to volunteer their time or offer constructive suggestions has been remarkable. While I have ultimate responsibility for the Village, I see my primary role as being that of a facilitator, finding a way to harness the energy of our citizens to improve the community. 

What I am attempting to do in this little corner of the world is to build an environment in which grassroots democracy can take root and flourish.

An interview with friction.tv can be found at: www.daviddoonan.com