Proposal: GPCA Governance - GPCA Spokespersons procedures violations

GPCA Governance - GPCA Spokespersons procedures violations

Section 1: GPCA Spokesperson

Background:  GPCA Bylaws Article 2. Purpose (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Article_2._Purpose) state that ”the Green Party of California is guided by… the "Ten Key Values" of the Green Movement:… [including] Grassroots Democracy.”

GPCA Media Committee Internal Procedures Article I Spokesperson (http://www.cagreens.org/committees/media/internal-procedures#Article_I_S...) state it is the responsibility of GPCA spokespersons to  “1-2.3 Reflect positions in accordance with the GPCA platform, GPCA positions  on ballot measures and other official GPCA positions.”

According to GPCA Endorsement procedures, the GPCA makes endorsements on statewide candidates and county parties make endorsements on all other candidates (http://www.cagreens.org/elections/endorsement-procedures).  For statewide ballot measures, where often both the state party and county parties take positions on them, it has been GPCA’s practice has been to make clear what the state party position is, and on occassion, to also publish links to individual county positions.

On local issues and candidates, it has been the practice of the GPCA to leave those issues and candidates up to local county parties, and the GPCA's endorsement policy.

When there is a local issue where the state party has no position, it has been the practice of the state party to clarify that it has no position, and simultaneously refer interested persons to the county party for their position (https://web.archive.org/web/20120625203006/http://www.cagreens.org:80/el...). This is Grassroots Democracy in practice.

Finally GPCA Email Rules of Decorum 3. (http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum) officially govern GPCA email lists (http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/), and in practice have also been used as a guide for Media Committee-appointed administrators of the GPCA's Facebook group and page.

We are concerned that current GPCA spokesperson Eric Rydberg, is violating our long-established policies, procedures and precedents:

Violation #1-1: Though frequently identifying himself on social media as a GPCA spokesperson, Rydberg violates Media Committee Internal Procedures Article 1 Spokesperson (http://www.cagreens.org/committees/media/internal-procedures#Article_I_S...) by failing to publicly differentiate between his personal opinions and those of the GPCA’s in some of his public statements on social media.

Violation #1-2: Specifically Rydberg violated Media Committee Internal Procedures Article 1 Spokesperson (http://www.cagreens.org/committees/media/internal-procedures#Article_I_S...) by making direct accusations and criticisms on the GPCA's official Facebook group, of the GPLAC’s opposition to a specific 2016 ballot measure - Measure LV in Santa Monica (https://losangeles.cagreens.org/press-release/pr20161018) - when the GPCA itself had no position on the issue; and in particular when Measure LV was a NIMBY, anti-affordable housing measure that conflicts with the GPCA's position on providing affordable housing (http://www.cagreens.org/platform/housing), Rydberg publicallly contradicted the GPCA's position on affordable housing during a time when the State of California is suffering from an acute affordable housing crisis.

Violation #1-3: Rydberg also violated the spirit of GPCA Email Rules of Decorum on this same issue, when publicly making assumptions on the GPCA's official Facebook group and on the GPCA's gpca-forum@cagreens.org email list, upon the motives of and intentions of GPLAC County Council members voting to oppose LV, including stating that their opposition to the measure was 'anti-Green', even though the GPLAC's position was in line with the GPCA platform on affordable housing and Rydberg's position was not.

Those Email Rules of Decorum 3. (http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum) state: "No 'personality-based' discussion. Speculation or accusations about another's motives, thought processes, or beliefs is off-charter. A focus on 'issues rather than personalities' should be the participants' guiding light.  Personal attacks, verbal threats and/or harassment can be grounds for loss of subscription." 

If such personality-based attacks can be grounds for loss of subscription, they should also be grounds for revocation of Spokesperson status.

Violation #1-4: Rydberg further violates Media Committee Internal Procedures Article 1 Spokesperson (http://www.cagreens.org/committees/media/internal-procedures#Article_I_S...) by publicly criticizing on the GPCA's official Facebook group, a GPLAC County Council member for publicly stating that she did not vote for Green Party of the United State presidential nominee Jill Stein for President in the 2016 General Election, giving the impression that the GPCA insists upon a loyalty oath for County Councilmembers to vote for all Green Party candidates, when it does not - thus misrepresenting GPCA policies.  This can drive away voters looking for a new, independent politics; embarrasing the GPCA pubicly while dividing it internally.

Violation #1-5: Finally Rydberg violates Media Committee Internal Procedures Article 1 Spokesperson (http://www.cagreens.org/committees/media/internal-procedures#Article_I_S...) by publicly criticizing on the GPCA's official Facebook group, a second GPLAC County Council member for not voting for Jill Stein - when that County Councilmember, a long-time Green since 1990 who has held various Green Party leadership positions on the GPUS and Global Greens level - had in fact voted for Jill Stein in the 2016 General Elections.

Speaking without knowing the facts, Rydberg is again in conflict with the GPCA Email Rules of Decorum 4. that state "No misrepresentation of another's work.  Participants shall not misrepresent the work of others and shall make a good faith effort to be factually correct." Furthermore Rydberg's uncertain relationship with the facts undermines the credibility of the Green Party as an entity that can be trusted by voters, providing a grave disservice to the over 90,000 registered Green Party members in California that he allegedly speaks on behalf of.

When GPCA Spokespersons fail to differentiate between their private opinions and the positions of the GPCA, and/or when they misrepresent and/or display a clear ignorance of the facts in their public statements, conditions of confusion and disunity are created that are damaging to the public reputation of the GPCA, as well as to the GPCA's internal integrity and effectiveness. When this happens once or even twice, it can be understood as a mistake to learn and grow from. But when it is a public pattern it should become a disqualifier. Upon this basis, the GPCA Media Committee should recall him from his position as Spokesperson, and identify and appoint other individuals to serve in that role who are able and interested in following GPCA Media Committee Internal Procedures, GPCA Email Rules of Decorum and GPCA Bylaws.

Proposal:  That the GPCA Media Committee recall Erik Rydberg as a GPCA spokesperson.