On the Negotiated Statement.

• Author: Cohen, Mitchel
• Position: Green Party

In going into the negotiations, one of the pressures on the GPUSA negotiating team was the concern that ASGP would file for party status once Ralph got 5% in the election and GPUSA would be knocked totally out of the picture. "The negotiators recognized that ASGP filing for National Committee status is a certainty and will likely happen soon..." wrote Starlene Rankin, secretary of GPUSA. In my view, this fear of GPUSA becoming a dead organization due to federal validation of ASGP contributed greatly to the pressures upon GPUSA negotiators, just as it played upon Howie's back-and-forth confusion vis a vis the "Unity" and "Harmony" proposals.

I believe that this fear (1) is unfounded--GPUSA will continue to exist and to organize regardless, because of its local base; and, (2) pushed the negotiators into concessions that would not have been made under more relaxed circumstances, concessions that in some instances abandoned the core of GPUSA principles.

Looking back, things do seem a bit different now, don't they? Suddenly, the curious omissions in the document that had been casually dismissed as "neglected, but no big deal" take on greater dimensions, now that those racing to claim ther pot of gold that was to come with achieving the 5% threshold have stumbled.

What am I talking about? First, in the entire negotiated proposal, there is not a single mention of the Ten Key Values!

Second, the very opening sentence states who officially authorized such negotiations: "As per the directive of the Massachusetts proposal passed at the Association of State Green Parties Coordinating Committee meeting... Excuse me? Didn't the Green National Committee and the Congress of GPUSA have some hand in authorizing negotiators? Or were GPUSA's negotiators acting per the directive of ASGP as well?

The fact that these two essential items were omitted cannot simply be attributed to "carelessness," or "sloppy thinking," or "time pressure," any more than we can accept as sole criteria for accreditation of member parties "the criteria currently used by the ASGP" with a couple of minor modifications such as commitment to gender balance and "good faith efforts" to "empower individuals and groups from oppressed communities." (These are minor concessions because if anyone in either organization came out against gender balance, or "empowering individuals from oppressed communities" they would probably be shot. So how could either "side" have a problem adding them to the...