Chris Stafford
Imagine a meeting where selecting a facilitator takes longer than the meeting itself. Accustomed to friendly MCGP meetings, I was surprised at the level of contention that was immediately visible at the G/GPUSA Congress. I soon discovered that the “Boston Proposal” was to blame. An agreement negotiated by G/GPUSA and ASGP members over the past year that was now before each organization for approval, Boston split G/GPUSA into two camps, and the importance of this issue overshadowed all other business at the Congress.
The “Pro-Boston” faction described the need to avoid confusing the public by having two separate Green parties. They argued that unless ASGP and G/GPUSA combined, the Green movement would fail, given that third parties already face a difficult uphill battle in American electoral politics.
The “Anti-Boston” faction believed that the proposal would not merge the two groups, but rather would eliminate the political status of G/GPUSA, thereby preventing it from “competing” with the ASGP. Anti-Boston also felt that the structure of the new organization, modeled on the ASGP, would be undemocratic.
The simple act of selecting a meeting facilitator proved to be nearly impossible because each of the veteran G/GPUSA members held allegiance to one of these two sides, making him/her unacceptable to the other faction. After three hours, two temporary facilitators were finally selected, but the rest of Saturday was wasted as each camp plotted how to proceed. Anti-Boston wanted to filibuster the Congress, preventing the approval of Boston by never allowing it to reach a vote. Pro-Boston wanted to vote on it quickly, knowing that many of the delegates had been mandated to vote in favor of Boston. However, Pro-Boston quickly determined that it did not have the necessary supermajority (2/3) to pass Boston. They called for a motion to adjourn at 6:00 pm, hoping to avoid a failed vote. This would leave Boston to the Green National Committee, where they felt their chances were better. After a heart-wrenching round-table discussion, the motion failed.
Sunday morning it was as if a different group had convened. Due to the fairness and competence of the two facilitators who had been selected the previous evening, a solid agenda was passed, the report of the credential committee (determining how the delegates’ votes would be distributed) was approved, and action items were handled. By 4:00pm only Boston remained on the agenda. After Pro- and Anti-Boston each selected an advocate who spoke for five minutes, and each delegate took sixty seconds to explain his/her opinion on Boston, the vote was conducted. As anticipated, the supermajority was not reached and Boston perished.For me, the Congress had been an incredible experience. By Saturday night, I was ready to drop out of Green politics, seeing enough factionalism and lack of cooperation to lose faith in the whole movement. On Sunday, however, delegates were willing to work together, although still divided on the issue at hand. Ah, the importance of a good night’s sleep!