FINAL NOTES OF INFORMAL MEETING WITH MICHAEL FEINSTEIN
Context: Earlier this year, Michael Feinstein approached the GPCA Coordinating Committee to meet and discuss possible resolution of issues between the Green Party and Michael Feinstein. The GPCA CC agreed to have a meeting only if Michael Feinstein would first turn in all financial documents. Michael Feinstein did not turn in the documents but individual Greens were interested in hearing his side. This was accomplished during an informal non-GP meeting where no decisions were made.
SUNDAY, JUNE 6, 2004.
In the afternoon, after the GPCA Plenary in Sacramento was over
Notes by: Magali Offerman
Affiliations listed for identification purposes only In attendance:
Gerry Gras (GPCA CC Co-Coordinator)
Tian Harter (Santa Clara County)
Jim Barton (Sacramento)
Forrest Hill (Alameda County)
James Roberts (GPCA CC Rep from LA)
Ross Mirkarimi (GPCA spokesperson)
Michael Borenstein (GPCA CC Alternate Co-co)
Kevin McKeown (GPCA CC Rep from LA)
Tom Bolema (GPCA CC Alternate Rep)
Beth Moore Haines (GPCA spokesperson)
Magali Offerman (GPCA CC At Large Rep)
Cristina Olague (GPCA CC Rep from San Francisco)
John Marc Chandonia (GPCA CC Alternate Rep from SF)
Erica McDonald (San Francisco)
Dana St George (GPCA CC Alternate Rep)
Jared Laiti (GPCA CC Rep)
Greg Jan (Alameda County)
Evan Blickenstaff (GPCA CC Alternate Rep)
Valerie Face (Santa Clara)
Louis LaFortune (GPCA CC Rep)
Linda Lemaster (Santa Cruz)
Budd Dickinson (Alameda County)
Michael Feinstein (LA County Council)
Beth explains that this is an informal meeting where no decisions will be made. People are asked to be cautious about mentioning anything that was discussed during executive session. Beth willing to facilitate if needed but for now she will just take a stack.
MF: I will do a small amount of censoring because we are not in closed session. If we were in closed session I would be freer to give details. While I have nothing to fear from giving an open report, I have a lot to fear from my political party. I may have to defend myself from an attack from the party. Until this is resolved, I have to protect myself. I'll give background to explain how I understood things and how they happened over the years. I ask that if you have a different perspective of the way things happened, please hold your comments. Let's get through the presentation. I'll share with you my understanding of how things happened over the years. If we understand why each side did what they did, maybe we will have a resolution.
In LA, [date of meeting and place] Project 2000 was approved. Part of this project was to open a series of offices around the state, fund staff and offices. The order in which offices would be acquired was: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Fresno. That started in early Ô99 although it was voted in Ô97.
Soon after it started I was approached by a Green Latino group asking if we, the GP, could share office space with them. I thought that was a good idea. I called Joe Hoffman, Treasurer of the GPCA at the time, and said I know we were not ready for a southern California office, what can we do to make this happen? I asked for his suggestion. His answer was that if we could fund raise for the LA office & potential staff without affecting the GPCA, we could possibly do it but that I would have to first go through personnel.
Joe Hoffman by himself did not have authority to approve office. We had a personnel committee at the time that oversaw this work.. Members of the Personnel Com. At the time, members of the committee were: John Strawn, Lynne Serpe, Nancy Marmol, Morgan Vierheller (Santa Rosa) and I think Michael Monnot (then of SF.)
I wrote down the proposal to the personal committee and they independently of each other approved it. The proposal was to allow me to:
- raise funds for the office,
- open office
The agreement was that
- money would not to go to LA county council, it would be a GPCA project
- there would be a line item in the GPCA budget for this project
- I would open a bank acct in southern California
- I would be in charge of LA office
To open the bank account, I went to the same credit union that we used since 1989 for the GP of LA. At the time, we were only ok with using Credit Unions. Credit Unions open accts under an individual's name, not organizations. When I opened the account I put it under my name with my social security number and added the Green Party name because the intent was for it to be used for GP purposes.
During a meeting in LA we voted to have the LA County organization lease part of the Pico office, pay for phone lines, DSL connections, etc. The County agreed to it.
I continued to run the office and not turn it over to LA council because
1) problems with previous county councils
2) one person would provide continuity
At the time, I ran LA County's work, mail from my house so party had had experience with me running stuff with no oversight.
Jan 2000 GPCA CC meeting
They met there [Pico office?], knew about account, at the time we talked about getting a new treasurer, end of Project 2000 but the feeling was that as long as I kept raising funds and gave information to do filings for the office, this would not be a problem. I have enough emails that talk about this issue that would prove this point. Also, the persons in the personnel committee would testify in court and validate this.
Jo [Chamberlain] was asked to research whether there were any additional FEC issues. It turned out that Jo never came back and gave report. I was late on getting [office's] report done. Joe Hoffman paid a small fine for filing late in 2000. That was not a big deal to either one of us.
Later, I worked with Wyman to file these documents. Agreement was that by end of July of 2001, I would give everything to him for filings, amendment. We can search phone records if needed. I didn't provide enough documents. I didn't have all the records. It started slowly at beginning of 2001, I needed to get photo copies of checks from bank, etc.
What became the problem? The $10,000 check.
In 2001 we had a series of meetings in Pico office. Bill Pietz handed check over to Woody Hastings. I was walking into the office when Pietz left. Woody gave me the $10,000 written out to the GP of LA. I called Bill to find out if the check was real. Timing was great because of office expenses. I said, this is going to allow us to take care of office space. He said great. What he didn't know is that this office was set up for the GPCA and that LA county was leasing it only. Because all our meetings were at the Pico office, he thought that the office was run by LA county. I didn't know he had this understanding. He wanted to do make the donation anonymously. I was trying to respect that.
Pietz' check was written to LA county. Since the 1980's the checks were written to anything ÒGreen PartyÓ and the bank would cash them all. The person that ran the Credit Union was a friend of Eric Carter's. As a Clearinghouse Coordinator I received checks for the GPCA that sometimes were written to something slightly different and turned them over to the GPCA to deposit. Those were cashed without a problem.
Months later, when I was told with concern that the check was written to the county, it wasn't news to me. Had we been able to stop the merry-go-round at that time, we could have resolved it easily.
4 months later, Bill Pietz hears there are only about $400 in GPLA account. He sends an email with a broad CC line angrily asking what happened to his donation. That email got into the hands of Jan Tucker. Jan Tucker is a former Peace and Freedom Party member . He is a self proclaimed investigator. In 2000, Medea Benjamin ran against him for the Senate seat because people knew he was not good news. Later, when the slate that was running with Peter Camejo was being recruited, Tucker recruited his own slate.
He concluded that because the check was deposited in a Credit Union account, that it was a personal account which meant that to him, I had stolen this money for my personal purposes.
He tells Gabrielle Weeks about this, she goes to NPR and he files a complaint with the FPPC. Then news reporters contact the state party and people get nervous. This happened during April and June of 2001.
I thought we could work this out internally. I wasn't worried. Then I sat down with John Strawn and Jo Chamberlain. She said that I better get an attorney. Maybe this was not her intention but it told me that the state party was going to dump me.
There was a county meeting where we were going to discuss this. Gabrielle invites NPR to the meeting. We could have handled it with an internal meeting. I'm the highest elected GP member at the time and we were recorded in house. I went through process of explaining what happened. I couldn't go into too many details because the press was there. Our GPCA treasurer (Michael Wyman) read a letter that was written in GPCA letter head saying that I had no authority to raise funds and do anything of what I did. He had no authorization to do it. I was on Coordinating Committee at the time and I knew the CC never approved the letter.
Beth: was the letter from the Treasurer?
MF: Don't know. Here's a treasurer that goes outside of state party and his duties to take care of this.
Sarah Amir asked to go into closed session to discuss this because there were sensitive filing issues and we should not discuss this in front of the press.
The motion was defeated. Two of those votes were from alternates in the county council who had never participated before and never did afterwards.
Until this point the LA county had never done FPPC filings. What I learned was that if we file late the county has to pay triple the damages and $10 a day. I did not want to say that to the media.
In my opinion, at that meeting I thought, at least a state party official is lying and I'm being asked to provide documents. I knew that at the time people were interested in sending letter to every GP donor saying Ôdid you know your money was not used for what you wanted?' I spent thousands of dollars for my lawyer to talk with Michael Wyman about how to do this. The lawyer said that the GPCA could file amendment for 2001.
When talking to Ginny about this she twice hung up on me. LA people didn't like that I was running the office. That could have been resolved also.
I went on state conference call with my attorney. All I was looking for was the state party to say that I had the right to raise those funds. No one was willing to accept even when John Strawn said that I had been given the authority. In a key moment, when we were getting close to a resolution, Michael Wyman said, we can't trust this lawyer because it's Mike Feinstein's lawyer. Then momentum deflated.
[See Michael Borenstein's note at end]
My feeling then is that there are people messing with me and they are affecting my real world. News media were contacting me, etc. After this call, the GPCA CC met again and a letter was sent.
My lawyer said, these people are either incompetent, trying to hurt you or infiltrators. You have to find another way of filing this money and not trust them.
Other way of filing was through 501C4. I can't do an FPPC filing. I'm not a political party. I got behind paying my bills, caught up in the summer. A C4 filing can be done quickly so I said I'd get it done whenever. Unfortunately, the second in command in that firm that was doing this at the time left the firm. The second guy that came to finish the work wanted more information so this took a while longer.
The 501C4 was approved in April of 2003. It was approved by the IRS
In Dec of 2002
There was plan to use the Pico office for the Global Greens __________________________. In early 2003 we had an officeholders conference there. I started becoming more active in 2003. The office started getting used. Suddenly, I started getting attacked again, more letters were sent.
I felt that the motive of some in our Coordinating Committee (CC) was that the CC was told Ôthis is going to be a media scandal and we should send a press releaseÔ. In fact, it was the CC that created the media scandal because of their press release.
Beginning of March, I was waiting for the IRS to finish so I could tell everyone I had filed and I did what I was asked to do.
Then Bob Morris, LA County's Treasurer, tells the FPPC and the DA in LA that I stole money. Since I'm an elected official of Santa Monica, the police there can't do much but there has to be an investigation.
Press reports came out with quotes from individual greens. DA decides there is not enough to do anything about it.
People use the fact that I was in the press to say this is a legitimate problem and that I'm being investigated.
I had to hire a criminal defense attorney and spend money on this. My attorney called the DA regularly asking for them to move it forward and get it done. It was taking 6 months. I was going to Greece in the Fall. My attorney called the DA to make sure they knew I wasn't running, that I'd be back. 5 minutes before I was leaving to Greece, I received a call telling me that the DA dropped the case. I was also told by my lawyer not to talk with anyone because they may misconstrue what I say.
Even though it was in 2001 when people said I stole the money, in 2002 LA county agrees to lease the office for their use. They paid for half . The county owed me for over $6000 and I said I'd drop it instead of going to small court.
We now have a new county council that dropped the small claims court.
My attorney is professional friends with the GPCA's attorney and they met. The GPCA's attorney said to my attorney that the IRS filing was great. I said to the GPCA CC that our attorneys met and that now I'm willing to meet and discuss how to resolve this.
We can leave it with C4 filing and can deal with the FPPC later, if they decide to do anything
We can do amendment filing now
The statute of limitations is Jan of 2007
I can give documents to GPCA if I have the assurance that the state party is not going to screw me over the way they did in 2001. Sign a letter saying that they will not communicate with donors and try to attack me again. All I care about is that I'm not called a liar in the public press.
If it's found that all funds were spent the way that they were supposed to be spent, the GPCA claims checks as theirs, I'm happy to sit with an independent auditor and treasurer. I'm happy to work with FPPC.
What I won't do is not to spend more money. I could suit party for liable but I won't unless I am pushed further. If I'm pushed, I'll push back.
I want a public statement that we are all happy with, a no fault statement, that we are moving on. Some people in the party will continue to go to the press and attack. I want in writing that the GPCA will stop harassing me in GPUS and GPCA. I want my rights as a GP member to be respected the same way as other members' rights.
We are foolish if we say only GPCA checks can be filed. One, it calls me a liar which I'm not. We would ask that LA file for over $30,000 that would come with huge amounts on fees. I did nothing dishonest in all those years.
BEGINNING OF Q&A
Beth: I can facilitate but if it's helpful I will call on people's hands
Tom: MF made point that if GPCA were to declare the check, there was no fee. If the county filed it there would be a $30,000 fault on the county.
MF: this is the advice that my lawyer gave me.
MB: only two people in this group have been involved in this situation from the beginning. Let's get away from the words liar and thief. These types of words won't facilitate us reaching a resolution here. No one is calling anyone a thief here. Many of us feel that Mike did spend funds on Green Party business. No one is lying. Speaking for myself, I don't think anyone accuses that MF has stolen money.
The meeting when John Strawn, Jo you and I met. Kevin was there. Was not executive session. We [Jo] said you need a lawyer.
MF: That was July 31st 2001, meeting after press conference.
MB: we went to restaurant. There was another meeting, the one that Gabrielle called the press. There were people hostile to MF. Peter Camejo, Donna Warren, Michael Wyman were there. We found out that if LA did a retroactive filing, there would be fines. We also found out that if state did this, the fees would be less. State agreed to do filing. We never were able to implement the agreement.
The agreement was that GPCA would do an amended filing provided that we received the proper records from Mike. It was agreed that GPCA needed records that were complete enough that GPCA could do a filing that was up to the standards that would be satisfactory to GPCA treasurer and the FPPC. A deadline was set for GPCA to receive such records (I believe the deadline was Oct. 1st 2001). GPCA did not receive the records requested by that deadline. Sometime during the period preceding the setting of this deadline GPCA did receive some bank statements from Mike. These were inadequate for making a filing that would have met GPCA's expectations and standards.
I do agree that there are people in the party that do not like MF. We are all sick that this is happening.
A letter was sent to you, asking that you consider backing away from Party work until the legal questions were resolved . We voted on one letter and we didn't approve one that ordered you to back away from party work. and we did not approve another letter that 'ordered' you to back away from party work. We need to stop causing this dynamic among those that we elect to office, or who are our candidates.
MO: exec session caution
Kevin: you are safe saying things about letters that were sent but not about letters that were not sent or votes.
MB: there are some omissions in your story and in ours. This situation has caused Nancy Pearlman to leave, Donna Warren stress, Mike Feinstein and Kevin M great stress. We need to stop causing this dynamic amoung those that we elect to office, or who are our candidates.
John Marc: in this plenary, the SF Greens sent check to GPCA of $150. I found out that the check was deposited into the Sacramento GP account. When I found out about it, the Sacto treasurer wrote a check back. Mistakes like this are common and banks will deposit checks.
Mike, you are not communicating effectively with the GPCA. You are dealing with this in the same way that you were dealing with it in 2001. You never communicated with me personally since I became a CC member. I feel this is a veiled threat when you talk about law suit. You shouldn't assume that we are the same people as 2001. We don't have same institutional memory as you.
Greg: I'd like toknow where current CC is on this situation. We have heard that there was a long meeting Friday night. Teleconference calls happened in the past month. I'd like update and what are the outstanding issues. Can we resolve this by hearing both sides?
Gerry: about update, a lot of discussions happened in executive session and I don't know what I can say or not. Where was LA check deposited in?
The account was set up for GP approved by Personnel committee. That approach was approved by personnel committee. MW has letter from Hoffman. MW asked Hoffman if he gave the authority for me to do what I did. I called Hoffman and he said that he couldn't give me the authority because he said I should go to the personnel co. I reported to the CC saying this is what I did. It is clear I should not be Treasurer in the future but I did what I was signed off to do.
Tian: the first time I heard it was Jo Chamberlain giving her side of it at regional meeting in January of 2003. It was a bit difficult to understand but I can see that the same facts were expressed so there was overlap. She said that the fine could add up to a tremendous problem. So there's a ready, fire, aim kind of problem. Reacting to the size of the numbers before we can clarify it. It really looked like something. Let's learn from this so it doesn't scar our future the way it has scared the last two years.
I got involved in this through emails around 2002.I raised issues about transparency. You met with state people in 2001. Were you told by attorney to keep quiet about this.
MO: CC is at a stale mate. Two groups that can't compromise without help. Beth's facilitation skills have been of great help to use during calls. If proposals went to a vote from the start, we would never reach any kind of decisions. Beth helps us reach consensus.
Ross: from media perspectiveÉfirst I know MF from beginning of party. When this issue was first inflamed, I hoped that it would remain internal. When I started to hear rumblings that NPR was called, that was a clear sign that party andMF were breaking apart. John Strawn, Beth and I talked about the concern that camps started to form. These camps felt need to talk to the press. That was wrong. I would call Mike and say, I don't care if you did it or not, I'm not here to protect Mike, I'm here to protect the party. We'll get through legalities and political back biting, which should have never escalated anyway, but the fact that people in this party feel the need to air this out in the press, this was a .. behavior by Ébreach of ethics altogether.
At times people felt that Beth would be more sympathetic in representing prevailing opinion at the time and divide spokespersons. I wanted the spokes to stay above the fray and let party take care of this internally. I think Mike should take responsibility for poor communication. I think party had poor communication about dealing with him. This should not have happened.
For me to have to provide cover for the party for this, it was bone headed. What were people thinking in LA to go to media and try to think they were scoring points when they were tearing down the party? Both MF and other LA Greens are responsible for this.
It's time we have a protocol in place for when things like this happen. People have to be reigned back in.
MF: people in state leadership have confused themselves with court of law. They thought they were the judge and jury. There were pre-emptive attacks in the media
When the party and I parted ways in the end of 2001, I was told to file on my own. When John Marc came in during 2002, there was nothing to say except we are working on it. A C4 can spend 20% on electoral stuff. When we analyzed what the office was used for, there was very little candidate support. I was waiting for it to be approved. I was not adviced then not to talk to the GP but I was waiting. I also felt bad vibes
While state party didn't call me a liar, it gave power to the people that wanted to because it didn't back me. When state party was ok with MW's statement to the press, publicly the party made me look like a liar and by extension can make me look like a thief. When the state party says it's not our thing, it's the county, that is not true. This is a state party issue.
Michael Wyman has a massive conflict of interest and should have been recused from discussions. If the state party had fines to pay, legally it's the treasurer that pays for them. The GPCA should meet with him in session and exclude him in other sessions. Party allows Michael Wyman to meet with the GPCA's lawyer, Lowell Finnly.
LA County vote this year
I voted because Michael Wyman should have been recused in the state level and didn't. Others are talking about ethics and transparency when people are lyingÉetc.
In our county meeting, there is nothing that legally prevents me from taking part in vote. Our county council voted that I should be there and be able to vote. Anyone in this position would protect themselves through any legal means available.
If push comes to shove, I'll call witnesses to show that the state party did not commit to filing these documents. During that call the CC said Ôwe will not commit to anything until you give us the documents, and we will not say we authorized you to run the office. It wouldn't grant validity that I had authority to raise funds. I felt I was dealing with liar and opportunists.
Future communication after 2002
Once Bob Morris went to the DA, I was adviced not to talk to anybody
State party sending me letter to recuse myself The fact is that state party created the problem . We are innocent until proven guilty. I should not have my freedom taken away. Party put press releases, taking this outside, the idea that I should back away when the state party created the problemÉthe letter to me meant nothing because this state party was responsible for the mess.
What I'm threatening or not threatening If people want to continue to push I will fight back. About threats in LA County Council meeting I referenced a June 2003 letter that my lawyer wrote to the CC where he says they were getting close to liable, and he said the Treasurer, Kevin, Gabrielle should recuse themselves. Them not recusing themselves from votes could make state liable. That was the letter that threatened to suit the party but it was in the context of last year.
John Marc: your tone is threatening not your words
Kevin: I've been hearing that we want a way out of this in this meeting. Some solutions won't work.
In 2001 there was a horrible meeting at the peace center in LA where a county council meeting was attended by large number of people. A reporter showed up without the knowledge of most of us except two people. Yes, that was problem
The main issue has always been that the $10k and now some other checks we found out that was made out to the GPCA. Under the law, political donations should be filed a certain way. That's always been recognized core issue for state party. Some LA people don't recognize it this way.
Or mike files
The state didn't commit to doing filing because the records needed to be presented. My understanding is that Mike declined to provide records.
Were is state party now?
[Kevin explains when executive sessions take place]
One thread that is continuous, the state party has to know what is in the records before it can commit to filing. We are not hear to reject or accept anything.
I heard that he would only provide documents after agreement is done. That's the sticking point.
That explains the fundamental problem
There seems to be conflict with state party office. We did try to file by 2001 but we couldn't get this done. The CC consulted Wyman, nancy marmol and others, we asked these lawyers (family/sm bus/tax) lawyers and realized we needed professional help The CC knows that we have money to fight this or use money for party purposes but not both.
If FPPC looks at this we will be affected. We have to pay lawyers. The party has many antagonists and this is helping them. People like Jan Tucker who doesn't care if he gets you or your party The CC is also concerned about democratization of LA county asa green local. I agree with Ross that the CC and Mike Feinstein have mishandled this
GP culture has been (1) party of friendships, (2) morality It was crucial to us when he [Michael Feinstein] stepped in to do things. Sometimes he would step in to do things in a very informal way. In LA, in the 90's there were troubling things happening that make me view Mike's sloppiness in a better light. Things were very informal in LA in the late 90's
Gerry: this is doable but not easy My preferred way of negotiation is having a win-win solution. I think Beth would be great negotiator
Beth: I don't like the liar thing thrown around. Having looked at every bit of the records, we have incomplete notes. In previous years our notes were bad. It's great we now pay for someone to take them and have all plenary meetings tape recorded. We have much better notes now.
I sent press release following executive session because people had began making statements for the GP. The CC asked for a press release to say , this is the official line.
I disagree with the assessment that there is a plus and minus group. I think there are the Mike haters and Mike lovers. There is a big fat group in the middle that are not sure. People who don't have enough info. That is the vast majority.
About the CC position, there's probably general sense that people want closure. Generally people are open to look at ways on how to resolve it. They may not accept every idea that comes forward but they are open to hearing them.
It's easy for people who can get things done to move forward and just get it done. Mike and I are those kind of people. This is bad modeling. In my local, if I'm at a meeting and people want something done, they look at me to get it done quickly. When I'm gone, there's no institutional memory of my actions and mentoring. Mistake was that he was given lee way, efficiency is chosen over process, that has been done for me, others, and it still gets done today.
We've gotten better at doing clean official things over the years.
Magali: I'd like for CC to look at what Mike Feinstein's proposed agreement looks like. In response to Kevin's statement, I don't think the request for an agreement before we meet is the sticking point. There is no reason why the CC could not first meet with Michael and find out what that agreement would look like. It has been said our lawyers would be involved so there is no risk for us. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work but we should at least give it a try.
Cristina: does the credit union account still exist?
MF: Records stay in the database but account has been closed
Cristina: I lean toward resolution instead of punitive mood. Is there any place where LA can start to heal?
Mike F: another day another discussion
Cristina: I'm concerned as a brand new member of CC about LA I keep hearing about the website [leavetheroom] - we should stop attacking people publicly and do this privately
Dana: I came on CC last year to replace Gerry Grass and I was appalled about the talk in there. There was so much fear and mistrust. We were told we were dealing with a dangerous criminal man. I wondered how could we not include him in discusion and deal with it as adults. When I gave my opinion, I was shut down. I couldn't believe that I was at a GP meeting. There was a huge effort at shutting down any communication between this person and CC. I sensed that if I attempted to so much as call this person (which I never did) that I would be attacked or punished. The CC has serious internal process problems. Part of it is the Mike Feinstein issue. The Mike Feinstein issue is only a symptom of the problem. Aggregation of power within a small group of individuals and a lack of democracy and inclusion. It's disemboweling for greens. Party unity has suffered.
Tom B.: the state party wants to see records. Mike Feinstein doesn't want to give them up. If the issue is one check, then don't set parameters that you cannot meet Check can be filed. The C4 handles the rest of it.
Jared: agree with Tom. If people want to see the records, but don't want an agreement until they do, while Mike wants an agreement first, then no resolution is possible. What is the harm then in leaving it unresolved; the party had done everything short of legal action to see the records, we can't be held responsible, if Mike is willing to take the risk of future law enforecement action, we should let him. But even without seeing what's in there we have a big unresolved issue we know is in there. Why not resolve that first? Maybe an agreement about what we expect to see in the records, if we state we expect to find certain things, we can say anything else falls outside the agreement, and maybe this could satisfy both sides.
Greg: Jared said close to what I was going to say. I was going to address Kevin. Who croses the line first? (1) what legally are the two parties going to be comfortable with If the GPCA is not legally comfortable letting go then the second step has to happen (2) negotiations. There are people that are professional negotiators, mediators. There are creative ways to work with people so that it can be taken in a step by step manner.
If in fact legally the state party wants documents, then hire a professional mediator to get us there step by step.
Evan: Greg covered what I had to say.
We have a fundamental flaw for how decisions are made in the CC To make a constitutional change in WTO, it requires 85% to pass anything. USA has 20% of the vote. Nothing will ever get done without the USA. In the CC, there is a small group of people essentially able to block moving forward You loose people in the middle who would rather be working on other things once they notice this is the case in the CC
Beth: it came up recently that Michael Feinstein and I were talking about potential solutions. Michael Wyman said that if a neutral delegation can talk maybe they can find a resolution. Court resolution would be last thing. It is reasonable to send press release saying everything has been resolved once it has. I have had serious concerns with CC processes.
- Support mediation and Beth is good person
- state party empowered the worse in LA when they said that I was not
allowed to do what I did
- because people were not willing to say I had the right to do this, the
state has responsibility
- the only reason I'm here today is because I've had the resources to
use legal means and protect myself
- they were not saying that we can't file it if we don't see this.
That's not it. It's the fact that they said I had no authority to raise
the funds to start with.
- what to do from here:
same thing I said in 2001. If the checks went for rent, phone, dsl and t-shirts, all GP purposes then I expect GPCA to file them.
I'm not saying that GPCA has to commit to doing something without their knowledge.
Checks were written to everything in the world related to GP.
- you will neither go and try to get money out of people, prove that I was liar. GPCA takes responisbility for filing.
The GPCA did not file in 1999. If you want fines, you can file funds that were raised in 1999. If you are smart, file moneys that came in after 1999. Use my C4 for 1999.
LA county didn't report until 2001
Beth I trust
There are people I will never trust. This is not a self help group.
Trust will not be gained for a long time. Both attorney can work together to draft contract that we both agree on.
Beth: these notes should be open to consumption by any green party members. No decisions were made.
- end of notes -
A couple of things were sent to me after the meeting that I could not include in the minutes.
"A note from Michael Borenstein adding to MF's storry about the CC call
he participated in with his lawyer:
John Strawn spoke of these agreements and referenced them has having been made with a 'wink and a nod'... I'm recolleting that Mike W. mentined to us that we should not seek informatiion from your attorney. Due to the fact that would conflict him with his client, and more inportantly; He is MF's attorney and therefor is contracted to work exclusiveally in the interests of Mike Feinstein, his client"
A note from Kevin McKeown asking to add some language that some of us remember being said during the meeting but the note taker couldn't find out where the comments belonged in the notes.
"Some rather provocative statements which might inform readers of the subtexts of the presentation are not quoted. For instance, I clearly remember a comment that the state party is playing in the political sandbox and affecting my (Mike's) real life. There was also an aside to me about taking a note that Mike was accusing the current state Treasurer of lying. Including these comments would help readers understand the comments others made later about threatening tone."