February Convention Survey Comments

Here are participant evaluations of the Greens’ February convention from this standard post-event evaluation form: https://forms.gle/YkiV2g4q1bk5Hzji9 . From 75 voter email addresses, 22 survey results were returned, which seems like a really good sample. A good response rate is said to be 10% to 20%, and we had about 30% (22/75 = 29.3%).

None of the average scores were great – the Peace presentation got the best average score at 3.6 out of 5.

Election management received the lowest average score at 1.33 out of 5, receiving a dozen ratings of zero, the lowest possible score.  Here are all of the election ratings: 1, 0, 5, 0, 3, 4, 0, 0, 4, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0. (Note that a score of zero differed from the empty value indicating no rating.)

Based on the two open questions, comments and suggestions for improvement, there appears to be widespread dissatisfaction with the election. Here are all the comments: 

  • “Elections committee” stole the election.  Unforgivable.
  • i understand the need for the format that was in place.  however, a little for time for the opposition to “hang themselves” would have been fine with me.
  • The February convention did not follow the PGP bylaws and rules of order. The “elections committee” amounted to a rogue ad hoc conspiracy to rob 39 supporting members of their right to participate in the convention even though it didn’t follow the rules of order by opening the vote to a week. My agenda item to make a bylaws change to require results before convention adjourns was not included, a violation of our rules for convention agenda setting. The convention operated contrary to our rules of order.
  • My participation was limited only to reviewing the proposed changes, measures and elections.  The process was not the easiest online, but I made it through.  That this vote was open to non-attendee members of the party was not made known to me or my wife.  I was only notified by an active member and friend of PGP otherwise I’d not have known of the vote and voted.  Similarly, I was not aware of the results of the voting until my friend informed me of them.  I was astonished and disappointed to learn that not only were there just 75 votes overall received (of what, 5000+ party members in the State???) but that after receiving the votes, the elections committee disqualified MORE THAN HALF of these, leaving just 36 or so votes.  I cannot imagine how it was justified to disqualify this many participants and I am ashamed of the PGP for allowing this to happen.  Results completely flipped for more than just a couple of the proposals as I understand.  So much for democracy.  PGP needs to do better, needs to reach out more and make it simpler for party members to vote in order for us to get truly significant participation by members in this process.  It is unacceptable to have just 36 choice voters decide these issues.  As one of those who collected signatures along with Blair Bobier to establish the Pacific Party in 1992, I am ashamed of what I see here.  This is worse than Trump asking Georgia officials to “find” votes.
  • I attended the full convention. I attended the SCC meeting immediately preceding it. I spent at least an hour or two reviewing the guide and related literature before receiving my OPA ballot and voting. I would put the total at close to 10 or 11 hours.
  • Any engaged member and/or a informed voter will need spend more than 24 hours due to the high number of issues on the ballot.
  • Mike Beilstein and others suggested that the ballot design was confusing, but the elections subcommittee did not correct the issue.
  • The method for voting on proposals was confusing at best.  I had to read the rules and proposals several times to understand what I was asked to do.  I would prefer a simple up or down vote on proposals.  I did not like the fact that if I abstained then my abstention counted towards the proposal passing.  
  • I had to hunt for the election results, why weren’t they posted on the PGP website, which is the most public “home” of the PGP?
  • Allow a clear yes or no vote on proposals.
  • There was partisan interference in the voting process which the facilitator failed to address.
  • It was a fraudulent election.  The SCC are repressive of voices that they are not in agreement with.  They have silenced and deplatformed local chapters and continually commit fraud, overturning many democratically held votes at several conventions including this last one.  
  • I was not able to attend on Saturday.
  • I spent at least 20 hours preparing for, reading materials, listening to videos, participating in, following up with, and analyzing the actions of the SCC and ad hoc elections “committee” post meeting. The election was mismanaged extensively by the elections team and SCC convention organizers. 39 votes were thrown out by the elections “manager” after allowing a week to go by without notifying any members in question that they needed credentialing, unless they were known to the manager or members of the SCC responsible for organizing the altered voting result.
  • Due to the elections and SCC committees not performing due diligence during the week-long convention in making sure no voters were disenfranchised, over half the voters had their ballot thrown out. This was an arbitrary decision by the elections manager to interpret a bylaw in such a way as to give him permission to so, without honoring the portion of the bylaw stating the SCC was ultimately responsible for doing so. Someone on the SCC gave him the permission to do so, which is not allowed in our bylaws. the ballot manipulation was also done in a way which would turn the vote to a positive result for the agenda items and candidates those involved wanted. The opavote wasn’t good enough for them.
  • There was no mention or printed message of the need for credentialing to ANY of the voters before, during, or after the meeting, which has always been done previously. An entire week was then given to register and vote after the zoom meeting was over. No other members were allowed to participate in viewing the opavote after the March 3rd deadline, which is a violate of our open access values. there were and are clear conflicts of interest present by the people handling the voting process, and authorizing the manipulated results. This ongoing de-valuing and cancellation of the majority vote is a travesty and in direct conflict with our values of democracy and inclusiveness on every level.
  • The SCC should not have honored the manipulated vote results presented by the elections committee, and should have honored all ballots which were accepted by the elections and SCC committees on the basis of being sent ONLY to credentialed supporting members from various parts of the state. The SCC is responsible for this at each and every convention the PGP has conducted voting and decision-making at for decades.
  • I am quite concerned about how the voting was tabulated.  Why did the vote tabulators discard so many of the votes cast?  If those members were not eligible, why were they sent a ballot?  The voting wasn’t confidential.  Discard the the votes the tabulators didn’t like?
  • This was a webinar, not a convention. Those running it tried to rig the election results by suspending the rules of order, preventing motions, points of order or discussion, and preventing attendees from even seeing each other. They tried to rig the ballot with blatantly leading questions, and when even that failed, they blatantly cheated by throwing out more than half the ballots, which were made non-secret for that very purpose.
  • This was the most infamously corrupt convention ever held in the PGP, by the most infamously corrupt officers in its history.
  • By chance I caught a look at the original number of votes the highest voted-for candidates got and then later those people were not elected! I did not at all agree with the seemingly undemocratic and unethical way eligible voters were suddenly deemed ineligible. It appeared to be a “boardroom coup” on the part of some of the officers. Could you please tell me if the election is being contested and if so, how a fair resolution will be reached?  

Here are the suggestions for improvement for the next convention: 

  • Honest vote count.
  • More structure and strict times are needed
  • I would prefer not to be disenfranchised in future conventions. I am one of the party’s founders and yet my vote was tossed in a disgraceful exercise of a naked power grab.
  • A little better coordination between agenda items and related materials
  • maybe 5 hours with a little longer break or 6 hours with a half hour lunch
  • Follow the rules of order. If we want to allow absentee voting for all matters of the party business, does this obviate the capacity to get consensus at convention. We need to talk about this, but this has not been done.
  • Given I was not there, I have no suggestions other than to fix the voting process and improve the outreach.  Having just 75 votes cast in a Statewide convention is pathetic—worse, to have an election committee suspiciously toss out more than half of those seems criminal.
  • Please do not re-establish “normal” chat unless there is a moderator whose sole job it is to watch over the space. Please forego the goal of a hybrid convention as we have limited resources which could be better spent elsewhere. Local chapters who wish to have in-person meetings concurrent with the convention period can be encouraged to create and mange in-person events themselves. Please consider how we can better serve potential members who have sight, speech, or hearing issues. Or who might not have English as their first language. Thanks.
  • Note: All my ratings are based on a comparison with previous conventions.
  • Establishing strict deadlines for the voter guide, well before the convention, will ensure timely access to essential information for informed voting.
  • Preparing Opavote before the convention will allows participants to familiarize themselves with the voting process and issues at hand.
  • Utilizing post-convention time for constructive sharing of ideas and feedback rather than complaint-oriented discussions will enhance the overall experience and foster growth.
  • Consider transitioning from the webinar format to Zoom meetings to facilitate more interactive participation and foster a sense of community.
  • Provide opportunities for participants to see who else is attending and gauge enthusiasm and engagement levels to promote a more interactive and inclusive environment.
  • Allow time for informal mingling and interaction among members before closing or ending a section, mirroring the dynamics of an in-person convention and promoting camaraderie.
  • Election subcommittee should circulate proposed ballot for review in advance of convention.  Many people were confused by the ballot design.  Election rules were not explained in advance, generally poor communication by the elections committee caused mistrust. The person speaking for one position on most of the items on the ballot should not also be in charge of the election. 🙂 Hand-counting of ballots from an electronic ballot system seems very fishy.
  • Since “ballots” were tossed out, I would like to know if my votes were counted.  As voting was allowed for a week, the voters guide should be sent out much further in advance, especially if the confusing voting system is to be continued.
  • Post the results of the votes on the PGP website immediately.  
  • Inform PGP members if their ballot was tossed out, and if so, allow a challenge period.
  • Allow a clear yes or no vote on proposals.
  • Run a non-partisan process
  • These people that are committing the fraud in the SCC and the secretary must be removed so there could be a democratically held and respectful convention.
  • I am very upset about the manipulation of the Opavote results.
  • Put people in charge who do not have clear conflicts of interest, who are able to discern between their own agenda and the will of the majority of the party, who will honor differing thoughts and opinions, and who will follow the bylaws and constitution of our party without unilaterally interpreting them and disenfranchising supporting members in doing so.
  • I’ve have managed several elections.  Sign me up for the Elections Subcommitee!
  • Immediate resignations of Nathalie Paravicini and all her corrupt supporters.
  • Provided in report
  • As a mediator, It seems to me the Party needs a conflict resolution and third-party arbitration process that all officers and candidates agree to participate in and abide by. If you already have one and it’s being implemented, could you tell me who is facilitating it? Thank you very much. 
Scroll to Top