One of the main goals of  my campaign for Governor is to build a Green party that can meet the moment. To me that means we need a strong, resilient party that can channel the aspirations of our members into real political change. To do this I believe that we need to build a party that is member driven, democratic, participatory, and responsive. You can watch me talk more about that here.

One aspect of that is to get rank and file Greens to participate in the internal decision making of the party and in party votes around how the party is organized, who leads it, and which candidates it nominates. 

The Maryland Green Party provides an annual opportunity for each member to weigh in on the party leadership and any bylaws amendments.

This year there are six bylaws Proposals, In Part 1 I discussed proposals 1-4 , voting is available to all registered Greens in Maryland. You can request your ballot online between now and June 25th, but I encourage you to do so sooner than later to ensure you can get your ballot. The process is manual and sometimes it can take over 24 hours to get a ballot. 

TLDR Version Part 1
Question 1- At Large Delegates- Vote Yes

Question 2- Define Membership and Rights of Members -Vote Yes

Question 3- Changes to MGP Officers- Vote Yes

Question 4- Accessibility and Transparency of MGP Meetings- Vote Yes

In this “part 2”  I will discuss the two competing code of conduct proposals.

Question 5A- Code of Conduct- Dana Polson- Vote Yes

Question 5B- Code of Conduct- Nancy Wallace- Vote No

The Maryland Green Party Coordinating Committee(MGP-CC) and its internal listservs have had a lot of conflict, infighting, and unproductive debate over the years. This is not unique to the MGP-CC, it is a problem through history that  has undermined leftist organizations, small political parties,  grassroots collectives, and movements. 

For Maryland Greens that conflict has been a major factor in  some rough times. We have seen a lot of disagreements turn into factional conflicts that spill over to social media. This conflict within the  MGP-CC has often distracted from the work of building a party and less people are involved. 

Previous efforts to address this have resulted in overly broad “codes of conduct”, implemented selectvely, easily weaponized and ultimately ineffective. Behavioral issues, significant violations of the bylaws, and even likely violations of the  law have been left to fester, without any mechanism to address them. 

The internal conflict has accompanied a lot of troubling outcomes

We also have new competition, no longer can we rest on being one of two third party choices:

I have been involved in a lot of these conflicts. I have had complaints filed against me and filed complaints against others using our current process. None of these complaints were effectively resolved by the MGP. 

On a personal note, when I have wronged people for the most part I have reached out and apologized, often offering mediation and conflict resolution. When I have been wronged I have often tried the same. 

I have also worked for several years to try to get a good and workable code of conduct.

These  are not the only factors in the Rough Times: 

Despite all of that, there is a great deal of opportunity for the Maryland Green Party. The same reasons Maryland has needed a Green Party for the last 20 years are  the reasons it needs one today. 

If the party is going to be a responsive and democratic  political institution and move beyond the rough times, its leaders, decision makers, and representatives will need to be accountable to each other and to the members. 

A code of conduct  for people in positions of leadership and for  those that do the business of the party is an important part of this growth. 

This year there are two separate codes of conduct for members of the MGP  to consider. 

In my opinion the one written by Dana Polson-“Question 5A” is good for building a party that is democratic, transparent, responsive to members and poised to grow. 5A creates a standard that ensures bad behavior among party leaders  is not tolerated. It also lays a set of reparative and restorative conflict resolution practices. Additionally it  ensures   a real commitment to the right of  dissent and debate of every Green.  Finally it  allows the people doing the day to day work of the party to come to agreements and establish norms for how they treat each other and work together.

My opinion of the  proposal written by Nancy Wallace “Question 5B”is that it seeks to limit discussions  of Green Party decisions, candidates, and advocacy  to insular Green Party spaces. I believe it overreaches by trying to control all Greens and any one  “regardless of political affiliation”  who would ever discuss a Green Party issue, campaign, or candidate in public. Additionally,  it is  unworkable as it would convene a new committee to hear each complaint and has ZERO protections around due process. Finally it imposes a set of prescriptive aspirational  norms on how ALL people are to communicate. 

Each voter should read the proposals. The proposals not the advocacy statements or a voting guide are what is going to be implemented as the party bylaws.

So in this section I am going to compare a few sections of the competing proposals

In Question 5A the scope of the code is as follows

This proposal strikes the existing language, removes the vague “interacting on MGP Matters” and replaces it with a specific group of people who are subject to the code. It includes elected leaders, representatives, and those participating on the small internal business communication forums. 

In Question 5B the scope of the code is as follows

This proposal leaves the existing scope including “Members interacting on MGP Matters “ and expands to include “ALL PEOPLE”.  It limits its control  a bit but still uses vague undefined terms “Activities, events and communications” .

In my opinion 5B represents an overreach, not conducive to growing a party with a commitment to respecting debate, dissent and disagreement. 

 It is important to allow the party to ensure that its events and meetings are not subject to disruption and disrespect or worse, and Question 5A allows for that. However, it does that  separately from the code of conduct that ensures that party leaders and  the core group of people working on party business operate in an honest and ethical way.

Who is governed by the code of conduct is an important philosophical question as well as a logistical question. I tend toward a philosophy that sets a clear standard of conduct for people in leadership roles but does not try to dictate behavior or communication style to the rank and file of the party or even the general public. 

The Maryland Green party has long maintained a right of its members to public and private dissent. In my opinion this is an essential element of any effective challenge to the current political system, and as a party we are better when debate and discussion can occur, both in party spaces and in public. 

Question 5A identifies this right to dissent and puts it into its own section of the bylaws.

This is existing language currently in the bylaws, but putting it in its own section makes it very clear to members that they need not fear speaking out within the party or beyond. 

Question 5B includes this same  language and then goes on to explain exactly the opposite

This passage largely speaks for itself, and does not require a lot of analysis. Suffice to say this is not consistent with a commitment to public and private dissent. Even if one is sympathetic to the motivation for this, it is simply not good policy for a political party.

Combine this with the scope in 5B and In my opinion  it's a recipe for an insular, controlling, state party with a constant threat of disciplinary power against those that would disagree or criticize it. 

After years of conflict within the  inner core of the party, a code of conduct is an important step toward building a more viable, public facing, political party. Ensuring that there is a set of standards, a process for accountability, and a set of restorative procedures for dealing with violations is a way to make our state party stronger and more capable of dealing with conflict. 

How we do that is important, and Questions 5A and 5B offer two different visions for that. 

Question 5A is in my opinion the right balance, it allows the MGP-CC to ensure that its spaces are constructive and respectful to all members, while ensuring the right to dissent and debate is honored  I think it will help our party grow and thrive, and become more focused on being responsive and transparent to members.

Question 5B is in my opinion a top down, overreaching, unworkable policy that will allow those in positions of power to regulate any dissent or disagreement. I think this proposal will  cause our party to shrink and become even more insular.