To: Grievance Committee, Alaska Democratic Party
Date: June 6, 2018
Re: Formal Grievance against the Alaska Democratic Party, its Officers, and Staff Submitted by: Members and Officers of the Climate Caucus of Alaska
Summary of Grievance and Requested Outcome:
As founding members and standing Council officers of the Climate Caucus of Alaska (CCA or Caucus), we are lodging this formal grievance against the Alaska Democratic Party (ADP or Party), its officers, and employees, to address the highly irregular and invalid process followed to elect four new officers to the CCA Council on Sunday, May 6, 2018, at the ADP State Convention in Talkeetna.
It is our understanding that Matt Greene, a Party employee otherwise unaffiliated with the Caucus, presided over a meeting on May 6 that was improperly held under the auspices of the CCA. The meeting took place without the knowledge or involvement of any standing or former CCA officers. At this meeting, a group of individuals also unaffiliated with the caucus “elected” four new officers to the CCA Council: a new Chair, Vice-Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary; two of these new officers are now designated by the Party as State Central Committee (SCC) representatives. The only elected position not replaced was the Caucus Young Democrat.
No attempt was made to contact any standing or former officers prior to the meeting, but the former Chair was informed of the election immediately following the meeting by the newly “elected” Treasurer. The Party apparently accepted the outcome of the election, as evidenced by the posting of new ADP Tier Two Subdivision representatives immediately following the Convention (see Exhibit I). To our knowledge, the individuals conducting the meeting recorded no meeting minutes, as required by the CCA Bylaws, nor did they produce a list of attendees and contact information.
The process by which the meeting and election transpired did not conform to the CCA Bylaws (see Exhibit II) or, by extension, the Party Plan, as specified below. As Caucus members and officers, we therefore consider this election invalid, as it is contrary to the letter of the applicable rules by which the Caucus operates and to which the Party has previously strictly held the Caucus. Further, this election violates the spirit of fairness, cooperation, and basic Democratic principles we expect from the Alaska Democratic Party.
We call for the State Central Committee to 1) repudiate these invalid election results and 2) support a new election conducted by standing Caucus officers, consistent with the CCA Bylaws. Alternatively, we call for dissolution of the CCA at the next State Central Committee meeting because the original intent for which the Caucus was formed has been subverted.
Date: June 6, 2018
Re: Formal Grievance against the Alaska Democratic Party, its Officers, and Staff Submitted by: Members and Officers of the Climate Caucus of Alaska
Summary of Grievance and Requested Outcome:
As founding members and standing Council officers of the Climate Caucus of Alaska (CCA or Caucus), we are lodging this formal grievance against the Alaska Democratic Party (ADP or Party), its officers, and employees, to address the highly irregular and invalid process followed to elect four new officers to the CCA Council on Sunday, May 6, 2018, at the ADP State Convention in Talkeetna.
It is our understanding that Matt Greene, a Party employee otherwise unaffiliated with the Caucus, presided over a meeting on May 6 that was improperly held under the auspices of the CCA. The meeting took place without the knowledge or involvement of any standing or former CCA officers. At this meeting, a group of individuals also unaffiliated with the caucus “elected” four new officers to the CCA Council: a new Chair, Vice-Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary; two of these new officers are now designated by the Party as State Central Committee (SCC) representatives. The only elected position not replaced was the Caucus Young Democrat.
No attempt was made to contact any standing or former officers prior to the meeting, but the former Chair was informed of the election immediately following the meeting by the newly “elected” Treasurer. The Party apparently accepted the outcome of the election, as evidenced by the posting of new ADP Tier Two Subdivision representatives immediately following the Convention (see Exhibit I). To our knowledge, the individuals conducting the meeting recorded no meeting minutes, as required by the CCA Bylaws, nor did they produce a list of attendees and contact information.
The process by which the meeting and election transpired did not conform to the CCA Bylaws (see Exhibit II) or, by extension, the Party Plan, as specified below. As Caucus members and officers, we therefore consider this election invalid, as it is contrary to the letter of the applicable rules by which the Caucus operates and to which the Party has previously strictly held the Caucus. Further, this election violates the spirit of fairness, cooperation, and basic Democratic principles we expect from the Alaska Democratic Party. We call for the State Central Committee to 1) repudiate these invalid election results and 2) support a new election conducted by standing Caucus officers, consistent with the CCA Bylaws. Alternatively, we call for dissolution of the CCA at the next State Central Committee meeting because the original intent for which the Caucus was formed has been subverted.
For either outcome, we request a written explanation of the State Central Committee decision regarding resolution of this grievance, as required by Section III (C) of the ADP Grievance Procedure (adopted September 11, 2017).
This grievance is based on the following three points:
1. The CCA Bylaws, as ratified by the Party, provide that the authority to call meetings and conduct officer elections rests with the Caucus Chair or, in her stead, the Vice-Chair. The Caucus Chair had stepped down and the Vice-Chair had a valid reason for not being present to call a meeting. The May 6th meeting was therefore invalid.
The Climate Caucus of Alaska applied for and was approved as an ADP Tier Two organization at the May 2016 State Convention (see Exhibit III). The CCA on April 18, 2016 adopted Bylaws deemed by the Party to be consistent with the Party Plan.1 The CCA Bylaws authorize only specific officers of the Caucus to call for meetings and conduct elections, independent of the Party, Party staff, or SCC.
The CCA bylaws are clear2 on the point that only the Council Chair or Vice-Chair is authorized to call a CCA meeting. Regarding elections, the Bylaws specify3 that “officers shall be elected by the general membership at the annual meeting, which shall be held in conjunction with the winter State Central Committee [SCC] meeting.” Further, the Bylaws provide4 that “a vacant seat may be filled by a simple majority vote of the membership present at any properly noticed meeting,” which was the procedure used to replace the CCA Secretary when she recently resigned. See Exhibit IV (minutes from February 20, 2018 meeting).
As part of the process for filing for Tier Two status in 2016, the founding members adopted language for the CCA bylaws from the Hawaii Democratic Party Environmental Caucus. Although the CCA Bylaws were approved by the Party in 2016, Caucus officers have since noted that the Bylaws contain language that is inconsistent with some details of the Party Plan regarding timing of elections and other items. We intended to amend the language of these sections at our next meeting to bring the Bylaws into full compliance, as well as to hold an election to fill the two vacant Council seats.
1 ADP Party Plan of Operations, adopted May 15, 2016:
Article V(j): Additional Tier 1,2, & 3 Requirements
Section 18) Each official Adjunct or Political Subdivision of the Democratic Party recognized under the authority of this Party Plan of Organization will adopt and conduct its affairs in accordance with written rules that are consistent with this Plan.
2 CCA Bylaws: Article Four, Section 1; Article Six, Sections 1 & 2
3 CCA Bylaws: Article Five, Section 3
4 CCA Bylaws: Article Five, Section 9
In January of this year we indicated our intention to call such a meeting specifically to amend the Bylaws, but were instructed by Party staff Jeffrey Eide that we must follow the CCA Bylaw provisions to amend—i.e., Article Eleven, Section 3, which requires a quorum of 15 to approve any changes to the Bylaws. Therefore, we postponed making the amendments until we could hold a meeting with the required quorum.
The State Convention theoretically could have served as an occasion to hold such a meeting, except for two issues: the unavoidable absence of the Vice-Chair and the inability to hold a remote meeting at the Talkeetna conference facility. Neither of the two current CCA Council members (Vice-Chair Susan Todd and Treasurer Shauna Thornton) could attend the Talkeetna convention in person because the date conflicted with the UAF graduation, a fact made known to Party staff well in advance of the Convention. The May 6 meeting was not formally cancelled, but with no Caucus officers or designated representatives present to conduct the meeting, formal cancellation was unnecessary under the CCA Bylaws.
Instead, Council members planned to fill officer vacancies and present proposed amendments to the Bylaws at a subsequent CCA meeting when they could conduct a remote, GoTo Meeting conference call, which Council members were told was not possible at the Convention. Due to our geographically widespread membership, conference calls have been our normal means of holding meetings; further, this is an accommodation required under the CCA bylaws “as is reasonable and practical.”5
Given the clear language of the CCA Bylaws regarding the authority to call meetings and hold elections, it is manifest that at no time did Matt Greene, an employee of the Party who was previously unaffiliated with the Caucus, possess the authority to call or conduct a Caucus meeting or election. Further, we can find no section of the Party Plan that would authorize Mr. Greene’s actions on behalf of the Party. To the contrary, Mr. Greene’s actions were wholly inappropriate in that they violated the specific provisions of the CCA Bylaws as well as the independent authority vested in the Caucus as a Tier Two Subdivision of the Party with its own, Party-approved Bylaws.6
5 CCA Bylaws: Article Four: Meetings;
Section 1: Regular meetings. The Chair of the Council shall designate a time and location for meetings. To promote maximum participation by members located in outlying and rural communities,all meetings will include telephonic/electronic capability as is reasonable and practical.
6 We note that the Party Plan does expressly provide for Party involvement in filling vacancies for Tier One Adjunct groups (Article VII: Sanctions; Section 6) and Tier Three organizations (i.e., House Districts: Article IV(a) Officers; Section 10). That the Plan makes no such provision for Tier Two organizations indicates that authority for elections is intended to rest with the individual subdivision organization and its adopted bylaws, here the CCA and its Bylaws. This different treatment is logical given the more independent nature of Tier Two organizations, which are authorized to raise money and endorse candidates, subject only to notifying the Party after such actions.
At all times since its inception, the Caucus has conducted its operations in good faith and in accordance with the CCA Bylaws and the Party Plan. In contrast, the May 6 meeting and election were conducted by Party staff in violation of the CCA Bylaws. By ratifying the outcome of this election, the Party has directly violated the provisions of the CCA Bylaws and has breached its duty of good faith to the Caucus.
This breach is particularly egregious considering the previous insistence of Party staff that the CCA strictly adhere to the existing provisions of certain sections of the CCA Bylaws (i.e., that we abide by a 15-person quorum to amend the Bylaws to make them more consistent with the Party Plan). The Party cannot pick and choose when to enforce Tier Two Subdivision Bylaws against a Subdivision, nor can the Party unilaterally override provisions of Subdivision Bylaws altogether to conduct a meeting and election under the auspices of the Subdivision but with no Subdivision officers present.
2. Council seat nominations were out of order and failed to include a duly notified candidate for Chair Prior to the convention, CCA members posted a call for nominations on the CCA Facebook page for two positions: Chair and Secretary.7 The notice further instructed individuals interested in running for Chair, Treasurer, or Secretary to contact current Vice-Chair Susan Todd or current Treasurer/Acting Secretary Shauna Thornton. Ms. Thornton timely notified the Council of her interest in running for Chair, which is why the notice mentioned nominations for Treasurer (her current position). If Ms. Thornton were not elected as Chair, she would resume her duties as CCA Treasurer, a position to which she was only recently elected (see Exhibit V, minutes from the January 21, 2018 meeting).
Simply put, there was no basis whatsoever for any person, much less a non-Caucus officer, to conduct an election for four new officers when there were only two vacancies. As such, electing a new Vice-Chair and Treasurer without acknowledging that the current seats were filled was grossly out of order. So too was the failure to consider Shauna Thornton’s duly notified interest in running for Chair. From the standpoint of fairness, the failure of the Party to consider Ms. Thornton’s interest in maintaining her active participation on the Caucus Council is offensive in the extreme, given her status as the Caucus’ first recognized “Climate Smart Candidate” and given her years of service to the Party. Not only is she a standing officer of the Caucus, she is a member of the State Central Committee (SCC member with two votes: member at large through July 2018 and District 35 Chair), and a member of the ad hoc vetting committee.
7 Ceal Smith, the CCA Chair since its inception, recently stepped away to devote more time to AKCAN!, a non-Party affiliated climate action group. Moira Ingle, Secretary since the Caucus’ inception, stepped down because of a recently discovered conflict with her job with the State of Alaska.
This breach is particularly egregious considering the previous insistence of Party staff that the CCA strictly adhere to the existing provisions of certain sections of the CCA Bylaws (i.e., that we abide by a 15-person quorum to amend the Bylaws to make them more consistent with the Party Plan). The Party cannot pick and choose when to enforce Tier Two Subdivision Bylaws against a Subdivision, nor can the Party unilaterally override provisions of Subdivision Bylaws altogether to conduct a meeting and election under the auspices of the Subdivision but with no Subdivision officers present.
2. Council seat nominations were out of order and failed to include a duly notified candidate for Chair Prior to the convention, CCA members posted a call for nominations on the CCA Facebook page for two positions: Chair and Secretary.7 The notice further instructed individuals interested in running for Chair, Treasurer, or Secretary to contact current Vice-Chair Susan Todd or current Treasurer/Acting Secretary Shauna Thornton. Ms. Thornton timely notified the Council of her interest in running for Chair, which is why the notice mentioned nominations for Treasurer (her current position). If Ms. Thornton were not elected as Chair, she would resume her duties as CCA Treasurer, a position to which she was only recently elected (see Exhibit V, minutes from the January 21, 2018 meeting).
Simply put, there was no basis whatsoever for any person, much less a non-Caucus officer, to conduct an election for four new officers when there were only two vacancies. As such, electing a new Vice-Chair and Treasurer without acknowledging that the current seats were filled was grossly out of order. So too was the failure to consider Shauna Thornton’s duly notified interest in running for Chair. From the standpoint of fairness, the failure of the Party to consider Ms. Thornton’s interest in maintaining her active participation on the Caucus Council is offensive in the extreme, given her status as the Caucus’ first recognized “Climate Smart Candidate” and given her years of service to the Party. Not only is she a standing officer of the Caucus, she is a member of the State Central Committee (SCC member with two votes: member at large through July 2018 and District 35 Chair), and a member of the ad hoc vetting committee.
7 Ceal Smith, the CCA Chair since its inception, recently stepped away to devote more time to AKCAN!, a non-Party affiliated climate action group. Moira Ingle, Secretary since the Caucus’ inception, stepped down because of a recently discovered conflict with her job with the State of Alaska.
We also find it highly unusual that the person newly “elected” as treasurer,
3. The CCA officers “elected” on May 6th and appointed to the SCC fall far short of the requirements set forth in the CCA bylaws: Article Twelve, Section 1 of the CCA Bylaws reads as follows:
A person seeking election as a Nominee of the CCA to the State Central Committee of the Alaska Democratic Party must be an active member of the CCA, and shall file with the Secretary of the CCA nomination papers, which shall include:
- A written statement showing demonstrated involvement and active participation in CCA meetings and/or CCA activities; and
- A demonstrated commitment and ability to attend the State Central Committee and CCA meetings and to represent the mission and priorities of the CCA as defined in Article Two; and
- Five (5) letters of recommendation
With the exception of CCA member Erik Gunderson, none of the people attending the May 6 meeting, running for office, or ostensibly “elected” to the CCA Council have had any substantive involvement with the CCA. Donna Mears, newly “elected” Treasurer, attended one meeting by teleconference (see Exhibit V) but participated only to the extent of seconding the nomination of Shauna Thornton for Treasurer. As such, Ms. Mears can hardly be considered to have “demonstrated involvement and active participation in CCA meetings,” although her limited participation does demonstrate that she knew or should have known that Ms. Thornton was elected as Treasurer less than four months earlier and was still serving in that position as of May 6.
Although the Caucus has always welcomed new members and was seeking two new officers, the election process specified in the Bylaws was grossly violated when individuals with no prior involvement with CCA conducted an unauthorized meeting and elected four new officers, two of which were summarily designated by the Party as SCC Representatives—without the required experience, letters of recommendation, or even informal consultation with standing or former CCA officers and SCC members. Under no scenario can any of these individuals be considered to meet the Bylaws requirement that “a person seeking election as a Nominee of the CCA to the [SCC] of the [ADP] must be an active member of the CCA and shall file with the Secretary of the CCA nomination papers . . . .” Again, the Party cannot pick and choose when to enforce provisions of Subdivision Bylaws or to ignore them altogether. Here, the Party has inserted itself into a Tier Two Subdivision election process, failed to follow the subdivision Bylaws, and promoted unqualified individuals to Party leadership positions for purposes known only to Party personnel.
For example, the newly “elected” Chair and SCC Representative, Doug Robbins, has never been involved in the Caucus and was completely unfamiliar with the activities of the Caucus, as evidenced by Exhibit VI. Mr. Robbins has clearly failed to demonstrate the required “involvement and active participation in CCA meetings and/or CCA activities” and has no “demonstrated commitment” to the principles espoused by the Caucus.8 To the contrary, Mr. Robbins is a retired oil and gas geologist, hardly appropriate credentials “to represent the mission and priorities of the CCA,” an organization dedicated to a) promoting awareness and understanding of climate change effects in Alaska and b) calling for an end to oil industry subsidies, carbon fees and other measures likely to be opposed by his former employers.
The Bylaws include these rigorous ideological credentials for Caucus officers because, as founding Caucus members, we were and are concerned that someone lacking appropriate experience or commitment might falsely represent the interests of the caucus, in direct opposition to the principles upon which it was established. Further, the unauthorized “election” of a Chair who is ideologically unsuited to lead the Climate Caucus will destroy the credibility of the organization, an outcome we cannot afford in a broader political atmosphere populated by climate change deniers.
8 CCA Bylaws: Article Two: Purpose
In recognition of the interdependency of all life on earth and the inherent rights of all people to a healthy, just, and livable planet, we resolve to promote effective and timely action to avoid dangerous (>1.5 degrees Celsius) climate change that threatens to destabilize global, regional, and local ecosystems, communities, and economies.
For example, the newly “elected” Chair and SCC Representative, Doug Robbins, has never been involved in the Caucus and was completely unfamiliar with the activities of the Caucus, as evidenced by Exhibit VI. Mr. Robbins has clearly failed to demonstrate the required “involvement and active participation in CCA meetings and/or CCA activities” and has no “demonstrated commitment” to the principles espoused by the Caucus.8 To the contrary, Mr. Robbins is a retired oil and gas geologist, hardly appropriate credentials “to represent the mission and priorities of the CCA,” an organization dedicated to a) promoting awareness and understanding of climate change effects in Alaska and b) calling for an end to oil industry subsidies, carbon fees and other measures likely to be opposed by his former employers.
The Bylaws include these rigorous ideological credentials for Caucus officers because, as founding Caucus members, we were and are concerned that someone lacking appropriate experience or commitment might falsely represent the interests of the caucus, in direct opposition to the principles upon which it was established. Further, the unauthorized “election” of a Chair who is ideologically unsuited to lead the Climate Caucus will destroy the credibility of the organization, an outcome we cannot afford in a broader political atmosphere populated by climate change deniers.
8 CCA Bylaws: Article Two: Purpose
In recognition of the interdependency of all life on earth and the inherent rights of all people to a healthy, just, and livable planet, we resolve to promote effective and timely action to avoid dangerous (>1.5 degrees Celsius) climate change that threatens to destabilize global, regional, and local ecosystems, communities, and economies.
This Party-sanctioned “election” of unqualified individuals to the CCA Council and the appointment by the Party of two of these individuals to the SCC are egregious violations of proper procedure and fair play. It is better to have no ADP climate caucus than to falsely legitimize the election of unqualified officers to an organization that will merely pay lip service to the critical issue of climate change. It is for this reason that we call for dissolution of the Caucus if the SCC does not accede to a new election in accordance with the CCA Bylaws.
