"As I read your description of events as they transpired, I kept wondering who benefits from such chaos. Michael Moore's retelling of the discovery of a spy in a group of peace activists may provide a parallel. But again, who benefits in an election year from chaos amidst the direction setters of an activist group known for it's outspoken, environmental and social morality?"

"That agenda should not be tolerated for even one moment. That is why censure is not a strong enough action. If they are not expelled GPUSA will face the real possibility that [disrupter] and like-minded individuals will attempt, at some time in the future, to do irreparable damage to this organization. My advice; expel and walk on."

"Part of a growing organization is working to devising methods to deal with disruptions such as that. Although being liberal, I'm not inclined to give [disrupter] the benefit of the doubt. It should have been stopped long before and although you mention good work took place, much was likely lost as a result of that.

"Although I agree with the movement, I am not willing to join until the organization [grows] past this part of its life.

"Thanks for the emails...I will continue to read them."

"Reading your report on the recent conference was one of the most encouraging messages I've had about GP. I do see exactly what the dilemma is and have often dropped out of certain prog. groups because a disruptive person could not be controlled. One person can wreak havoc. I see now that [disrupter] messages colored my perception of GP for some time; I'm glad to know how others in the party see him.

"He is a destroyer. Perhaps to expel him might be best though it will give comfort to enemies and so on. He may not be of sound mind or emotions at this time. People do "go off," and sometimes take their organizations with them.

"Thanks for what I take to be an open and sensible report."

"My suggestion would be to kick his ass out of the meeting. He [disrupter] obviously arrived there with an agenda and he succeeded in disrupting the process. There is nothing that is "unfair and undemocratic" about removing him if he can't behave like an adult. If the Green Party is going to continue to grow and be a real contender in upcoming elections, it shouldn't be wasting time dealing with a "self-proclaimed activist" who bullies to get his way. There are a great deal of liberals out there who blame the Greens for the outcome of the last presidential election. Focusing on getting those people, who share the same ideals, to want to work together with the party should be the primary goal. Liberals are divided in this country. It would be really disappointing for someone new to the Greens, who wants to make a difference, to witness the bickering and politics normally associated with the 'other' parties. They may decide to just suck it up and work with the larger, stronger Democratic party, that in their mind may seem a bit more organized."

" I am so, so discouraged by all this. If only half of what's been written is truth, you should've thrown the bastard out on his ear. Are we so afraid of a return to the purges and pogroms of other eras that we haven't got the cohones to get our business done? And what's with all these committees and sub committees and delegates and challenges,and congresses? Give me a break! We're a pip squeak party. We're a wart on the electorate's ass. Stop playing like the whole world is watching, let alone giving a damn, and get a basic nonsensical, broad appealing platform written, and lets get to work organizing for a decent vote--10% at least, not some wimp 3% or 4%. Good grief.

" Here is one idea to keep order in the meetings. Don't have any. Have public rallies, but stay true to our grassroots commitments and meet online only. Global Online Democracy (G.O.D.) direct and decentralized, has proven to be our best advantage.

"I suggest a running poll. Any Green should be able to post a short, easy to understand suggestion on your website, to be voted online with a yes or no. If a suggestion gets a certain relative percentage of positive votes, it becomes a postulate. Progressively more votes will make it an axiom, theorem, and so on until it becomes a law. Such laws will have the power of our membership to influence all political decisions and ultimately to change, repeal and propose new laws of the land. It will also draw Green membership from a public hungry for participation.

"Most Greens are able to participate online.

"Would you pass this idea to our Green leadership? Thank you."

{This writer is confusing us with GPUS, which split from GPUSA in 2001 to concentrate solely on electoral politics, while GPUSA believes we must do it all: build the movements for social change as well as participate in electoral politics. Many of us are supporting Nader, although GPUSA has not endorsed any candidate for President. Ed.}

"Although the Green Party is my favorite, it is significantly weaker without Nader. I can see why its so hard to control your delegates, the leadership is gone. Its just a bunch of rabble, just like the Communists, just like the Libretarians, just like the Democrats, just like the huge majority of United States citizens. No one would ever shout me down, I'd personally shut them up person to person.

"I can't believe that we are so divided, neither can I accept that Pat Buchanan's Reform Party endorsed Nader before the Greens. Nader is a man of true accomplishment, he knows all the stupid tricks that they use to ruin the little guys. He's been on to their game since 1959. You also know that he is on our side, you may not agree with every little detail, buts he's fighting our fight, with or without us. He will step to the plate for us till the day he dies. I resolved to step to the plate for Ralphie he can unite us."

"The purpose for a political party is to become in a position to govern. Government, then, must begin within the organization. There is nothing wrong with discipline nor the restriction of disruptive influences. That is what governments do. Disruptions such as you describe would have simply resulted in a swift visit from the Sgt. at Arms at the behest of the Rules Committee (which requires order and a cooperative spirit) and in the event that proceedural order was not regained, the disruptive party(s) are removed. It is paramount that an organization preportadly offering to govern America be able and willing to govern itself. [Disrupter] would simply be banned from the Party as a disruptive provocotuer.

There is not only no need for a Party to accept the abuse of its members and friends, it is the Party's duty to prevent it."

"Having been sabotaged many times myself, I can only say that it sounds as if someone paid these people to be disruptive. Next time, I would eject the person. There are many agendas and meetings need to be conducted democratically--with majority rule."

"Perhaps airing these events, and opening them to discussion, as at present is indeed one positive step. It does seem that some way could be considered to put a limit on the amount of time such disruptions take up following which a majority, of two-thirds of those present, say, with the same standing could for instance after one day of such, then vote as to whether the disruption is at all helpful and going somewhere, and if not, vote that the disruptive element be removed if proving impossible to ignore. But how to...? Anyway thank you for keeping me and everyone informed."

"First, I must congratulate Nancy Oden on a wonderfully written report of the congress - personal anger was not evident in the tone of the letter (though it very well could have been). And her explanations regarding progressive ideals for behavior assisted me tremendously in understanding how history contributed to tolerance at this meeting.

As for the dissenters' behaviors, sanctioning was truly a kindness. As a mental health professional, it sounds to me like this person has major challenges with social skills. I too received the request for funds for a family vacation from him and was astounded, although I did not attribute it to official Green Party sanctioned activities. Someone with such nerve can be quite an asset to a grassroots movement, until the ego gets carried away with itself.

Specifically, several questions come to mind when considering an appropriate response to the behaviors exhibited. Number one must always be safety; is this man potentially violent? Has he ever been violent in the past? Has his behavior been a lifelong pattern or have the last few years seen changes in his personality?

In general, we must rely on an individual's ability to monitor his/her own behavior. When an individual refuses to cooperate or respectfully dissent, we must go with majority rule. Once the individual has been heard, she/he must agree to stand down and allow proceedings to continue. Otherwise, chaos and withdrawal of members will occur, as was noted. While I agree with progressive procedures considering the history of oppression in meeting rules, without order and respect of each other as human beings a movement is paralyzed. Therefore I think there are times that excluding individuals from a meeting may be appropriate.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion."

"Maybe Mitchel Cohen and his N.Y. friends were off their medication. If Prozac isn't working, I'd suggest Thorzen (sp?) Or maybe they joined the Democrats. The Democrats can be very abusive, even here in Bush country. I'm sure they're responsible for my smashed car window. Us South Carolinians were happy with our 9 votes. Perhaps they need to go start their own party. N.Y. has lots of third parties, it shouldn't be too hard for them. Down here, the neighbors usually call the cops during incidents of domestic dispute. But it would probably be unsavory to see the men in blue show up. My suggestion is that ya'll hire a bouncer for your next meeting. It seems to work in all the bars around here."

"The real problem for all of us anywhere even vaguely on the left is how to keep some vague sense of order in our proceedings so that we don't drive away people who don't have time for this kind of chaos. I went through a fair amount of this during the Vietnam War period (though I don't recall anything to quite compare to [this particular disrupter])."

You mention that Cohen left the GPUSA congress and went to the GPUS convention (which I attended as one of the two Alabama delegates). This suggest his mission may be destroy GPUSA leaving only one Green Party in the country."