Accreditation Committee Dodges Responsibilities for Conducting a Fair Evidentiary Hearing

The bylaws of the party provide, at 3-6.4, that:  "Each committee shall have the duty and responsibility to... Propose such amendments to its Committee Rules for approval by the National Committee as are necessary to fulfill its mission, duties and responsibilities."

The Rules and Procedures of the party, provide at 6-2.2(f), that: "The following proposals before the National Committee shall require a majority of all ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes cast for passage. . . . Rules, Policies, and Procedures for GPUS Standing . . . Committees . . . "

Those same rules provide at Article I., related to 'Accreditation', Section V., Procedures for Revocation of Accreditation, paragraph 2., that "A grievance lodged against an accredited state (party) by an individual or group should be investigated by the committee as in the appeals process above. A hearing should be held at the next general meeting. The NC should formulate rules for conducting such hearings."  The reference to the 'next general meeting' in the 'appeals process above' is described as "next general meeting of the GREEN PARTY National Committee."

No rules exist for an evidentiary hearing anticipated by these rules. 

But the Accreditation Committee did conduct a vote on a set of guidelines for a process short of an evidentiary hearing and without submitting them for ratification by the National Committee has started the clock, on April 12th, on a thirty day process for its investigation, in a document entitled proposed rules.  These rules prohibit cross-examination, make no provision to compel testimony, allow those offering testimony to choose whether to answer questions or not and limits each committee member to five minutes of questions for each witness.