Article I Section 1 Chapter VI 3.e instructs the Accreditation Committee to:

3.e: Report to and vote by the Coordinating Committee: Except in extraordinary situations, the AC shall make its report to the NC in the form of a formal proposal, within 60 days of the AC chair receiving a complete application. A complete application is one that includes all of the documentation necessary for the NC to make an informed decision and shall be considered received when the national office issues notices of its receipt to the applying caucus.

The proposal shall be presented according to the customary procedure to submit proposals for discussion and vote by email or at a national meeting of the NC, whichever can be done most promptly. The proposal to the NC should explain the committee’s findings for each of the accreditation criteria, and recommend for or against approval of the application and accreditation of the Identity Caucus’s one delegate and one alternate to the NC. Any request for clarification directed to the AC or the DC shall be addressed without prejudice.

If the AC and the DC cannot reach consensus on the report, the proposal shall include both the AC and the DC’s recommendations. A two-third’s majority vote is required to approve an Identity Caucus.

This report provides the Accreditation Committee’s findings in support of its recommendation to the National Committee for each of the criteria under Chapter VI 5. It was produced based on the answers provided by the proposed caucus, the materials provided by the caucus in its application packet, and research done by Accreditation Committee members. Please be aware that to be eligible for accreditation a proposed caucus must meet all of the following criteria.

Criteria 5.a: Accept of the four pillars of the international Green Party movement [ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, non-violence], or the GPUS’s Ten Key Values, as guiding principles.

The proposed caucus accepts both the four pillars and the GPUS Ten Key Values and has incorporated them into their bylaws.

Criteria 5.b: Be organized and run in accordance with these values.

During the course of the accreditation process, Barbara Kidney, Christopher Lozinski, and Andrew Dalton voiced concerns to the Accreditation Committee directly advocating against accreditation of the proposed caucus despite being active or recent active members of the proposed caucus.

Their concerns revolved around the proposed caucus’s handling and interpretation of their bylaws around membership of the Coordinating Committee for elected GPUS Diversity Committee members, as only 1 of the 3 delegates was excluded from membership on the committee.

Exploring this situation brought to light several findings:

1. Monthly meetings of the proposed caucus’s Coordinating Council have consistently been closed to the general membership of the proposed caucus, even in an observer only capacity. Meeting minutes are either not regularly taken for these meetings or not made broadly available to the membership based on caucus member comments to the committee.
2. As written the proposed caucus’s bylaws allows formerly elected or appointed members to remain on the Coordinating Council indefinitely, which institutionalizes power and is anti-democratic.
3. The Coordinating Council of the proposed caucus has postponed its election of new co-chairs by over 6 months. Both current co-chairs were last elected to 2-year terms in December of 2019. 

The proposed caucus was asked about this situation in both rounds of questions and provided its perspective on how their bylaws are being interpreted. It expressed that it felt the Accreditation Committee was “overstepping its reach” by inquiring on this matter.

Criteria 5.c: Be open to and reflective of natural members of the Identity Caucus.

Outside of the transparency issues noted in Finding 1, the Accreditation Committee has no additional findings for this criteria. Committee members do however note that based on meeting minutes made available to the committee the caucus’s total membership appears to have hovered around 100 members since at least 2019. 

Criteria 5.d: Have held at least one meeting and will continue to hold such meetings not less than annually.

The proposed caucus has held at least one meeting. It meets this criteria. As noted in Finding 1, monthly meetings of the Coordinating Council have historically been closed to general membership. The caucus explained in its second round of answers to the Accreditation Committee that it holds annual general membership meetings which are open to all members.

The Accreditation Committee does point out that at the proposed caucus’s last general meeting on August 7, 2021 there were 15 attendees. Of those attendees, at least 5 were Coordinating Council members, 2 have since left the caucus, and 2 were members who advocated against accreditation as described under criteria 5.a. Scheduling conflicts happen and the committee has limited information to go off of. We cannot definitively make a finding about membership engagement or participation from this single data point.

Criteria 5.e: Have elected its leadership and delegates in a democratic and transparent manner.

The proposed caucus provided detailed information about its last 3 elections as part of its application packet. With the exception of Finding 3, we have no findings for this criteria.

Criteria 5.f.: Agree to support national candidates selected at the national Green Nominating Convention.

The forming caucus was asked directly in the second round of questions “Does the proposed caucus commit to support all of GPUS’s national candidates now and going forward?” The caucus responded:

 “The EC has never taken a formal vote to support or not support any candidate. The EC has no intention of working against any GPUS nominated candidates.”

The committee makes the following finding for this criteria:

4. When asked directly if the caucus would support GPUS’s national candidates it did not answer in the affirmative, instead stating it had “no intention of working against any GPUS nominated candidates.” This lack of a direct answer whether it intends to meet its obligations under Criteria 5.f is highly concerning to members of the Accreditation Committee.

Criteria 5.g: Maintain a current list of at least 100 members in 15 state parties with name, address and their state party membership.

The proposed caucus has met this threshold and as of May 6th has 107 qualifying members. 

Criteria 5.h. Represent a historically disenfranchised or underrepresented and significant sector of the population.

As noted in the proposal, the majority of the Accreditation Committee’s findings and reasoning for recommending against accreditation stem from this criteria.

As a reminder, the GPUS Bylaws define “underrepresented group” as “any grouping of Greens, not explicitly ideological in nature, that has historically failed to attain adequate access to power in society at-large and/or within the Green movement, as determined by the National Committee.”

Based on its own research and the answers provided to both rounds of questions by the Accreditation Committee, the following findings  about representation are noted:

5. In society at large people over 60 years of age comprise the largest age group of national elected officials. This includes:
   1. 80 of the 100 US Senators
   2. 121 of the 435 US Representatives
   3. The president of the United States
   4. 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices.
   5. The median age of the 117th congress is 60 years old. This is much higher than the median age of 38 years in the United States in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
6. Within GPUS, the current 107 person membership of the proposed caucus holds significant power and representation. According to its own answers, of the proposed caucus’s membership:
   1. 10% hold NC positions as delegates or alternate delegates.
   2. 19% hold delegate positions on GPUS committees.
   3. These percentages only indicate current active membership of the proposed caucus, “natural members” (all Greens 60 years of age or older) make up an even larger percentage of NC and committee membership.
7. The caucus acknowledges that it is not underrepresented either in the party or society at-large in its application packet materials and its answers to the committee’s questions. The proposed caucus instead points to “generally acknowledged unaccountable bigotry” and oppression as its justification for meeting criteria 5.h.

Having soundly established that the proposed caucus and its “natural members” are not underrepresented, significant investigation was made into whether the proposed caucus is “historically disenfranchised.” 

GPUS Bylaws do not provide a definition for disenfranchised, but seeing as the proposed caucus cited Merriam Webster as a reputable source for definitions when the use of the term “elder” was questioned by the committee, we will use that same source here:

disenfranchised (adjective): deprived of some right, privilege, or immunity, especially deprived of the right to vote.

The only age group historically (and currently) restricted by law from voting are those under 18 years of age. This was a topic of very heated debate on the committee and both rounds of questions asked questions targeted at determining how the proposed caucus views its natural members as “historically disenfranchised.”

The proposed caucus’s application and their answers to both rounds of questions identify the following area which the proposed caucus believes people 60 years of age and holder are historically disenfranchised:

• Employment discrimination.
• Lack of access to services, housing, health, and food.
• Targeted a “much larger amount” for scam and fraud crimes.
• Ageism (which it links to a 122 page Ageism in America report to support).
• Elder abuse in a variety of forms.
• The impact of the COVID pandemic on elders has struck with more force than other groups.

The committee made the following findings related to these assertions:

8. Available data does not fit perfectly into the 60 years of age or older group, but according to the US Federal Reserve, as of 2020 Americans aged 55 and older owned 72% of wealth in the United States. 
9. US census population estimates as of 2018 (as interpreted by the Pew Research Center) indicate those belonging to the Baby Boomer, Silent, and Greatest generations (those now 58 and older) are the most white and least diverse age groups in the United States.
10. According to the Better Business Bureau 2020 Risk Report, those between 18 and 24 years of age were the most frequent victims to scams and fraud. These youngest victims had the same median dollar loss as the oldest victims ($150). While older Americans remain the highest average dollar loss by age, their significantly high wealth likely plays a significant factor in this. Regardless this does not indicate deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity and is not disenfranchisement.
11. The only age range explicitly protected from discrimination under US federal law are those over 40 years of age. This has been the law of the land since 1975 with the passage of the Age Discrimination Act. This committee does not deny that employment discrimination happens, it does however point out that seniors are explicitly protected by law from this for nearly 5 decades and does not constitute a  deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity and is not disenfranchisement.
12. The only age group in the United States provided near universal health insurance and a universal basic income are seniors. Medicare and Social Security are far from perfect, but these programs largely only exist for seniors in this country. General financial, housing, health, and food insecurity are not unique or definitive to those aged 60 and older.
13. The only age group limited from voting or holding certain political offices are youth.
14. The caucus’s own resource (Ageism in America) clearly points to a lack of data on “elder abuse.” “Elder abuse” is not often studied, and very inconsistently defined, but the report does point to abuse along financial and health lines which often intersect with seniors. 
15. While we do not deny that seniors were far more likely to suffer or die from COVID-19, we point to the prioritization of seniors for vaccines and boosters as evidence that their well-being was prioritized. Society as a whole opened elder exclusive shopping hours, increased telehealth, and many other measures to protect the most vulnerable, including those aged 60 years and older. GPUS moved its Annual National Meetings and Nominating Convention online to protect its members. We are deeply saddened by the impacts COVID-19 has had on all people in this country, but a virus impacting older Americans more strongly is not evidence that a right, privilege or immunity has been deprived to seniors. This is not evidence of historic disenfranchisement.

We find the proposed caucus does not meet the definition of “historically disenfranchised.” By most measurements as a whole seniors are the most powerful, most represented, most wealthy, most protected, and most provided for people in this country.

We don’t deny that seniors in this country face oppression, but we do point out that these are largely due to disability and economic factors, not explicitly because of their age. While we appreciate the members of the proposed caucus and their support for senior advocacy, this committee by a large margin finds that the proposed caucus does not meet the essential criteria of a caucus.

All of the proposed caucus’s goals could be accomplished by seeking accreditation as a network. Networks do not require a minimum membership threshold and do not require the group be historically disenfranchised or underrepresented. The only real downside to accreditation as a GPUS Network is that only one representative would be appointed to the National Committee, but as stated explicitly by the proposed caucus in the second round answers, representation and power on the NC is not their objective. We encourage the proposed caucus, should the National Committee agree with our recommendation, to attempt accreditation as a network. The Accreditation Committee stands ready to assist in that process.