The Elders Caucus has been working towards accreditation by the Green Party of the United States and submitted its application on February 21, 2022 and again on May 8, 2022 after requested adjustments by the AC were made. The accreditation process requires caucuses to demonstrate proof of membership of 100 members from over 15 states.
The GPUS AC report, which recommends DENYING accreditation to the Elders Caucus is pasted below this paragraph. Following that are the Elders Caucus responses to the AC Report (scroll down on this page to see those responses). The proposal has been put to the GPUS National Committee to discuss and vote on the accreditation of the Elders Caucus. Voting will take place August 15-21, 2022.
=======================================
Accreditation Proposal: Elders Caucus
SPONSORS:
Accreditation Committee of the Green Party of the United States
CONTACT:
Daniel Bumbarger, Accreditation Committee Co-Chair (acc-chairs@gp.org)
SUBJECT:
Accreditation of the Proposed “Green Party Elders Caucus”
TYPE OF PROPOSAL:
Accreditation of State Parties, Caucuses, and Networks (6-2.1(e))
EXPECTED APPROVAL THRESHOLD:
⅔ of all ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes cast
REQUESTED PROPOSAL DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE:
Four weeks discussion, followed by one-week vote. (6-3.1(c))
BACKGROUND:
On May 9th, 2022, the Accreditation Committee received a complete application packet requesting accreditation for a new “Green Party Elders Caucus.” The proposed caucus’s membership is restricted to Greens aged 60 years and older.
After careful review of the proposed caucus’s application packet, two rounds of in-depth questioning, and over a month of discussion and research the Accreditation Committee voted against recommending accreditation for the proposed “Green Party Elders Caucus.”
The Accreditation Committee’s final proposal was as follows:
“The Accreditation Committee finds that the forming “Elders Caucus” group does not meet the criteria for a caucus as laid out in Section 5 of the GPUS Rules for the Accreditation of Caucuses and does not recommend accreditation as a caucus. The committee shall produce a report as outlined in GPUS Rules for the Accreditation of Caucuses detailing its findings for each of the criteria.”
The motion passed, with 17 votes in favor, 3 against, and 2 abstentions. Please note that one of the votes against came from a member of the proposed caucus’s Coordinating Council who had recused due to a conflict of interest earlier in the process but refused to do so on this final vote.
The Accreditation Committee has numerous findings supporting its recommendation against accrediting the proposed caucus which can be read in detail in the linked document in the reference section of this proposal. However, the main stance that the committee makes, is that Greens age 60 years and older do not “[r]epresent a historically disenfranchised or underrepresented and significant sector of the population” as required for accreditation of a caucus under GPUS Rules and Procedures. GPUS Bylaws provide the following definition:
“The term “underrepresented group” as used in these bylaws shall refer to 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.”
The Accreditation Committee finds, and the proposed caucus’s own answers to the committee’s questions support, that Greens age 60 and older are not lacking in access to power, protections, privileges, or representation either within the party or in society at-large and does not constitute a historically disenfranchised or underrepresented group.
While not a formal part of this proposal, the Accreditation Committee politely extends the recommendation that should the proposed caucus fail to gain accreditation, it should instead pursue accreditation as a network, which does not have these requirements.
The Diversity Committee approved a formal statement in support of accrediting the Green Party Elders Caucus during their May 4th, 2022, meeting. The Accreditation Committee notes that this proposal was authored, edited, and approved largely by members of the proposed caucus. See Diversity Committee Statement of Support for an Elders Caucus in the resources section for additional details.
This formal support for the accreditation of the proposed caucus puts the Accreditation Committee and the Diversity Committee in conflict on recommendations. Chapter VI Section 3.e of the GPUS Rules and Procedures provides the following direction for this scenario:
“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.”
Please see the supporting documentation linked in the resources section for additional rationale, findings, questions and answers, and the proposed caucus’s application packet.
PROPOSAL:
Pursuant to Article I, Chapter VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures, the GPUS National Committee hereby extends formal accreditation to the Green Party Elders Caucus, including all rights, responsibilities, and privileges delineated under GPUS Bylaws and Rules and Procedures.
IMPLEMENTATION/TIMELINE/RESOURCES:
Please note that Article I, Chapter VI, Section 3.g. of the GPUS Rules and Procedures states that:
“The NC may require the gathering of additional evidence. This might include on-site visits by authorized representatives of the NC to caucus headquarters, gatherings or other meetings.”
The Accreditation Committee stands ready to facilitate any additional evidence gathering should the NC deem it needed. However, extensive research and investigation has already been done by the committee which is made available below:
Elders Caucus Application Packet
Diversity Committee Statement of Support for an Elders Caucus
First Round Accreditation Committee Questions and Answers
Second Round Accreditation Committee Questions and Answers
Final Accreditation Committee Proposal Vote Count
Accreditation Committee Findings
Additionally, while this proposal is coming from the Accreditation Committee, we have requested a contact for the Diversity Committee so that the National Committee might send any queries about their actions to them. They provided the following:
Gil Obler, Diversity Committee Co-Chair (divcom@gp.org)
Daniel Bumbarger, Accreditation Committee Co-Chair
=======================================
ELDERS CAUCUS RESPONSE TO THE AC’s REPORT AND FINDINGS
AC Finding 5. In society at large people over 60 years of age comprise the largest age group of national elected officials . . .
EC RESPONSE: The % of elected elders in our nation hardly indicates that the elderly have adequate representation since we all recognize that most of our elected officials come from upper income families. The insularity of these elected officials, regardless of their age, makes them insensitive to the problems of those disadvantaged by low income, ethnicity, or age.
This also was not logically posed: the real question is what is the percentage of elders in general as compared to the high income/wealthy population, and the percentage of elders living in low income or poverty
AC Finding 6. Within the GPUS .. . of the proposed caucus’s membership: 10% hold NC positions as delegates or alternate delegates . . .. .
EC RESPONSE: Only 10% on the powerful NC? The percentage of 60+ in the U.S. is over 16%. As to the 19% on committees, that’s where the hard work happens, as most of us know, while the NC is THE decision-making body for GP-US. The low representation of elders as delegates or alternates to the NC is noteworthy in itself, and especially in comparison to elected officials in our society at large (as stated by the AC in Finding 5).
Another statement without confirmation. This should be looking at the percentage of elders vs rest of the party (or NC?); or better: what is the breakdown of the rest of the party? Elders are not the majority or over-represented.
AC Finding 7. . . . Having soundly established that the proposed caucus and its “natural members” are not underrepresented . . .
EC RESPONSE: As stated above, we strongly disagree that the majority of elders are well represented.
AC Finding 8. . . . as of 2020 Americans aged 55 and older owned 72% of wealth in the United States.
EC RESPONSE: Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, like wealth in general, wealth among the elderly is concentrated in a few hands and this statistic doesn’t reflect reality for many, if not most, seniors.
Again, great wealth is in the hands of the few, across the age spectrum, but do those few represent the demographic in question?
“In 2019, nearly 1 in 10 people age 65 and older (8.9% or 4.9 million) lived below the poverty level. This poverty rate is statistically different from the poverty rate in 2018 (9.7%). Another 2.6 million or 4.4% of older adults were classified as “near-poor” (income between the poverty level and 125% of this level). https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20America/2020ProfileOlderAmericans
“In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau released a new Supplemental Poverty Measure(SPM). The SPM methodology shows a significantly higher number of older persons below poverty than is shown by the official poverty measure. For persons age 65and older, this poverty measure showed a poverty level of 12.8% in 2019—almost 4 percentage points higher than the official rate of 8.9%. Unlike the official poverty rate, the SPM takes into account regional variations in the cost of housing etc., and, even more significantly, the impact of both non-cash benefits received (e.g., SNAP/food stamps, low income tax credits, and WIC) and non-discretionary expenditures including medical out-of-pocket expenses. For persons 65 and older, medical out-of-pocket expenses were the major source of the significant differences between these measures” Ibid
When it comes to finances, one of the factors setting seniors apart from other age groups in society is that their incomes are expected to diminish, not increase, over the years. Also, huge disparities between wealthy older Americans and low income seniors exist. This disparity is clearly reflected in lifespans – and the gap is growing.
“In 1980, a wealthy 50-year old man could expect to live an additional 5.1 years longer than a poor man of the same age. Thirty years later, the life expectancy of two similar men differs BY MORE THAN A DOZEN YEARS. (caps mine) https://theconversation.com/rich-american-seniors-are-getting-healthier-leaving-the-poor-behind-83012
“Differences in life expectancy are particularly important as policymakers consider potentially raising retirement age for Social Security or the eligibility age for Medicare.” Ibid. As Greens, we’re all aware of how quick even elected “liberals” are to embrace the idea that Social Security must be strengthened by such measures. Clearly, the lack of adequate representation for elderly American has dire real-world consequences.
When it comes to stats about the “wealth of older Americans,” keep in mind that poor seniors dying 12 years sooner further skewers the numbers showing the % of older Americans with wealth. This is chilling, but helps explain one of the reasons some of us feel an EC is so critical. It also explains why the AC’s bland assurances that the elderly are more prosperous as a group rings so hollow to us!
AC Finding 11. . . . The [AC] does not deny that employment discrimination happens, it does however point out that seniors are explicitly protected by law from this . . .
EC RESPONSE: Maybe it just doesn’t have much teeth as you’d be hard pressed to find any but wealthy and well-connected seniors who feel protected by this law.
The fact is that older workers are often sidelined or pressured to retire early. And finding a job as a senior is difficult.
Employment discrimination is real, openly noted, and barely addressed. [Statistics?] Not only are older employees pressured to retire early, they can be cheated out of retirement funds. (See the Green Party Platform – https://www.gp.org/economic_justice_and_sustainability/#ejPensionReform) Civil rights are written into law, too, but how well are they enforced? No agency will tell you employment discrimination against older people is not rampant and largely unaddressed.
“The San Francisco Federal Reserve released the results of a comprehensive study that was designed to nail down one of the toughest problems in hiring: whether employers are willing to hire people over 49 years old. The key questions the Fed looked to answer: is age discrimination a broad trend in the U.S., and can it be proven?
“The answers: yes, older workers are routinely ruled out for even low-skilled jobs. . . .
“There is a distinct pattern of callback rates being highest for the young applicants, lower for the middle-aged applicants, and lowest for the old applicants,” the researchers concluded.”
AC Finding 12. . . . 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. . . .
EC RESPONSE: Other demographics receive public funding. None of it is adequate. Medicare costs a lot out of pocket, SS is not adequate. No other industrialized country has such a poor safety and welfare net.
Certainly poverty and health insecurity are not unique to elders, but being an elder does bring with it some unique problems.
About 40% of U.S. seniors live solely on Social Security, and most people over 65 receive the bulk of their income from Social Security. The average social security check is $1543 a month. Social Security is of vital importance to elders, yet this government program is constantly under attack, with both Republicans and Democrats working together to undermine it in various ways.
It should also be recognized that seniors aren’t the only group who benefit from Social Security. “Social Security is important for children and their families as well as for older adults. About 6.5 million children under age 18 (9 percent of all children in the U.S.) lived in families that received income from Social Security in 2020, according to Census data. This figure includes children who received their own benefits as dependents of retired, disabled, or deceased workers, as well as those who lived with parents or relatives who received Social Security. In all, Social Security lifts almost 1 million children above the poverty line.” https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-lifts-more-people-above-the-poverty-line-than-any-other
One unique aspect of being a senior is that we deal with aging bodies and the mental and emotional changes that accompany the last years of our lives. The natural consequence is that more of our income goes for medical expenses than any other age group – sometimes a whole lot more.
Yes, we have Medicare. It’s not free but is deducted from our Social Security check. It may not seem like much for those with hefty checks, but for those receiving the average $1500 or less, that monthly deduction can make a big dent. Nonetheless, Medicare is a great help as it covers basics. It doesn’t automatically cover two areas most seniors need help with, however – vision and dental. Better coverage demands more money. Also, if you want prescription coverage – and most seniors need it – you have to purchase the more expensive Medicare Plan D. Nine out of ten seniors report that they are currently taking prescription medicine, (often four or more) but 20% admit that they skipped taking a prescription due to cost. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/data-note-prescription-drugs-and-older-adults/
Even if we manage to stay relatively healthy, most of us are experiencing a gradual diminishment of mobility and the autonomy and independence every person cherishes. This is not the same as the momentary trepidation one may feel as a younger person thinking about getting old, this is actually living the reality of no longer being able to do simple things easily like opening jars, or trusting our balance on a ladder, or hearing someone speaking to us on the phone. Some of us can no longer drive safely or even walk without the assistance of a cane or walker.
The combination of low, fixed income, escalating medical costs, and aging bodies does put many, probably most, elders in a uniquely disadvantaged position. Because this is not widely understood by those who are not yet seniors, and because those in positions to advocate for us are often unrepresentative of most elderly people in the U.S., we feel an Elders Caucus is needed to empower seniors and the entire GP-US by bringing these little understood perspectives to the Party.
There wasn’t a numbered finding on the proposed caucus’s claim regarding “ageism,” except in reference to “elder abuse,” but this is a critical issue similar to classism and racism that needs to be addressed.
The AC does say: “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.”
EC RESPONSE: This is patently untrue, and the very sentence shows exactly why GP-US needs an Elders Caucus.
Unlike some cultures that honor the experience and knowledge of older people, our American culture places its highest value on youth, vitality, and “the new.” It’s all part of the ideology of Progress and has contributed greatly to the dynamism of our nation. Sadly, that ideology also lends itself to a great devaluation of elders. Like the poor, we are seen as being a drag on society due to our increased need for physical care, our growing percentage of the population, and the social programs that support us.
In courses taught at a community college and a four-year university by two different instructors, various students responded to issues of population by seriously putting forth ideas for “euthanizing people over 65” or sometimes “over 70” or even “over 55.” Comments were made about old people not having any more to contribute, having already lived their lives, or “being a burden” on their families or society.
While such an attitude hardly seemed believable at first, it’s no longer shocking. Sadly, we don’t have to look far even on Green social media to find examples of virulent ageism, often manifested as a desire to get rid of older Greens who are seen as holding the Party back.
The pandemic brought home how much hostility there can be. We’ve all probably seen the media hashtags such as “#boomerremover” and “#grandmakiller.” And we all remember Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s suggestion that seniors sacrifice themselves to save the economy. And although elders were prioritized for vaccines along with others most vulnerable to COVID, we also saw how quickly the economy took top priority, and how unwilling many non-elderly Americans were to continue trying to contain a virus they came to believe didn’t hold all that much risk for them.
As elders, we’re well aware of our declining physical abilities, but we also believe we still have much to give, and a great deal of what we have to offer is a result of the many years we’ve lived. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age, but by the time a person has passed the half century mark they usually have acquired the kind of perspective only years of living can give. In a society like ours, it’s easy to feel expendable as an elder, but we don’t expect to find that in Green circles.
Finally, it’s disturbing to be told that we should forget becoming a caucus and be satisfied with trying for status as a network instead. It’s also very disturbing to learn that the AC has suggested that the Indigenous-Caucus-in-formation do the same (referring to an email from AC Co-Chair Bumbarger to the Elders Caucus Co-Chairs on July 10 wherein it was suggested that the Elders Caucus pursue forming a network and that the Indigenous Caucus should do the same). We find this completely incomprehensible and unacceptable and want to emphasize our strong support for an Indigenous Caucus within the GP-US.
More Comments from EC members:
The AC report claims that those who approved the Diversity Committee letter were mostly also members of the Elders Caucus. That is true of *those that were on the zoom meeting* where attendance was recorded; however, the message was sent to and approved by consensus by all committee members, the majority of whom are not members of the Elders Caucus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is embarrassing that this party would not be aware of what other social justice groups have determined.
Allowing past CC members to stay on a “coordinators” list (non voting) is implied as a means of establishing control. However, other caucuses have the same practice, as a way to invite advisors and expand the ool of more active members.
“Open” meetings – not all caucuses allow them, have they been questioned?
The questions in both rounds were of the “When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife” type. Attempts at clear and carefully thought out responses were twisted and repeatedly miscast as attempts to evade rules or attack.
EC Bylaws were frequently taken from bylaws of other caucuses or state parties. Yet fault was found in some cases with an EC bylaw, but not considered a problem elsewhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For a party that praises “ Indigenous Wisdom” so much, it sure seems to be giving short shrift to the high regard given to most Elders in such communities because of their ability to advise from experience and knowledge of history. In many native communities, “Elders’ Councils” of some sort appear to be almost mandatory. The wealth factor of the tribe doesn’t matter. There is certainly one on the reservation here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m a member of the elder’s caucus and have listed some ageist behavior below that I have seen internally in our party:
- assumption that elders can’t adopt new technical skills reflected in “tech shaming”
- dismissal of political experience by elders
- dismissal of concerns by elders in national committee discussions, for example during the platform discussion on proposal 912 which proposed a rewrite of the women’s rights planks
- a proposal floated on the national committee to “restructure” our staff positions that would replace existing staff with new people “to reflect the necessities of party-building and candidate support in the 21st century”
The reason you may not be aware of these examples is because you were not the target. But I hope people will consider that others have been targeted
=======================================
Green Party Elders 