Also can be read here:

• Third National Green Gathering – Estes Park, CO, 1990

Christa Slaton, Margo Adair, and John Rensenbrink prepared intensively for the annual Green gathering in Estes Park, Colorado, in October 1990. At stake was whether the SPAKA program, which had been under development for two full years, would now be approved.

During the year, there had been strong negative criticisms of the SPAKA program, coming mainly from members of the Left Green Network (LGN). They asserted that not enough time had been allocated for a thorough review, that the economics plank was too weak, and that a sharper rejection of capitalism was needed, along with an articulation of socialist principles. Other Greens called for diverse economic program, including the Green model of developing community-based and regionally based economics, that would be relevant to a Green party that has a broad base support.

Many Greens felt that the LGN operated with a “vanguard mentality,” one example being their attempt to bring certain Green electoral work under their LGN “mandates” (which had roots in the anarchist writings of Murray Bookchin and other “movement” thought). LGN had formed in 1987-88, led by Howie Hawkins of the Institute for Social Ecology, and exerted steady and increasing pressure to impose their sense of anarchist/left-centered politics onto the efforts to form a Green political organization.

As the Estes Park convention got underway, the many workshops, proceeded surprisingly smoothly. Each issue area was given its own final breakout session. The workshop dealing with the economy had been expected to produce explosions, but differences were ironed out.

In the general assembly, however, voices critical of the leadership of SPAKA, some of it expressed in a pointedly aggressive manner, tore at the otherwise temperate demeanor of Christa Slaton. With considerable justification, she perceived ad hominem attacks on her and her leadership as a woman. Speaking to the Assembly, she named these prejudicial attacks, declared her resignation, and left the room and the Green party. This shocked everyone deeply. It was a clear demonstration of what was becoming a persistent problem within the Greens: the strong attacks, usually by the LGN faction, against Green leadership and the harsh criticisms (more often against women than men) had become repeated, tactical behavior. Not only were Greens leaving the party, but many new Greens came in, found themselves displeased with the aggressive behavior, and left.

Slaton’s hard and dedicated work as the SPAKA Program Chair during the previous year succeeded in producing a SPAKA document was approved resoundingly. It would not go on to become a national platform, but again it succeeded in moving the idea of a national party forward.

The next day Danny Moses delivered a moving speech urging Greens to shape up and grow up. He was graceful and wise in his manner and mode of speech. This helped settle the spirits among the participants to some degree and shifted the group energy in constructive directions. Following his speech, a very large number of Greens responded to a call by John Rensenbrink for an impromptu discussion on Green Party building and running candidates. The mountain air discussion on the big lawn was animated. Though no decisions could be taken, it was unmistakably evident that there were now great expectations for action to move forward to establishing strong state parties and the resolute running of Green Party candidates at all levels. A minority group, however, stuck to their belief that electoral politics was corrupt and that a “movement” cadre would need to be set up to oversee electoral candidates.

To follow up, the Green Party Organizing Committee (GPOC) that day made plans for a conference to take place in Boston in February 1991. Also, in the closing hours of the three-day conference, Dee Berry led a planning session for a meeting to take place shortly after the Estes Park gathering. The meeting that ensued was held in a conference center near Kansas City. It was composed of both “party first” and “movement first” leaders. Spirits were high. They came up with a bicameral structure for the new national Green Party, one branch composed of state-based political party representatives, the other branch composed of representatives of movement groups. The two branches would have equal power. Provision was made for leaders of both branches to meet in conferences to work out differences between the two branches. The meeting adjourned with the participants in full expectation that this plan would be adopted. It seemed to them a self-evident solution to a vexing issue. The plan was sent to the locals. Though a clear majority favored the plan, it needed a two-thirds vote to pass, and that did not happen. Members of the Left Green group led by Howie Hawkins lobbied against the plan – and it did not help that the existing state Green parties had no vote. It became clear in April 199l that the plan had failed.

These events spurred a momentum toward party building. It appeared that a huge step toward electoral politics and state party building had been taken. But big hurdles remained – or now became more visible. Discussions turned to what kind of national Green Party the Greens would create and what its structure would be like? In the following years, four issues in particular threatened to capsize the project in midstream. These four issues overlapped with one another.

One issue was whether the national party would be based primarily on local Green groups or primarily on state parties. Embedded in this issue was another: whether the voting for national offices would be controlled by dues-paying activists based in local groups or by Greens in local and state Green parties, voting in their capacity as citizens and not as dues-paying activists. A third issue was the relation of movement entities and party entities, especially the now rapidly forming state Green Parties. A fourth issue was the treatment by some in the party towards others: bullying, insulting language, brow beating, head-tripping, innuendos and vituperative speech, constantly demanding the last word, and a non- listening, and a vanguard attitude and behavior. Women in particular were the targets of this strategic deployment of words and body language – and were fighting back.