get our newsletter or



progressive democrats, if you are going to "borrow" the Green New Deal why don't you also borrow the idea of reduci……

Retweeted 19 hours ago

now that nominal Obama Sec. of Education Arne Duncan (Bill Gates really ran the DOE but w/e) has come out in opposi……

Retweeted 1 day ago

Those numbers wouldn't be far off if voters think bombing is "foreign aid."…

2 days ago

Drum roll, please! Introducing our SF Public Bank PSA!

Retweeted 2 days ago

In the middle of a storm, SFPD is confiscating homeless neighbor’s tents despite the fact that waitlists for shelte……

Retweeted 2 days ago

Some food for thought from our Green European friends on a Green way forward on #globalization. @GreenEUJournal…

Retweeted 2 days ago

I guess I missed the journalism school class on “Slobbering 101: When to buy 25,000 roses for a politician you oste……

Retweeted 3 days ago

At FOG for @SFGreenParty party, somewhere in the crowd is our new Mayor. #SFMayor2019

Retweeted 4 days ago

Reminder that our Green post-holiday party is this afternoon, 1/12, 4-6 pm:…

4 days ago

Once you all give up on trying to transform the Dems into something they're not, you're welcome to help us build a……

4 days ago



The SF Green Party uses the consensus process for making most of our decisions, including endorsements.  In the consensus process, we seek the agreement of a supermajority of participants, and also to resolve or mitigate the concerns of the minority in order to achieve the most agreeable decision.

The consensus process starts with a presentation of a proposal by one or more presenters.  After the presentation, the meeting facilitators take a "stack" of questions designed to clarify any parts of the proposal or facts concerning it that are not clear.  The facilitators alternate between calling on male and female participants ("gender stacking") and may call on people out of turn in order to encourage participants who have not previously spoken.

After the clarifying questions are answered, the facilitators take another stack of concerns and affirmations about the proposal.  People with concerns are encouraged to provide "friendly amendments" that will change the proposal to resolve or mitigate their concern; these amendments may be accepted at the option of the presenters.  All such actions are noted in the minutes.  When all concerns have been heard, the facilitators test for consensus.

If there are no remaining concerns that have not been resolved by friendly amendments, consensus is reached and the proposal passes.

If there are remaining concerns, the presenters may withdraw the proposal, or have the facilitators ask those people with concerns to "stand aside."  If all those with concerns agree to stand aside, the proposal still passes by consensus.

A person with a concern about the proposal may not agree to stand aside, especially if they feel that enacting the proposal would not be consistent with our Ten Key Values.  This is called a "blocking" concern.  If there are blocking concerns about a proposal, consensus is not reached.

In cases where we do not reach consensus, the presenters have the option of attempting to pass the proposal by supermajority vote.  Business decisions (i.e., carrying out an existing policy) require a 2/3 threshold, endorsements a 3/4 threshold, and adoption of new policies requires a 4/5 threshold.  Details of our voting procedure are given in our bylaws.