GPUS SC Conference Call
Sunday, April 18, 2010
ADDENDA – ONLINE Votes from the Past 2 weeks – Items 1 and 2 are included in this message
1) Findings Regarding the Need for an International Committee Mission Statement
2) Findings Regarding the Need for Platform Consistency
3) Bylaws Amendment, Steering Committee
4) Preliminary draft of ANM agenda
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) SC ONLINE DISCUSS/VOTE:
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/SC_Online_Discuss_Vote:_Findings_Need_Mission_Statement
SC Online Discussion/Vote
Title: Findings Regarding the Need for an International Committee Mission Statement
Sponsor/Presenter: Mike Feinstein, Craig Thorsen
Discussion: Saturday, April 10 – Monday, March 12
Vote: Tuesday, April 13 – Thursday, April 15
Background: On the April 4th, 2010 Steering Committee (SC) conference call, a proposal was made by one SC member to add a new agenda item to consider a proposal from the International Committee (IC) that came in after the 6 day minimum deadline (for automatic consideration of going into the voting queue) under 6-1.5 of the GPUS Rules and Procedures < http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml#section6>. During that discussion the concern was raised that even had the proposal been submitted within the six day minimum, that under 6-1.2 of the Rules and Procedures, no committee can submit proposals to the National Committee (NC) until it has a Mission Statement approved by the NC. In order to respond to the IC in a timely manner on this matter without having to wait until the next SC call, it was raised on the SC call that an on-line vote could be conducted to forward these findings as soon as possible to the IC.
Proposal: That the SC approve the following correspondence with findings
To: The International Committee
From: The Steering Committee
Dear International Committee
Thank you for your proposal of March 31st, entitled “GPUS Response to Heinrich Böll Foundation”. Please allow us to explain the Steering Committees role in administering this proposal.
National Committee proposal #393 amended Article VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures <http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml#section6> to establish the level of Steering Committee review of proposals. Sub-section 6-5.1 states that “The Steering Committee shall have the responsibility to review whether a proposal satisfies the following criteria”, including 6-5.1(d), whether a proposal “Is not in conflict with GPUS Bylaws, Rules and Procedures, Fiscal Policy or Presidential Convention Rules”.
Sub-section 6-5.4 states that “If the Steering Committee deems that a proposal does not comply with any/all of the conditions in Section 6-5.1, it must approve findings that state how the proposal does not comply and how it can be corrected.” The Steering Committee is forwarding to you the following findings, which it makes under 6-5.4:
Findings
The proposal from the International Committee is in conflict with 6-1.2 and 6-1.3 of the GPUS Rules and Procedures for the following reasons:
1) 6-1.2 states that “Proposals may be submitted by one or more committees, caucuses, and/or state parties, in a manner provided for by their internal rules or procedures, and only within their scope as defined in 6-1.3”; and
2) 6-1.3 states “The scope for proposals submitted by state parties and caucuses shall be any proposal in accordance with the Bylaws and the Rules and Procedures. The scope for proposals submitted by committees shall be as defined in their Mission Statement, or as defined in Committee Rules which were approved by the National Committee prior to June 28, 2009, and necessarily includes amendments to their Mission Statement and Committee Rules.”; and
3) As the International Committee has not had a Mission Statement approved by the National Committee, any proposal from it is therefore not in compliance with 6-1.2 and 6-1.3 and can not be submitted to the National Committee. Once the National Committee approves a Mission Statement for the International Committee, the International Committee can submit any proposals that are consistent with the scope in its Mission Statement.
4) While it is true that before the passage of #393, proposals from the International Committee had been forwarded to the National Committee without the International Committee having an approved Mission Statement, the passage of #393 did not grandparent in that practice, but instead established a rule that precluded it. By comparison, #393 separated Mission Statements from Committee Rules, but grandparented when they had been mixed together and approved prior to June 28, 2009, demonstrating that the option to grandparent past practices like the International Committee’s was available but not taken.
Conclusion: As soon as a Mission Statement for the International Committee is approved by the National Committee, the International Committee can submit any proposals consistent with its scope.
*******
VOTE
YES – Mike, Sanda, Craig, Jody
NO – Farheen, Holly
##############################################################
2) SC ONLINE DISCUSS/VOTE: Findings Regarding the Need for Platform
Consistency
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/SC_Online_Discuss_Vote:_Findings_Need_Platform_Consistency
SC Online Discussion/Vote
Title: Findings Regarding the Need for Platform Consistency
Sponsor/Presenter: Mike Feinstein, Craig Thorsen
Discussion: Saturday, April 10 – Monday, March 12
Vote: Tuesday, April 13 – Thursday, April 15
Background: On the April 4th, 2010 Steering Committee (SC) conference call, a proposal was made by one SC member to add a new agenda item to consider a proposal from the International Committee (IC) that came in after the 6 day minimum deadline (for automatic consideration of going into the voting queue) under 6-1.5 of the GPUS Rules and Procedures < http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml#section6>. During that discussion the concern was raised that even had the proposal been submitted within the six day minimum, that under 6-1.2 of the Rules and Procedures, no committee can submit proposals to the National Committee (NC) until it has a Mission Statement approved by the NC. In addition, concerns were raised that even when an IC Mission Statement is approved, there are potential issues with Platform Consistency that the IC would need to address before their proposal could be sent to the National Committee.
In order to respond to the IC in a timely manner so that it would have time to revise its proposal so that it would be ready by the time an IC Mission Statement is approved, it was raised on the SC call that an on-line vote could be conducted to forward these findings as soon as possible to the IC.
Proposal: That the SC approve the following correspondence with findings
To: The International Committee
From: The Steering Committee
Dear International Committee
Thank you for your proposal of March 31st, entitled “GPUS Response to Heinrich Böll Foundation”. Please allow us to explain the Steering Committees role in administering this proposal.
National Committee proposal #393 amended Article VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures <http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml#section6> to establish the level of Steering Committee review of proposals. Sub-section 6-5.1 states that “The Steering Committee shall have the responsibility to review whether a proposal satisfies the following criteria”, including 6-5.1(d), whether a proposal “Is not in conflict with GPUS Bylaws, Rules and Procedures, Fiscal Policy or Presidential Convention Rules”.
Sub-section 6-5.4 states that “If the Steering Committee deems that a proposal does not comply with any/all of the conditions in Section 6-5.1, it must approve findings that state how the proposal does not comply and how it can be corrected.” The Steering Committee is forwarding to you the following findings, which it makes under 6-5.4:
Findings
The proposal from the International Committee is in conflict with Article VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures for the following reasons:
1) ARTICLE V. VOTING RULES of the GPUS Bylaws states that “In order for a decision on rules, by-laws, and platform issues to pass, a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all votes cast is required” meaning that the threshold to amend the platform is 2/3;
2) Subsection 6-2.2(b) of the GPUS Rules and Procedures states that Resolutions shall require a majority of all ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes cast for passage.;
3) The Steering Committee is not empowered under Article VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures to place a resolution before the National Committee at a simple majority vote, that would be meaningfully inconsistent with the GPUS Platform on the same matter, which was approved at and can only be amended at 2/3.
4) Any amendment to the Platform requires 2/3 and under GPUS Bylaws, committees are not empowered to propose platform amendments.
5) The resolution is meaningfully inconsistent with the GPUS platform from a policy perspective in the following four ways
a) 9th Paragraph:
“We now view the two-state solution as neither democratic nor viable in the face of international law, as well as the material conditions and “facts on the ground” that now exist in Israel and the OPT, including Gaza and East Jerusalem.”
This statement differs from the GPUS platform on the policy level in politically meaningful way. The GPUS Platform states
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#310677
“we would consider support for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes serious reconsideration of the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital.”
The proposed resolution goes beyond ‘considering support’ this to ‘conclude support’ a one-state. This would represent the kind of policy change that needs to be made through the platform amendment process at 2/3, not through the passage of a resolution at simple majority.
b) 10th Paragraph:
“Instead, our policy acknowledges that Israel-Palestine has always been a multicultural land and that Israelis and Palestinians are now inextricably linked by their mutual attachment to the place they all call home.”
The term Israel-Palestine is not used in the GPUS Platform. Its connotation follows that of the ‘one-state’ approach and is similarly inconsistent with a GPUS platform that has not adopted that approach. Usage of this kind of term would be approach only after a policy change made through the platform amendment process at 2/3, not through the passage of a resolution at simple majority.
c) 12th Paragraph:
“Thus, our party supports a US policy that promotes the eventual creation of one secular, multicultural democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home for both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital. However, our support for the “one-state” solution is tempered by an unambiguous acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to self-determination, including our recognition that this solution must be affirmed by the Palestinian people themselves”.
This statement again differs from the GPUS platform on the policy level in apolitically meaningful way. The GPUS Platform states
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#310677
“we would consider support for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes serious reconsideration of the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis …”
“Consider support’ is very different than “supports”. Again the proposed resolution goes beyond ‘considering support’ this to ‘conclude support’ a one-state. This would represent the kind of policy change that needs to be made through the platform amendment process at 2/3, not through the passage of a resolution at simple majority.
In addition, there is nothing in the GPUS platform regarding the GPUS support for “affirmation by the Palestinians” of any particular approach.
d) 13th Paragraph:
“Thus, in support of a non-violent way to pressure Israel to end its occupation, our party endorses the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement called for by Palestinian Civil Society in 2005.”
The GPUS has not endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement. In Resolution #190, the National Committee did not endorse the BDS movement, but rather endorsed a strategy of divestment and boycott < http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=190>. There was no mention by name of the BDS in Proposal #190 and while there was a reference to a call by Palestinian Civil Society in the introduction to #190, what the NC votes upon is the text of proposals, not the introductions. Therefore this resolution presents an endorsement by name of a movement that has not been made by the GPUS in either its platform or its adopted National Committee resolutions.
Conclusion: The resolution proposed by the International Committee is not compliant with Article VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures because it attempts to seek approval by the National Committee by a simple majority of a policy position meaningfully inconsistent with the GPUS Platform on the same matter, which was approved at and can only be amended at 2/3, and attempts to do so through a resolution instead of a platform amendment.
The resolution could be taken out of conflict with Article VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures it it were to quote from the GPUS platform, rather than paraphrase or modify its meaning.
******
VOTE
YES – Mike, Sanda, Craig, Jody
NO – Farheen, Holly
====================
4/18/10
Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS