GPUS SC Conference Call
Sunday, February 21, 2009
8:00 p.m. EST
Co-chairs: Jason Nabewaniec, Sanda Everrette, Craig Thorsen, Mike Feinstein, Farheen Hakeem
Secretary: Holly Hart
Treasurer: Jody Grage
Staff: Brent McMillan, Brian Bittner
Facilitator: Mike
Guests:
Andy Finko, legal counsel
Hugh Esco (GA), IT information
I. Executive Session
Executive Session 8:12 – 8:52 p.m.
Questions regarding legal and personnel matters
Andy Finko, legal counsel
############################################################
II. STAFF REPORTS
a. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – Brent
Sent out a weekly report on Friday. Received email from Anna Reynolds from Australian senator Bob Brown’s office; they will have a representative in DC in May and hope to meet. Preparation for next round of climate talks.
b. OFFICE MANAGER – Brian
Sent report on Friday.
Got a comprehensive list of our listservs on green.gpus.org and gp-us.org – info is publicly available.
Sent report on meeting with American student who had formerly interned with the Scottish Green Party, report on Green Party and politics there
############################################################
III. TREASURER’S REPORT – Jody
a. Report – sent report on Friday; since that time, more funds have come in. At this time, our income for month is – ????? $1.8K in general account, including $1.2K from loan fund from March used to pay Red Sun Press. $800 owed to Red Sun. External debt is $17.6 – includes mid-month salaries, end-of-month salaries, $6.3 to Red Sun Press. internal debt at $16.6 – $16.5 for loans, and the rest for pledge from auction in Durham, $200 of that to GP of NC. It is likely we will pay off all of our external debts by end of the month, possibly still some owed to Red Sun Press; internal debt, also. Total for Empower Fundraising is higher than expected – $1230.98 – that’s the price they are willing to give us (a discount of $300) if we pay now. All current bills have been paid including the last payment from the old loans except that only $2000 was paid to Red Sun Press leaving an account balance of $6.3k.
Jason asked whether, if we accept the settlement payment with Empower, it would mean we could not hire them in the future. Jody said it did not.
Jason asked if it looks like we will continue to get money from direct mail – it looks like we have spent what has come in. Jody said yes, it is still doing well. Expenses are now down to about $13,000/mo.
Sanda noted that there had been an interesting conversation at today’s state (CA) meeting about the financial relationship between GPUS and GPCA. Is there state sharing with major donors? Brent – not any more, a past SC was very critical; unless the donor brings up the topic, he doesn’t. Donor intent.
b, REQUEST for Platform Summaries, 500 copies to be sent to D.C. office – request for April expenditures, ca. $1002K; shipping $200
Mike – Y
Craig – Y
Sanda – Y
Farheen – N
David – Y
Jason – N
Holly – Y
Jody – Y
APPROVED, 7 Yes to 2 No
*********
############################################################
IV. VOTING QUEUE, and misc. secretary items – Holly a. ASC asks for a week’s extension of the discussion period on their proposal currently in the voting queue. AGREED Craig will add the extension.
b. DAC – Craig: Delegate Apportionment Committee needs to be re-organized. It’s in no one’s portfolio Craig will find the old proposal that created it, update and send to the SC this week to consider for the next voting queue. Need to choose portfolio manager for DAC, and publicize the need for state parties to send members. David noted the importance for members form states with no registration numbers, since they are at a disadvantage; he is willing to help with recruitment from states who felt left out last time.
AGREED that David and Craig share DAC in their portfolios.
c. SC Vacancy – after resignation, SC needs to confirm the vacancy; 3 week nomination period, 2 week discussion, 1 week vote.
Jason stated that, before we call the nomination, the SC needs to be on the same page as far as who can be nominated, put up for a vote, timeline, threshold, etc. SC agreed to ask that all nominees be delegates at the time they are nominated.
Mike proposed an announcement calling for nominations go out tomorrow; election will be conducted as have the previous 3 online single-seat online SC elections. Holly will post the announcement tomorrow (Monday March 8th).
NOT TAKEN UP –
d. Forum Managers update.
At this time, there is still no news. Holly sent a notice to the GNC last week; nothing heard back, yet.
****
From 2/21/10 call:
Holly asked for all to think of possible forum managers. They don’t need to be (and ideally not all should be) delegates.
############################################################
V. REPORT on cost estimates to re-program voting page – Mike Hugh Esco, who works with software applications, called in.
Re-programming would allow SC and other elections to be closed during voting period, and opened to disclose full results upon closing; another item would allow votes to conclude at a different hour than midnight, upon request.
Closed/Open Ballot: Hugh Esco called in to discuss possible changes to voting page software that could make a ranked choice vote “closed” until the conclusion, after which the results would be opened. One solution would be to have the program cc’ Elections Tabulation Committee when it sends out the voting keys to delegates when they cast their votes. Another option would be changes to the program code. Hugh had sent a letter to Mike, recommended Mike forward this to the SC. Mike then forwarded this to the SC, about 10 p.m. EST.
Conclusion of voting period: Cron job – Hugh explained that this is a script that determines timing. He explained that an additional temporary cron job to cron tab that would close a vote at a certain hour. He believes this will take 1-2 hours, but we need to be specific about having other proposals in the voting queue at the time. [i.e., we should not have other items in the voting queue, as their timeline would be affected by the alteration. – hh]
For doing the same for committees, modules to utilize, Hugh estimates 30 to 90 hours. There would need to be a methodology for certifying changes to vote application; means of testing, determining if there is any loss of functionality as changes are made.
############################################################
VI. PROPOSAL – Re-programming GNC Voting Page for additional options
Mike
See **A. PROPOSAL to Update GPUS GNC Voting Page, below
On its January 10 conference call, the Steering Committee (SC)
approved the following proposal
<http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php?title=Steering_Committee_Conf_Call_Agenda_01_10_10_Decision_Item:_Request_for_Proposal_to_Update_GPUS_National_Committee_voting_page>,
that “That the Steering Committee request Hugh Esco to prepare a specific cost and timeline estimate for upgrading the GPUS National Committee to address the issue of open/closed ballots as discussed in the reference background below, and also prepare a cost and timeline estimate for also having voting pages for individual GPUS committees that want them.
<http://www.gp.org/committees/steering/minutes-display.php?ID=43>
“Before the SC’s meeting of March 7, Esco will present an estimate for this work, and will also include an additional option to close the voting period at an hour other than midnight, west coast time, as would be necessitated by the proposal to amend the SC election bylaw that is also before the SC on March 7. Esco will also appear on the SC’s call to be available to discuss his estimate.”
****
Mike PROPOSED that the SC give direction to Hugh Esco for a total of 3-8 hours, at $35/hr, to establish a procedure to have closed elections opened upon conclusion, with an automated way to collect and calculate all votes upon conclusion and publishing of results; also to have a temporary patch to have a different closing hour other than midnight (11:59 p.m. Pacific Time); paid for by a dedicated contribution from Craig Thorsen; the IT sub-committee would be tasked to review and evaluate the work before it’s made public.
There was some discussion of some unclear points. The word “automated” was confusing. Jason asked to have this written up and bring it back, as the SC can’t see the proposal as Mike is stating it now. Holly asked that the SC be able to see it written out and address it online this week. There are some areas of confusion, and it would be good to have time for all to become more clear on what we’re planning, changes to what was sent to the SC. Jody agreed, requested an online vote to conclude the following Sunday, and said she wanted to se a “specific, defined product.” Jason and Farheen both asked to take this up on the next call. Hugh said he did not see a need to expedite this decision. He also said he had language to add, and this would give him more time to prepare.
Mike agreed to an online vote to conclude by next Sunday, but disagreed with waiting ’til the next call, saying his proposal does what the SC has asked for, and that we had just gone through a discussion process with no concerns or requests for clarification.
VOTE on whether to take up online this week, restating the proposal online; and finishing discussion by Thursday night, taking the vote Fri-through Sun. The alternative would be to take it up on the next call.
Mike – Y
Craig – Y
Sanda – Y
Farheen – N
David – Abstain
Jason – N
Holly – N
Jody – Y
APPROVED – 4 Yes, 3 No, 1 Abstain
******
############################################################
VII. PROPOSAL – that the SC approve the following proposal on a bylaws amendment for Steering Committee Elections for the GPUS Voting
Queue for March 8th, 2010. – Mike
**See B. SC Elections Bylaws Amendment, below
This item is a follow up on the SC’s discussion of february 7 on the same. This time a specific approach is sumbitted for SC discussion, with bylaws language that would have a week-long on-line election, that would end on the Saturday of the ANM, and the votes would only become visible at the end of the voting period.
If passed, the call for SC nominations would need to be posted no later than April 9th.
Holly stated a blocking concern, that there are several changes proposed that are not related to the SC vote timeline: SC recall, treasurer transition timeline and new timeline for SC elections, lack of floor nominations. Mike agreed to removing “recall” language, and simply add numbering to that section. He also suggested we be prepared to split or remove the treasurer transition from this proposal to a different one, if there is concern raised in he GNC. David suggested having two proposals go up simultaneously. Mike objected, based on Jason’s earlier objection to including all platcom proposals at once, when one is “contingent” on another. Holly pointed out that this meant some proposals had to be in place before others would make sense, but that is not the case with this proposal.
AGREED, Holly standing aside, to send to the voting queue (2/3 threshold, Mike floor manager, 2 weeks discussion, 1 week vote); with modification regarding “SC recall” language; and understanding we may remove the treasurer transition portion if there is objection on the GNC, rather than “delay it now,” and try to craft two separate proposals.
############################################################
TABLED to next call – VIII. PROPOSAL – To adopt an online (was, between calls) decision-making process for the SC – Mike (was, Holly)
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/Steering_Committee_Conf_Call_Agenda_03_07_10_Decission_Item:_Steering_Committee_Online_Voting_Procedure
Description of current practice:
======================================
The SC may need to address an item in a timely manner, which can’t wait until the next upcoming conference call; or, an item on a call may be tabled: due to lack of time; due to desire to have more information before making a decision.
SC members may post something to the SC email list with the request it be addressed within 2-3 days; if necessary, 24 hours. An SC member shall take responsibility for watching for and counting online responses, and for contacting by phone (or skype, email, chat, etc) any who haven’t responded by close to the time of the deadline. Usually, this is done by the person who submitted the item or the secretary, but can be done by any SC member so designated by the committee. A good faith effort will be made to get responses from all SC members. A quorum of 5 responses is needed to take any action/provide response, etc.
Results of such decisions will be posted to the NC at the time they occur, and also included as special notes in the nearest set of SC conference call minutes.
############################################################
IX. Fundraising – DISCUSSION OF strategy,
ideas; Jason stated he had a report or input from FundCom, but had to leave the call before this agenda item was addressed.
********
From 2/7/10 call:
Jody spoke with FundCom co-chair Karen Young how FundCom can gain more knowledge and skill, how can SC facilitate this. Jody said that FundCom tends to focus on expense side of the budget; we need them to focus on income side. Jason will follow up with FundCom.
*******
############################################################
X. DISCUSSION of strategic plan
*******
From 2/7/10 call:
Jody – again, the question of “how do we get to this?” One suggestion was a couple extra calls on subject. This affects a lot of things, including fundraising. Mike and Jody volunteered to work with Brent to move forward on work already started last year.
*******
From 2/21/10 call:
TABLED – Mike and Jody have not had a chance to follow-up with Brent from last week
############################################################
XI. PORTFOLIOS
Sanda – the International Committee has written a letter to the Heinrich Boell Foundation in response to their canceling a speaking engagement/event by Norman Finkelstein. It will be forthcoming to the SC, shortly.
David – has spoken with Platcom co-chair Marnie Glickman, who would like to see amendments approved at the ANM. There is a concern that some proposals are not coming in in the appropriate format. Some may not be things that the party as a whole supports. Is there going to be enough time for platform consideration for people to do some changes to these proposals, so final form is more in line with party consensus? Concern about platform amendments that may be able to meet consensus support but need work – how will this happen? Holly explained that the Platcom has been discussing this and has plans or plans in the works,
[NOTE: Mike later wrote that he spoke with Marnie and she made clear she did not intend to indicate that she wanted amendments approved at the ANM, rather she agrees they happen on-line after the ANM.]
############################################################
XII. ANM
Finance, Fundraising, Platform Committees are figuring out how we are going to use the time.
NEXT CALL: Sunday, March 21, 2010; 8:00 p.m. EST
3/7/10
Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS
========================================================
**A. PROPOSAL to Update GPUS GNC Voting Page
Update GPUS National Committee voting page
On its January 10 conference call, the Steering Committee (SC) approved the following proposal
that “That the Steering Committee request Hugh Esco to prepare a specific cost and timeline estimate for upgrading the GPUS National Committee to address the issue of open/closed ballots as discussed in the reference background below, and also prepare a cost and timeline estimate for also having voting pages for individual GPUS committees that want them.” <http://www.gp.org/committees/steering/minutes-display.php?ID=43>
Before the SC’s meeting of March 7, Esco will present an estimate for this work, and will also include an additional option to close the voting period at an hour other than midnight, west coast time, as would be necessitated by the proposal to amend the SC election bylaw that is also before the SC on March 7. Esco will also appear on the SC’s call to be available to discuss his estimate.
Background [?]: Proposal that the SC hear and act upon the information provided by Esco.
====================================================
** B. SC Elections Bylaws Amendment, below
Steering Committee Election Bylaw Amendment
During its January 24th and February 21, 2010 conference calls, the Steering Committee (SC) discussed approaches to revising the GPUS Bylaw governing SC elections. On the January 24th call, a number of general approaches were discussed. On the February 21st call, a specific approach was discussed, with feedback from SC members around the question of when the new SC would be seated, and how the timing of the Treasurer’s seating might be on a different time line than the rest of the SC. This draft contains amendments in response to that input. It should be noted however that ideally the entire SC section of the bylaws should be amended at once, because for example, the timing of the beginning/end of the SC members’ terms would be placed elsewhere in the SC section than in the part that this proposal will amend. However, it makes sense to priortize amending the SC election process and get that passed, rather than tying it to other issues – and potentially unrelated debate and delay. Therefore the language will be placed in this text, and then amended later if/when a larger portion of the SC-related section of the Bylaws is addressed.
Proposal: That the SC approve the following proposal for the GPUS Voting Queue for March 8th, 2010, with this timing owing to the fact that if passed, the call for SC nominations would need to be posted no later than April 9th.
SPONSOR(S): Steering Committee
CONTACT: Mike Feinstein
SUBJECT/TITLE: Steering Committee Election Bylaw Amendment
TYPE OF PROPOSAL, EXPECTED APPROVAL THRESHOLD: Bylaws Amendment, 2/3
REQUESTED PROPOSAL DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE: Two week discussion
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: After electing the Steering Committee (SC) during its Annual National Meeting (ANM) from 2001 to 2008, the National Committee (NC) passed proposal #389 in 2009 to hold the annual election two weeks after the ANM.
This timing change has had several unanticipated negative consequences, including removing the opportunity for newly elected and outgoing SC members to meet in person at the ANM for a debriefing and orientation. It also has eliminated a critical opportunity for newly elected and incumbent SC members to meet in person and get to know each other, face-to-face in a group setting, before meeting exclusively via email and teleconference over the next year. The later starting date has also meant new SC members get a later start on the draft budget process, putting more time stress on that very labor intensive process.
The proposal below would amend the bylaws in the following major ways
– Continue to hold the SC election on-line for one week, as with #389, but start it on the Saturday before the ANM and conclude it on late Saturday afternoon during the ANM. Under this format, the results could be announced at the ANM and the new SC could know who is elected and meet in person on Sunday, and be officially seated after the close of the ANM. To facilitate this earlier election, this proposal also establishes an earlier timeline for the nomination period and clarifies that nominations are made to the NC Votes list and must be accepted by the nominee to become valid.
– Votes will be cast on the GPUS voting page, but made public only upon the conclusion of the voting period. Unlike in 2009, the actual rankings of all NC voters would be published as part of the final vote.
– Since the SC election-section being amended contains SC vacancies, and since the text governing vacancies is actually spread over both the Bylaws and the Rules and Procedures, this proposal consolidates the text from both into the Bylaws. It also adds a definition for what constitutes a vacancy, as there currently is none. That new definition would be that a vacancy shall exist ‘when a seat was not filled in an election; when a member has submitted a written statement of resignation to the National Committee Votes List; is recalled, is no longer a Green Party member or dies or becomes incapacitated to act.’
– Since the SC election-section being amended contains recalls of SC members, this proposal makes one change for clarity, but without changing meaning. by saying simply “Only one Steering Committee member can be proposed to be recalled with each proposal” instead of “Any proposal introduced to recall more than one Steering Committee member will be divided for voting purposes into separate proposals such that there will be a separate vote for each person potentially subject to recall.”
The proposal also says that a recall proposal *must* contain the grievance upon which the recall is based, instead of that it *may*. This based upon the idea that recalling an SC member must be done openly and transparently, and with a clear reason. Also in the spirit of visibility and transparency, the proposal would establish that a recall proposal shall be considered submitted when it is posted to the National Committee Votes list.
– The term of the Treasurer would begin/end at a different time than the other SC members, about one month later, so that the complex state of the party’s finances would not be just handed over without sufficient orientation/training. The outgoing Treasurer would still be accountable to the party in the way as before, but would spend one month working with the newly elected Treasurer to that person would be up to speed when taking over the position and most directly overseeing the party’s finances.
PROPOSAL: That the existing ARTICLE VI. SELECTION, ELECTION, AND REMOVAL OF OFFICERS of the GPUS Bylaws be replaced with the following text
ARTICLE VI STEERING COMMITTEE ELECTIONS 6.1. Nomination 6-1.1 Between seventy-five and eighty days before the Annual National Meeting, the Secretary shall publish a call for nominations for Steering Committee members to the National Committees Votes list. The call shall contain the job description for each position, as is described in the the GPUS Rules and Procedures, and a copy of this Article.
6-1.2 Nominations may be made by any National Committee member or alternate, including the candidate. Nominations shall be considered made when posted to the National Committee Votes List. Nominations shall be considered accepted when posted as such to the National Committee Votes List by the candidate. Self-nominations shall be considered accepted when made.
6-1.3 The deadline for nominations shall be 28 days before the Annual National Meeting.
6-1.4 If no Annual National Meeting is held, the Secretary shall publish the call for nominations on the third Monday of May and the deadline for nominations shall be at the conclusion of Sunday six weeks later.
6-1.5 Candidates are strongly encouraged to submit a candidate statement to the National Committee Votes List, no later than the commencement of the discussion period. The statement should address performance of the position sought, as its duties and responsibilities are defined in the GPUS Rules and Procedures, and contain a biography of relevant experiences. Candidates are encouraged to submit video material in support of their candidacy.
6-2 Discussion and Vote 6-2.1 Discussion shall commence 21 days before the Annual National Meeting. Voting shall commence on the Saturday the week before the Annual National Meeting and conclude on the Saturday of the Annual National Meeting, at 5pm in the time zone in which the meeting is held.
6-2.2 Co-chairs shall be elected in a single Ranked Choice Voting election according to the process described in the GPUS Rules and Procedures, Article VII.
6-2.3 The Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected in separate elections using Instant Run-Off Voting, according to the process described in the GPUS Rules and Procedures, Article VII.
6-2.4 Votes for Co-chair, Secretary and Treasurer shall be cast on the GPUS voting page, but made public only upon the conclusion of the voting period.
6-2.5 The terms of the newly elected Co-chairs and Secretary shall commence upon the conclusion of the Annual National Meeting.
6-2.6 The term of the newly elected Treasurer shall commence on the first of the month that occures at least four weeks after the conclusion of the Annual National Meeting. During this time the outgoing Treasurer would be accountable to the party as before, but would spend approximately one month working with the newly elected Treasurer to understand the party’s finances so that person would be prepared to directly oversee them upon assuming office.
6-3 Vacancy 6-3.1 A vacancy shall exist when a seat was not filled in an election; when a member has submitted a written statement of resignation to the National Committee Votes List; is recalled, is no longer a Green Party member or dies or becomes incapacitated to act.
6-3.2 Any vacancy that occurs within thirty days after a regular election for Co-chair, Treasurer or Secretary, shall be filled by recounting the ballots from the election which elected that member, except that the vacating member’s name shall be deleted from all ballots. The first candidate accruing sufficient votes to surpass the winning threshold in the recount, that was not elected to office in the original count, shall fill the vacancy. If more than one vacancy occurs at the same time, this process shall continue until all vacant seats are filled. If such a recount fails to resolve a vacancy, the Steering Committee shall conduct a special election to fill the seat until the next regularly scheduled election for that position.
6-3.3 If a vacancy occurs after thirty days after a regular election for Co-chair, Treasurer or Secretary, the Steering Committee shall conduct a special election to fill the seat for the remainder of the term until the next regularly scheduled election for that position.
6-3.4 If a special election is necessary to fill a vacancy, the Steering Committee shall call for an online election, with a nomination period of three weeks to commence on the next regular starting date as defined in Article VI of the Rules and Procedures, followed by a two-week discussion period and a one-week vote.
Section 6-4 Recall 6-4.1 Any proposal to recall a Steering Committee member must be co-sponsored by a number of delegates equal to at least one-fifth of the National Committee, coming from at least one-fifth of the total number of state Green Parties and caucuses represented on the National Committee. Only one Steering Committee member can be proposed to be recalled with each proposal.
6-4.2 Any proposal to recall a Steering Committee member must state the specific grievance(s) upon which the recall proposal is based, and relate them to the relevant duties and responsibilities of the position as defined in the Bylaws and the Rules and Procedures.
6-4.3 A recall proposal shall be considered submitted when it is posted to the National Committee Votes list and copied to the Secretary. The Secretary shall confirm within 48 hours of its receipt whether the requisite conditions specified in 6-4.1 and 6-5.2 have been met and shall report this to the National Committee Votes List. If the position proposed for recall is the Secretary, co-sponsors shall forward their proposal to the Co-Chairs and the Co-Chairs shall confirm the conditions instead. If the Secretary or Co-Chairs respectively, find that the conditions have not been met, they must approve findings that state how the conditions have not been met as part of their report to the National Committee Votes List.
6-4.4 All recall proposals shall be allotted three weeks for discussion and one week for voting. Discussion shall begin on the next regular starting date as defined in Article VI of the Rules and Procedures, after it has been confirmed that the proposal has requisite support. The vote shall be conducted online, even if an Annual National Meeting falls within the specified window. Quorum shall be two-thirds of member state Green Parties and caucuses, and the threshold for recall shall be two-thirds of those casting yes or no votes.
6-4.5 If the National Committee does not approve a recall proposal, no individual who brought the proposal forward may co-sponsor a new one against the same Steering Committee member until at least 90 days after the completion of the aforementioned vote.
IMPLEMENTATION/TIMELINE/RESOURCES: Bylaw change would become effective upon passage.
REFERENCES:
GPUS Bylaws, ARTICLE VI. SELECTION, ELECTION, AND REMOVAL OF OFFICERS
http://www.gp.org/documents/bylaws.shtml#article6
Proposal #389 http://green.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=389