[With the Treasurer’s Report]
[NOTE: Some SC members have objected to including specific mention of an item that was begun in executive session, the moved out. The concern is that, by mention more of it, it will politicize the issue. My understanding is that, consistent with GPUS practice so far, items on an SC call not in executive session needs to be included in meeting minutes; as are any decisions resulting from an executive session item.
For those who have concerns, the account in my notes was written down almost verbatim, and I encourage you to listen to the recording. – hh.
Dial – (641) 715-3470
Enter Access Code – 332690#
GPUS SC Conference Call
Sunday, January 24, 2009
8:00 p.m. EST
Co-chairs:
Craig Thorsen, Jill Bussiere, Jason Nabewaniec, Mike Feinstein, Sanda Everrette, Farheen Hakeem, David Strand
Secretary: Holly Hart
Treasurer: Jody Grage
Staff: Brian Bittner, Brent McMillan
Observer: Justine McCabe (CT), Co-chair, IC
Facilitator: Sanda facilitated through Item IV (moved to the beginning of the agenda after the executive session). Jill facilitated the rest of the call untils she left at 10:30 p.m. EST. Sanda resumed as facilitator.
Two requests for executive session items; personnel, legal
EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS
8:13 – 8:40 p.m. EST
Two personnel items were included.
###########################################################
Mike asked to change order of last two agenda items. Craig asked to move his proposal about rotating facilitators to the top of the agenda. After some discussion, MIke withdrew his proposal.
1) AGREED to address Item VII first (see IV, below). SC AGREED by consensus.
2) Jason asked for a vote on what was requested in the first executive session item. Mike stated we could not vote as it had not been agendized; placing it in closed session isn’t the same. Mike stated we also needed to state where it would be placed on the agenda and how much time would be given.
(This item involved recent incidents involving SC handling of employee issues. Holly had contacted three individuals who are lawyers [not for official legal advice, just for input], and all advised that the SC needed to take some measure to prevent these types of things from happening again, to make clear that the SC does not condone what happened, and to demonstrate that the SC plans to operate in a better manner in the future. Holly asked that, based on recent incidents, as a show of good faith, to make clear the SC does not condone what occurred, and to regain staff confidence, that one individual step down from the personnel subcommittee, and that two SC members no longer be involved with personnel oversight. Jason is staff supervisor, and should be the point person for personnel matters.
Mike stated he didn’t agree this belonged in closed session, and therefore, according to our rules which require 100% SC approval to move to executive session, the SC could no longer continue with this in executive session. Mike did not agree to the request, and said he wanted to hear the attorney on the call and get something in writing.
He stated that this item was not properly agendized, so the SC cannot take it up.
Farheen stated that this is not about embarrassing or calling out, but that we know there are real consequences to what happened. Holly explained that she had put this in executive session because at least one of the issues involved clearly confidential information and potential legal issues. She stated she would include this item in the public minutes.)
VOTE to ADD VOTE ON SC MEMBERS’ INVOLVEMENT WITH PERSONNEL on TONIGHT’S
CALL AGENDA. Mike stated this needed 2/3 support.
—
Holly – Yes
Jason – Yes
Jill – Yes
Farheen – Yes
Sanda – No
Mike – No
Craig – No response (on mute?); he later stated he had voted No.
Jody – No
David – Abstain, as he did not come on the call until after the executive session
DID NOT PASS; 4 Yes, 3 No, 1 Abstain, 1 no response; or, 4 Yes, 4 No 1
Abstain; may be taken up at a future time.
############################################################
I. RAPID RESPONSE – GPUS SIGN-ON to Liberty Tree’s OUTRAGE Statement on #)*)&!@! Supreme Court decision to ban limits on corporate campaign spending – Jill, Sanda
Craig objected to this item, would vote No. He stated that we should not be a party of protest, but of positive, motivating statements, offer answers. Sanda pointed out this calls for a Constitutional Amendment, positive change.
VOTE to SIGN ON TO MOVETOAMEND.ORG’S STATEMENT
—
Holly – Yes
Jason – Yes
Jill – Yes
Farheen – Yes
Sanda – Yes
Mike – Yes
Craig -No
Jody – Yes
David – Absolutely, Positively, Yes
APPROVED; 8 Yes, 1 No. Jill and Sanda will contact Move to Amend dot org
############################################################
II. STAFF REPORTS
a. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – Brent
Sent an executive director report. Will travel to campaign schools in MD and ARK; will submit ticket costs for re-imbursement with passage of budget. They are working with Craig Seeman and others to record and make available via live streaming
Added 22 candidates to database, currently at 98. Will compare with 2006, comparable year, to see how we are comparing with the past.
Spent time working on fundraising development, preparing phone list, donor profiles for re-solitication for major donor program. Direct mail in the queue, expect to go out tomorrow (1/25) working with GP GA on a phone banking project.
Requests have come in for email lists. We have a limit of 19 without cost, and current;y have 18 in use. MIke – if Pair isn’t enough, recommends talking with Cameron Spitzer who will set up more lists for us.
b. OFFICE MANAGER – Brian Sent an office manager report, asked for any feedback. Made bank deposits, planning more frequent deposits when re-solicition letter returns start coming working with merchandise for re-stocking of some low merchandise. $5 Friday on Facebook, found people on social networking sites tend to give more frequently in smaller denominations. working with FundCom to expand on these efforts.
Craig noted that Brian had forwarded Apportionment Questionnaire to a state chairs and treasurers’ list. asked how many states are represented there? Brian said he would get back to him.
############################################################
III. TREASURER’S REPORT – Jody
$1.9k – general account balance
$1.0k – loan balance
$0.1k – IC balance
$1.7k – IT balance
$8.0k – income in January not including $30.4k Juoni Trust
$15.6k – external accounts payable
$16.9k – accounts payable to come from Loan #431
$19.7k – internal accounts payable including $11.3 Loan #431
$16.1k – national driven state sharing owed ($7.0k from 2008)
$ 6.2k – earmarked for caucuses/committees owed
$74.7k – total debt
Taking in about $270/per day on web and credit card account.
############################################################
IV. VOTING QUEUE – Holly
a. Brief run-down of current voting queue items, if needed.
b. INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE – Statement on Middle East. It was clarified that this is already considered within IC’s work to be writing and circulating, just want SC approval. Mike objected that this was agendized for the voting queue. Either Proposal #190 already authorized the IC to do this, or, if it needs to come to the SC, then he isn’t sure the SC has the power to authorize something that the NC hasn’t. He is “flabbergasted that this is now an entirely different proposal.” Justine clarified that the IC is simply asking for the SC’s affirmation and acknowledging the SC’s role of keeping track of what’s going on in the party.
Craig stated the SC had not authorized this observer to speak on the call. Holly stated she asked a question of Justine because she was unsure if this should have been on the voting queue.
Mike stated that he wanted it noted in the minutes that he was opposed to voting or taking up this item as it had not been properly agendized. Sanda noted that it had not been submitted for voting queue, just mistakenly put there, and was submitted well over a week ago.
Mike asked Justine if the SC did not vote to affirm the statement, would the IC still circulate it. Justine replied that she felt he was trying to set a trap; the IC is trying to be collegial, making the SC apprised that they are doing this, wished to have SC affirm this. Mike said he is concerned that the SC is being asked to meddle in the affairs of the IC, and might be asked to meddle in other committees’ affairs. Puts SC in position to make choices we weren’t elected to do. Jill and Sanda noted that when this was original presented, the IC was embroiled in controversy with their legitimacy having been called into question, and they had decided to make sure to be transparent in their actions.
VOTE for SC to affirm the International Committee’s following Proposal #190’s in developing and circulating the statement on Gaza/Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
—
David – Yes
Jody – Yes
Jason – no response (or couldn’t hear it)
Craig – Yes
Jill – Yes
Farheen – Yes
Sanda – Abstain
Mike – Declined to vote because it’s not under the SC purview, also objects to the manner in which it’s agendized
Holly – Yes
APPROVED, 6 Yes, 1 Abstention, 2 not voting
—
c. SUBMITTED for VOTING QUEUE from IC: IC P&P’s; withdrawn, needs minor amendment, will re-submit.
d. SUBMITTED for VOTING QUEUE from PLATCOM: Proposal for Platform approval by online voting following ANM
APPROVED, to go out tomorrow (1/25/10)
2 weeks, discussion, 1 week vote, 2/3 threshold David Strand floor manager
e. TO BE SUBMITTED for VOTING QUEUE from PCSC: GPUS Policy for Recognition of declared Candidates for GP Presidential Nomination
APPROVED, regular timeline (will appear on the voting queue on 1/31/10)
############################################################
V. REPORT from Ron Citkowski on GPUS vs G/GPUSA name and logo question.
Lawyer believes case will work out in terms of our use of our name.
############################################################
VI. DISCUSSION on Process for SC Appointments to Media Green Papers Sub
Committee – Mike
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/Steering_Committee_Conf_Call_Agenda_01_24_10_Discussion_Item:_Process_for_SC_Appointments_to_Media_Green_Papers_Sub_Committee
This subcommittee will review and vet contributions for green pages. This item is about how SC will decide whom to choose for our reps. Committees can choose one of their own members, but don’t have to. We could work with all three involved committees, send call to NC to submit names and committees together could have a sense of overall pool.
Jill asked what kind of vetting process was in mind. Would non-party members be considered. Mike replied that hadn’t really been considered. Jody stated that there would already be a high level of vetting, if individuals are approved by any of those groups.
Mike asked what, in a competitive situation, we would use to make a decision – up or down vote on individuals, STV vote?
+++++++++++++
Jill announced she would leave the call at 9:30 (10:30 EST).
VOTE on WHETHER TO END MEETING AT 10:30 P.M. EST
—
David – Abstain
Jody – No, and have a call next week as well for fundraising and strategy
Jason – no response
Craig – No
Jill – Yes
Farheen – Yes, but not certain she can call in next week
Sanda – Object to process of just deciding, we didn’t have advance notice.
Mike – No, it’s a separate vote on whether to schedule a meeting next week, these were agendized tonight, didn’t agree that since we didn’t keep to the times, items should be dropped; those of us who can stay on can get opinions out there.
Holly – Yes; hold call next week for remaining items, and highlight fundraising and strategy; if that was important, we should have prioritized it tonight; preferable that all SC be able to participate.
– – – Obviously didn’t pass. The Secretary’s phone battery died at approximately 10:25 p.m., not able to get back on until 10:47 p.m.
Craig’s phone battery died about 10:55 p.m. EST
Jason had also left the call. Sanda fell off at 11:50 p.m. EST
############################################################
VII. (see above, first item) PROPOSAL for facilitation on SC Calls – Craig
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/Proposal_for_Rotation_of_Facilitation_on_SC_calls
############################################################
?? – VIII. DISCUSSION on SC Preparation for 2010 ANM – Mike
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/Steering_Committee_Conf_Call_Agenda_01_24_10_Discussion_Item:_SC_Preparation_for_2010_ANM
[Secretary was not on the cal for this item.]
############################################################
?? – IX. Fundraising – DISCUSSION OF strategy, ideas – Holly, et al
[Secretary was not on the cal for this item.]
############################################################
?? – X. SC strategic plan – DISCUSSION of strategic plan notes posted to
SC recently; how to move forward, implement ideas Holly, et al
[Secretary was not on the cal for this item.]
############################################################
XI. DISCUSSION on SC recommendation/proposal for SC elections to conclude during ANM – Mike 10 minutes
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/Steering_Committee_Conf_Call_Agenda_01_24_10_Discussion_Item:_Timing_of_Steering_Committee_Elections
Various discussion of timelines, methods to be used having the vote during the ANM. David noted that there will be platform amendments on this ANM’s agenda, will need to have time for that. Questions of whet her to have the vote start the week before the ANM and conclude during that time.
############################################################
XII. DISCUSSION – Review of Caucuses Listed on gp.org – Mike 10 minutes
http://www.gp.org/wiki/index.php/Steering_Committee_Conf_Call_Agenda_01_24_10_Discussion_Item:_Review_of_Caucuses_Listed_on_gp.org
There are links to groups that don’t exist. General discussion revealed there are holes in this area. The Diversity Committee has not functioned for years.
It was noted there is no procedure for dis-accrediting a caucus. If they fall below 100 members, do they continue to vote on the NC. Agreed that Farheen should help address a current situation with one caucus.
NEXT CALL, SUNDAY, 2/2/7/10, 8:00 p.m. EST
1/24/10
Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS