GPUS SC Conference Call
Sunday, May 30, 2010
8:00 pm EDT
Co-chairs:
Sanda Everrette, Claudia Ellquist, Mike Feinstein, Craig Thorsen, David Strand; Farheen joined briefly about 3 1/2 hours into the call; Jason was not able to be on the call
Secretary:
Holly Hart
Treasurer:
Jody Grage
Staff:
Brent McMillan, for staff report
Guests:
Theresa El-Amin (NC; member of Platcom); Morgen D’Arc (ME; member of Platcom); Nan Garrett (GA; member of BRPP)
Observers:
Vivek Ananthan (PA); Hugh Esco (GA; BRPP co-chair); Nan Garrett (GA, member of BRPP)
Facilitator:
David Strand
Agenda review
ADD: Theresa would also like to speak about the ANM and the role the Black Caucus members are taking
Agreed to allow 5 minutes, after ANM discussion
– Holly/Jason – update on #445 failure review
– Holly: updates on ANM (Facilitators; Diversity, ? on what waiver cover; speakers)
– Move Farheen’s ANM item to following call
########################################################
I. STAFF REPORTS
a. Executive Director – Brent
i. REQUEST: Transpartisan Alliance. Brent was contacted by Joseph McCormick, conference in Seattle. The organization willing to pay for travel, housing and food. This is the fourth in a series of meetings building a transpartisan alliance, across the political spectrum working where we have common ground and where we can work together. Brent asked for time to attend.
AGREED, consensus
ii. REQUEST: No Risk Letter; meeting with fundraiser, contractor to Green party of Canada; see letters and documents re-sent. Brent asked to approve to have Scott w/ Keys Direct access our database, we may need to see if it’s workable, or what next step should be. Claudia asked what would prevent them from sharing information, and what their expenses and hourly wages are, how that comes out of cash flow. Brent replied that they would look at our information/database first, then make such a proposal, negotiate terms. This is getting us to a point to decide what to do, before any phoning would start. There are no expenses on our end, at this point. Plan is to have information ready for discussion in Detroit.
AGREED, consensus
iii. Candidate recruitment is going well, large increase this last week. Fundraising mailing is ready to go out. re-solicitiation going out now, hoping to bring in funds after the ANM, traditionally a time when our fundraising drops off dramatically. Brent believes this is because people involved in fundraising have put in more time on ANM.
########################################################
II. TREASURER’S REPORT – Jody (8:38 p.m.)
Jody sent a report this afternoon. We have $3.5K in general account. May accounts payable – pair, purchase power and website; rest should be paid with what is coming in.
a. FinCom’s Recommended debt reduction plan (see addenda item A, below) – AGREED, with slight revision, consensus. This clarified that this wouldrelease all caucus funds before half committees funds in phase 1.
Addressing the item that specifies that caucuses and committee could start requesting up to half of earmarked funds.
Claudia pointed out that caucuses are more like state parties, need to clarify. Sanda stated that caucuses are not entities separately recognized by the FEC. She also asked that we add “internal debt reduction” to clarify what this proposal addresses.
Jody stated that unless someone makes an outlandish request, FinCom would recommend expenditure.
Mike said the fiscal policy states that there is one treasurer, caucuses don’t have their own organization or treasurer. That should not be seen as prejudicial toward caucuses. He raised a scenario where the IC might request funds for 3 peopled to attend a meeting, when there are 6 people going, how would recipients be determined.
David pointed out that caucuses have no other source of money, and the money raised for caucuses is caucus money. Nothing in accreditation that requires that caucuses be financially “under” the GPUS, could choose to be separate entities. There does need to be a formal procedure to be able to access their funds.
b. Staff and SC at Detroit (see addenda item B, below)
AGREED, consensus
#######################################################
III. VOTING QUEUE, misc. secretary items – Holly (9:10 p.m.)
a. Brief review of current items on voting page, if needed
Sanda asked about BPPP proposal #455 update going into voting queue, usually discussion phase is extended. Holly stated it was desirable to add an extension, but the SC had agreed to have this go forward, changes are small and there is a time issue with the ANM coming up Mike disagreed that there are radical changes. People can challenge an amendment based on background explanation. Challenging the sponsor, not the platcom. If they didn’t do a good enough job summarizing the proposal. Jody suggested Hugh could write a note on what changes are included for the NC.
Jody proposed we add to the agenda whether to extend proposal discussion period. Mike pointed out that there is a 48 hour window, beyond which an extension must be made. Hugh stated that he had communicated with floor manager Craig Thorsen that there was a revision and posted updates to the NC list the preceding week, BRPP has been keeping NC apprised. Mike said that the rule says something has to be posted to the secretary; was that done properly with the posts earlier in the week?
David asked if there was agreement to add this to the agenda.
Hugh stated that the revisions had already been made to address issues raised, the committee has been working for months and put all information to the NC during the past month. Changes have been fully disclosed. Does not believe there is any need for further delay before going to a vote. Noted that Mike had raised issues at the last minute when the last BRPP proposal was ready to send to the voting queue.
Jody proposed a 3 day extension. Holly proposed 2 days, followed by the voting period to close at the usual time. Mike objected that “we minimize democracy by not giving the NCa full week of voting.” Holly pointed out that we have more people vote when we close at the usual time. Mike pointed out 6-9.1, the voting period shall be 7 days upon close of discussion period.
VOTE, proposed by Jody, followed day extension followed by 7 days’ voting period.
APPROVED, consensus
Craig asked that an additional notice go out to alert the NC that there will be an unusual timeline with this vote. Jody will send the notice
b. DECISION NEEDED: originally, the SC put out Tuesday as day 6, the deadline for submissions for voting queue/NC to be automatically included on the next upcoming call agenda. Recently, we have announced Monday as the deadline. We need to determine which day we want to use.
AGREED to consider Monday midnight before a Sunday call.
c. Items submitted for the voting queue
1) PCSC, 5/24/10: PCSC Mission Statement
Timeline: 2 weeks discussion, 1 week
Threshold: 2/3
Floor Manager: Mike
2) PCSC, 5/24/10: PCSC Rules, Policies & Procedures
See forwarded proposals
Timeline: 2 weeks discussion, 1 week
Threshold: 50%+1
Floor Manager: Craig
Mike will post both to the voting queue.
**A NON-AGENDIZED ITEM WAS RAISED WITH NO OBJECTIONS, Mike: question of when SC nominees must accept. Jody proposed they must have accepted by the time the vote goes into the voting queue discussion phase. AGREED, consensus
Jody facilitated the following part of the voting queue, because David is Platcom portfolio manager and has written a summary of platcom objections to these proposals going to the voting queue. Theresa and Morgen had asked to speak to this issue. Claudia asked who they represented. Sanda objected to having others speak, since the portfolio manager was already going to present information. Mike, Claudia and Jody suggested two minutes apiece if they wanted to say anything further after David present his report.
3) GPCA, 5/24/10 – Platform Amendment – Introduction
4) GPCA, 5/24/10 – Platform Amendment – Call to Action
See forwarded proposals
Concerns were raised from platcom members and others regarding the process. Platform update rules stipulate that proposals would be posted via the platform committee, all go up in sections after the ANM.
David stated his “findings”: these are platform adjustments, and the NC has already laid out a process; that is that these are sent through the Platform Committee, instruct states, committees an caucuses to submit proposed changes to Platform Committee. Nowhere is there any provision for them to bring platform language before the NC for consideration. CA is side-stepping the process, we are to have an equal adjudication of all proposals. 6-2.4 – seeking to amend powers or work of a committee must come in the form of a missions statement This is overstepping powers of the platcom by proving another means to amend the platform, going around the platcom. Rather than “findings,” he feels the proposal is out or order because these need to go to the platcom. If one state can, all can, would be anarchy. If we have set up a process to amend the platform, then we need to follow that, not allow proposal to be brought up separate from that process.
Mike asked David – David seems to believe that the sponsor of a platform proposal is the platform committee, not the states/caucuses? David commented on consensus process, material becomes the property of the whole. Holly stated that the Platcom is sponsor, but the material is “owned’ by those who submitted it. these proposals are in violation of Green Party values in seeking consensus. Claudia asked David to speak about what had been going on on platform committee, was this on his own perspective. David stated that it was his own perspective, but was in accordance with the concerns expressed on the platcom. Consensus and adequate notice of platform development – neither happened, in this case. Claudia pointed ballot access committee’s prioritization of work as an example supporting David’s concerns.
Sanda stated that her understanding was that the states made the proposals, not the Platcom. CA is working with other states (Washington State GP) to have co-sponsors; she said the platcom is facilitating discussions between CA and other states that have submitted proposals on the same subject to see if the materials can be co-sponsored in a single document. “We’re totally about a consensus process,” and if not, she wouldn’t want these proposals here. They have already been submitted to the Platform Committee, no one else has submitted amendments on these items. This won’t interfere with ANM discussion.
Mike – agrees with Sanda, we’re looking a gift horse in the mount, this would be very beneficial to the process. It would not make sense to list the platcom as sponsor on the web page.
Morgen stated concerns: this news [GPCA submitting the amendments to the voting queue] came to the Platcom with no former knowledge that they were going to submit them. One of the co-chairs knew about it and didn’t post it to the platcom until after it had been posted to the SC. Rules are that process is to involve Platcom, and this did not. Quoting from platcom P&P’s: “All co-chairs decisions are openly made and distributed to the Platcom membership.” There was no consensus-seeking procedure. Morgen quoted bylaws that stipulate that platform is jurisdiction of the platcom, platcom edits, works on submissions and bring to the GNC. Included in proposal #428 – platform has jurisdiction over revisions, edits compiles and organized for adoption.
Theresa – described a sense of the atmosphere inside the platcom. Noted that Jack Ailey, former co-chair of platcom, posted objections to the NC today. Platcom members have posted a barrage of objections to these proposals going forward. It will do more harm than good to these proposals to go forward outside of the agreed-to process. Would hope CA would withdraw this proposal.
Holly – Sanda earlier said these were non-controversial, but that is not the case, concerns were raised both inside the platcom and by others. A decision on setting tone was not agreed to; concerns have been raised about content, as well. Platcom, by NC agreement, is the body that submits platform amendments to the NC. Also noted timeline that platcom co-chairs had already posted a timeline, and gotten general agreement.
Mike – stated the committee was informed, because it [the amendments] was submitted to the platcom. [Apparently he meant that the material was submitted to the platcom via the website – hh] Whether it was non-controversial or not is irrelevant. He denied that the platcom decides what sections are.
Sanda said she was sure it’s written that states sponsor platform amendments. She believes platform committee has no ability to take over these proposals. She didn’t think that putting these out befor the ANM this wouldn’t mean they went to the front of the line.
Claudia said for her, it is not about CA, she would take same position for any state. If we give something to a committee as a task, we give it reasonable power to carry out the tasks, so they canget their job done.
Sanda stated that that Claudia’s statement means that if a committee isn’t prohibited from doing something they can’t, but that is not the case Her understanding is that the Platcom can’t change anything.
Jody – felt reading Call to Action that Theres’s statement about this coming at the end was appropriate- this is putting the cart before the horse, this should come after the rest of the platform
==========
VOTES
STRAW POLL on whether to send the two GPCA proposals to the voting queue. Mike objected to a straw poll. Jody stated we would have a straw poll.
Holly – No
David – No
Claudia – No
Mike – Yes
Craig – not heard (fell off the call?)
Jody – No
Sanda – Abstain
PROPOSALS WILL NOT GO TO THE VOTING QUEUE: 4 No, 1 Yes, 1 Abstain
Jody called for next steps. David said his preference would have been that GPCa withdraw the proposals. In light of that, citing proposal #428 that Morgen pointed, clearly states that this is under the jurisdiction of the Platcom.
David – PROPOSAL – that these two proposals are out of order per #428 (quote), per David’s and Morgen’s comments regarding #428
Holly – Yes
David – Yes
Claudia – Yes
Mike – No
Craig – Abstain
Jody – Yes
Sanda – Abstain
AGREED on findings: 4 Yes,. 1 No, 2 Abstain. David will re-send text.
David stated he would accept some of responsibility for this, as he had been in conversation with platcom co-chair and was led to believe that this was being done in conjunction with platcom, was unaware that was not the case.
============
======
Farheen joined the call
======
d. Response from WI/ME to “findings” on WI/ME proposal to limit number of members from one state who may serve on thee SC at any given time
i. Any input?
ii. Mike sent his “findings” and asked that the SC adopt them. SEE Addenda, Item C.
Mike stated that:
1) there is no clarity about what it means to be “from” a state;
2) can’t tell who would be the two who have been nominated from a state. When nominated, or when accepted?
Claudia asked what is meant by nominee – first come, first served, or what? Holly proposed that the questions be sent to the sponsors, with the agreement that if they get back to us, the SC would take it up online to decide whether it can go into the next voting queue. Mike agreed that if they get it to the SC in time for a 3-day vote, can be decided by next voting queue if it comes back within 48 hours; otherwise, will take up online for the following voting queue.
PROPOSAL that the SC send “findings” to WI/ME and agree to take up online, 3-day process, if it comes back within 48 hours; otherwise, aa 6-day process for the following voting queue.
Holly – Yes
David – Yes
Claudia – Yes
Mike – Yes
Craig – Yes
Jody – Yes
Sanda – Yes
APPROVED Mike will write to WI/’ME tonight and copy SC
#######################################################
(11:45 p.m.)
Theresa El-Amin had asked to report about USSF and the role that Black Caucus members. Proposal to have USSF was met with opposition from corporations. Theresa had worked on the Southeast Social Forum (in Atlanta). It was at NCCU in Durham, NC, in 2006; ca. 15,000 people, convergence of movements. We will see the same convergence around gender equity, water rights, housing, labor rights. Notable event on Wednesday, Up South Down South Peoples’ Movement Assembly. Of note for the Green party, the southern states will be meeting as a “caucus” on Thursday afternoon, probably also Friday lunch. Black caucus will be meeting Saturday night, planning on coming in strong from around the country.
Sanda urged Theresa to let people to know to sign up for events, we need more turnout, to USSF, too.
MOVED to NEXT CALL –
IV. Discussion: An Introduction to the USSF to the Green Party Steering Committee members – Farheen 15 minutes
From Farheen: The Green Party of the United States have a unique opportunity to participate in the USSF2010 as we convene for our AMN. Given that Farheen Hakeem is the only SC member that has attended the USSF in 2007, a brief summary will be presented from her findings, and is available to answer any questions. She will T\talk about expectations and roles of SC members at the USSF, given that it is the first time for most SC members.
#######################################################
VI. ANM (11:55 p.m.)
Agreed that diversity waivers pay for GPUS registration, not pay for USSF registration; David request if he’s able to
raise targeted funds to cover that difference, is that ok? Agreed this can be done unofficially
Mike noted that he is concerned that media committee will be short-handed. He will be driving and will bring two tripods and projector.
Mike asked about the need for more discussion of agenda.
#######################################################
V. PORTFOLIOS (12:19 a.m.)
a. PROPOSAL, from Holly – that Claudia and Farheen share the International Committee
Claudia stated that she is willing to take on a task, but given the short time she will be on the IC, and that she has not been approached by the IC, she is reluctant to do this.
Proposal was withdrawn. Jody suggested the IC can send messages to the SC via the secretary.
#######################################################
Agreed to add an extra call regarding the ANM meetings June 20th
NEXT CALL: Sunday, June 13, 2010; 8:00 p.n. EDT
5/30/10
Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===========================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
**ADDENDA
A. FinCom recommendations for debt reduction
B. Staff and SC at Detroit
C. “FIndings” on WI.ME proposal to limit number of members on SC from one state at the same time
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===========================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A. Subject: SC agenda item – Recommendation from FinCom
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:37:06 -0700
From: Jody Grage <jodytgrage@gmail.com>
To: List for GPUS Steering Committee affairs <steeringcom@green.gpus.org>
CC: USGP Finance <finance-cmte@gp-us.org>
The Finance Committee recommends the following:
DEBT REDUCTION SCHEDULE
The First Phase and the Second Phase of debt reduction will be triggered
when there is $6k in hand after the current month’s expenses are covered.
The First Phase will put half of the earmarked funds for caucuses and
committees ($3.2k) .into the reserve account and notify the caucuses and
committees that they are encouraged to forward proposals for funding to
the Finance Committee for recommendation to the Steering Committee.
The Second Phase will pay half of the 2008 national-driven state sharing
not forgiven ($3.4k).
Future phases of debt reduction are envisioned to be:
1. Second half of Caucuses and Committees and second half of 2008
national-driven state sharing not forgiven ($6.6k)
2. 2009 ND state sharing – payments to states that forgave 2008 ND state
sharing ($5.5k)
3. 2009 ND state sharing – payment to states that didn’t forgive 2008 ND
state sharing ($5.5k)
4. Reserves – begin building (up to total of $40k)
5. Loan #431 – repay $17k (use Juoni Trust in Jan 2011 if not already
repaid)
Jody Grage, Treasurer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===========================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===========================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
B. Below is the original Staff and SC – Detroit figures from Hillary that
total $8732.
Below that are my suggestions as of 7 April that total $7997.50.
Here is a suggested update I am sending for your consideration that
totals $8640.
Budd and I will be working in the DC office at least Monday and Tuesday
before the
trip to Detroit.
Staff and SC get five days lodging.
The SC will need to help the staff since we have no interns.
And we need to start getting firm travel costs for the SC.
$1600 – staff travel including Jody and Budd from DC – estimate for car
rental
$ 880 – staff lodging $44 x 4 people (Brent, Brian, Scott, David) x 5
nights (Wed-Sun)
$ 480 – staff per diem $20 x 4 people x 6 days (Wed-Mon)
$2800 – SC travel – estimate
$1980 – SC lodging $44 x 9 x 5 nights
$ 900 – SC per diem $20 x 9 people x 5 days (Wed-Sun)
$8640 – total
Jody
Jody wrote:
From Hillary:
Staff Travel: $1,600 based on federal mileage reimbursement, about $500 per car roundtrip from DC
SC Travel: $2,800 -$350 * 7 flights plus 2 additional driving @ $175 ea
Staff lodging: $1320 – Tues-Sat Quads are $175 ea — this would cover 7 people
SC Lodging: $1188 – almost 34 room nights
Staff Per Diem: $960 – 9 staff members about $20/day for 5 days each
SC Per Diem: $864 – 9 SC members about $20/day for 5 days each
Total Travel $8732
Draft suggestions from Jody:
Staff: Brent, Brian, Scott, David, Dave Bosserman, one intern = six staff?
Staff Travel: two cars? = $1000
SC Travel: 5 westcoast/south x 400; 4 eastcoast x $200 avg driving/etc = $2800
Staff Lodging: Wednesday – Sunday? – $175 x 1.5 quads x 5 nights = $1312.50
SC Lodging: Thursday – Sunday? – $175 x 2.25 quads x 4 nights = $1575
Staff Per Diem: 6 days? x 6 x $20 = $700
SC Per Diem: 5 days? x 9 x $20 = $900
Draft Total: $7997.50
Jody
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===========================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
C) Proposal: That the SC approve the following “findings” – Mike
1) The WIGP proposal is in conflict with 6-5.1(e) because the proposal states “The number of nominees from any one state may not exceed the number of Steering Committee Co-chairs who may serve from that state under the two person limit in the first paragraph of Article IV”, yet it is not clear what ‘from’ means and therefore it could not be determined how this would apply.