October 23, 2011

GPUS SC Conference Call – October 23, 2011, 8 p.m. ET

I. CALL SETUP
a. Facilitator – Nan Garrett
b. Roll Call – Susan Chunco, Theresa El Amin, Farheen Hakeem, Tamar Yager, Budd Dickinson, Mark Swaney, Audrey Clement, Jeff Turner
Medical Leave – Leenie Halbert
Staff – Brian Bittner; Observers – Frank Young, Denice Traina, Hugh Esco, Jody Grage
d. Agenda revisions – add IC P&P proposal at end of voting queue

II. STAFF REPORT
a. Office Manager – Brian Bittner – sent to SC, questions now or later by email

b. Fundraiser Report – David Sacks on vacation

III. TREASURER’S REPORT & FINANCE ITEMS – Jeff

a. Cash report to date – sent, $5-6k general funds with most bills paid, around $1100 per week for the last few weeks.

b. Proposal to amend fiscal policy to eliminate the state sharing program (decision item) – background and proposal text sent; FinCom sponsoring; do other support services for states and collaborative national/state fundraising; needs to be formatted to go to the queue (consensus on informal finding); Budd will format for SC online vote this coming week for the queue 10/31; needs to be expedited to be done before budget. NC vote two week discussion and one week vote; 2/3rds threshold.

c. General agreement to retain an accountant – Frank Young, a Finance Committee member, who represented FinCom on the call, said that GPUS needs to hire an accountant. FinCom has proposed that GPUS hire Jeff as a consultant/accountant through January, 2013. Jeff would resign as Treasurer and lead the effort to find a new one. There was a discussion of potential conflicts of interest involved with Jeff’s suggestion that he could serve as Treasurer and Accountant at the same time. Frank and Jeff agreed to take the proposal back to Fincom for further work.

IV. Apportionment Tabulation Committee (ATC) update/discussion Proposal specifies report to GNC by October 9. Committee needs to vote; will bring to SC call in two weeks.

V. Coordinated Campaign Committee update – Mark Swaney (decision item) –
Holly Hart withdrew, leaving 5 candidates for 5 positions; Earl Ammerman, NV; Hillary Kane, PA; Darryl Moch, DC (agreed to be a co-chair); AJ Segneri, IL; Jesse Townley, CA – consensus to accept.

VI. Forum Manager resignation – need to recruit candidates – discussion item – Jim Coplen resigned effective October 19. Budd sent 2 messages to DRC and got no response. No suggestions for further recruiting efforts. Frank Young only remaining member.

VII. Election for PNC Credentials Committee – was supposed to have been conducted last April and a call for delegate credentials applications sent out in May. This hasn’t been done. Farheen is liaison.
See Proposal #350 for process. Audrey will help with more info from archives for form to call for nominations and forward to Farheen.

VIII. Proposal for ANM/PNC (see below) – Sacramento vs. Baltimore – Tamar
To queue on 31 October – corrected copy before then.
Tamar is floor manager; ranked choice; two weeks discussion, one week vote.

IX. VOTING QUEUE
In the queue at time of meeting: Prop. 621 – Presidential Nomination Convention Apportionment Proposal in voting phase – is failing; threshold changed to 2/3rds as clearly specified in rules.

Discussion asking for new proposal with 3 or 2 times (or 2 times + 100 to increase proportionality from Phil Huckelberry). Up to someone to do a new proposal from SC or state. SC can discuss on line.

Received for the queue:
GA Proposal Substitute 1: Instructions to Budget Writers, Undoing Racism Training (See below.) – SC decision to send proposal back not upheld by the GNC by #622. Substitute 1 must now go to the voting queue. 2/3rds threshold required because it creates an adhoc committee. Amendments may be made during the discussion period. Farheen floor manager, 2 week discussion period, in queue tomorrow.

GA Proposal Substitute 2: Instructions to Budget Writers, Undoing Racism Training – findings submitted by Audrey Clement (See below.) Simple majority threshold. (Substitute 3 was received today as an amendment to Substitute 2.) Summary of findings on substitute 2: Duties of FinCom and FunCom and mission of ANMC (#193) do not authorize these committees to organize, budget or do fundraising for a project not covered in their rules. Could be remedied by creation of another permanent or adhoc committee to do this project or by amending FinCom, FunCom, and/or ANM duties. Vote on findings: Budd Y, Farheen N, Theresa N, Mark Y, Audrey Y, Tamar abstain, Susan Y, Jeff abstain; findings approved.

Denice asked to speak – Substitute 3 changes paragraph 5 to ANMC to be the body to organize the training; this would result in a majority threshold.

IC P&P Proposal (see below): Objections have been received; it covers elections to international meetings. Mark has objection received from IC member that combines nominations for delegates and alternates, without making it clear how delegate and alternate results could be determined if someone was elected as both. Remedy could be to hold separate elections with delegates first and alternates after that. Mark still not on IC listserv. Vote on findings: Theresa N, Mark Y, Audrey Y, Tamar N, Susan Y, Budd N, Jeff abstain; findings rejected. To the voting queue on October 31.

In queue when received:
Election Tabulation Comm Report

(Nan leaves the call as facilitator. Farheen leaving call.)

X. COMMITTEE LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS
a. Reconsider the IC liaison assignment – withdrawn by Theresa.
b. Change of CredCom liaison assignment – withdrawn

XI. LIAISON REPORTS
Liaison Reports from Mark Report for the Green House & Senate Campaign Committees – There is nothing new to report on these committees, except that I talked to David McCorquodale about the discussion about his concerns on the last SC conference call. David understands, and the plan is that we will recruit candidates for the two committees, hold a formal election in January, and that when there are more people on the committees, then the committee members, old and new, will take up among themselves the question of whether or not to continue to fundraise through the committee, and whether or not to combine the two committees.

Report for Green Pages Committee – There is nothing new to report for the Green Pages Committee, there have been no conference calls since the last one on September 18, 2011.

Report on Ballot Access Committee – The Ballot Access Committee had its last conference call on October 11, 2011. The meeting was well attended, with ten Greens on the call. The next meeting is planned for October 25 at 8:00 Eastern time. BAC has $1950 when the previously approved $500 to Arkansas is subtracted. The BAC voted $200 to support a Ballot Access Conference in Georgia. Volunteers from AZ are to work in New Mexico first, and then Utah, Indiana, Nevada. There is someone from Texas ready to go to Arkansas to help with Ballot Access. Some states have an urgent need for help – Vermont is being worked, Hawaii – Craig Thorsen is there, and work is in progress, Utah seems to be a special problem as it has been difficult to locate any Green in Utah. Holly has said that she would try to find someone in Utah. Action items include a month by month expenditure plan, and a plan and budget request for New Mexico.

Report on the Coordinated Campaign Committee – Holly Hart removed herself from the vote to approve members of the CCC, and so there were five new members of the CCC approved, Earl Ammerman IV of Nevada, Hillary Kane of Pennsylvania, Darryl! Mock of the DC Statehood Greens, AJ Segneri of Illinois, and Jesse Townley of California. All five of the new members have made contact, and plans are to hold a first conference call of the new committee as soon as the information on the old listserve can be found. An additional five members need to be recruited and an election called by the SC through the NC to finish populating the committee.

Report on the International Committee – My election as the new liaison to the IC has proved controversial. I have not been added to the listserve of the IC, and the refusal is apparently based on their preference for Farheen as their liaison. The IC is conducting its own preference on choices for their liaison – Mark only, Farheen only, or Mark and Farheen. This on-line vote is not concluded. I have requested that my state party vet me as a member of the IC, which I have the right to be able to do, and this request is being made now. As a member of the IC, I certainly have the right to be added to the listserve. I have downloaded and read some 30 pages of rules of the IC. A proposed rules change for the IC is to considered by the SC for placing in the voting queue during the 10-23-11 meeting of the SC.

XII. Next call. Facilitator – Budd will handle.

XIII. Report on previous Action Items

Audrey – Employment Agreements for staff – in process

Jeff and Tamar – Personnel Manual revision.

Co-chairs – send liaison reports before next SC call.

All – Need for updated committee co-chairs, membership, and contact information on committee web pages.

All – study proposed budget.

All – recruit forum managers.

Adjourned at 10:52 pm Eastern

*********************************************************

Proposal for ANM/PNC:

Background: The Green Party of the United States holds Presidential Nominating Conventions every four years to select candidates for President and Vice-President and adopt a new platform. Simultaneously, the National Committee of GPUS also convenes annually for a face-to-face meeting. This year, there are two bids from Green Party locals to host the 2012 Annual National Meeting and Presidential Nominating Convention: Baltimore, MD and Sacramento, CA. Both locals have worked hard and put together solid proposals for your consideration.

Attached to this overview, are two documents, representing the details of each proposal, including estimated budgets. The following is a synopsis of the proposals and a brief comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal.

Note, both proposals are for the same dates (July 12-15, 2012) and both come in at roughly the same total cost (~$30,000). The ANMC feels it can safely budget on 300 paying delegates, thus the average registration cost will be $100 (with early birds paying less and late birds paying more). Both Baltimore and Sacramento are also relying on hotels for lodging and have secured comparable rates ($99-$149 per night). Because many delegates appreciate the intimacy, lower cost and easier networking opportunities of a meeting at a University, we are encouraging the planners to seek an all-inclusive venue (food, lodging, meeting space). Thus, these two proposals represent a conservative (higher) budget than we may actually need.

Baltimore:
Baltimore was the first to submit a letter of interest to the ANM. Advantages: Baltimore’s proposal is slightly cheaper, there is strong support from both the local and state parties, and it’s location along the I-95 corridor make it easily accessible to a great many people (particularly in the northeast). Baltimore is also close to three major airports (BWI, Dulles, Reagan National). Disadvantages: All meeting space would take place at the University of Baltimore, which is largely a commuter school. Thus, there is no dorm space available for lodging or dining facilities for shared meals. The University of Baltimore is located in Baltimore’s mid-town which sits along the main light rail line, but which itself does not have a large number of hotels. Thus, most delegates will have to commute (albeit a fairly short, quick, and cheap commute) from their hotel downtown to the campus. This also means that Greens will be scattered across several hotels, missing opportunities for off-hours networking and community building. Finally, if we have a Nominating Convention which attracts more than 400 people, we will be too large for space on campus and will need to pay for additional space at another venue (such as a theater) which will cost a significant amount of money. Even if this doesn’t happen, it will take a lot of work to make a campus auditorium “ready for prime time” (i.e. presentable to a national audience via C-SPAN).

Sacramento:
Advantages: California has the largest Green Party in the U.S. and has not hosted a GP Annual Meeting or Presidential Convention in over 15 years. California submitted two unsuccessful bids in 2008 and many in the party feel that it’s finally time to go to California. Sacramento’s proposal puts the entire meeting in one convenient space, the downtown Sheraton Hotel. They have given us sufficient meeting rooms, including use of a grand ballroom for the nominating convention which can hold up to 650 people, and lodging at reasonable rates. Being downtown, the Sheraton is centrally located and is close to dozens of restaurants offering a variety of dining options for delegates. All meetings would be held in the same venue as sleeping rooms. The Sheraton is able to accommodate us for all sleeping rooms. However, there are a number of lower cost housing options including a hostel within ½ mile of the Sheraton. Disadvantages: The California Green Party is strongly opposed to this proposal (though there is obviously strong support from the Sacramento local). The ANMC does not require state party support for proposals; but, it is skeptical of a proposal which can spark in-fighting both within California and also on the National Committee. Sacramento is also a smaller city than Baltimore, and as a result is serviced by a second-tier airport. Many delegates would have to fly, and for many it would not be possible to do so via a non-stop flight.

Proposal: Proposal to formally adopt the date, location, and budget for the Annual National Meeting and Presidential Nominating Convention based on the result of a ranked choice vote:

*********************************************************
GA Proposal substitute 1: Instructions to Budget Writers, Undoing Racism Training

6-4.1 SPONSOR(S):

Georgia Green Party

6-4.2 CONTACT: Primary Presenter

Byron L. Merritt byron.merritt@gmail.com 404.387.3176 c
Denice Traina denicetraina@gmail.com 706.364.7861 h

6-4.3 SUBJECT/TITLE:

Instructions to Budget Writers, Undoing Racism Training

6-4.4 TYPE OF PROPOSAL, EXPECTED APPROVAL THRESHOLD:
(as per 6-2) simple majority pursuant to 6-2.2(b) Resolutions

6-4.5 REQUESTED PROPOSAL DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE

An immediate two week discussion, followed by a one week vote.

6-4.6 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: (relationship, reasons and/or justification to the GPUS; presentation should be short and to the point, with further background provided in the Resource section)

The following substitute resolution was endorsed for the consideration of the National Committee by the Georgia Delegation on National Green Party Affairs and reflects changes intended to address the previous findings of the Steering Committee. The Georgia Green Party urges this body’s enthusiastic support.

6-4.7 PROPOSAL:

The National Committee finds that the work of the Green Party of the United States and its accredited state parties and caucuses would be empowered by a collective and rigorously developed strategy for deconstructing racism within the ranks of the Party, within the broader progressive community and in our Party’s public policy work at the local, state, federal and international levels.

Resolved, by the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States, that:

(1) The Finance and Fundraising Committees are instructed to develop and the Steering Committee is instructed to recommend, in its next proposed budget to the National Committee, a fundraising plan and budget authorization for funding sufficient to provide for the travel, accomodations and participation of each member of the Steering Committee in the “Undoing Racism Community Organizing Workshop” (http://www.pisab.org/programs#urcow), offered by the Peoples Institute for Survival and Beyond;

(2) The Steering Committee is instructed to appoint an ad-hoc committee to work with the budget writers to develop a budget for this project, to negotiate rates with vendors and venues and to promote party-wide participation in the workshop;

(3) In developing their recommendations, budget writers and the adhoc committee are urged (a) to solicit bids from state Green Parties willing to organize on-site logistical support in an affordable travel hub where they will host the weekend long workshop, providing for community housing and (b) to consider opportunities for hosting this workshop at the 2012 Presidential Nominating Convention or at such other venue and time at which the Steering Committee is otherwise assembled;

(4) the adhoc committee is instructed to work with the Fundraising Committee to solicit contributions to support this project and to seek the paid participation of Greens throughout the Party to help fill the workshop and finance the costs of its presentation; and

(5) each accredited state party is urged to provide for the participation of at least two members of their state leadership, either in the workshop organized by the adhoc committee, or at other workshops organized locally and presented by the Peoples Institute for Survival and Beyond (http://www.pisab.org/) or a similar organization offering comparable training.

6-4.8 IMPLEMENTATION/TIMELINE/RESOURCES: (personnel, meetings, work hours, finances, period of implementation, including any sunset clause if applicable)

Adoption of this resolution, will instruct the Steering Committee to appoint an ad-hoc committee to fulfill the charge anticipated by the adoption of this resolution, and further to instruct the Finance Committee to develop and the Steering Committee to recommend a 2012 Annual budget consistent with the existing deadlines to fund undoing racism training for party leadership in the coming cycle.

The on-budget costs of fulfilling the charge of this resolution is anticipated to range between $3,000 and $13,000 depending on the rates negotiated by the event organizers and whether the training is scheduled to coincide with the Presidential Nominating Convention or other opportunity at which participants might otherwise be assembled at a single venue.

6-4.9 REFERENCES: (Sources for readily obtainable materials to aid in the decision making process of voting members, including additional background)

http://pisab.org/programs

*************************************************************
Findings for Substitute 1 from Audrey Clement

I have findings to report on the amended Georgia Proposal scheduled for consideration on the 10/9/11 conference call.

Specifically, I’ve compared the text of the substitute proposal with the original and noted the following changes:

Section 6-4.2 has been amended to include new language requiring the ad hoc committee to “work with the budget writers to develop a budget for this project, to negotiate rates with vendors and venues and to promote party-wide participation in the workshop.” This language is not clear on who the budget writers tasked to assist the ad hoc committee are, whether they are ad hoc committee members, NC delegates or outside consultants. Thus I object to it as unclear in what it is asking the NC to do.

Section 6-4.7 (3) has been amended to include a new subsection “(b) to consider opportunities for hosting this workshop at the 2012 Presidential Nominating Convention or at such other venue and time at which the Steering Committee is otherwise assembled;”

I have no problem with this language.

Section 6-4.7 (4) has been amended to add new language instructing the ad hoc committee to “to work with the Fundraising Committee to solicit contributions to support this project.”

I object to this language because the Fundraising Committee is limited to soliciting contributions for the Party, not subordinate committees as per GPUS Fiscal Policy, ARTICLE IV FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE, Section 4-2 Duties and Responsibilities:

“4-2.2 Participate on an ongoing basis in the fundraising of the Party and carry out those tasks and responsibilities necessary for the Party to realize its fundraising plans and achieve its fundraising goals.”

Section 6-4.8 has been amended with language to “instruct the Steering Committee to appoint an ad-hoc committee to fulfill the charge anticipated by the adoption of this resolution”.

I have no problem with this language. However, the same section retains language to “instruct the Finance Committee to develop and the Steering Committee to recommend a 2012 Annual budget consistent with the existing deadlines to fund undoing racism training for party leadership in the coming cycle.”

I object to this language, because the Finance Committee is limited to developing a budget for the Party not subordinate committees as per GPUS Fiscal Policy, ARTICLE III FINANCE COMMITTEE, Section 3-2 Duties and Responsibilities:

“3-2.2 Prepare and submit a draft annual GPUS budget to the SC.”

Section 6-4.8 has been further amended to provide a cost estimate to GPUS of between $3,000 and $13,000 to conduct the training.

I object to this estimate because with a range of $10,000 it is not specific as to its impact on the GPUS budget. Thus it is unclear in what it is asking the NC to do.

In summary I find that the amended proposal does not meet the following requirements of GPUS Rules and Procedures, Section 6-5, Steering Committee Review:

“6-5.1 The Steering Committee shall have the responsibility to review whether a proposal satisfies the following criteria:

“6-5.1(d) Is not in conflict with GPUS Bylaws, Rules and Procedures, Fiscal Policy or Presidential Convention Rules; “6-5.1(e) Is clear in what it asks the National Committee to decide”

I recommend that the proposal be returned to Georgia for further amendment consistent with these findings.

****************************************************
GA Proposal substitute 2: Instructions to Budget Writers, Undoing Racism Training

6-4.1 SPONSOR

Georgia Green Party

6-4.2 CONTACT: Primary Presenter(s) (name, phone number, email)

Byron L. Merritt
Denice Traina

6-4.3 SUBJECT/TITLE:

Instructions to Budget Writers, Undoing Racism Training

6-4.4 TYPE OF PROPOSAL, EXPECTED APPROVAL THRESHOLD: (as per 6-2)

simple majority pursuant to 6-2.2(b) Resolutions

6-4.5 REQUESTED PROPOSAL DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE

An immediate two week discussion, followed by a one week vote.

6-4.6 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: (relationship, reasons and/or justification to the GPUS; presentation should be short and to the point, with further background provided in the Resource section)

6-4.7 PROPOSAL:

Resolved, by the National Committee of the Green Party of the United States, that:

(2) The Annual National Meeting Committee is instructed to work with the budget writers to develop a budget for this project, to negotiate rates with vendors and venues and to promote party-wide participation in the workshop;

(3) In developing their recommendations, budget writers and the Annual National Meeting Committee are urged to accomodate hosting for this workshop immediately prior to, or immediately following the 2012 Presidential Nominating Convention at such venue convenient to the Convention and on dates which do not pose conflicts for members of the Steering Committee;

(4) the Annual National Meeting Committee is instructed to work with the Fundraising Committee to solicit contributions to support this project and to seek the paid registration and participation of Greens throughout the Party to help fill the workshop and finance the costs of its presentation; and

6-4.8 IMPLEMENTATION/TIMELINE/RESOURCES: (personnel, meetings, work hours, finances, period of implementation, including any sunset clause if applicable)

Adoption of this resolution, will instruct the Annual National Meeting Committee to fulfill the charge anticipated by the adoption of this resolution, and further to instruct the Financne Committee to develop and the Steering Committee to recommend a 2012 Annual budget consistent with the existing deadlines to fund undoing racism training for party leadership in the city of and immediately prior to or after the 2012 Presidential Nominating Convention.

The on-budget costs of fulfilling the charge of this resolution is anticipated to range between $3,000 and $5,000 depending on the rates negotiated by the event organizers and understanding that the training is scheduled to coincide with the Presidential Nominating Convention.

6-4.9 REFERENCES: (Sources for readily obtainable materials to aid in the decision making process of voting members, including additional background)

http://pisab.org/programs#urcow

********************************************************
Findings on GA Proposal substitute 2: Instructions to Budget Writers, Undoing Racism Training

I recommend the Second Georgia Substitute be returned to the sponsors for amendment consistent with these findings:

GPUS Fiscal Policy, ARTICLE III FINANCE COMMITTEE, Section 3-2 Duties and Responsibilities, tasks FinCom to:

“3-2.1 Monitor and oversee the financial activities of GPUS and serve as the financial advisor to the SC.

3-2.2 Prepare and submit a draft annual GPUS budget to the SC.

3-2.3 Prepare and submit budget revisions to the SC as the Finance Committee deems appropriate or upon request from the SC.

3-2.4 Coordinate with the SC and GPUS staff on fiscal matters and make recommendations to the SC as provided for in this Fiscal Policy.

3-2.5 Propose amendments to the Fiscal Policy for consideration by the NC.

3-2.6 Monitor Party investments including the Endowed Fund, and propose changes to the SC for SC sponsorship to the NC.

3-2.7 Obtain an independent annual audit of Party financial affairs by a certified public accountant when authorized by the SC.

3-2.8 Coordinate with the Fundraising Committee and/or the Merchandise Committee where coordination between them and the Finance Committee may further each one’s respective mission, duties, and responsibilities.

3-2.9 Promote GPUS compliance with this Fiscal Policy.

3-2.10 Report on related issues of concern to the SC and/or NC”

GPUS Fiscal Policy, ARTICLE IV FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE, Section 4-2 Duties and Responsibilities, tasks FundCom to:

“4-2.1 Prepare a draft annual fundraising plan and participate in the GPUS Annual Budget planning process as specified in Section 6-3 of this Fiscal Policy.

4-2.2 Participate on an ongoing basis in the fundraising of the Party and carry out those tasks and responsibilities necessary for the Party to realize its fundraising plans and achieve its fundraising goals. 4-2.3 Coordinate with the Finance Committee and the Merchandise Committee where coordination between these committees may further each one’s respective mission, duties, and responsibilities.”

GPUS Proposal 193, which established the Annual National Meeting Committee (ANMC), stipulates its mission as follows:

“1. COMMITTEE MISSION
This committee is primarily responsible for organizing annual meetings of The Green Party of the United States, including assisting the host city in planning, organization, and facilitation of each annual meeting, and conducting appropriate follow-up.”

Nowhere in these documents are FinCom, Fundcom or ANMC authorized to organize, budget or fundraise for a special project as required by the Second Georgia Substitute. Therefore this proposal does not meet the requirements for forwarding a proposal to the votes queue insofar as it tasks FinCom, Fundcom and ANM committee to budget, fundraise for, and organize a project not described in their rules. Thus the proposal does not meet the requirements of GPUS Rules and Procedures, Section 6-5 Steering Committee Review:

“6-5.1 The Steering Committee shall have the responsibility to review whether a proposal satisfies the following criteria:
***

“6-5.1(d) Is not in conflict with GPUS Bylaws, Rules and Procedures, Fiscal Policy or Presidential Convention Rules;”

The problems with this proposal could be remedied if it tasked the ad hoc committee referenced in Section (5) of the proposal to organize, budget and fundraise for the training instead of Fincom, Fundcom and ANMC.

Audrey

===================
Proposal to the GPUS National Committee
By the GPUS International Committee

CONTACT
Justine McCabe, justinemccabe@earthlink.net, 860-354-1822

SUBJECT / TITLE
Amendments to the International Committee’s (IC) Rules, Policies & Procedures (RP&P’s)

TYPE OF PROPOSAL, EXPECTED APPROVAL THRESHOLD

In keeping with GPUS National Committee Bylaw 6-2.2(f) Rules, Policies, and Procedures for GPUS Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, Caucuses, and Networks, a majority of all ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes cast for passage.

REQUESTED PROPOSAL DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE
Timeline A – Two weeks discussion, followed by one-week vote.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

By the time the IC’s revised RP&P’s were approved by the GPUS National Committee (NC) on 12/29/10, their implementation had revealed some discrepancies and gaps. A proposal amending those discrepancies was passed by the consensus of the IC on October 11, 2011. The IC now seeks the NC’s approval of these amendments.

PROPOSAL

Approval of amendments to current RP&P’s (AMENDED LANGUAGE IN CAPITALS)

I. In order to consolidate the annual IC elections for co-chair and biennial election of FPVA and GGN delegates and alternates into one election period, these amendments are proposed:

AMEND 2-3.2(a):

2-3.2(a) The nomination period shall be announced each year by the current Co-Chairs and shall be for one week beginning on the last Monday in January and ending on the following Sunday. Only Committee Members may be nominated. Members may nominate themselves for the position. Nominations do not need to be seconded.

TO READ:

2-3.2(a) The nomination period shall be announced each year by the current Co-Chairs and shall be for TWO weekS beginning on the last Monday in January and ending SUNDAY EVENING TWO WEEKS LATER.

AMEND 3-1.6(a):

3-1.6(a) The nomination period for FPVA and GGN Delegates and Alternates shall be for two weeks beginning on the first Monday morning of January and ending Sunday evening two weeks later. Only Committee Members may be nominated. The nomination period for Global Green Congress Delegates and Alternates shall begin the first Monday morning at least 120 days prior to the commencement of the Global Green Congress and end on the following Sunday evening.

TO READ:

The nomination period for FPVA DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES and GGN Delegates shall be announced by the co-chairs every two years and shall be for two weeks beginning at 12:01 am East Coast time on the LAST Monday of January and end at midnight Sunday evening Pacific Coast time two weeks later. The nomination period for Global Green Congress Delegates AND ALTERNATES shall be for two weeks beginning at 12:01 am East Coast time on the first Monday closest to a least 120 days prior to the commencement of the Global Green Congress and end at midnight Sunday evening two weeks later. Members may nominate themselves. Nominations do not need to be seconded

II. Beginning in 2010, the number of representatives to the Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas increased from two to three, necessitating a change in our election method (from IRV to STV).

AMEND 3-1.7(A):

3-1.7(a) Elections shall be conducted on the Committee listserve or, should one be available, on the Committee voting page. FPVA Delegates and Alternates shall be elected by Instant Runoff Voting (IRV); Delegates and Alternates to the Global Green Congress by Choice Voting (STV), in both cases with “None of the Above” and “No Other Candidate” as options. Delegates and Alternates to the Global Green Network shall be elected by ranked choice.

TO READ:

3-1.7(a) Elections shall be conducted on the Committee listserve or, should one be available, on the Committee voting page. Delegates and Alternates to the FPVA AND the Global Green Congress SHALL BE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME BY Choice Voting (STV), in EACH case with “None of the Above” and “No Other Candidate” as options.

III. Pertaining to how alternates will serve, and their terms:

AMEND 3-1.3

3-1.3 Unless otherwise prescribed by the FPVA and the Global Greens respectively, the Committee shall also elect one Alternate per Delegate.

TO READ:

3-1.3 Unless otherwise prescribed by the FPVA and the Global Green Congress respectively, the Committee shall also elect a number of Alternates equal to the number of Delegates. Alternates shall serve in the order they were ranked in their election.

AMEND 3-1.4(a):

3-1.4(a) Terms of FPVA Delegates and Alternates shall be staggered, two-year terms, unless otherwise specified by the FPVA and Global Greens, respectively.

TO READ:

3-1.4(a) Terms of FPVA Delegates and Alternates shall be FOR two-year terms, unless otherwise specified by the FPVA and Global Greens, respectively.

IV. To articulate the process by which the NC will confirm the delegates elected by the Committee to the FPVA, GGN, and Global Green Congress.

AMEND 3-1.7(c):

TO READ:

3-1.7(c) Elections shall commence immediately at the close of the discussion period and shall last for one-week. The Committee co-chairs shall forward election results to the Steering and National Committees via the GPUS secretary. THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE SHALL APPROVE EACH OF THESE COMMITTEE-ELECTED DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES SEPARATELY, EMPLOYING THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S PROCESS FOR APPROVING OTHER POSITIONS SUCH AS FACILITATORS FOR ANNUAL MEETING.

V. Article V of our current rules (“Protocol for Committee Behavior”) describes the culture that the IC tries to promote as we perform our mission:

“The International Committee has a well-earned reputation for conducting its business in a respectful manner, in keeping with the Ten Key Values. This atmosphere is crucial to the work of the committee, in part because it fosters the practice of diplomatic and respectful discourse crucial for both domestic and international relations among Green activists and Green parties. Members are encouraged to state their views, inform one another, and discuss issues in depth in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect, thus enabling the energies of the committee to be focused on its work. In our internal work, we are committed to modeling the sort of ethical public discourse that differentiates Green politics from politics as usual, and that will facilitate the realization of peace, from within our committee, to international peace. Our process is as important as the content of our political positions.”

In keeping with that goal, our approved RP&P’s anticipate listserv and offlist behavior that may be obstacles. In light of the IC’s experience since the present RP&P’s were drafted, we propose an addition to the section to Article V.,Section 5-3 Offlist Violations Related to Committee Business or Function 5-3.1 Committee Members, Observers, and Advisors shall refrain from:

AMEND 5-3.1(k):

5-3.1(k) Vote-tampering or vote fraud, during any election being conducted by the Committee.

TO READ:

5-3.1(k) Vote-tampering or vote fraud, during any election being conducted by the Committee OR VOTE-TAMPERING OR VOTE FRAUD DURING ANY VOTING PROCESS IN THE SC OR NC THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE COMMITTEE’S BUSINESS OR FUNCTION.

——————–

VI. A final change is proposed herein which is unique, one time only, and not a proposed change in the RP&P’s. However, this change is relevant to the proposed amendments to the RP&P’s. It concerns the election of Michael Canney as GPUS delegate to the FPVA. In 2009 the IC elected member Michael to a two-year term as GPUS delegate to the FPVA–before the number of delegates was changed from two to three. Earlier this year (2011), the IC elected Julia Willebrand and Carl Romanelli to be the other two FPVA delegates for two-year terms, until January 2013. [They have yet to be confirmed by the NC]. Given that this proposal would amend the terms for FPVA delegates and alternates from two-year staggered terms to two-year terms for all delegates, and in order to synchronize future election cycles of FPVA delegates/alternates, it is proposed that Michael Canney’s term as delegate to the FPVA be extended until January 2013 when the next election for FPVA delegates and alternates will occur.

REFERENCES

http://www.gp.org/committees/intl/members/current_rules.html

Findings from Mark: The IC proposal is unclear in what it asks the NC to decide, because

3-1.6(a), 3-1.7(a) and 3-1.7(c) propose an IC internal nomination process that would combine nominations for FPVA and Global Greens delegates and alternates at the same time, and these proposed rules do not make it clear whether one can run for delegate and alternate at the same time within the IC, or whether one would have to declare for one or the other; and without any rule specifying that one can not run for both, it could also be possible to read the rules as allowing someone to run within and be nominated by the IC for both, which then leaves it unclear whether a person nominated for both could then be before the NC for confirmation for both and how that would occur, or whether the person nominated for both would have a choice of for which position they would be placed before the NC for confirmation.

A remedy for this would be to either hold separate, consecutive declaration and nomination processes within the IC for Delegate first and then Alternate second after the delegates are nominated by the IC and confirmed (or not) by the NC; or to come up with some other process that removes the conflicts enunciated above.