July 25, 2010

GPUS SC Conference Call
Sunday, July 25, 2010
8:00 pm EDT

========================================
I. Executive Session
II. Staff Reports
III. Treasurer’s Report
IV. Voting Queue
V. GPUS Mission Statement (follow-up from ANM)
VI. Green papers (tabled)
VII. Seeking Clarification on Legal memo
VIII. SC “findings” and secretary recognition of challenge
IX. Compliance with #460

**PROPOSALS – Part II (in the following message, following meeting minutes)
A. Request for revised platform timeline
B. Green Papers
C.Legal Questions
D.SC “findings”, secretary recognition of challenge for WI/ME proposa
E.Compliance with #460
F. Personnel
========================================

Co-chairs: Farheen Hakeem, Julie Jacobson, Jason Nabewaniec,
Craig Thorsen, Theresa El-Amin, Mike Feinstein, David Strand
Secretary: Holly Hart
Treasurer: Jody Grage, Jeff Turner
Staff: Brent McMillan, Brian Bittner

Observers: Julia Aires (FLA); Nan Garrett (GA); Morgen D’Arc (ME);
Ian Samways (PA)
Guest: Marnie Glickman, Platform Committee Co-chair

Facilitator: George Martin

Check-in, review agenda
——————————–
Craig, Mike requested the requested executive session be moved to the beginning of the call. Theresa suggested it be last, so observers can leave the call before that begins. SC AGREED to place the item at the beginning of the call.

Jeff asked to discuss meeting scheduling, stating that will not participate in endless calls.

EXECUTIVE SESSION – 8:20 p.m. – 9:05 p.m. EDT
Personnel Matter
—
SC Agreed, consensus, to establish a subcommittee in open session on the next call.
AC Agreed on time frame for action.

##################################################
II. STAFF REPORTS
Jason reminded SC members that personnel matters that are confidential need to be dealt with off list.

a. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – Brent
We are at 274 candidates.

b. OFFICE MANAGER – Brian
Brian is updating contacts and outreach for fall semester to grow campus chapters. There are currently 25 chapters. He would like to see this double by the end of the year.

Brian is planning the online fundraising campaign for August.

The July 20th monthly FEC report (report of June 2010 transactions) was filed on time.

##################################################
III. TREASURER’S REPORT – Jody, Jeff
Jody sent a financial report on Friday. Two items are in accounts payable during July: Red Sun Press, $8.2K; $2.9K to SC members for travel and per diem for ANM. A little money from ANM is still coming in. The silent auction and fundraising event raised about $2000 after expenses.

Jason asked if a per diem request in fiscal status report to provide additional funds for Mike Feinstein’s meals is inappropriate for the SC to take up. Jody replied that the money he is getting is coming out of others’ per diem. Mike stated that he had paid for two SC members’ meals when they didn’t have cash, expecting re-imbursement.

Jeff asked that people claim their per diem to which they are entitled, repay their personal loan.

Theresa thanked Jody for her service and asked her to present her future plans. Jody replied that on August 15, she will be leaving for Norway. Budd Dickinson will leave in September to join her, they will travel to Iceland then return.

##################################################
IV. VOTING QUEUE – Holly
a. ETC report from 2010 SC election. After two weeks’ time, if there has been no challenge, there is an automatic vote by the NC to certify the results. There was a delay in getting a link to the reports, so the proposal will go out this Monday.

b. PROPOSAL, Theresa: Request from members of Platcom for a revised timeline
See item **A, below.

Theresa explained that the proposal was in response to NC and many Platcom members’ concerns about “overload” and need for time.

Marnie Glickman, Platform Committee Co-chair, stated that this proposal is not from the Platcom. This stemmed from a conference call, during which 10 people agreed to Budd Dickinson’s proposal. She urges the SC to vote No: there are 30 members of the Platcom who need the opportunity to discuss and vote on this; allegedly, this agreement happened on the conference call, for which no agenda or minutes were posted. The NC agreed on the deadline at the end of June, and knew how many proposals were involved. What happened is that 10 people changed their minds and now want the NC to vote again on “process, process, process.” Theresa stated that the proposal has been posted on the Platcom list, and most of the active members have spoken in support. Mike stated that this would overturn an NC decision, so the SC should rather send a proposal for the NC to approve pushing the end date back. he also expressed concerns about how this could conflict with our bylaws.

=======
VOTE: to approve a revised platform timeline proposal by Budd Dickinson presented by Platcom Members; SC will send expedited timeline proposal to GNC to approve new schedule; in the meantime, act on revised schedule.

Theresa – Yes
David – No
Julie – No
Jason – Abstain
Craig – No
Farheen – Yes
Mike – No
Jody – Yes
Holly – Yes

RESULTS: 4 Yes, 4 No, 1 Abstain
Proposal FAILED.
=======

##################################################
V.V. GPUS Mission Statement – Jason, Craig
Jason recommends that the SC should go ahead and put out a proposal that our Mission Statement be as it as presented by George Martin at the ANM in Detroit.

Discussion
————-
Craig stated he supported this, as we shouldn’t let the momentum from the ANM die. Should we send something forward, or set up a working group to “perfect” the statement that came out of ANM? Mike suggested working up a proposal to include more bylaws language and items from past work. Holly, Farheen, Theresa, David supported Jason’s recommendation, and asked that he send this to the SC in proposal form.

Mike stated that Brent had said he felt the GNC wouldn’t accept something coming from the SC. Brent suggested a working group comprised of SC and NC members; if it’s perceived as an “SC-only” proposal, the GNC may end up not passing it. Jason said there as also a concern that if the proposal was nothing more than what the mission was stated at the meeting, we would be avoiding this problem; out of this, the next proposal would be to form a working group to continue the work of strategic plan.

AGREED that Jason will write up a proposal, incorporating forming a working group as a next step in the strategic planning process.

##################################################
TABLED to FUTURE CALL
VI. Green Papers – Mike
See Item **B.

##################################################
APPROVED ONLINE
VII. UPDATE, if needed – Legal Questions – Mike
See online vote, “Seeking Clarification on Liability Memo”
See Item **C.

Voting Yes: Mike Feinstein, Jody Grage, Julie, Jacobson, Craig Thorsen, David Strand, Theresa El-Amin, Holly Hart

Not Voting: Farheen Hakeem, Jason Nabewaniec

##################################################
VIII. Discussion: SC “Findings” and Secretary Recognition – Craig
Item
See Item **D

Craig stated that the secretary’s posting a challenge vote initiated by delegates from Wisconsin and Maine were not in accordance with the bylaws. He suggested SC consider a reprimand or recall of the Secretary.

Holly presented an explanation of the recent “challenge” vote that was in objection to SC business surrounding a voting queue item on the most recent call on July 11th. She believes her actions were in accordance with the rules.

##################################################
TABLED to FUTURE CALL
IX. DISCUSSION – Compliance with #460 – Mike
See item **E

7/25/10
Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS
##################################################
**PROPOSALS
A. Request for revised platform timeline
B. Green Papers
C.Legal Questions
D.SC “findings”, secretary recognition of challenge for WI/ME proposa
E.Compliance with #460
F. Personnel

**A. REQUEST for REVISED PLATFORM TIMELINE
In a message dated 7/22/2010 3:30:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, budd.dickinson@gmail.com writes:
Belowis a new schedule based on my proposal andthe Chapter 5 issueas discussed on last night’s call and on which we had a wide consensus among the 10 of us. I have also incorporated the 1 week delay by the SC. I had forgotten about the preamble material, so thefirst roundgoes further into September than I expected.

REVISED SCHEDULE FOR GNC DISCUSSION AND VOTING ON THE PLATFORM AMENDMENT PROPOSALS

July 5-18
Discussion period for Chapter 1 amendment proposals
July26-Aug.1
Vote on Chapter 1 amendment proposals

July19- Aug.1
Discussion period for Chapter 2amendment proposals

Aug. 2- 8Vote on Chapter 2amendment proposals

July26-Aug.1Discussion period for amendment to create Chapter 5

Aug.2 -8 Vote on amendment to create Chapter 5

Aug.1- Aug.15Discussion period for Chapter 3amendment proposals
August 16- 22Vote on Chapter 3amendment proposals

Aug.15- Aug.29Discussion period for Chapter 4amendment proposals

August30-Sept.5
Vote on Chapter 4amendment proposals

Aug.22-Sep.4
Discussion period for Chapter 5amendment proposals
(There are fewer proposals in Chapters4 & 5, so having discussion at the same time should be more acceptable.)
Sep.5- 12Vote on Chapter 5amendment proposals

Aug.29-Sep. 12 Discussion period for Call to Action, Preamble and 10 Key Values
Sep.13-19Vote on Call to Action, Preamble and 10 Key Values

Sep.5- Sep.19
Discussion period for housekeeping and conflicting amendments
Sep.19 – 26 Vote on housekeeping and conflicting amendments
Budd Dickinson, WA

##################################################
**B GREEN PAPERS

PROPOSAL: Green Papers Appointments
Presenter: Mike Feinstein
Background: The GPUS Media Committee has approved of a Green Papers policy (http://www.gp.org/committees/media/green-papers), that includes the appointment of a Green Papers sub-committee. The sub-committee consists of three members appointed by the Media Committee, two by the Platform Committee and two by the Steering Committee (SC).

The task of the sub-committee is to vet the Green Papers before their publication. This will be done through a simple, non-bureaucratic process based on the authors expertise and experience, adherence to the GP’s platform positions and principles and conformance with the party’s editorial guidelines http://www.gp.org/greenpages/edpolicy.php as established for its party newspaper Green Pages.

The Media Committee has conducted three separate outreach emails in 2010 to solicit volunteers for the sub-committee, including with the hope that new volunteers would come forward from the states. Eight people have submitted their names for the seven positions. The Media Committee has chosen its three and the Platform Committee its two, leaving the Steering Committee to chose two from the remaining three.

Budd Dickinson (PlatCom appointment)
Andrea Dorey (Media Comm appointment)
Sanda Everette
Rocky Neptun
Brandon Punke (Media Comm appointment)
AJ Segneri (PlatCom appointment)
Brian St. Germaine (Media Comm appointment)
Sandy Stiassni

On the Media committee’s June conference call, the consensus was that the strongest two applicants were Neptune and Everette. Steering Committe members know Everette. Neptun is a journalist, published in numerous California publications, a regular contributor to MediaLeft website and a former elected Green to the San Diego Planning Board). He is also gay and lives with his Mexican partner in Tijuana in a bi-national existence, bringing a unique experience as US Green.

Proposal: That the Steering Committee appoint Rocky Neptune and Sanda Everette to the Green Pages Sub-Committee.

Attachment: Email from Starlene Rankin of the Media Committee
[edit]
========================================
From: greenstarlene@gmail.com Subject: [usgp-media] Green Papers Sub-Committee Date: July 21, 2010 10:09:22 AM PDT To: usgp-media@lists.gp-us.org
Hi folks,

We need to pick three of the Greens who have volunteered for the Green Papers sub-committee. The SC and the Platform Com will get two each. The Platform Committee has already chosen AJ and Budd. Scott and I are recommending that we choose Andrea Dorey, Brandon Punke and Brian St. Germaine. The SC will choose their two from the remaining three this Sunday at their meeting. That means almost all of our volunteers will be on the sub-committee! I will be on the sub-committee listserv as a liaison to the MC.

If you have any objections to the MC picking those three, please let us know before the end of this week.

Thank you! Starlene

AJ Segneri (dibs platcom) Budd Dickinson (dibs platcom) Rocky Neptun Sandy Stiassni Sanda Everette Andrea Dorey Brandon Punke Brian St. Germaine

More info:

Brandon Punke <media@whitneyforgov.org>
I’d be interesting if helping out if need be. My real strength lies in research and editing. Please let me know what quesitons you have. I’m the Communications director for Rich Whitney and this is my second campaign for the greens in that kind of role.

Brian St. Germaine <brianstg@att.net> Anaheim, CA. Lavender Green Caucus member

AJ Segneri <aj.segneri@gmail.com>

Budd Dickinson <budd.dickinson@gmail.com>

Rocky Neptun:
As a journalist, published in numerous California publications, a regular contributor to MediaLeft website and as a former elected Green (San Diego Planning Board), I would like to serve on the Green Papers sub-committee.

Sandy Stiassni
I was pleased to learn U.S. GP Media Committee seeks volunteers to serve on Green Papers Sub-Committee. Sign me up!

In brief; a 53 year old white male, I live in Irvine, CA. My time in Green swamp’s been comparatively short; since 2005 I’ve attended local meetings, ad-hoc advocacy programs; registered Green in 2008, when I ran Tom Lash’s OC congressional campaign, helped out Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. I’m two year member of OC Green Party County Council, currently sit as Vice Chair. Recent activities include advocacy on behalf of OC bus riders, campaign management of Deacon Alexander’s spunky primary gubernatorial bid, support and strategy for U.S. Senate candidate Duane Roberts, involvement in Latino civil rights, educational activism (poetry!) for 3rd grade barrio students, campaign for Pacifica KPFK Free Speech Radio’s Local Station Board.

My first passion’s grassroots democracy, to empower Green candidates to run for appointed and elected office. My ability to write well has also given me opportunity over last five years to become conversant with wide array of Green issues, listed below:

Civil Liberties; Involvement in Immigrant Rights campaign. Civil Rights: Council Secretary of local League of United Latin American Citizens. Criminal Justice: On first name basis with Angela Davis, Critical Resistance movement. Drug Policy: Organized OC Pro-Con debate on drug decriminalization. Death Penalty: wrote Deacon Alexander’s prison abolition platform. Ecological Sustainability: Candidate for Irvine Ranch Water District Board of Trustees. Education: Campaign advisor to Vicki Calhoun, Fullerton Joint School Board candidate. Grassroots Democracy: Recognized by GPCA press lord Cres Valucci in Green Focus http://www.cagreens.org/greenfocus/pdfs/GreenFocus.2010.Spring.pdf for successful statewide and federal candidate promotions. Housing: Long-term property manager, lobbied Fullerton to add low income housing. Immigration: proud LULAC member, embarrassed resident of one of world’s largest concentrations of anti-immigrant kooks, racist demagogues, legislative Latino oppressors. LBGT: friend of Orange County Equality Coalition, which wrote Prop. 8 legal appeal. Open Space: Followed Save Coyote Hills http://www.coyotehills.org/ successful open space campaign. Transportation: As part of Transit Advocates of Orange County www.transitadvocatesoc.org; lobbied to forestall, amend massive bus cutbacks.

Good luck with your selection process. Let me know if I can help.

I am interested in being on the sub-committee. Sanda Everette

Andrea Dorey
Hi, I just finished writing, copyediting, and proofing material for the Green Focus, our state newspaper in California. I am willing to work on this project as well.

I have been a staff Medical Writer and Medical Editor for several pharma companies for more than 20 years, as well as a columnist for a flock of local papers in Santa Clara County for about 4 years. I was also a host and producer for a long-lived, award winning TV series for seniors in the SF Bay Area known as The Better Part (www.thebetterpart.com).

The only drawback is my lack of wifi at home; I download/upload stuff at the local libraries or other freebie places in Silicon Valley about 3-4 times per week when I drive down my 2000 foot mountain. If you can stand occasional delays in reaching me because of the foregoing, don’t mind having to contact me on a cellphone (no land line), I can turn around stuff at a decent pace and work quite well in a team situation.
=
##################################################
**C.CLARIFICATION OF LIABILITY MEMO

SC ONLINE VOTE
Seeking Clarification on Liability Memo
Sponsor/Presenters: Mike Feinstein, Craig Thorsen
Discussion: Monday, July 19th – Wednesday, July 21st

Vote:Thursday, July 22nd – Saturday, July 24th

Background: A legal memo about GPUS liability issues was sent by GPUS attorney Andrew Finko to the Steering Committee (SC) on August 21st, 2010, via former SC member Phil Huckleberry. On its October 11th, 2010 conference call, the SC voted to release the memo to the National Committee (http://www.gp.org/committees/steering/minutes-display.php?ID=48).

In that memo, Finko stated that individual NC members would not be liable for debts or contracts of the GPUS, but rather the individual state parties they represented would be. However, Finko did not address the question of the varying legal status of different state parties and how that might affect their individual liability — and hence the collective liability of all the state parties. In addition, although he did not state it specifically in the memo, Finko also seemed to imply that GPUS caucuses would not be similarly liable as a state party.

In both cases, further clarify on the liability status of state parties and caucuses accredited by the GPUS would help the party understand what its actual liability status is. This answer would help inform us on which state parties actually have liability and it can help the National Committee and the accredited caucuses sort through whether in the future, from a liability standpoint, the caucuses should have independent status as Political Action Committees or whether they should be legally internal to the GPUS.

SC Internal Procedures state that “It shall be a standard practice of the Steering Committee, that when seeking a legal opinion and/or advice in performance of its responsibilities under GPUS Bylaws and Rules & Procedures, that the Steering Committee shall first approve a proposal to do so, that includes what information is requested and what background information be provided.” (http://www.gp.org/committees/steering/Internal-Procedures.php#03)

This proposal is such a request

Proposal: That the SC send the following to Andrew Finko as follow up of his memo of 8/21/09, and request a response by end of October 2010 so that this information can be available when the SC forwards the draft 2011 budget to the NC:

1) In your memo of 8/21/09, you stated that

Contracts which are within scope of the budget voted upon by NC members and which are signed by the SC (and/or other designated persons) on behalf of the GP-US, are ultimately the responsibility of the individual state parties, since the state parties are the “principals” for whom the NC members are “agents.”

How does the legal status of whom the GPUS considers to be state parties affect this? For example, some state parties accredited by the GPUS have legal ballot status that is recognized by the state. Others do not have such status, but are Political Action Committees. Others are simply groupings of individuals that while accredited by the GPUS, have no other legal status.

So question #1 for Andrew Finko is

“If it is the case that the state parties recognized by the GPUS are legally liable for decisions of the National Committee, does the differing legal status of the recognized parties mean that some state parties are either/both not functionally or legally liable? If so, does that mean the debt would default to those parties with recognized legal status by state government and/or Political Action Committee status?

and question #2 for Andrew Finko is

“If it is the case that the state parties recognized by the GPUS are legally liable for decisions of the National Committee, is it the case that GPUS caucuses are not also liable, and if so, is it because the GPUS bylaws state that the GPUS is a Federation of State Parties and that caucuses are considered internal to and not legally separate from the GPUS, or for some other reason; and if caucuses were legally separate Political Action Committees, could they still be considered not liable if GPUS bylaws continued to say that the GPUS is a Federation of State Parties, i.e. that the ‘members’ of the GPUS are state parties and not state parties and caucuses?”

##################################################
**D. Discussion Item: SC Findings and Secretary recognizing Article 6-10 Challenges
Craig Thorsen

Background:The SC made findings on June 13 on the WI/ME Proposal which were not challenged by the sponsors when they were posted to the National Committee (NC) list on June 18. On July 17, the Secretary posted a ‘challenge’ regarding the WI/ME Proposal in contradiction to the rules of 6-10, which required a challenge no later than June 21.

The manner in which the challenge was posted was also factually inaccurate, by listing the SC as the sponsor of a proposal to challenge the SC’s own decision.

Furthermore the manner in which the challenge was posted showed a bias for one position on the ‘challenge’ (see text below).

Discussion:Where is the party’s oversight when the Secretary does not follow the Rules, specifically the Rules in Article 6-10 regarding challenges under Article 6-10? What happens when the Secretary misrepresents challenges and posts them in the name of the SC, when the SC has not sponsored such a challenge?

Attached:Posted text of “challenge” and discussion of how ‘challenge’ was posted:

This text was posted in the Introduction:

In accordance with our policy on procedural objections (Process for Resolution of Procedural Objections -http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml; adopted in proposal #266, 4/1/07), the Green National Committee is asked to vote on whether to uphold the Steering Committee’s decision to request further revisions of the proposal from the Wisconsin Green Party and Maine Independent Green Party before re-considering whether to send the proposal to the voting queue.

As a point of information, the proper reference is:http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml#06-10.

If this was the decision to be ‘challenged’, then the decision made by the SC “to request further revisions of the proposal from the Wisconsin Green Party and Maine Independent Green Party before re-considering whether to send the proposal to the voting queue” was made on June 13, when the SC made findings regarding what kind of revision needed to have been made by the proposal’s sponsors.

But as mentioned above, it was too late on July 17 to recognize a challenge of a decision made on June 13. So under the Secretary’s own introductory text as posted, such a proposal could not be recognized and posted on July 17.

Furthermore, had such a challenge been made in a timely manner (within 72 hours after the minutes of the June 13 meeting were posted on June 18), then the challenge as posted by the Secretary should have included the findings made on June 13, otherwise, how would the NC know which decision it was being asked to consider upholding or not?

This text followed in the introduction:

In this case, you are being asked to vote on whether you approve of the Steering Committee’s decision. Vote YES if you agree with the SC’s decision. Vote NO if you disagree; i.e., if you believe the proposal should go to the voting queue, either as is or with the specified revisions

This last part of the last sentence is nonsensical and simply confuses the reader. What could it mean ‘as is or with the specified revisions’?

If the challenge had been properly made, then the question would be either it goes to the queue as submitted for the June 13 meeting or not. A challenge would not involve any ‘revisions’ to the June 13 version.

How can the Secretary post such confusing information if she is to be depended upon to make it clear what is the decision before the NC?

Then this text was posted as the proposal:

The GPUS National Committee sustains (agrees with) the GPUS Steering Committee in withholding from the voting queue the Wisconsin/Maine proposal limiting the number of individuals from any one state that can serve on the SC at the same time.

First, this language does not refer to the findings of June 13, where an actual decision was made (as referenced in the introduction) “to request further revisions of the proposal from the Wisconsin Green Party and Maine Independent Green Party before re-considering whether to send the proposal to the voting queue.”

Secondly, the text does not even use the non-biased language from the introduction to frame the question, for example, it could have used consistent language from the introduction to say:

“The GPUS National Committee sustains (agrees with) the GPUS Steering Committee in its decision to request further revisions of the proposal from the Wisconsin Green Party and Maine Independent Green Party before reconsidering whether to send the proposal to the voting queue”

But the Secretary did not do this and instead, placed a bias in the question by calling the SC’s decision to approve findings “withholding” a proposal from the NC, when in reality the SC approved findings as specified by the NC (in 6-10), so it did not ‘withhold’ anything.

What can be done when the Secretary imposes her personal political preferences upon how a proposal is posted to the voting page?

IF the challenge had been made timely, and IF the challenge was about a decision of the SC, then the actual decision of the SC needed to have been put in the proposal, so that it would have been clear what the NC would be voting upon.

Therefore had the challenge been made timely, the Secretary should have posted the proposal as follows:

The GPUS National Committee sustains (agrees with) the findings approved by GPUS Steering Committee on June 13, as below:
Title: Findings regarding WIGP/MEGP proposal:
Background:Article VI of the GPUS Rules and Procedures states in 6-5 that the Steering Committee (SC) shall review proposals for their consistency with the criteria within 6-5.1. One of the conditions under 6-5.1 which the SC must consider is:

6-5.1(e) Is clear in what it asks the National Committee to decide;

The WIGP/MEGP proposal states in 6-1.2 “If the number of nominees from any state delegation exceeds the limit in the first paragraph of article IV, the number of nominees from that state’s delegation shall be reduced by random selection to comply with the limit prior to the beginning of voting on the Saturday before the Annual National Meeting by the Elections Tabulation Committee.” but does not specify in any detail whatsoever how this random selection process is supposed to occur. Of note is the fact that the Election Tabulation Committee members will not be in the same place on the Saturday before the Annual National Meeting, so any type of random selection process would have to be one conducted without all the Election Tabulation Committee members present.

Proposal: That the SC approve the following findings:

The WIGP/MEGP proposal is in conflict with 6-5.1(e) because the proposal states”If the number of nominees from any state delegation exceeds the limit in the first paragraph of article IV, the number of nominees from that state’s delegation shall be reduced by random selection to comply with the limit prior to the beginning of voting on the Saturday before the Annual National Meeting by the Elections Tabulation Committee.”,but the proposal does not specify in any detail whatsoever how this random selection process is supposed to occur.

To address these findings, a process for random selection must be specified.

##################################################
**E. COMPLIANCE WITH RULES

Discussion Item: Compliance with GPUS Rules Regarding SC Minutes

Mike Feinstein

Background: The passage of #460 determines a new format and newcontent for GPUS SC minutes:

http://www.gp.org/documents/rules.shtml#03

“3-1.4 Minutes of Steering Committee meetings and conference callsshall consist of the date, time, location (where applicable) andattendance, agenda items heard, decisions-taken (including who voted for, against or stood aside) and the text of all proposals.”

A reminder of this change was posted to the SC list on July 10th. Theminutes for the 7/13 SC meeting do not correspond to this format. First, they contain subjective material that is not to be includedaccording to #460. The Secretary has posted to the SC email list thatshe is not going to follow #460 and instead is going to simplycontinue to post how she personally chooses to post.

Second, several corrections for the 7/13 minutes have posted to the SC lists by Brent McMillian, Craig Thorsen and Mike Feinstein.

SC Rules and Procedures state that “Members shall have 72 hours from the time the minutes are posted tosend corrections. The Secretary shall make a good faith effort toincorporate this input to ensure the most factually accurate record. ”

The Secretary has not made any of the corrections, includingincredibly the text of findings proposed by Farheen Hakeem as requiredby GPUS Rules and Procedures on the SC changing the time line forplatform proposals. A copy of the corrections by Mike Feinstein is
posted below.

Discussion: When the GPUS Secretary willfully defies the National Committee’s stated policy for preparing SC minutes, what is the roleof the Steering Committee in ensuring compliance. What is the role in the National Committee in ensuring compliance?

##################################################
**F. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Decision Item: Executive Session – Personnel
Mike Feinstein
Background: The 2011 GPUS budget will be due to the National Committee by November 15th. One of the variables that greatly affects the budget are the staff positions.
Discsussion: This discussion item would be to hear from specific GPUS Staff regarding their intentions for 2011.