GPUS SC Conference Call
Sunday, June 13, 2010
8:00 pm EDT
Co-chairs:
Sanda Everette, Craig Thorsen, Jason Nabewaniec, Mike Feinstein, Claudia Ellquist; David Strand joined about an hour into the call
Secretary: Holly Hart
Treasurer: Jody Grage
Staff: Brent McMillan, Brian Bittner
Farheen Hakeem is not able to be on the call.
Guest: Marnie Glickman, Co-chair, Platcom
Facilitator: Craig Thorsen
########################################################
I. STAFF REPORTS
a. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – Brent
Sent weekly work report on Friday. Discussed the Progressive Dialogue event on Thursday at the ANM, GPUS is co-hosting. Brent was asked to speak to the group for a few minutes, and he has agreed.
“No Nonsense Guide to Green Politics” has come out. Brent asked publisher to get copies for the USSF.
Brent was contacted by Gale Group representative, they are now negotiationg the format in which Green Pages will be presented, sent info to David McCoquodale (Green Pages editor).
Book Salon this week went very well. Michael Ostrolenk and Brent co-facilitated, felt people really appreciated the event. David Korten is interested in attending the Progressive Dialogue
Elections Database about 243 , increase in candidates we have running. Primaries in CA. Correspondence with Kat Swift with situation in Texas – Dems have sued Greens over ballot access funding.
Mail drop for next re-solicitation letter was Wednesday (waiting for confirmation); First returns expected Saturday, 6/19.
Met with Scott Keyes, fundrising contractor to GP of Canada. He went over database “issues,” may be able to suggest solutions that will cost little or nothing to upgrade for fundraising purposes
Invited to presentation panel tomorrow involving Center for American Progress.
b. OFFICE MANAGER – Brian
Brian has been working on ANM preparations. There are currently 84 registrants for ANM, 68 paid (rest are staff or SC, or people who have not yet paid). Website for the event has been updated, with tentative plenary schedule and schedule of Green-sponsored workshops and meetings. Will also add USSF workshops featuring Greens. Letters went out to all regsitratns last week, with details on when and where events are taking place, more information on resources for housing and transportation. Detroit and MI GReens are organizing several events, including silent auction, Saturday night fundraiser and other activities, including some direct action. The AnmCom has been meeting every Thursday for the past couple of month. Working on packet, will need materials by next Monday morning, at the latest.
Mke asked about business cards. Brent has a template and color printer in the office.
########################################################
II. TREASURER’S REPORT – Jody
a. Report sent Saturday. With money that came in Saturday we have $166 in the General Account. Have paid webmaster for May (statement received late), June rent, and liability insurance. Let Brian and Brent know that salaries will not be paid on time. $4375 in reserve account for ANM, the balance of the funds they have taken in after ANM expenses to date.
b. MerchCom Request
FinCom recommended to SC that we order T-shirts that will be sent to Detroit. SC approved on line.
########################################################
III. VOTING QUEUE, misc. secretary items – Holly
a. DECISION/VOTE REQUIRED: the WI/ME proposal (no. of SC members per state at any given time) was re-submitted within 48 hours of the last call (5/30/10), but SC has not followed up with an online vote, per our agreement. 2 or 3 voted to approve. The SC has also not followed up with a more extended online vote process. As no further “findings” have been submitted, the WI/ME proposal should now be sent on to the voting queue.
– Mike has written he has “findings” he will send ot the SC for consideration on the call. MIke stated he felt that findings should not have been taken up during the 3-day vote, but brought to the next SC call.
Holly – given the delays, and the fact that the SC collectively did not follow through, proposes this goes to the voting queue, with the findings posted immediately with the request this be dealt with; should be an easy fix.
Sanda – if the SC vote failed because there was no quorum, we can’t send it on. We’ve sent it back three times, and each time it gets works. This isn’t an easy fix.
Jason – because we did put it to a vote, if quourm wasn’t met, then accoring to our rules it passes, as is. The ETC is tasked with working things out.
Craig – concerns are that this proposal, as stated, does not address the SC election this year, no rush to deal with it now; it doesn’t match the bylaws; this is rushing to judgment while we’re trying to prepare for the ANM.
Jody – over time, there has been experience with putting things the voting queue expecting a change, and it doesn’t happen. Don’t want proposal to go into the voting queue until it’s ready.
Claudia – “random” selection is a clear idea; it’s not our role to judge ideas.
Mike – SC task is to require a clear process. To Jason: rules apply to the submission deadline, but we were to deal with this in between meetings, but we didn’t get quourm. Quorum wasn’t to get a No vote, but Yes vote.
Holly – notes we have delegated tasks to ETC; repeat, the issue here is the SC’s collective failure. “Quorum” referred to a vote for approval or not, not for a partiular outcome, irrelevant.
Jason – rules apply the same whether a decision is taken up online or on a call. We put the proposal forward in play to our rules.
Jody – given difficulties we have had with SC eletions in thepast, clarity is needed, both for sake of the election as a whole and the sometimes beleagured ETC.
**********
VOTE to approve “findings” and return proposal to Wi/ME
Mike – Yes
Holly – No
Claudia – No
Jason – No
Craig – Yes
Sanda – Yes
Jody – Yes
APROVED, 4 YES, 3 NO
FINDINGS WILL BE SENT BACK TO WI/ME
*********
c. Items submitted for voting queue
i. From GPGA: R&P, Amend, Findings Stay Vote, Not Discussion (see forwarded proposal) Submitted on Tuesday, 6/8. The secretary asks that this be added to the voting queue agenda for this call.
Sanda stated that with this and the GA proposal, her intent on not supporting adding them to tonight’s call agenda was because they were submitted past the dealine, and there is a lot to discuss with the ANM, the SC needs to have time for that.
SC AGREED, THIS WILL BE TAKEN UP ON THE NEXT REGULAR SC CALL.
ii. 6/9/10; ETC: Mock Election (Voting Page Software Test). The secretary asks that this be added to the voting queue agenda for this call.
2 day discussion, 3 day vote; to go out tomorrow
Floor manager: David Strand
iii. 6/11/10; International Committee: Mission Statement.
The secretary asks that this be added to the voting queue agenda for this call. Jason stated that this has been subitted awhile ago, discussed and the contents already known, feels it can go forwrd to teh voting queue now; would approve adding it to tonight’s agenda.
*******
VOTE to add this proposal to the agenda
Mike – No
Holly – Yes
Claudia – Abstain
Jason – Yes
Craig – No
Sanda – No
Jody – No
WILL NOTE BE ADDED TO THIS CALL’S AGENDA, DUE IT THIS COMING IN AFTER THE DEADLINE
4 NO, 2 Yes, 1 Abstain
*******
David joined the call.
iv. 6/13/10; Mike Feinstein, for the SC to consider sponsoring: Platform
Update Process
Marnie Gickman, Platcom Co-chair, stated her support for the proposal She stated no one on the platcom had responded to her posting this to that list. Sanda asked if there wa sa chacne for Platcom to join in sponsoring the proposal if it goes into the voting queue. Marnie stated it is not, iting testing a decision-making process like GPCA uses, but haven’t gotten enoug feedback, citing low activity on Platcom.
Jody – said she has some real concerns: putting all o the proposed amendments on teh voting queue at one time; roposal goes way beyond 2010 in trying to define a process, and we need something useful for this cycle; not seen ecvidence of need for August 29th deadline; question of sponsoring/co-sponsoring shoud wait until after the ANM
Holly – several points that push this farther beyond the platform process, as already invove d in recent platform proposals adopted by the NC; some items added that are irrelevant. Too many open-ended questions that leave open questions of who controls process. We alreayd have process rules passed with in the last year, and from earlier process, believes should be sufficient.
Mike – stated the process is clear that the platform process is managed by the paltcom. Prefer we have a “caracass” of some process, not so much as what’s in it. He stated he didn’t mind doing major revisions withi the next few days. Not great investment in content, but just in having something there. We need something. We’ve already posted to Platcom and BRPP.
Sanda – [didn’t hear it all]
Holly – we do have something, concerned about a rush to pass something. We have decide we don’t want “unfinished” proposals on the voting page, yet now we have something that may need major revisions and we are being ased to send this to to the voting queue.
David – feel like we’re tied to pass something he is not sure is completely necessary; betwen what we’ve already passed this year, plus previously, the process is the jurisdiction of the platform committee. Hasn’t read the full proposal. Would like to put this off for a week to give Platcom opportunity to move on theri decision-making process, more time for feedback on this from Platcom and BRPP; make sure we revise it before we put it out.
Jody – [didn’t hear it all] Later stated the proposal doesn’t address need to resolve conflicting propsals before they are voted.
Sanda – when GPCA discussed al those proposals, we didn’t think that on April 15th we wouldnt have opportuinty to work further with them. If peopel weren’t sure about something, they approved an item and assumed there would be chance to make changes.
Mike – should say “presenter” = Platcom; “sponsor” = state party or caucus. Asked if some revisions were made tonight, if SC would approve. David asked if Mike could do this and have SC would review online.
Marnie stated that none of the PLatcom’s 29 membes have commented on this proposal; platcom members are expressing frustration with process and rules. There is no problem with posting 80 proposals to voting page, they are already up on the web, so they’re already there. All great proposals, all substantive.
***
VOTE to adopt this proposal to send to voting queue; Mike will post revised proposal, incorporate language to address concerns; discussion through tomorrow evening. If there is sufficient agreement to pass it, go ahead; if not, continued for another 24 hours.
Mike – Yes
Holly – No
Claudia – Yes
Jason – Abstain
Craig – Yes
Sanda – Yes
Jody – Yes
David – Yes
PASSED: 6 YES, 1 NO, 1 Abstain
******
#######################################################
IV. ANM – Farheen, Mike, Holly, Jason, et al.
Tabled to Next Call: a. Discussion: An Introduction to the USSF to the Green Party Steering Committee members – Farheen
—-
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 talk about expectations and roles of SC members at the USSF, given that it is the first time for most SC members.
b. Agenda
i. Strategic planning
– update on #445 failure review – Holly/Jason – will report on next call
2) SC report to NC – Mike
3) Structure of SC meeting with new SC members after ANM – Mike
MIke said he wouldm ake a pdf. of our committee bylaws and procedures, committee rules
Jody – we will need to decide when conference calls are held; list of committees that ned portfolio liaisons
Holly – Brent & Brian should do overview of office and what work is involved; go over voting page and voting queue process
#######################################################
V. PORTFOLIOS
David – would like to have time for a meeting in Detroit for people interested in reviving the Diversity Committee
Craig – Ballot Access: Craig and Audrey Clement wer ein Arkansas petitioning, got 10% of the needed signatures. Current ballot access lawsuit by Arkansas Greens, if that is successful, they would be on the next ballot in 2012, regardless of voting percentages thi year. BAC is currently in the preocess of electing two new co-chairs.
Mike – Media: 6 individuals responded to call for volunteers for sub-committee to review “green papers”
#######################################################
Agreed to add an extra call regarding the ANM meetings June 20th
6/13/10
Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS