SC Minutes — April 17, 2003 (Approved)
Participants:
Ben Manski, Jo Chamberlain (timekeeper), Dean Myerson (notetaker), Jake Schneider (facilitator), Badili Jones, Anita Rios
Abbreviations used:
AC = Accreditation Committee
BRPP = Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures Committee
BC = Black Caucus
CC = Coordinating Committee
CCC = Coordinated Campaign Committee
CG SC = Campus Greens Steering Committee
DC = Diversity Committee
FC = Fundraising Committee
FEC = Federal Election Commission
GP = Green Party
GW = George Washington University
IC = International Committee
ICA = Institute for Cultural Affairs
LC = Lavender Caucus
LG = Lavender Greens
SC = Steering Committee
[Brackets denote editor’s suggested corrections. Some punctuation corrections done with no content change. -ed.]
Agenda additions:
Jo > minutes approval, trip to Utah, Ginny Case/Feinstein in exec session
Ben > may have to leave early unless we can rush through things
Anita > is Annie’s request for additional time in the agenda?
Jo > I think in exec session
Ben > already have 10 minutes for office situation
[None]
Treasurer’s Report
Jake > Let’s start. Did anyone not get my emailed report? 2 additions: actual reserve in Sovereign Bank is $38069. Two more deposits: $1753, $1039.
Jo > Doug posted first quarter ending report with email summary which I thought was appropriate. Also, not sure if had approved minutes.
Jake > Dean sent email out today regarding state sharing. I said in my report that it was about $8600 to pay by months end. Might be an additional $4000 once we get database fixed.
Jo > Not sure if SC has been following updates on sustainer program and database update. Anybody not seeing those?
[none]
Tomorrow is our first Finance Committee meeting and we will discuss the database and work on it. Other agenda items are credit card, auditor, fiscal impact on proposals, July meeting financial impact, 2004 budget, travel agent, communication tools, finance committee relationship with staff, FEC filing. All welcome to join at 12:30 to 2:30 pacific time on this line.
April 3 Minutes Approval
Jake> Amendment or corrections to minutes from last meeting?
Jo > Request that Dean post to CC tomorrow.
Ben > Dean, did you get corrections? I sent them the day after. Dean please send minutes again and I will send corrections again.
SC Fundraising
[Jack not here, return to it next time]
Liaison reports
Campus Greens, Tom not here, tabled
Diversity Committee
Anita > Had a conference call last Wednesday. I was supposed to send you the Diversity Committee proposal that it is being fine-tuned to become a standing committee. Have been functioning as a committee with a budget, but we want to firm up the process by which people join the committee. Will get that to you ASAP.
We also discussed the Black Caucus proposal. Had some reservations about the cost. Sent it back to the caucus to bring the cost down. In the process of reviewing that and hope to get a revised proposal. Might do one of those events with the DC meeting this summer. Did ask to have a joint conference call with Accreditation Committee but I haven’t seen a response to that yet but I’m behind on email.
Ben > Did you make the request or somebody else on Diversity Committee?
Anita > I made it.
Ben > Haven’t heard anything from Accreditation Committee co-chairs.
Pending/In-progress votes
2004 convention
Jo > I put out a request for proposals for the 2004 convention with the template from Ben. Heard from Virginia and tried to answer their questions. Haven’t heard from Madison, which Ben said would apply [Ben Milwaukee]. Have until May 5, so I thought I would put out another reminder. This will be our first convention as a national party.
Dean > I also heard from VA and responded to some questions. Also heard from Susan King who said San Francisco might apply, answered some questions from her.
Ben > Milwaukee is working with the convention bureau. Jo, have any of them talked to anybody in Minnesota about their bid since then?
Jo > No.
Discretionary Spending policy
Jake > Send out email April 11 asking for an extension. Asked again on April 14, still no reply. We need to extend the voting. Do not have quorum. Would like to extend voting a couple of weeks, May 4. Consensus?
[yes]
Ben > Stay away from Kent State.
Jake > Will tell delegates that this is the last extension. Real lack of interest on delegates part. No more extensions.
Travel Expense policy
Jo > Proposal went out and I received responses from Juscha, Jane, and Carol Miller. Requests for changes have to do with mileage. People think we should use IRS plan, 36.5 cents/mile. Travel agent gets mixed results. Might leave that up to traveler. Not clear on 30-day delay on reimbursement. Will work on that. Some concern about SC being able to override prohibition on travel in special cases. I have a reimbursement form. Last thing was conferences, that you could stay at conference hotel and not find other housing. Other thing, about finding cheapest flights. Issue over food per diem.
Ben > Tell Manhattan people that some of us live on under $5.
Anita > Either of those is better than what we are doing so far. Jane had a question about Treasurer’s prerogative on spending money. Did you deal with that?
Jo > Dean dealt with that. Need to clarify what it is that the Treasurer decides.
Dean > Government also has a chart on per diem costs for food that varies by Metro area costs of living.
Jo > Will put out a version two.
Louisiana/Indiana
Ben > Louisiana passed overwhelmingly. Indiana goes to a vote in a week and a half.
POCLAD
Jake > Tom not here, tabled.
Platform/Caucus submissions
Ben > Michigan and Wisconsin proposing a proposal that accredited caucuses be treated the same as states for purposes of platform submissions. Platcom had some disagreement and these states feel that the CC needs to take it up. We need a floor manager and date.
Jake > Offers to be floor manager?
Badili > When?
Ben > If we could start Monday, that would be fine.
Badili > I’ll do it, please send me the text.
Jake > 2 week discussion and 1 week voting schedule.
Badili > Have it out on Monday?
Ben > Yes, with standard formatting.
Greenpages
Ben > I hope people got a chance to look at Greenpages proposal, fairly detailed editorial policy. Not everything, but I feel it addresses all of the concerns I had. They would like us to schedule that for a vote. I’m not sure if my version is the final version. We should prepare to schedule it for a vote.
Dean > I have seen some comments still, so you should ask if it is final. Also, they want to go ahead with the next issue while the vote is going on.
Anita > Couldn’t we just approve it since they are under the SC?
Ben > We could in the short run, but the proposal also is to make Greenpages a standing committee, and that would have to go to the CC.
Anita > I agree with that. If it has a provision to be a committee, it has to go to a vote. Then I would delay any publication until the vote passes.
Jo > I support that but we could provisionally support the policy and allow a publication to go forward. I would support that if we thought it would be advantageous to the party to have another issue now.
Ben > I would support that; we should provisionally approve the policy and let them move forward with the issue.
Anita > I don’t have a problem in principle, a good solution. If they are then putting forward something that includes the editorial policy for a vote, I don’t want it to appear that we usurping the authority of the CC by approving something that we asking the CC to vote on. I would be more comfortable if we just approve the editorial policy and then the standing committee as a separate vote.
Ben > I hear that, about perceptions; at the same time we do have oversight over editorial policy. I really don’t think we are overstepping our authority. We did impose the suspension on publishing an issue so we just could lift that and let them move forward. But if the CC rejected the proposal, we would need to reinstate the suspension. They made a good-faith effort and we should allow them to go ahead.
Jake > I’m at a loss at the moment as to where we are going.
Anita > I will agree and let us go ahead with the proposal from Jo and Ben.
Ben > Dean can inform them but we need a floor manager. I’m willing to unless somebody steps forward. None, so I will do it. I will assume a 3 week discussion and 1 week vote schedule.
2003 CC meeting site
Anita > I have been in contact with Howard and with Jason Ravin today. As of yesterday and today, I was not able to get a final answer. They were asking for some additional information, which I gave them, about what we are (a political party). They asked for the agenda for the meeting, which I didn’t have. I gave them an overview. I haven’t gotten any response yet. Jason said he had spoken to the person who would make the decision and she said she would approve it but I haven’t actually gotten that approval yet.
Ben > Do you mean the housing or the entire event?
Anita > The entire thing. Jason spoke with the person who would approve the conference facilities.
Ben > The conference facilities and dorm rooms are separate
[yes].
So that’s the conference facilities.
Anita > My understanding is that if we get the conference facilities, we will get the housing. But until we get approval for one, we don’t get the other.
Ben > We need to make a decision. I propose that we give them until Monday at the end of the day, notify tomorrow morning, to give us final approval. If we haven’t gotten it by Monday, that we immediately go to the Mayflower. It’s getting so late that I’m getting nervous.
Jake > I agree 100% with Ben, this is getting real late.
Dean > Anita, can you clarify the situation with the catering and cold vs hot food.
Anita > They ask in the application. They do not allow you to cater your own hot food. So we were planning on bringing in box lunches so we could avoid using their catering services. I agree with Ben’s suggestion. Put a deadline on and let it be done. This has been difficult for me and Jason. Jason is in finals this past week. I think we need to reimburse Jason for some of his cell phone cost.
Ben > I really do appreciate Anita’s taking the lead on this.
Jake > Me too, I hear your frustration on this issue. We should reimburse Jason expense-wise for his effort. Please ask him to email me.
Jo > I’ll be really glad when we have made a decision.
Ben > We heard from 4 SC members. Badili?
Badili > I’m okay. We might still have a reception at Howard if the meeting can’t be there.
Ben > Dean, can you get ahold of the Mayflower. Definite yes or no by Tuesday morning. Now it is automatic.
New SC Recruitment
Ben > I put this on the agenda because I have gotten some personal emails about this. We need to address that. At some point, we need to put out the call, some kind of nomination process. We have some twists. We’re going to be doing some restructuring. SC may change its size and/or role. We will need to come up with voting procedure. Not sure what process is required or will be used.
Anita > Would like us to take on those thing in sections. Some need to done quickly, such as put out a call for nominations, coming up pretty soon. Other things aren’t necessarily up to us. We can’t implement any BRPP recommendations until the next cycle. We also have Tom’s question: does he need to run again this summer or finish Barb’s term?
Ben > The call we should put out should include some information, including the work required. Also mention that BRPP will have a proposal that will impact how many seats there will be. I disagree that BRPP proposals don’t take effect till the next year. That’s up to the CC. We’ve done that before. I think we need to do that. I would prefer to serve on an improved SC.
Dean > Bylaws require SC nomination call to come out 2 months before the meeting, one month from now.
Ben > I want to ask for any comments from anybody who didn’t participate in the discussion.
Jo > Points were well made. Let’s put this back on the agenda in two weeks, when Tom will be available. Let’s talk to CC about it as well.
Badili > Ditto to what Jo said.
Anita > I agree also, with the exception that let’s find out what the situation is with Tom’s situation. The bylaws don’t say, so we have to make a determination.
Task check-in from retreat
[Nathalie not here]
Jo > We need to, independently of Nathalie, come up with a list. She posted a list to the [CC] list and it should have stayed in the SC members only. One of us, maybe me, needs to go through that and just list the tasks and people attached to them, so that those of you who want to get your things done by the next call can do that.
New business
Utah Trip
Jo > I have my ticket and hotel room. I have talked to Linda and Jerry Parson, who referred me to the meeting organizer, who hasn’t called me back. I found the meeting on a website and found a hotel near there. Will report back. Want to have some platforms and Greenpages shipped out to them. Not sure where to ship them to, maybe some buttons as well. Maybe $20-50 worth of material. Not sure how that fits in the budget.
Anita > Good idea. If you do this kind of trip, have something in hand. I suggest sending it to your hotel. Since we don’t have any discretionary expense.
Jo > Maybe we could impose on Dean’s expense account.
Dean > Could be my expense account or under general office expense.
[Consensus]
Office manager/database person
Jo > Megan Case is doing our data entry database improvement under Annie’s and Dean’s guidance. Dean is also doing some good work on improving the sustainer program and bringing it up to date. We have quite a few people who donate monthly by checks. In general it is going well. This flows into this larger database issue we will discuss tomorrow. She has 30 hours approved, and has used 11.5 so far as of last Monday.
Anita > Ask that we address the issue of Annie’s request that she continue what she is doing for another 40 hours. She outlined what she intended to do. I support doing that.
Ben > I saw her report, but can’t remember what she still wanted to do.
Jake > Correspondence handling, interns, office relocation.
Ben > Interns?
Anita > List of prospective interns for the summer. Intern/volunteers. She wants to set up some specific tasks for them. Things that shouldn’t take up staff time.
Ben > So we are not talking about students interning for credit?
Dean > I think some of them may have been for credit, but most were not.
Ben > We shouldn’t do intern-for-credit through Annie. Too much work. In favor of her doing things for volunteers, but not students.
Anita > I think that is reasonable.
Jake > In favor of Annie doing another 40 hours. Will work through correspondence, setting up volunteer plans, and helping to find a new location for the office. Has been helping to organize for our July meeting.
Jo > I’m clear on her proposal. Not clear that it will take/need 40 hours.
Dean > Given that she also helps with data entry, it probably could take that long.
Jo > Happy to approve 40 more hours, though concerned about money. We should request an hourly breakdown and get more regular reports with info on how her hours are being spent.
Mediation group
Jo > This is an error. Should this be in here? I will put something forward. When did we need mediation?
Ben > In the long run, mediation should be under Communications Committee, which raises questions about Communications itself. My reaction is that I can think of a number of times we could have used mediation in the party. At the same time, I don’t think we have the capacity to set it up now.
Sending Dean to Fargo
Dean > Issue is whether we try to help folks in both North and South Dakota to set up a party, the only two states with a Green or Greenish party. People in both have contacted us recently and are interested, but need help if it is going to happen. If we are going to help them, we need to decide soon. A visit is part of what is needed.
Ben > I propose I talk to Ben and Juscha and Dean in the next couple of days to put together a plan. I might be able to go in late May or early June and bring an officeholder with me.
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green