GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
MAJORITY REPORT of the ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE
concerning the 2002 EXPANSION DELEGATION
of the GREEN PARTY of CALIFORNIA
to the COORDINATING COMMITTEE
——————————————————————
ATTACHMENTS
——————————————————————
1. From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@softcom.net>
To: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
Copies to: “Wyman” <mswyman@attbi.com>, “MBorenstein”
<thebor@jps.net>,”John C. Strawn” <jcs@west.net>, “Jo Chamberlain”
<joc@pobox.com>, “Beth Moore Haines” <haineshm@jps.net>
Subject: California Delegates
Date sent: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:24:45 -0800
Hi,
We’re submitting this text and a Word attachment of the same.
Hard copy to follow.
Happy New Year!
Peggy
Dear Art,
The Green Party of California is pleased to submit our qualifications for expanding our delegation to the new national Green Party-US. We have, to the best of our ability, followed these new procedures. Should there be any questions, please contact our delegates, Jo Chamberlain or John Strawn.
Here is a listing of California’s 52 Congressional Districts. Fifty- one of the 52 CDs are “fully organized”, with only CD 21 (Kern and Tulare counties) lacking 1 or more organized counties. According to GPCA bylaws section 3-2.2 cited below, each organized county has met the requirements listed. At least one regional representative and/or other member of the GPCA-CC has witnessed a meeting in which the decision to become officially organized was consensed to.
3-2.2 County Organization and Recognition To be recognized by the General Assembly and to seat General Assembly delegates, a county organization must adopt organizational bylaws consistent with the ten key values, the GPCA bylaws, and California law, and must file a current copy of these bylaws with the GPCA Bylaws Committee (see also Paragraph 4-1.22 for recognition of a new county organization). These bylaws must: a) Describe the organizational structure including the relationship between any local Green organizations and the County Council; b) Define the membership of the organization; c) Describe the decision-making process; d) Describe the process for filling county council vacancies; e) Describe the process for selecting General Assembly delegates; f) Establish the office of treasurer. Applying the formula of 1 delegate/4 CDs, California is entitled to 12.75 delegates, which rounds to 13 whole-person delegates.
DIST COUNTIES (Active counties underlined)
1 Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano, Sonoma,
Trinity, Yuba
2 Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou,
3 Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo
4 Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mono, Placer,
Sacramento, Tuolumne
5 Sacramento
6 Marin, Sonoma
7 Contra Costa, Solano
8 San Francisco
9 Alameda
10 Alameda, Contra Costa
11 Sacramento, San Joaquin
12 San Francisco, San Mateo
13 Alameda, Santa Clara
14 San Mateo, Santa Clara
15 Santa Clara, Santa Cruz
16 Santa Clara
17 Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz
18 Fresno, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus
19 Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Tulare
20 Fresno, Kern, Kings, Tulare
21** Kern, Tulare
22 San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara
23 Santa Barbara, Ventura
24 Los Angeles, Ventura
25 Los Angeles
26 Los Angeles
27 Los Angeles
28 Los Angeles
29 Los Angeles
30 Los Angeles
31 Los Angeles
32 Los Angeles
33 Los Angeles
34 Los Angeles
35 Los Angeles
36 Los Angeles
37 Los Angeles
38 Los Angeles
39 Los Angeles, Orange
40 Inyo, San Bernardino
41 Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino
42 San Bernardino
43 Riverside
44 Riverside
45 Orange
46 Orange
47 Orange
48 Orange, Riverside, San Diego
49 San Diego
50 San Diego
51 San Diego
52 Imperial, San Diego
Our current delegates are listed below. We will be having a state meeting January 18 & 19 in Los Angeles where additional delegates will be affirmed. We will provide you with the list of names and their contact information after that meeting.
GPCA Delegates to GP-USA
NAME EDRESS PHONE CITY
1 Chamberlain, Jo joc@pobox.com 1650.726.1949 San Mateo
2 Moore-Haines, Beth haineshm@jps.net 1530.274.0630 Grass Valley
3 Strawn, John jcs@west.net 1805.682.4050 Santa Barbara
4 Wyman, Michael mswyman@attbi.com 1415.461.6268 San Rafael
2. From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@softcom.net>
To: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
Copies to: “Wyman” <mswyman@attbi.com>, “Jo Chamberlain” <joc@pobox.com>
Subject: RE: (Fwd) packets received Date sent:
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:30:23 -0800
Art,
California has just completed a very successful plenary, at which the 2 formerly alternate delegates were affirmed as national delegates: Mike Wyman and Beth Moore Haines. We are now encouraging applications for the remaining 9 positions, to be selected in an election at our next state meeting on May 4/5. We will immediately thereafter notify you of the results.
Thank you,
Peggy Lewis
Sacramento County Green Party, county council member
Central Region, regional representative
Green Party of California, co-coordinator
(916) 448-5021 pegola@greens.org
3. From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@softcom.net>
To: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
Subject: RE: 2 new delegates
Date sent: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:44:32 -0800
Art,
This is what I anticipate: We announced the position via our several listserves and at the plenary this weekend, encouraging all interested people to apply. We specifically said that we are looking for gender and geographic balance. Now, we’ll se how many folks apply. We’ll publish their statements in the next plenary packet, about a month before the May 4/5 date. We’ll conduct some for of choice voting at the plenary.
4. To Follow
5,6,7 The Vote by California on the CC
7 & 8 Nanette Pratini
—– Original Message —–
From: <Nanette_Pratini@ca.blm.gov>
To: <chuckr@pe.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: delegate to GPUS
Chuck,
First of all, congratulations on being re-elected to County Council! Britt called me yesterday about my selection as a GPUS alternate delegate. First of all, I’m curious how you heard, because I haven’t heard anything about any of the new delegates!
Here’s how it happened: Even before attaining National Party status, the ASGP was changing their delegate apportionment. At the Santa Barbara meeting, a new formula was approved that gave California 13 (I think) delegates. This was, BTW, more than CA wanted!. Anyway, the goal was of course to try and achieve gender and geographical balance in the delegation, so Jo C., John S., MIke F. and others approached me at the Plenary and asked me to consider throwing my hat in the ring. They were looking for a female form So. California with national or state experience. I said I would consider it and that I would also ask someone else from our area (Karen Jennings) if she would be interested. (Karen was very active in Maryland and Vermont before moving here). Karen declined, and I told Jo and John I would be interested, but only as an alternate. Last week Jo called to say I had been selected as an alternate.
It is my understanding that the new delegates and alternates still need approval from the plenary at the next statewide meeting. So, I am nominated to be an alternate delegate, representing all of California, to the national Green Party (GPUS, or whatever the name is – what used to be ASGP). Discussions and voting is done mostly online. I think they have one or two face-to-face meetings a year, but I do not plan on attending, at least this year. Most issues seem to be related to internal organization (i.e. on-line voting security guidelines, budget documents, etc.), but the group can also make national policy statements and will be involved in selecting national candidates. For issues like this, that would interest California Greens, sometimes they are put on plenary agendas, but other times it is up to the delegates to seek input from CA Greens. I have only been involved a few days, and I am still learning how things work. Even though I do not formally represent Riverside, I will certainly look to Inland Greens for input and will do my best to keep all of you informed as to what is going on at the national level. The national website (www.greens.org) also posts a lot of information. I hope this clears up a few things. Feel free to pass this on to whoever may be interested.
Nanette Pratini
9. Santa Cruz Agenda
—– Original Message —–
From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@greens.org>
To: “gpca” <gpca-cc@greens.org>; “Stuart Bechman”
<sbechman@earthlink.net>;
“Bill Meyers” <bill@iiipublishing.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: [GPCAL CC] Retreat Agenda
If you know an alternate is coming from your region, please forward this agenda to that person.
Thanks.
Peggy
CC Retreat-Feb. 2002
Agenda
As I’m typing this up, I hope the whole CC realizes that the goal is NOT to make them implode and their brains ooze out of their ears and drip, slowly and silently, onto the floor. There is just so much to be done!
Agenda Item How long Notes
Welcome 1
Set-up 15 Intros, facilitator, timekeeper, notetaker, vibes watcher Regional Rep Responsibilities 1 Why does the GPCA need effective reps? What should reps be doing? What are out models for success? SC/WG (Several vacancies exist; they need to be filled) 30 What are SC/WGs? How do they strengthen the Green effort? How can we strengthen them? What does success mean?
lunch 30 chomp,chew,talk, chew, swallow, back to work
GPUS delegates 30 What will the national reps do? What’s the best selection process? state/regional/local relationship 2 hr What are the operating guidelines? What endorsements can GPCA make? What’s the implementation plan? reg mtg proc break 15 folks collapse on the floor in exhaustion, sobbing for relief
Finances 1.5 Report and projection; fundraising; cc budget: future staff?
Potluck and social hour!!!! 7:30 +++++++++
SUNDAY
Set-up 10
GPCA/Campaign 30 Goal: reach 1% reg Greens? Raise how much money?
How can we help? Benefits to Ca Greens?
Corporate/Pac 30 long-term policy
Communications, Media, etc 1.20 spokesfolks;
Co-Co elections 10 Review and volunteer for vacancies
lunch 30
Fill vacancies 20 Who will take SC/WG leadership roles?
Review old business 15 You mean..there’s more work to do?
Calendar/plenaries 45 2-year plan; future focus on electoral calendar
Post-election strat 30 How can we integrate and retain new Greens?
How do we successfully deal with more diversity among us?
CC Budget (proposed)
2001 – 2002
Item Cost Notes
Teleconferences 450 monthly +100 “just in case”
Travel 1000 Co-cos averaging 1000miles/month
Legal Fees 1500 Hopefully we wont’ need it
Co-co phones 1200 $50/co-co/per month (easily spend more)
Postage 100 national, special deliv., etc,
media 500 WG not yet formed; CC resp.
Scholarship/hardship 1000 must have strict guidelines
retreat 200 costs to local
Total: 5950
++++++++++++++++++++++++
RETREAT LOCATION
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Santa Cruz Contact:
Sola Sarmiento solasarmiento@yahoo.com (831) 476-2384
Location: Resource Center for Non-Violence 510 Broadway St. (& Ocean
Ave.) Santa Cruz, CA
Directions: From Hwy 17, or Hwy 1 north or south — take Ocean Ave. exit Head into town on Ocean Ave., passing 4 signal lights 5th signal light is Broadway Ave. turn left onto Broadway RCNV is the 3d building on the left side of the street Limited parking is available behind the building
Places to stay:
Inn Cal 370 Ocean (& Broadway) 1(800) 550-0055
$69.95 1 room with 2 dbl beds
Santa Cruz Hostel 321 Main St. (5 minutes from RCNV) (831) 423-8304
$18 night
Pacific Inn 330 Ocean (near Broadway) (831) 425-3722 $79.00 1
room with 2 dbl beds
Super 8 338 Riverside Ave. (5 minutes from RCNV) (831) 426-3707
$79.00 1 room with 2 dbl beds
10. Santa Cruz Minutes
From: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
To: aljane@ipa.net, goodtimes@independence.net,
davidpollard@attbi.com, ronin@hamptons.com, sharane@pacific.net,
thomas_mcguire@msn.com, tfusco@gwi.net, affigne@greens.org
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:13:21 -0700
Subject: AC: California application vote
Priority: normal
ACfolks
below are the (as yet unapproved draft) minutes of the Santa Cruz minutes of the CC retreat as sent me by Peggy Lewis. near the end of the document on Sunday there appears the process the CC of California took to produce the current slate of expansion delegates.
whatever our concerns, i think it is time to vote on California’s revised expansion delegate application. i have asked tony to draft a letter to go along with our recommendation on accreditation, expressing concerns with the process and the diversity of the California slate. as many members of this committee that want can sign on to that letter.
we will have a week maximum for this vote, though i urge you all to respond ASAP.
i vote to approve.
artg
AC chair
****************************************************************
Christopher Page, Linda Howard – Vibes Watcher
Aaron Lipke- note taker
Alex Brideau III – time keeper
Bill Meyers – facilitator
Agenda adjustments:
30 minutes added to tomorrow’s agenda for Information
Policy. [we’re there other agenda items added]
Regional Representative Responsibilities: presenters Peggy Lewis, Michael Borenstein
Peggy handed out a packet of responsibilities for small group discussion After the short discussion, people roamed the room writing on the walls. Walls were read outloud. Fun was had. Informal discussion followed, questions went unanswered to make time… Concern, Sola Sarmiento, issues with what was discussed. Unhappy with bringing up the issue and not discussing it. Informal discussion on resolution of Sola’s concern. Beth Moore Haines: We should empower or working groups, task too great for CC Ginny Case Case: Peggy prepares web discussion, more work in Fresno?(proposal)
Proposal:
Don’t send discussion to GROW
Peggy will submit responses to retreat discussion to CC listserve.
Discuss the comments from the retreat discussion online, aimed at defining actions.
Meet at Fresno to present final findings.
Pamela Meidell: friendly amendment – sub-committee?
Withdrawn.
Aaron Lipke: informal discussion leads to informal discussions, seek focus.
Standing Committees and Working Groups: presenters Michael Borenstein, Peggy Lewis
Michael Wyman: Standing Committee and Working Group distinction.
Ginny Case: What are the roles of the liaisons? roles of co- coordinator?
Michael Borenstein: act as a de facto third coordinator of the group.
Peggy Lewis: let’s the working group know about decisions of cc that effects them
Michael Borenstein: none of the roles are set, WG and SC set them up.
JimStauffer: co-cos need to keep tabs on the WG and SCs. Liaison gets that responsibilities.
Michael Wyman: should International group responsibility be GPUS do WG have clear goals? all suffer so should CC clarify task?
Beth Moore Haines: Empower groups to write mission, establish work plan/budget find coordinators. Institutional memory is not just binders.
Linda Howard: echoed Beth, groups come off as events, not groups
Jo Chamberlain: Working groups need to be a higher priority to CC.
Lunch:
Clarification of Note-taker responsibility.
GPUS Delegates: presenter Jo Chamberlain, Michael Wyman, Beth Moore Haines
Jo Chamberlain: GPUS not honoring green values history of affiliated State Green Parties. 2 to 14 delegates in State Once a year meetings. Meeting in Houston made eligible to vote online. 40-60 hours a week sacrificed from State party to support National Party revisit that decision? revisit the terms of the affiliation agreement? 150,000 greens in california, >300,000 in US. Should we leave this meeting with 13 people to start voting, interim, until 5/4. What do we want from applicants to the GPUS delegate position. Is disaffiliation an option?
Comments and Questions:
Pamela: don’t consider disaffiliation. gains of affiliation to GPUS? has it been decided how the national level with operate? GPUS functioning without a consensed process. From what Pamela has seen, wouldn’t assess it as verbal abuse.what is the email, what is being asked of us?
Linda Howard: proposal: Write a letter taking a strong stance on illegalities and abuses.
Ginny Case: friendly amendment: illegalities and disregard of green principles.
Linda Howard: accepts. Consensed to waiting on developing the proposal.
Jo Chamberlain answers questions: Consensus is not being followed at GPUS(ASGP evolved) Describes the abusive actions of some of the GPUS delegates.
Ginny Case: [sorry, Ginny, I dropped the ball on your comment here.]
Jo Chamberlain: Silence is in the steering committee group, there is in an observer list.
Micahel Borenstein: questions affiliation, letter must be sent. we are a grassroots organization
Linda Howard: we voted to affiliate.
Jo Chamberlain: we should include Kevin McKeown despite his absence.
Linda’s proposal: A strong, statement in letter form from the Green Party of California to all the States Green Parties and the GPUS taking a strong stance on illegalities and disregard of green principles of the GPUS.
Jo Chamberlain: Beth can draft a letter, we can discuss it tomorrow.
Linda’s Proposal has been tabled.
Proposal:
Elect 7 people at meeting that expressed interest to serve as interim.
Finish electing the other 2 (making 13) later on in the retreat.
Friendly Amendment: agree not to run later.
Discussion on process of election of 2 remaining delegates.
Aaron Lipke: to call Magali Offerman, Karine Megerdoomian,
Michelle Delehanty for position.
Friendly amendment not accepted.
Jo Chamberlain’s Proposal: Elect Alex Brideau III, Peggy Lewis, Bill Meyers, Stuart Bechman, Ginny Case, Kevin McKeown, Aaron Lipke as interim GPUS delegates. Aaron will call Magali Offerman, Karine Megerdoomian, Michelle Delehanty to serve, then Leslie Bonnett, Susan King, Nanette Pretini will be called after Aaron’s names are called.
Proposal: Submit a resume including a bio, state and nation activities, other green activities, references.
Pamela Meidell: friendly amendment: The CC submits to the plenary a gender and geographically balanced qualified pool of candidates.
Qualified candidates meet the minimum requirements to be established by the state CC.
Ginny Case: accepts.
Linda Howard: Friendly amendment: Solicit the candidate background info with a form.
Friendly amendment: make references professional.Amendment is tabled.asked for a pool of candidates, CC selects a slate
State/Regional/Local Relationship: presenters Peggy Lewis and Michael Borenstein
Discussion about current reps and alternates:
state has been asked to intervene
state has been asked to endorse local topics
campaigns and candidates working group to handle endorsement of local and regional issues.
implementation from reapportionment to be talked about.
Jo Chamberlain: reapportionment committee is assumed to be handling the implementation.
Bylaws possibly to be changed to bylaws and more flexible rules and procedures.
Michael Wyman: Let the committee discuss this.
Michael Borenstein: let’s get some suggestions.
Jo Chamberlain: some regions know they’ll get a rep, they can go get those reps.
Current Regions and reps: <<to be provided by Jo Chamberlain>> thinking about guidelines for implementation/bylaws regarding regional reps
Bylaws committee to work out language on regional rep elections.
Proposal: Michael Borenstein: Democratic bylaws language on regional reps delegated to Reapportionment committee and bylaws committee.
Finances: Michael Wyman: Software conversion, successful. Fines avoided. 2500 split with slate mailer. Bumper sticker help. Phone calls with mailing helped.
San Diego gets 6000 person mailer working with GPUS. One Nader event coming to CA. Waiting for confirm, lead time notification.
Pamela Meidell: state mailer?
Michael Wyman: Early October, state mailer.
Jo Chamberlain: Mail to the lists from the Nader rallys from democracy rising.
Nader dates: 27 and 28 of April
GPUS pays expenses, discussion of balance returns
Beth Moore Haines: Michael Moore book tour is a possible source of fundraising.
Nader’s booktour is unwelcoming for tabling
Hiring a part-time fundraiser:
Many people talking about hiring firms and contracting, not employees.
Green values from fundraisers
Clear delineation of goals, oversight, sunset.
Please clearly delineate discussion and decision items.
Where’s the money coming from?
Michael Wyman: 20,000 we use, 15,000 to initiate payment for fundraiser. more detailed analysis about source of funds and benefits Proposal to have Michael Wyman and Jo Chamberlain to compose, ASAP, a proposal detailing the purchasing of fundraising services.
Thanks, Bill Meyers, facilitators.
Meeting Adjourned
DAY TWO(2)
Setup:
Christopher Page, Linda Howard – Vibes Watcher
Aaron Lipke- note taker
Alex Brideau III – time keeper
Bill Meyers – facilitator
GPCA/Campaign:
Tish Anderson: List sharing is important
Michael Wyman: Nader would’ve been great for fundraising and voter registrations Nader got %4, we have %.093.
Michael Borenstein: Ballot Status is important to watch for.
Jo Chamberlain: Actively fundraising with our candidates. In the past, Medea Benjamin and Nader sent us money We need to proactively set terms for our money from candidates. Use voter registration lists.
Ginny Case: LA is not feeling the enthusiasm of the state candidates.
Peggy Lewis: Peter gave a good pitch for sustainers.
Tish Anderson: stresses sharing of information between candidates and party. phone banking in the future, with Nader lists?
Pamela Meidell: Public mind thinks the slate/GP are one entity. Identify on the state level the county contact for that region. officially. No need US help.
Aaron Lipke: Should we be consulting Campaigns and C. to have this conversation?
Should we take over the duties of the Campaigns and Candidates if they are not? Can we reteach with them before these talks?
Jo Chamberlain: Nader lists are property of Nader campaign. Don’t use them illegally.If you don’t know the laws about using the Nader lists, don’t use them. Those initiating contact from Nader lists, become ours, but we can’t use the nader list to reach out. Ginny Case: Campaigns and Candidates are doing work, but we should clarify the task.
Peggy Lewis: We need a CC liaison to send the message.
Michael Wyman: Growing to the 200,000 mark is a huge task. Using lists needs to be declared and reported. when people want lists from the state, they are zip-coded.
Tish Anderson: Informal Proposal: We need to find a way to expedite the identification of contact people for candidates and reg. by Candidates and Campaigns.
Post-Election Strategy:
Michael Borenstein: Kendra is working on a new way to get new people info to people.
Peggy Lewis: Campaigns introduce diversity to locals.
Jo Chamberlain: thanks
Aaron Lipke:
Michael Wyman: The slate campaign is oriented to build the green party Peter’s campaign is also to influence current county and city establishments candidates have their own post-elections strategy. Can we have 3 issues focused on by Party, people can choose and hit the ground running.
Sola Sarmiento: IRV and solar are not the issues of many communities The big issues for some communities are higher wages, education…We are entertaining our ideas, not the community’s
Christopher Page: Application of green values is a multileveled approach.
Bill Meyers: Hispanic issues are Education, Universal Health Care, Living-wage
Vallery (not on roster): Outreach is important
Beth Moore Haines: Logging is a big issue for her, issues are regional, not state dictated.
Pamela Meidell:Spectrum of issues. Identifying common threads, Ecological, social justice,migrant worker rights are big in my county, relevancy depends on local
Aaron Lipke: The glory of our party is the holistic approach, find the balance between local and state wide issues.
Jo Chamberlain: let’s here from those who haven’t spoken
Sharon Peterson: My county used to be very white, now more of a melting pot. When a green party member works with an established group, work with the group on what they’re working on builds coalitions Linda Howard: Focus on issues that all of us need. How do we introduce diversity? Identify leaders in the communities. Charge up the leaders in the community.
Matt Leslie: In Orange county, we have a concentration of Latinos. We work on living wage for hotel workers. Can we emphasize what we’re about generally as well as dig into the issues
Stuart Bechman: County council issues we are discussing.
Jeff Eisinger: Common issues bring people together, but the green way of life is light that clicks. Shared goals help, don’t know the balance of focus. They don’t want to join the green movement. Communications, Media, Spokesfolks, Info Policy:
Jo Chamberlain: Currently clearinghouse does communication and materials distribution.
Public relations or communication:
Clearing house
First point of contact via phone
email
postal
web
information technology
Media (ad hoc to cc)
spoke persons
press releases
Tight communication between Jo Chamberlain, John Strawm and Kendra Markle has been breaking down.
Proposal to consolidate Clearing house and Media and web to one SC. with three co-chairs, one web, one media, one clearing house.
ask Kendra to do web
ask Beth to do Media cell-phone stipend
Ginny Case: how does campaigns and candidates fit into the new communications SC
Beth Moore Haines: decided a media person?
Micahel Wyman: Press release button on the web? The proposed tri-chair structure needs a lot of terms limits and protections.
Beth Moore Haines: John Strawm sounds like a furby on the phone. Spokes folks have faded away. Spokesperson needs to generate media attention and know how to receive it.
John Strawm: The models’ success depends on the persons involved.
Jo Chamberlain: Reiterate the proposal:
Aaron Lipke: Will protections be built into the proposal?
Jo Chamberlain: No, protections are standard to SCs.
Peggy Lewis: There are thousands of platform guides at the clearing house
Jo Chamberlain: 7 members are fine, let this proposal be a structural guide, let the group flesh it out.
Beth Moore Haines: lots of questions.
Jo Chamberlain: responses
Beth Moore Haines: One could solicit help for delegating the tasks of the co-chairs of this SC?
Jo Chamberlain: up to you. this proposal is a framework.
Sola Sarmiento: Why co-chairs?
Jo Chamberlain: gender balance
John Strawm: power sharing.
Michael Borenstein: This proposal is a huge, centralized chunk of the party friendly amendment: 4th coordinator
Aaron Lipke: see the bottom concerning the …
Michael Wyman: resale, retail license necessary for selling stuff.
Jo Chamberlain: This group needs to be very powerful. Communications proposal consensed.<<get the formal proposal from Jo Chamberlain>>
Spokes folks: Jo Chamberlain: Proposal: to make Beth a spokesperson for the party.
John Strawm: Issuing of press releases is an important task to find balance in administrating.
Sola Sarmiento: More dialog with Ross, he is an asset.
Jo Chamberlain: Ross was to present a proposal on chair-persons of committees issuing press releases. The group was consensed on Beth, Ross, John as spokespeople, letting them decide
<<see Jo Chamberlain to clarify>Information Policy:
Jo Chamberlain: informal reiteration of info policy password gets access to rosters and personal info private is for credit cards. third level is internal login and password. Ric posted agreed upon password
Aaron Lipke: The criteria for deciding upon what is made internal information is part of and recorded in the information policy?
Jo Chamberlain: Yes
Peggy Lewis: plenary agreed to be revisited after 6 months
(time line here is unclear to note taker)
Consensed to current information policy.
Some further notes by <<sharron>>
Minutes Continued – Alex Brideau III
Beth: Will Tish update the master calendar?
Ginny Case: I will help Tish.
Peggy: I will help too.
PROCESS POINTS:
– 10 minutes added for criteria determining GPUS delegates.
– 10 minutes remain for Old Business.
GPUS DELEGATE CRITERIA (Jo Chamberlain presenting):
– history GPUS provided
– At LA plenary, a pitch was made for more delegates. Only one person came forward (Nanette) … as an alternate.
– Jo Chamberlain pushed for weighted voting online. GPUS declined, but stated that … (statement not in writing) [Jo Chamberlain: could you fill in the blanks here?]
– We should establish a list of criteria and screen the applicants based on this criteria (as follows):
1. active at the national, state, and local levels.
2. attended meetings at the national, state, and local levels.
3. demonstrated leadership at the national, state, and local levels.
4. consistent attendance at meetings
5. fulfillment of responsibility
– Mike W., as Facilitator, will name off names on list for consensus:
Concerns voiced about Learner Goude and Tim Fitzgerald. The balance of the list (below) screened by consensus: (interim delegates — 2 months — follow…)
Alex
Peggy
Bill
Stewart
Ginny Case
Kevin
Aaron
Sola (alternate)
—
(nominees for May affirmation follow…)
Budd
Leslie Bonnet
Mark Stout
Learner Goude (CONCERNS RAISED)
Tim Fitzgerald (CONCERNS RAISED)
Kevin
Susan
Nanette (alternate)
Magali (alternate)
– MOTION: Based on chronological events, we will not hold elections. Instead, we will follow precedent and appoint and affirm 13 delegates to GPUS.
– Beth noted that group is geographically and gender balanced.
– PROPOSED MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS.
– Two issues left:
1. We need to also find alternates for delegates [Did I get this right?]
2. Co-cos should contact unapproved applicants, explaining that they were not accepted and why, that we encourage them to reapply in the future when they believe they satisfy the criteria, and to thank them for applying.
– This was difficult. Thank you!
REVIEW OLD BUSINESS:
– SECRETARY OF STATE LIAISON
– Peggy: What is Secretary of State Liaison’s role? What about an alternate?
– Pam: What are the procedures for mailing sample ballots?
– Beth: Her county contacted their Clerk and Clerk refused to sort sample ballots for Greens from several other 3rd parties.
– Betty Trainer desires to be relieved from her position.
– STREAMLINE BYLAWS AND PLATFORM PRESENTATIONS:
– Beth: idea for a proposal: [get text from Beth]
– Beth: Let’s flush this out via email.
SUNDAY MEETING ADJOURNED (at 4:32pm)
11. REPORT TO AC MY MINUTES AND TALKING NOTES FOR CONFERENCE CALL WITH STEERING COMMITTEE
Dear Accreditation Committee,
Art could not be on the call. Beforehand, Art and I exchanged some ideas on strategy, exchanged some email, decided a posture.
In attendance on the call was Jack Ulrich, Dean Myerson, Anita Rios, Jo Chamberlain, Robbie Franklyn, Tom Sevigny, Nathalie Paravicini and Lynsey, Dean’s assistant. Ben Manski was traveling.
I started by outlining the AC’s position, stating that two of the four criteria was not met, that being:
C. A SIGNED CERTIFICATION THAT YOU HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULES FOR ALLOCATING DELEGATES;
D. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HOW YOUR DELEGATES WERE SELECTED (STATEWIDE VOTE, ELECTION BY CLUSTERS OF LOCALS, ETC.)
Regarding “C” they simply hadn’t complied. And regarding “D” they had claimed one description but then changed to a different process without making us aware of the transition.
To substantiate our position I quoted California’s own email of various dates (see attachment of talking points).
Jo Chamberlan gave her facilitator’s spot to Natalie and then advocated California’s position and said while I had mentioned only a few emails, there were a hundred or so additional emails in the exchange. She also then gave an explanation for why the CC of California changed its mind (the first I had heard of this) after being in Houston at a meeting (unclear as to what meeting) where California was encouraged to act sooner.
Robbie said that he was now clear on the positions and so said Tom.
Anita reported that Tony Affigne brought the issue to the Diversity Committee and had wanted the committee to issue a position, to take a stance and she wanted the Steering Committee to issue (unclear on what exactly she wanted) a statement to the committee.
She did not get a second.
Dean said that it is not correct for any committee to go into state party’s business.
Robbie asked if California were to supply the AC with the two pieces of information would the AC feel satisfied and act quickly. I responded that we would, that that is the process.
There was some side talk.
When called on the stack I rejoined Anita saying that while “diversity” was never going to be a blocking concern, it was something noticed by the committee and we would likely include a letter to that effect with our recommendation. I also rejoined Dean in saying that we do not enter into the business of a state but because the state had already described the process and then changed on us, we NEEDED an explanation for the change. I offered that New York has also been stifled with protocol on an item not due to its oversight but due to the US Mail, that had the process been followed there would not have been a problem.
Natalie asked if we could seat the two additional delegates immediately. I responded that the smartest and quickest way to get this done was to fax Art the written requirements with the promise that the signed original would follow in the mail, that we would then vote to seat not just the two but ALL of California’s delegates at that time. I suggested it could all be done Monday.
Jo Chamberlain and I were both asked if this was an acceptable solution. I said it was. Jo said it was.
There will be no further action by the Steering Committee at this juncture.
I then left the phone conference.
I believe I have listed all the salient conversation and it will be reflected in the official notes of the meeting.
Ron Stanchfield
********************* ATTACHMENTS **************************
Talking Points for Phone Conference
A. THE NUMBER OF DELEGATES TO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED, BASED ON THE EXTENT OF LOCAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR STATE’S CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS;
B. THE NAMES AND COMPLETE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DELEGATES YOUR STATE HAS SELECTED;
Okay
C. A SIGNED CERTIFICATION THAT YOU HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULES FOR ALLOCATING DELEGATES;
D. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HOW YOUR DELEGATES WERE SELECTED (STATEWIDE VOTE, ELECTION BY CLUSTERS OF LOCALS, ETC.)
Not Okay
<><><>
From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@softcom.net>
To: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
Subject: California Delegates
Date sent: Mon, 31 Dec 2001
Our current delegates are listed below. WE WILL BE HAVING A STATE MEETING JANUARY 18 & 19 IN LOS ANGELES WHERE ADDITIONAL DELEGATES WILL BE AFFIRMED. WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH THE LIST OF NAMES AND THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION AFTER THAT MEETING.
<><><>
From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@softcom.net>
To: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
Date sent: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:30:23
Art,
CALIFORNIA HAS JUST COMPLETED A VERY SUCCESSFUL PLENARY, AT WHICH THE 2 FORMERLY ALTERNATE DELEGATES WERE AFFIRMED AS NATIONAL DELEGATES: MIKE WYMAN AND BETH MOORE HAINES. WE ARE NOW ENCOURAGING APPLICATIONS FOR THE REMAINING 9 POSITIONS, TO BE SELECTED IN AN ELECTION AT OUR NEXT STATE MEETING ON MAY 4/5. WE WILL IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER NOTIFY YOU OF THE RESULTS.
<><><>
From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@softcom.net>
To: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
Date sent: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:44:32
Art,
THIS IS WHAT I ANTICIPATE: WE ANNOUNCED THE POSITION VIA OUR SEVERAL LISTSERVES AND AT THE PLENARY THIS WEEKEND, ENCOURAGING ALL INTERESTED PEOPLE TO APPLY. WE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR GENDER AND GEOGRAPHIC BALANCE. NOW, WE’LL SE HOW MANY FOLKS APPLY. WE’LL PUBLISH THEIR STATEMENTS IN THE NEXT PLENARY PACKET, ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE MAY 4/5 DATE. We’ll conduct some for of CHOICE VOTING AT THE PLENARY.
From: “Peggy Lewis” <pegola@greens.org>
To: “Art Goodtimes” <goodtimes@independence.net>
Date sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
Dear GPUS Coordinating Committee:
TODAY THE GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA ANNOUNCED ITS FULL COMPLIMENT OF 13 DELEGATES TO THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE. Theses delegates represent the 143,000 Greens registered to the GPCA, now ten years old.
(SNIP)
GPCA’s process included six and one half months of advertising, search, personal requests for applicants and interviewing. Applicants submitted a short biography. THE GPCA COORDINATING COMMITTEE THEN APPOINTED DELEGATES based on gender; north/south geographic residence; Green Party activity at national, state and local levels; attendance at Green Party meetings at national; state and local levels; demonstration of leadership at national, state and local levels; consistent attendance at regular meetings; and fulfillment of responsibilities accepted. THESE DELEGATES WILL BE AFFIRMED BY OUR 100 STATEWIDE DELEGATES AT THE NEXT STATE MEETING MAY 4 – 5, 2002 IN FRESNO, CA.
<><><><>
III. ROLE AND DUTIES OF ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE.
1. TO PREPARE AND DISTRIBUTE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND INSTRUCTIONS.
2. TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
3. TO HEAR APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES.
4. TO REVIEW DISAFFILIATION REQUESTS.
5. TO RECOMMEND DISAFFILIATION BASED ON OUTCOME OF 3) OR 4).
IV. Accreditation Process.
1. Application to the Green Party of the United States
Applications should be delivered to the secretary of the Green Party of the United States, who will notify the CC that the application has been received, then forward the application to all members of the accreditation committee for review. THE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE MAY REQUEST ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK, EG. BY-LAWS, PLATFORM, ETC. AND ASSURANCES, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THAT THE APPLICANT PARTY SATISFIES THE CRITERIA LISTED ABOVE.
2. Accreditation Committee Review
PROCESS SHOULD BE SPEEDY AND NON-BUREAUCRATIC. IF WE ARE TO ERR, IT SHOULD BE ON THE SIDE OF PERMISSIVENESS. Applicant should experience us as a welcoming committee and their advocate to the CC.
5. REPORT TO COORDINATING COMMITTEE.
THE COMMITTEE SHALL MAKES IT REPORT TO THE CC, EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE APPLICATION.
<><><><>
Date sent: Fri, 15 Mar 2002
To: “Art Goodtimes”
<goodtimes@independence.net>
From: Jo Chamberlain <joc@greens.org>
Art,
GPCA USED THE EXACT SAME PROCESS TO SELECT OUR DELEGATES THAT WE HAVE USED SINCE OUR ORIGINAL AFFILIATION IN 1998, NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN OUR PROCESS.
Additional information:
Dear Tom,
Here is a letter which was left out of the Majority report by mistake. It was sent to the California CC and was carbon copied to the Accreditation Committee during our discussion and voting period. Art’s computer crashed and didn’t make it to the full committee. One member has already stated it would not have changed his minority opinion.
Please add it to our report.
Ron Stanchfield
Co-Chair
To: Coordinating Committee, Green Party of California
c/o Ginny Case and Kevin McKeown, GPCA Coordinating Committee representatives from Los Angeles County
From: Sara Amir & Donna Warren
Subject: GPCA representation to the Coordinating Committee of
the Green Party of the United States
Dear GPCA CC,
Currently under consideration by the USGP Accreditation Committee are the proposed appointments of nine California GPCA members to the USGP Coordinating Committee (CC). As active members of the GPCA, as past and present members of the LA County Council, as the former and present GPCA candidates for Lt. Governor, and (in Sara’s case) as a spokesperson of the GPCA, we believe the process of selection being considered is not fair or equitable, nor in accordance with the Green value of “respect for diversity”.
The soliciting of new GPCA representatives to the USGP CC has not been on the LA County Council agenda since the new formula was approved in July 2001 in Santa Barbara. Since July 2001, we’ve held six County Council meetings, but we have not discussed the appointing of representatives to the USGP CC. Not holding a formal discussion in the largest county of registered Greens in the State and the country, speaks poorly of our usually meticulous process for filling positions. While we acknowledge some emails have been sent, we believe the emails did not emphasize the importance of these positions and the duties attached to them.
In the past on a state level, a vote of the General Assembly chose the national delegates. Why are we not using the same process now? Our state party has previously established criteria for filling statewide GPCA CC at-large seats. Yet it has failed to establish criteria for filling the new USGP seats. Why? The USGP CC approved establishing these new USGP seats at the July 2001 National meeting, but no criteria for filling the seats was approved in State meetings held in September 2001 or January 2002. Why declare an “emergency” in February 2002 when we had ample time to establish criteria in September 2001 and January 2002?
What makes this process of selection particularly problematic is the absence of our Green key value “respect for diversity”. There is not sufficient diversity in the current proposed group of nine, together with the existing four. We must not send a California delegation that does not represent our immense Californian diversity. To do so should be an embarrassment to every Californian Green.
Not choosing criteria when we had an opportunity, and not ensuring that Green members are aware of these positions, is a general problem to our membership and a personal problem to us. We are two people that combine diversity, experience and connections with Greens across California. If criteria had been approved, such diversity, experience and connections with Greens across California would be desired qualities for election.
Yet the GPCA CC has not asked us if we want to be appointed. This suggests the process has not been thorough or fair. An emergency decision about the selection of delegates to the USGP CC cannot be based on a process that is neither thorough nor fair to Greens. Please consider us for these positions, and put our names in for nomination for the May General Assembly meeting. Please also refrain from making any appointments until then. We believe election by the General Assembly based on criteria would be the most credible with the GPCA membership, and will build the most confidence with other state parties within the USGP.
Sincerely,
Sara Amir, Donna Warren
Los Angeles