August 13, 2006

GPUS-SC Conference Call
13 August 2006
8:00 p.m. EDT

Holly Hart, Katey Culver, Jim Coplen, Rebecca Rotzler, Jody Grage, Budd Dickinson, Steve Kramer, Echo Steiner; Brent McMillan, at 9 p.m. Liz Arnone was not able to be on the call.

Facilitator: Budd
Timekeeper: Rebecca
Calling in for a portion of the call:
Brent White/AC; Karen Shelley/AC; Roger Snyder/co-chair, AC

Observers: Gary Novisielski/NJ; Nan Garrett/GA

Abbreviations used:
AC = Accreditation Committee
ANM, ANMC = Annual National Meeting Committee
BAWG = Ballot Access Working Group
BRPP = Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures Committee
BC = Black Caucus
CC = Coordinating Committee
CCC = Coordinated Campaign Committee
CG SC = Campus Greens Steering Committee
ComCom = Communications Committee
DC = Diversity Committee
DIA = Democracy in Action internet service
DRC = Dispute Resolution Committee
FC = Fundraising Committee
FEC = Federal Election Commission
GP = Green Party
IC = International Committee
LC = Lavender Caucus
NPWG = Nominating Process Working Group
NWC = National Women’s Caucus
PEC = Presidential Exploratory Committee
PCSC = Presidential Campaign Support Committee
SC = Steering Committee
SPWG = Strategic Plan Working Group
[Brackets denote editor’s suggested corrections. Some punctuation corrections done with no content change. -ed.]

I. Accreditation Proposal Concerning the NWC
Roger Snyder: stated the AC has presented a proposal to the SC, and have gotten back no official response. The AC would like the proposal put on the voting queue.

Katey Culver: noted she is new to this committee, so was not privy to the decision made earlier by the SC regarding the AC proposal.
Understanding is that two SC members were tasked with reporting back to AC, and that didn’t happen. The situation on this call is that the AC wants answers they should have had awhile back.

Budd Dicksinon: the SC had a discussion and decision. but this was right before the Annual Meeting, everyone was busy. This is a new SC, question of whether prior decision applies.

Holl Hart: read tthe minutes of 6/27/06 call, noting the SC decision regarding the proposal.

Steve Kramer: was not on that call, but has reviewed report from the AC and also didn’t see anything to pass on to the NC.

Budd, Roger, Karen Shelley confirm, the proposal and terminology is to “suspend the accreditation” of the NWC.

Echo Steiner: said she feels we really need to take a serious look at who we want to be handling these processes. Maybe be AC doesn’t want to be the group to make decisions on suspension and disaffiliation; feels AC should be working on new affiliations for GPUS and this other area has fallen into their court. Look at this as reflections of decisions of Utah, NWC, BC.

Karen: stated we are not here to discuss the future of the AC, we’re here to discuss when this proposal is to be on the voting queue.

Roger and Jody: noted the AC role spelled out in GPUS rules. II. Accreditation, section V.

Holly: pointed out bylaws and rules that pertain to SC and AC, and noted that some areas are supposed to be handled by the SC, and that some current AC policies have not been approved by the NC.

Katey: redirected discussion: the AC is asking what’s going on with the proposal, and the appropriate answer is that there were reasons why we were gong to send it back to them and have it looked again, there were deficiencies with proposal itself not the issue. We are ignoring a whole process that happened.

Nan Garrett: wanted to point out that her main concerns were addressed specifically in a minority report appended to an AC message about a month ago; in this call, some of these items have been raised, but a lot more were raised when the SC asked the NWC questions before.
Asked that if the SC is going to revisit this issue, to review it again before this moves forward.

Karen: stated that we’ve taken 10 of 12 minutes on other speakers and minority report, SC already heard from NWC, thought tonight was about the AC being heard; asked when our proposal will be on queue, still haven’t gotten an answer.

Jody: agrees with Karen, wants to hear more from AC, Brent White hasn’t said anything.

Budd: reads SC decision agreed to on 6/27/06 call, referring to guidance to the AC. Jody asked to hear from the AC members on this call.

Karen: there is something to vote on, whether to suspend NWC accreditation.

Steve: we are talking at cross purposes; believes the AC can put up a proposal, but in general there is supposed to be background, finding of fact; the purpose of sending it back was to get more of a finding of fact and meat to the proposal. His opinion was that the proposal can go forward as it is written, but something more would probably be requested of the AC. Is there any additional information?

Brent White: we did an investigation, which amounted to the NWC refusing to offer information. But we did an investigation.

Roger: the proposal is set out in the form from the formula on the webpage, recommended by Holly Hart the secretary.

Budd noted that it was past time, asked of SC wanted to continue or go on to other items?

Steve – said the thinks we’ve gotten a pretty good presentation of AC members on call, would like to suggest a course of action.

Roger, Karen, Brent left call.

Budd stated he would like to go on with staff reports and re-visit this at the end of this meeting.

a. Operations Director – Emily
Emily is looking for fall interns, has had one interview so far. She is working with Doug Malkan, Jody, Brent McMillan and David Spitzley on trying to make our financial and deposit reports more congruent [?].

b. Political Director — BRENT
i. CCC – We are now at 365 candidates, about 65 Congressional; we may lose some due to ballot access issues.
Brent anticipates that there are several municipal level candidates that will be declaring soon.

ii. Ballot access update
ARK – their hearing is schedule for August 17th; the ACLU is representing them, stay tuned
PA – situation is really hot right now, candidates have been subpoened to appear in court Monday. Gov. candidate Marakay Rogers and Lt. Gov. tried to withdraw; their attorney has told them it would cost ca. $7-8000 a week to represent them, with approximately 3 weeks of work necessary. What the state of PA did to Ralph Nader 2004 is now coming at GPUS. Carl Romanelli and possibly Titus North are trying to fight it. It’s not a done deal, the court case may go in their favor in their earlier appeal.

Brent reports he has met the direct mail goal for net income for the year. He is optimistic as far as phone canvassing goes and what it can produce. Requests executive session.

Direct mail re-solicitation is going well, considering projects in FLA and AZ, and folks who contacted GPUS through Green Wave volunteer program to try to double the growth of the database to about 2100/year (1100 is our current pace for this year), about 1000 last year.

Jody – GPWA met and agreed to give the national office all the lists they’ve got, already run through NCOA (National Change of Address) already.

Emily – thought it might be a lot of money to put in to do a mailing. We already did an email to that list and generated $25. Not sure if it’s a good investment. Also, how old is the list?

Brent – that is why he would ask for NCOA before doing the mailing.

Emily – same question applies for state mailings.

Brent – would filter such a list for supervoters (those who vote most frequently).

Emily had also talked to WA and AZ, hopes to coordinate so we’re not sending e-mail at the same time as direct mail. Further discussion will move to the Fundraising Committee.

Jody is working at learning X-cel. Current report: Income $26,000; outgo $56-7,000, leaving $21,000. Outstanding bills of $18,000, plus $15,000 for state sharing. There will have to be some difficult decisions made about what to pay first. She has marked a couple bills as being ok to pay later. Invites input as to way of reporting finances.

The Finance committee will meet tomorrow night.

Steve: in Jakes’ report and suggestions in Tucson, there were a couple of “unpalatable” suggestions, such as laying off staff, suspending state sharing for awhile. Have we progressed to the point we have considered those, if not, which ones will we consider?
Jody: we are keeping track of state sharing, and we are on a spending freeze. We will know how much money we’ve brought in Monday. Jody will seek guidance as to what we can pay later.

Steve: asked that we have these brought up on the Finance call, see if we need emergency expenditure reduction, and if so, how.

Jody: said she will recommend that new treasurers take over a month after any national meeting. That is the most complex time financially, and to take over in the middle is difficult. By tomorrow night, she will have more information and Finance an start looking at these things.

The SC approved two items via the rapid response policy, due to a need for timeliness: one, requested by the international Committee, to sign on to a message from Uniting for Peace to the UN General Assembly to call for immediate ceasefire in Lebanon; two, a request by the GP of Texas to endorse Camp Casey in Crawford, TX.
239 – FinCom: GPUS Fiscal Policy Donor Confidentially Protection
adopted, 8/7/06

238 – Formal recognition of GPUS Peace Action Committee (GPAX)
adopted, 8/7/06
Discussion: concerns had been raised that GPAX was not an official standing committee, therefore not entitled to put forth this proposal.
The SC had initially agreed to suspend the vote and ask GPAX to find a sponsor to rep-submit the proposal. However, the proposal was in the voting phase, which concluded before GPAX officers could be reached. GPAX members believed the proposal had been approved and were already working toward addressing various issues raised during the discussion phase of the proposal. Jody suggested another back-up vote, to establish clearly GPAX had been approved. Holly, Steve and Budd suggested, given the above circumstances, that the proposal be considered approved, noting that there had been an error on the SC’s part in not noticing the problem and not intending to set any precedent, and especially noting that at least two state parties offered to sponsor the proposal (one conditionally) when the error came to light.

241 – FinCom: Approval of the Merchandising Committee as a standing committee
Voting period through 08/18/2006
Rotzler// 1/2

This was earlier cancelled, due, as with the GPAX proposal, to not having a sponsor. FinCom decided to sponsor this. Since this proposal had not yet entered the voting phase, it was canceled and re-submitted the voting queue for a 1-week vote, with only a few days’ extra added to he time frame.

Holly will send a note to the NC list explaining this proposal is back up, and for delegates to be aware this is in the voting phase.

V. Forum Managers
Jim Coplen and Echo Steiner were both elected to the SC, and so have stepped down from serving as Forum Managers. We need to find another Fm and an alternate. Holly reviewed the process for selecting Forum Managers and suggested calling for suggestions for a one-week period, then forwarding candidates to the NC for a vote of approval.

VI. Web content Team
Holly reviewed task of web content review, which can involve any of the SC as they wish.

VII. Utah situation
Steve drafted a letter to Jeff Beardall (GPU), who had asked for an explanation in writing about the decision-making process in Tucson. Holly noted the SC had agreed to send a letter and suggested legal review to be clear.

Echo said she wished to abstain, as she wasn’t involved prior to the national meeting; Jim was also not sure if a letter was appropriate, and also wished to abstain. Rebecca would like Steve to send the letter to the SC after having legal counsel look at it.

Steve – suggested he could sign the letter “Steve Kramer on behalf of SC,” referring to situation at the time (involving the former SC).

VIII. Addressing the NWC situation
Katey requested this be referred to as the AC proposal; it’s not an NWC issue.

Steve PROPOSAL – given the additional work the AC has done in bringing this forward, that the proposal be forwarded to voting list.

Holly – asked if the SC if formally rescinding the former SC decision?
Jody – stated that the information requested is in proposal, references to the complaint itself. Seems criticisms of proposal have been responded to by members of the AC.
Question of whether the AC had added new material to their proposal or whether the SC is now deciding the proposal is appropriate to go forward. Holly stated some questions had not been about the complaint itself, but about where there was any bylaw covering this type of action, and about suspension, that it wasn’t clear; and noted that the SC had sent other proposals back for similar reasons. Jody stated she thought “suspension was pretty clear and straightforward.”

Echo stated that if she had to make a decision, it would have to be on an understanding that the material in proposal has been changed, on what reason would be we be blocking if we did at this point. Is there a concern at this point?

[NOTE: It was not clear to SC members whether the AC proposal had been changed or whether any new material had been added. What suspension entails is undefined. As far as we can tell, there was no new material added to the AC proposal; however, the fault, per SC minutes of 6/24/06, lay in lack of clarity on some points, including details of suspension and timeline.]

Holly noted that the NWC had not refused to discuss this situation at all, but had been advised not to publicly discuss the matter; the NWC did maintain that the AC has no jurisdiction over this; that the NWC had been interested in discussing this in an appropriate setting, noting a hostile climate and conflicts of interest among several involved. The NWC had recently asked for legal help from the SC and got no response.

Rebecca said she felt the NC is the highest body, and since the AC is comfortable with proposal, would like to see it go forward.

Budd agreed, stated there will be a lot of opposition to this proposal. The NWC has every right to oppose it, and he will also recommend a No vote, he opposed it.

Jody noted there was motion on floor, act on it.

Katey asked if the proposal is that we send the AC proposal on to the voting queue. If so, she wants to go on record as saying that she hopes we make a note we are rescinding a previous SC decision.

Further discussion, whether the SC is rescinding a decision or forming a new decision based on new information., and whether there was any new information.

CONSENSUS to forward the AC proposal to the voting queue 6 members of the SC. 2 stand-asides: Katey Culver, Holly Hart. 1 absent: Liz Arnone.

10:01 p.m. – 10:24 p.m.

X. Portfolios
newcomers will contact old portfolio holders

XI. SC P & P’s – Jody, All

Next Call: Sunday, August 27, 2006; 8:00 p.m. EDT
Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green