August 28, 2022

Green Party US Steering Committee Meeting Agenda

AND MINUTES by Acting Secretary Garret Wassermann

Sunday, August 28, 2022 8pm ET/5pm PT

Speaker Form



Please use the “raise hand” feature in Zoom to call stack.
The shortcut keystroke is Alt+Y.


  • Setup and Background – 10 min

    1. Facilitator: Chris Stella, starts at 8:05pm
    2. Steering Committee Roll Call:
  • Margaret Elisabeth (Co-Chair) – present
  • Ahmed Eltouny (Co-Chair) – present
  • Rei Stone-Grover (Co-Chair) – present
  • Tony Ndege (Co-Chair) – present
  • Chris Stella (Co-Chair) – present
  • Garret Wassermann (Co-Chair, Acting Secretary) – present
  • Tamar Yager (Co-Chair) – present
  • Diana C. Brown (Treasurer) – present
  1. Observers (remain muted and do not use chat feature)
    Starlene Rankin, David Gerry, Holly Hart, Haryaksha Knauer; “NBC” (Philena Farley)  joined at about 8:15pm; Joshua Scheunemann joined about 8:20pm; Renaud Brown joined about 8:30pm
  2. Establish Quorum (8 current members, quorum is 5)
    8 present, quorum
  3. Approve August 14 Minutes
    Approved by Consensus
  4. Approve Agenda (changes require majority, new items require ⅔)
    TN: MOTION: Ask Liaison Reports to be shortened to vital issues only to save time for future discussion.
    ME: BLOCK: Unclear which committees or reports are “nonvital”.
    TN: Clarification:  Just trying to expedite meeting if no urgent issue.
    TY: MOTION: If New Business Item G is Discussion, should be labeled that way.
    TY: BLOCK: Do not discuss Item G if Action is meant
    APPROVED: Yes: ME, AE, TN, RSG, CS, GW, DCB | No: TY
  • New Business (5 min each/40 min)

    1. Discussion: Forum Manager Protocol (DCB)
      TN: Like that warnings sent to state party contacts for more accountability. Can you clarify moderation after one warning?
      ME: Against public shaming, why not private discussion first. Why four warnings?
      DCB: Don’t consider public shaming, letting folks know it’s being addressed instead of keeping it completely private. Advice in proposal on de-escalation and amicable reminder to continue on NC lists. Four warnings in the IC so seemed like a good option but up for discussion.
      CS: CONSENSUS to move discussion to list.
    2. Discussion: Co-Chair liaison responsibilities (DCB)
      TY: Liaison responsibilities depends on committee and co-chairs whether liaisons should attend committee meetings. Can look at minutes if not present. At discretion of liaison and co-chairs.
      ME: Why have liaison system if committees send their own reports? Steering is administrative so responsibilities should list that.
      GW: Rules for liaison system is not well defined in Steering rules and procedures. We should write down specific duties and responsibilities if needed, or otherwise let co-chairs handle the reports.
      TN: Feels like turning in my homework. Not often leading to good discussion or collaboration. How can we turn these reports into something folks see and can be used to collaborate?
      CS: CONSENSUS to move discussion to list.
    3. Discussion: Secretary responsibilities (DCB)
      ME: Next Secretary should get input in this proposal, so hold on until election.
      CS: CONSENSUS to move discussion to list.
    4. Discussion: Strategic Plan Update (DCB)
      [included as part of section C, moving discussion to list]
    5. Action: Committee Liaison Assignments Proposal (GW)
      • Amended assignments based on internal co-chair interest poll:
        • AE: ANMC, GPAX, IC
        • CS: ARC, DRC, CCC
        • GW: PlatCom, ApRevCom, BRPP, Green Pages
        • ME: FundCom, BMRC, Diversity
        • RSG: AC, BAC, Outreach
        • TY: ETC, Media, Merch
        • TN: EcoAction, FinCom, PCSC

GW: MOTION to approve assignments, as amended.
TY: Objection, but stand aside.
CS: CONSENSUS to approve assignments.

  1. Action: Staff Liaisons/Supervisors (GW)
    GW: Tamar, Tony, Rei interest in staff supervisor. Willing to help but may not be able to attend regular supervisor meetings.
    TY: Used to pick supervisors and supervisors meet together regularly
    RSG: Communication reflected in the party that we are working on it.
    DCB: Can other SC members that are not supervisors be able to attend meetings?
    AE: Agree with DCB on attending meeting. Want to make sure staff is mindful of the whole steering committee; it’s not just supervisors that can give tasking.
    TN: Two or three supervisors good, but agree with Rei need open communication with staff tasking to improve things. Refocus party culture to outreach and fundraising. We have three people interested if no objections.
    ME: Cannot be a supervisor if organized in IWW, so Margaret cannot do it. Need to be informed if being on steering committee puts in position of supervision.
    TY: Needs at least one supervisor person that communicates with shop steward. Concern about context if members join calls suddenly. Steering welcomed to ask questions of staff and supervisors.
    DCB: In my experience, hired people often meet with the whole board. Don’t think it is intimidating or confusing for staff to meet the whole steering committee since committee as a whole hired them. We should all build relationships with staff.
    TY: Could invite staff to SC calls regularly, but steering on staff calls could be confusing.
    TN: Call vote for Tamar, Tony, Rei as staff supervisors.
    GW: MOTION: to call vote, have newly approved supervisors meet, and report back to the SC answers about these questions.
    CONSENSUS to approve supervisors.
  2. Action: FundCom communications (RSG)
    RSG: Trying to move party in more positive direction. Steering committee should be able to review and approve fundraising email eblasts, similar to as is done for Media releases.
    RSG: MOTION to take lead and administer Fundraising as directed by Bylaws, require Fundraising email blasts to receive at least 4 Steering Committee member approvals.
    TY: BLOCK, motion should have been shared with FundCom ahead of meeting.
    ME: Does this proposal take away authority of elected members of FundCom?
    RSG: Creates conjoining opportunity with FundCom for Steering to do Article 4 Sec 2.4 to administer fundraising.
    TY/ME: Can you elaborate on that?
    ME: Objection, bylaws do not currently allow this.
    TY: Why have fundraising committee if steering does this?
    TN: Requires bylaw change but interesting idea. Steering could create our own messages to committees.
    AE: Agree with Rei’s idea, but unsure if requires bylaws change. Is Media process written in Media committee bylaws or something we approve?
    ME: Believe requires change to SC bylaws and FunCom mission statement. Would support seeing necessary changes proposed.
    DCB: Would SC be on the FunCom listservs? How open up communication and collaboration?
    RSG: Yes, it would help to be on listserv and have better communication with fundraising, similar to how is done with media.
    AE: Absolutely agree with idea that since fundraising blasts could harm the party similar to bad media, makes sense to me. Do not see the 3 sign offs in Media rules so suggests we could make this new rule.
    DCB: Media’s internal procedures put the 3 sign offs. FunCom would need to update their internal procedures. Not in Media bylaws that SC is on the listserv, this is straight internal stuff, so would need to make changes.
    AE: Propose moving to steering list if ok with Rei, to research bylaws.
    GW: Second the proposal to move to list. Very good idea, let’s research it some more to do properly in bylaws.
    CS: MOTION to move discussion to list.
    CONSENSUS to move to list for further development of proposal.
  3. Action: Mailer and Phonebanking Proposal (TN)
    TN: Tamar provided estimate, $1-something per piece for 3000 or $2ish if 1000-2000 mailers. My proposal that $4000+ for mailer to 3000 was too much, need to look away from that. Cut list down to about 1100 names using filter Tamar shared, people that gave at least $25 or more. Relook at how to reach out to folks. Take savings of smaller mailing to use $800 to phonebank and follow up with donors. So proposal would be for around the same amount but including phonebanking and followups not just mailers that is more engaging. Dire situation, looking at not enough money for staff, need to do something different.
    AE: Support idea, targeted mailings is good. Can we task our fundraising staff for 40 hours instead of other tasking to call and collect data?
    ME: Who would supervise phonebanking sessions? Has FundCom been asked if they could do this work? Is handwritten test mailer included in your plan?
    TN: To Ahmed, in favor of staff tasking for more donor followup to convert to sustainers. I think $800 is worth a try now for more donors. To Margaret, yes continue handwritten letters. Keep fundcom proposal as-is just with a smaller number of people mailed so we can try something new too.
    TY: Could do phonebanking on top of the existing FunCom proposal rather than change it. If paid $20/hr for phonebanking to staff, that’s a different salary so would need approval from union. Does your proposal cover same mailer package FunCom put forward? What is goal after expenses?
    TN: Questions are as if there was no proposal. Not changing proposal other than doing a smaller mailing, can still do it now and mail to people in early October. I think this formula more likely to yield more success over time and more engagement to get more sustaining members. Haven’t seen any other proposal so going with your suggestion of $2.36 (approx) to keep it to around $2600 for a mailer with the same vendor.
    TN: Proposal from Tamar’s math, Calling for $2600 for mailer, for 1100 mailers going out. Preferential treatment for staff if they want to phonebank.
    DCB: suggestion to move discussion to list to sort out remaining questions.
    TN: Expect $10,000 net over the next year from this proposal to answer questions from Tamar and Margaret.
    CS: MOTION: move discussion to list
    ME: Seconded
    TN: To answer Tamar’s questions, used more conservative estimate based on your own projections. Cut that number roughly in half to be conservative.
    TY: Still doesn’t answer my questions.
    AE: Seconds motion. Call the question.
    CONSENSUS to moving discussion to list.
  • Standing Business (30 min)

    1. Follow-up on Action Items — 5 min
  • Steering List re-vote on FundCom Mailer request for $4200; vote Failed to meet quorum (GW)
    ME: clarifying the steering list vote did not meet quorum, not the vote in the previous meeting
  • Loomio trial by Committee of Co-Chairs update (DCB)
    DCB asks to table it. CONSENSUS.
  1. Reports — 20 min
  • Secretary (GW)
    No specific report at this time.
  • Treasurer (DCB)
    ME: Must submit budget by September 10th. Update on preliminary budget?
    DCB: FinCom per Hillary will discuss at next meeting, so no update yet.
  • Fundraising (TY) — 2022 YTD Fundraising Report
    TY: Only updated income portion of fundraising report, not added up yet.
  • Staff (GW, TY)
    TY: Staff met last Thursday. Furloughed to ¾ time now. Michael working on fundraising. Meeting with Dee Taylor to do ANM wrap up.
  • RSG: AC, Fundcom, Outreach (written report linked)
  • TN:
  • AR: ANMC, Diversity, Ecoaction
  • CS: BRPP, PlatCom, ARC
  • GW: Green Pages, ApRevCom, PCSC, ETC
  • TY: Media, Merch
    ME: About Media, NLGC is not participating in GPUS tiktok so unclear where this info for Media came from
    DCB: Mike Gamms had suggested Lavender be involved a year ago, was mentioned but not assumed by Media                                                                                                                                                                              
  1. IN THE VOTING QUEUE – 5 minutes
    • 1091 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section J Immigration, Path to Citizenship
    • 1092 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section A,5,3, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
    • 1093 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section A Civil Rights and Equal Rights, 8 Youth Rights
    • 1094 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section E Education and the Arts, 1 Education, plank ad
    • 1095 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section F Health Care, new Informed Consent
    • 1096 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section G Labor, 2f Living Wage
    • 1097 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section G Labor, 8 Reduced Work Week
    • 1098 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section H Criminal Justice, 4 add Legalize Psilocybin
    • 1099 – 2022 Platform Amendment: Chapter II, Section H Criminal Justice, 5 add Community Control of Police
    • 1100 – Endorse GPAX Statement On War In Ukraine
    • 1101 – Special Election of the GPUS Secretary
  1. Executive Session

(Observers: please exit the Zoom)
ME: If any SC observer objects, goes back to public meeting
TY: Objects, what is this about
TN: go to session to explain possible topic, then decide if move forward
GW: due to possibly sensitive nature understand why topic not listed here, support going to session to hear the topic then decide if move forward or end call
AE: recognizes TY’s right to object but ask to reconsider to hear what its about
CS: what is reason for objection?
TY: we don’t know topic
CS: the written rule does not recognize not knowing the topic as reason for objection
TN: want to talk about staffing and shifting duties
TY: will change to enter, but be very clear what we talk about


Committee addressed the need for *potentially sensitive* staffing business, Co-Chair became agitated and the facilitator reminded the group of the rules. The Co-Chair was disgruntled, and felt as though they were experiencing insensitivity, in response they directly insulted the facilitator, and the treasurer immediately called to de-escalate and adjourn session.ME withdraws consent for executive session, 10:24pm


[Discussion on how to properly document in minutes]


DCB: MOTION to move discussion on staffing from executive session to list
GW: Seconds motion, and MOTION to adjourn


END: 10:39pm