September 24, 2023

Green Party US – Steering Committee Meeting Agenda

Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023

Time: 8:00 pm ET

NOTE on Minutes: “Checking the bylaws to get clear on the timeline, I discovered something interesting. For those who need to be aware, This refers to publication of SC call  minutes.  “…Minutes. SC members will have 72 hours from the time the minutes are posted

to send corrections.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, minutes will be posted to the

National Committee Votes list no later than ten days after the adjournment of the meeting and to the GPUS web site no later than twenty days.””


Observers are asked to remain muted and refrain from using the chat function.  If someone wishes to speak to an agenda item, please respond to this address, above.

I. Setup and Background

A.    Facilitator: Gloria Mattera

B.    Steering Committee Roll Call:

   1.     Craig Cayetano (co-chair) – present

   2.     Margaret Elisabeth (co-chair) – reported absence

   3.     Darryl! Moch (co-chair)

   4.     Alfred Molison (co-chair) – present

   5.     Joseph Naham (co-chair) – reported absence

   6.     Tony Ndege (co-chair) – present

   7.     Tamar Yager (co-chair) – present

   8.     Holly Hart (secretary) – present

   9.     Bob Stuller (treasurer) – present

Observers (remain muted and refrain from using the chat feature):

Establish Quorum (9 current members, quorum is 5)

Approve Agenda (changes require majority, new items require ⅔)

Observers: John Krause (LA; International Committee); Starlene Rankin (WA); Lisa Canar (WA)

 II.  Treasurer’s Report – Bob  10 min

A.    Bob has sent a request to receive the remaining funds from the Robertson bequest.

Bob is working on getting updated with NY’s family, disability and workers’ compensation laws; then, will negotiate reduction in fines.  He reports that “we are depleted.”  If necessary, Bob will use funds from the reserve account.  Accounts are currently at: $119,837 – primary; $1,970 – paypal; $4,993  – misc

Tamar recommended getting a broker that could work with both New York and Florida.

Tamar confirmed that GPUS is essentially broke, no large Paypal balance to tap into

B.    ​​Income Report through August 2023 – Tamar, Bob

Tamar reported that Fundraising is way down. It would help if we had people making major donor calls.  Adding in Merch and other sales, we are balanced, but that is all due to the Annual National Meeting income.  Sustainer income is down.  Other categories are also not close to the total budget..  Income is balanced, but only through the ANM.

III.    New Business

           A.  1. CCC- $300 for graphic design for Run 2024! Web page to link to all state party websites SEE ADDENDUM A 1

Approved by Consensus, Tamar standing aside


2. CCC – $1800 for candidate slate in Connecticut   SEE ADDENDUM A 2

Approved by Consensus, Tamar standing aside; BOb abstaining because he lives in CT

IV.         Standing Business – 5 min

       A.    Recap of Listserv Decisions –

1.     9/12/2023 – Proposal to approve David Gerry, MA, for the ATC

     Yes: Holly, Darryl!, Joseph, Tamar, Craig    APPROVED, 9/14/2023

V.   Reports — 30 min


a.              Treasurer (Bob) – done, see above

                       Financial Report (Tamar and Bob)


                  b.  Secretary (Holly)

                                 Floor Manager Overview (will follow up); Request for Letter of Affiliation for CA SoS; Progress report on B-R-P-Ps proposals updates,  Google Drive Folders, more


      c. Staff Report

Athena and David are waiting for statements from Daryl! For responses to inquiries about the Cornel West campaign.

       d. Laison assignments

 Craig: Media; Merchandise, Presidential Campaign Support Committee

 Alfred: Fundraising, Green Peace Action Committee

 Joseph: EcoAction, Green Pages, International

 Tamar: Apportionment Tabulation, Credentials, Election Tabulation, Staff Supervisor,

Apportionment Review Committee


Banking and Monetary Reform may need a new liaison.

VI.         Voting Queue

A.    RECEIVED for the QUEUE

             1.  GPWA – Amended Proposal – Floor Managers Settings for Ranked Choice Proposals  SEE ADDENDUM B

3 weeks discussion, 1 week vote

Approval threshold: simple majority

          2. Accreditation Committee: Accreditation of the South Dakota Green Party


Sponsor: GPUS Accreditation Committee

2 weeks discussion, 1 week vote

Approval threshold: ⅔


Discussion – none


1.  #1155 Proposal For Peace In Ukraine

Sponsor: Green Party of Hawai’i

         Floor Manager:  Holly Hart

         Voting from 9/18 – 9/24/23

2.  #1156 Approval of Samuel Chance as GPUS Forum Manager

Sponsor: GPUS Steering Committee

         Floor Manager:  Holly Hart

         Voting from 9/18 – 9/24/23

3. #1157 Approval of Shannel Pittman as GPUS Forum Manager

Sponsor: GPUS Steering Committee

         Floor Manager:  Holly Hart

`       Voting from 9/18 – 9/24/23

4.  #1158 Approval of Richard Giovanoni as GPUS Forum Manager

Sponsor: GPUS Steering Committee

         Voting from 9/18 – 9/24/23

COMPLETED – proposal in voting phase will complete tonight/early Monday


VII.         Old Business —

A.   Request from Green Party in Dublin for video message –   5 min

International Committee Co-chair Austin Bashore has created a 50-second video. Two-three SC co-chairs are interested in adding short videos to include in a compilation.   Craig will follow up with Darryl! and see if both can plan to create videos.

B. Discussion Items  –

 International. Committee Co-chairs invited on call to discuss GPUS for a informational discussion in relation to FGPA/FPVA and Global Greens – Craig, Joseph

Austin Bashore, IC co-chair, will be on the call to discuss GPUS relations

with FPVA/FGPA, Sao Paolo Forum and Global Greens.

John Krause had been on the call but left planning to return.  Austin is not on the call.  Tamar stated that it would be fairer to involve both co-chairs, and the SC liaison and/or both SC co-chairs who had asked about the matter.  Tamar also suggested that a different meeting could be set up with both IC co-chair and those on the SC who were interested. Craig noted that the point was to have everyone on the call, but since John is here, it could work to hear form him now and have Austin Bashore on a subsequent call.

Holly will follow up and arrange for both co-chairs to be on an upcoming call.

       C. Coalition to March on the RNC 2024 – no action taken

VII.         Executive Session – none

TOTAL TIME – 1 hr 55 min




To:  Steering Committee

The Coordinated Campaign Committee recently approved by consensus a proposal that included spending $300 of its budget for graphic design work for a new page, which will serve as the 2024 Call For Candidates.

I request that this item be placed on the next Steering Committee agenda for approval.  I shall plan to observe the meeting so I can be on hand to answer any questions that the SC might have.

Thank you.

Scott Laugenour, Co-Chair

GPUS Coordinated Campaign Committee

Register | Vote | Run Green Party!

Here is the text of the proposal:

Run 2024!

Proposal to the CCC

September 15, 2023 Approved by Consensus


CCC is anticipating an increase in the number of 2024 local, state, and congressional candidates considering running for office with the Green Party.  Philena Farley sent some suggested social media tips to the NC.  Mike Feinstein has also produced analysis on how little information there is on state party websites.

The CCC’s mission includes the creation of the annual “Call For Candidates” page on the Green Party US website.


  • CCC will produce a web page with the following website outline, in a visually appealing manner, for the Green Party US “Call for Candidates 2024” website page;

    • “Run with the party that these candidates candidates chose to make a difference in 2024, The Green Party”:  Presidential candidates vying for presidential nomination [approved by PCSC/candidates achieving provisional acceptance in 2023 and full acceptance in 2024/ and provide link to PCSC website]; Congressional Candidate; State Level Candidates; Local Candidates.   [include some future candidates, very recent winning candidates, and non-winning candidates who demonstrated excellence and will run again, i.e. Jesse Borosky] [photos and bios]

    • Join the community of Green officeholders who have made or are making a difference over the years. [long-tenured dedicated Green office holders i.e. Joyce Palmer-Fortune] [photos and bios]

    • How to Run for Office …. [Tips for deciding which office to run for] [Link to state party websites election pages, if they have one]

    • Link to Elections Database

    • Link to the GPUS Candidates network home page

    • Update the form on

  • CCC to invite state parties to have a link to this page from their state party website;

  • CCC to invite state parties to consider as a model they might voluntarily adopt for there own websites;

  • CCC to develop a plan to review state party websites and share best practices and report to the NC.

  • CCC requests a disbursement of $300 from its 2023 budget in order to create a fresh and visually-appealing look for the 2024 Call for Candidates



The Coordinated Campaign Committee has approved a $1800 Candidate grant to a nine-candidate slate of candidates running in Windham Connecticut, under the coordination of the Windham Green Town Committee for various town council and board positions in that jurisdiction.

The CCC requests that you approve the disbursement of this grant at your Sep 24, 2023 meeting.  Details for the check as follows:



SPONSOR: Green Party of Washington

CONTACT: Scott Laugenour +1 413 241 7327

……………… Margaret Elisabeth

SUBJECT/TITLE: Floor Manager Settings for Ranked Choice Votes


REQUESTED PROPOSAL DECISION-MAKING TIMELINE Three-week discussion / one week vote. Embedded in the three-week discussion period we run a mock vote which concludes one week before the vote on this proposal commences. The text for this embedded mock vote is in the References section of this proposal. The GPUS Floor manager will create the mock election vote on the GPUS votes page so that voting on the mock election concludes at least one week prior to the date that the vote on this main proposal begins.


This proposal asks the National Committee to give direction to Floor Managers as they create ranked choice votes for Steering Committee elections. It corrects inconsistencies in settings that are under the control of Floor Managers, that have been observed since the current voting system was adopted in 2006.

The proposal changes no bylaws or rules.

Article V of GPUS Bylaws calls for a NOTA ballot choice for all proposals that provide voting options other than YES and NO. In ranked choice votes, the concept of “NOTA” manifests itself as NOC (No Other Candidate). Having such an explicit NOTA choice assures that candidates seeking a position will always be in a contested race with some ballot competition – even on ranked choice ballots when the number of ballot-qualified candidates would otherwise be less than or equal to the number of seats being filled.

Article VI Section 2.4 of GPUS Bylaws call for votes for Co-chair, Secretary and Treasurer to be made public upon the conclusion of the voting period. This is interpreted as a roll call of how each delegate voted. Delegates are representatives of their state parties and it is emphatically asserted that delegates’ votes are not private. This bylaw article embodies two values: 1) prevention of “gaming” the vote; and 2) delegate votes are public. This proposal asserts that if the two values cannot be fully reconciled then the public nature of delegate votes is primary, and the total prevention of gaming is secondary.

The Elections Tabulation Committee (ETC) in its review of the 2010 SC election discovered a problem with the voting software that prevents full compliance with Article VI Section 2.4. This section in Article VI requires that delegate votes be revealed at the close of voting, but the voting software does not support this. A “mock” election was run in 2010 to test a system fix, but the fix did not work.

The guidelines that this proposal issues is for Floor Managers to keep the ranked choice ballots “open” until such time that the voting software is fixed to correct this problem. The final record of a vote must show the roll call of how individual delegates have voted. The proposal further suggests that Floor Managers issue advisories to delegates to cast their final votes (which, with the “open” setting, can be changed during the voting period) as late in the voting period as possible if they wish to guard against gaming.

Floor Managers have been inconsistent in how they set up ranked choice votes:

Sometimes Floor Managers provide a NOTA ballot choice, and sometimes they do not, and delegates who wish to cast a NOTA vote must write that choice in. Floor Managers have sometimes not revealed a roll call of how delegates voted in elections, effectively resulting in secret ballots.

Some Floor Managers have cited Article VII of National Committee rules as a basis for not including an “NOTA” ballot choice on ranked choice ballots. While Article VII of the rules does affirm the right of a delegate to cast an implicit NOTA vote by leaving candidates unranked, said article does not remove the right of a delegate to cast an explicit NOTA vote..

A link to the audit of ranked choice votes since the passage of rules Article VII is in the References section of this proposal. The audit shows when Floor Managers offer voters a NOTA ballot choice (19 times), when Floor Managers reveal the roll call of votes (29 times), when voters choose to write in a NOTA choice when such a choice is not on the ballot (34 times), and when the Elections Tabulation Committee submits a report certifying that the voting system is counting votes consistent with Article VII of the rules (7 times).On only two occasions has the Floor Manager both 1) included an “electable” NOTA/NOC option and 2) have revealed the final roll call of votes.  They are:

  1. Holly Hart, SC Vote 235

  2. Tamar Yager, Secretary Vote 1132

This proposal does not change the voting system that is spelled out in Article VII of National Committee rules. The Elections Tabulations Committee over the years has consistently reported that the voting software counts the votes and ranks the candidates properly in those Steering Committee elections where a “NOTA” choice is on the ballot: votes 235, 790, 810, 846, 894, 1021, 1059, and 1083. The Elections Tabulations Committee has also consistently reported that the voting software counts the votes properly when “NOTA” is written in by some delegates (when the Floor Manager did not give voters a NOTA ballot choice): Votes 326, 446, 458, 588, 589, 633, 648, 681, 721, 725, 872, 914, 926, 945, 965, and 1144.


The National Committee resolves that:

1) Floor Managers of all ranked choice votes must include an “electable” NOTA ballot choice, called NOC (No Other Candidate), that can receive rankings (or no rankings), consistent with Article V of the bylaws; if the final vote ranking results in the NOC candidate being successfully  “elected” at any rank, it will void the election of any lower-ranked candidate who would otherwise have been elected. Floor managers should advise voters that the more ballot rankings that they make in excess of the number of seats being elected, the greater the potential dilution of their other preferences. Voters, taking account of the agency that is theirs, may choose not to rank some ballot choices, including not ranking the NOTA / NOC choice, for this reason.

2)  Article VII of the rules of the National Committee, which was adopted in June 2006, was never meant to deny delegates an explicit NOTA / NOC choice; and,

3) Floor Managers of all ranked choice votes must present a roll call showing how delegates vote, consistent with Article VI Section 2.4 of the bylaws. The way to do this until the voting software is fixed is to make ballots “open.” Floor managers should advise voters that, if the voter is concerned with possible gaming of the ranked choice results, the voter should wait until the end of the voting period. This caution will not be needed when voting software permits the roll call of individual delegate votes to be concealed until the close of voting.


Immediately upon passage of this proposal, future Floor Managers will comply with this resolution for future ranked choice votes.


Bylaws Article V

Bylaws Article VI Section 2.4

Rules Article VII Section F


Results of MOCK vote that takes place during the discussion period, as detailed here:

Mock Election of Green Party Soup Ingredients

Mock Election Background:

This is a mock ranked choice vote election to support the discussion of proposal ###.

Mock Election Proposal:

A rank choice vote whereby the National Committee is electing up to ten ingredients to cook in a pot of water to make soup.  The ingredient candidates are presented on the ballot.

The ballot will be open.  Votes can be changed until the vote closes.

There are 24 eligible ingredients plus an electable “NOTA,” which in this ranked choice vote is called NO OTHER INGREDIENT.

Write-ins are allowed.  During the voting period delegates can see which ingredients other delegates are writing in and can decide to include those same write-ins on their ballot.  If a write-in ingredient is elected, and is eligible for the soup according to the kitchen bylaws, that ingredient will be added to the soup.

All ingredients may be either ranked or left blank according to the rules of ranked choice voting. The Floor Manager issues the following guidance to delegates:

A delegate should ABSTAIN from the vote if they don’t care what ingredients are put  in the soup; this means that they will allow other delegates’ selections to decide the result.  If enough other delegates also abstain and prevent any ingredient from reaching a minimum threshold for election, then instead of soup there will be a pot of hot water.

A delegate should rank NO OTHER INGREDIENT as #1 if they wish for a pot of hot water with no ingredients.  If after the vote closes NO OTHER INGREDIENT achieves #1 final ranking, then instead of soup there will be a pot of hot water.   Any election of a #2, #3 etc. ingredient is void.   Delegates can still rank other ingredients #2, #3, #4, etc. if they have ingredient preferences that they wish to be ranked in the event that NO OTHER INGREDIENT does not achieve a #1 final ranking.

A delegate’s vote can reflect a desire to elect fewer than 10 ingredients.  If, for example, a delegate believes that only 5 ingredients, not ten, should be added to the soup, then they should rank NO OTHER INGREDIENT as #6.  If after the vote closes NO OTHER INGREDIENT achieves a #6 final ranking, the election of other ingredients is void and only 5 ingredients will be added to the soup.   The delegate in this example can still choose to rank other ingredients at #7, #8, #9, #10, etc. if they wish for these preferences to be considered in the event that NO OTHER INGREDIENT does not achieve the final ranking hoped for.

A delegate has the right to an “implicit NOTA” choice by not ranking any ingredient.  If enough other delegates also leave a given ingredient unranked it will prevent that ingredient from reaching the minimum threshold for election, in which case that ingredient will not be elected.

In ranked choice votes that are public there is a chance that some delegations will attempt to game the results.  In this mock election we ask those delegations who attempt to game the results to use the rest of the discussion period for proposal ### to reveal what they did to game the system and report back on how effective it was.

Because public ranked choice votes can be “gamed” some delegates may wish to wait until the last possible moment to cast their vote.  The later it is that votes are cast the less effective any attempts at gaming the vote will be.  Proposal ### asks future Floor Managers to issue such advice until such time that a fix to the programming can be made to further reduce the risk of gaming.  Proposal ### posits that when reconciling the two values expressed in Article VI Section 2.4 of GPUS Bylaws, the value of open ballots is primary and the value of totally blocking attempts at gaming is secondary.

Delegates are advised that the more ballot rankings they make in excess of the number of ingredients being elected, the greater the potential is for dilution of their other preferences. Voters, taking account of the agency that is theirs, may choose not to rank some ballot choices, including not ranking the NOTA / NOC choice for this reason. Proposal ### asks future Floor Managers to issue such a caution to delegates when ranked choice votes are announced.


  • Yellow onion

  • Shallots

  • Carrots

  • Celery

  • Turnip

  • Kale

  • White beans

  • Navy beans

  • Barley

  • Garlic

  • MSG

  • Salt

  • Pepper

  • Potatoes

  • Parsley

  • Chicken bones

  • Lentils

  • Pork sausage

  • Tempeh

  • Tomatoes

  • Bok Choy

  • Spinach

  • Chicken breast meat

  • White wine

  • NOC (no other ingredients)


Daniel Bumbarger


Green Party of Washington



Proposal Title: Accreditation of the South Dakota Green Party

Lead Sponsor: GPUS Accreditation Committee

Timeline/Type: 2 week discussion period, followed by 1 week voting period. 2/3 approval threshold.


The South Dakota Green Party (SDGP), originally submitted their application in July of 2023.

After allowing several weeks for discussion and review, the Accreditation Committee agrees that the South Dakota Green Party has met the requirement for affiliation with the Green Party of the United States and will contribute greatly to the success of the Green Party of the United States.

SDGP Cover Letter

SDGP Application Answers

SDGP Bylaws

SDGP Platform (In Progress)

Application Contact:

Shaun Little Horn

SD Green Party

P.O. Box 257

Porcupine, SD 57772


Oklahoma Accreditation Vote for Reference


Based on the recommendation of the GPUS Accreditation Committee, the South Dakota Green Party shall become an accredited state Green Party and join as a member state party of the Green Party of the United States.