GPUS-SC Conference Call
16 January 2005 (Happy MLK Day)
9:00 p.m. EDT
Gwen Wages, Jody Haug, Jake Schneider, Holly Hart, Brent McMillan, Emily Citkowski, Marc Sanson, Rebecca Rotzler, Steve Kramer
Observers: Budd Dickinson, Kristen Olson, Marybeth Wuerthner, Cara Campbell, Roger Snyder
Facilitators: Gwen, 1st hour; Jake, 2nd hour
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.]
Cara – asks if presenting states can speak on their proposal
Gwen – may address the SC after discussion
Jody – notes amount of items to get through – PROPOSE – limiting comments by observers to 3 minutes apiece (amounting to 15 minutes), after issue is introduced and before SC makes a decision
Holly – suggests 2 minutes’ time; Jody – accepts as a friendly amendment
Cara – thought they would speak after the discussion but before the vote; she gets 3 minutes at her county commission
Jody – whatever the topic is should be introduced, basis given; observers would have time following that
Holly – any topic, or those decided on as such before agenda begins? Jody – topics should be made clear before the call
Marc – we’re over-complicating this, there are two different issues: 1) observers, and 2) participants. Participants do address the SC or take part. Has no problem with presenters addressing the SC while in discussion
Jake – agrees w/ Marc
Rebecca – does make sense for presenters to address
Gwen – observers don’t speak, but a presenter may speak on an issue as long as the SC is notified
PROPOSAL – presenters will participate in this particular item, 2 minutes time limit.
Gwen asks who are presenters: Marybeth Wuerthner, Cara Campbell, Roger Snyder
Steve, Marc – two more proposals for Voting Queue; Gwen – let’s agree to take this up online, as some of us haven’t seen these, yet.
AGREED, will address further in discussion on Voting Queue.
MOVED UP FROM ITEM # II, VOTING QUEUE – 5-10 minutes
II. RECEIVED for VOTING QUEUE
B. May receive amended proposal from FLA/CA/NY/PA; original proposal received, 12/15/06; amended proposal received 1/7/06
Jake – PROPOSAL – send FLA/CA/NY/PA proposal back with notice posted yesterday (1/15, 1:58 p.m.) ; include that when and if we get the amended version, we will put it up on he voting queue, 2/3 threshold.
Jody – the two issues to address are “vacancy” and “current election.”
Jake – it also needs to be unambiguous.
Rebecca – from what she has seen, doesn’t think that presenting states are willing to amend any further than they have; would like to get this in front of the NC and address these questions there.
Steve – from the NC list discussion, it’s clear what the proposal is intending to say; add 2/3 threshold and send it to the Voting Queue.
Marc – concerns remain – 2 types: content, which is up to the NC to discuss; but SC is obligated to make sure NC know what they’re voting on and whatever comes out we can actually implement; doesn’t think this proposal satisfies either. Is this method being approved above all others; are all methods ok? Also, this doesn’t address current election.
Cara – where is it written that SC gets to decide it’s 2/3 threshold, and why is this a bylaws change? Can that be answered?
Gwen – actually, I think it’s been answered repeatedly
Cara (interrupts) – no, it’s not.
Gwen – if Marc is being addressed personally, he can answer.
Cara – asks Marc to show language, raises voice; asks Marc to point to where the proposal says they are canceling election or doing anything that over- rides bylaws.
Gwen – vibes check, please lower your voice and continue.
Steve – refers to Proposal #188 – new election, etc., a mandate from the NC; if we are to override that, it will require that this proposal either be modified, or that Proposal #194 be overturned. Will require 2/3 threshold one way or the other.
Marc – That’s the problem with the clarity, it doesn’t say what it’s doing with the current election. We don’t know why it’s asking that Kristen be seated; we also don’t know what happens with current election.
Cara – proposal says NC acknowledges Kristen won by passing Droop threshold as specified in bylaws.
Gwen – point of clarification, there are two or 3 different things. Are presenters willing to make clarification?
Cara – I don’t know what you mean.
Rebecca – where #188 says “can” hold an election, leaves it open, it’s not specific enough, confusing; we have already determined that our bylaws are flawed to the point where we have already come up with a solution to revisit them.
Jake – addresses Cara’s question about voting methods – there are many [STV], that is another problem with the proposal.
Steve – we’re 5 minutes over allotted time;
Marc – asks for 5 more minutes –
Marc – agree with Jake, question for presenters. If this passes, the day after, do we cancel the election, do we add another seat?
Roger – these are red herrings, there are multiple methods – if they resulted in different outcomes, it might be a concern, but I ran through 14 different methods. This changes what meaning of the proposal is, but Marc is changing the basic meaning, which is why we won’t agree to it. The change is to have an effect on bylaws which we (presenters) don’t want to have an effect on. It’s extremely clear as to how this is to be implemented, anything else is beyond this proposal’s purview, so we do not want to cover it. Marc’s questions would make it a rule change.
Gwen – this is not Marc’s rules change, but passed by the NC, not to be referred to one person.
Roger – not makng it personal.
Gwen – you referred to Marc more than once; there are multiple objections from different people —
Cara – he signed the letter, he —
Gwen – multiple emails from different people and others on the SC had to have brought it up, not all Marc’s – Cara if you want to be on the queue —
Roger – he said it was his thoughts, specifically not the SC’s.
Jody – I want to remind everyone on this call, our basic question here is not to have to do this again. This may get us through this bump in the road, but may stretch the cardboard out for many miles to come.
Cara – second what Roger said, Marc wrote he was not speaking for the SC, it’s not fair to go after Roger for referencing that; if you care this much to set up so it doesn’t happen again, there is a committee. Marc can make a proposal to do whatever extra he want to be done.
Gwen – Marc may have been the most vocal in the group, but was not the only one sending out SC objections (apologize if I left him alone, it’s not intentional) – I am not doing personal attack on Roger, I thought that was clear, I apologize. The proposal makes a good point but sets itself up for the same challenges. The SC wants a proposal to go through to see resolution; if this can get passed a couple of those hurdles that need to be further examined and the problems with implementing it. If it addresses these issues, it takes a lot out of these questions.
Marc – has no desire to hold this up or re-engineer; wants to understand and doesn’t understand the intent – what do we do the day after this passes, is Tom on the SC, too? What do we do with the current election? It can’t be a separate issue when we have an ongoing election to fill a seat.
Steve – now 5 minutes over from last extension. Recommend we go another 8 minutes til top of hour.
Jake – calls the question.
Rebecca – basically have question for presenters – is intent to cancel current election?
Cara – PA’s proposal already called for that, it was voted down. The NC does not want another election. When Marc says he doesn’t know what would happen the day after, all he has to do is read it. One person is left that was elected, that is Kristen, why do we have to do with Tom at all, for you to ask us to put thing into this proposal that would make it a bylaws change when we have very carefully crafted it so it’s not affecting bylaws changes, and you have the ability to put out any bylaws changes you want but our proposal is very clear, you can go ahead and have your election, but you’re going to have —
Gwen – yes or no, does it cancel the currently called election?
Cara – we are not trying to tell you what to do with the election you called against the wishes of the NC; if you want to add an 8th person, you can go ahead.
Jake – PROPOSAL – we send the letter Marc posted to the NC on 1/15/06, 1:58 p.m., request they amend their proposal to comply with that memo, if and when we receive it, we will send it to the voting queue, 2/3 threshold.
Gwen – friendly amendment – make clear this is an SC memo, not just Marc’s.
Jake – agrees.
Rebecca – PROPOSAL – forward to the NC for a vote.
Steve – will you accept 2/3 threshold?
Rebecca – asks presenters what they were looking for?
Gwen – if you want 50%, say it.
Rebecca, can I ask presenters?
Gwen – doesn’t want a long discussion.
Marc – Jake has a proposal on the table, move on with that.
Jody – brings to attention that one presenter has spoken more than 2 minutes, we need to hear from others on this point if there is more clarification.
Marybeth would like to extend her two minutes to one of the other presenters.
Gwen – sorry, we have a proposal.
Jody – would like to hear from other presenters.
Marybeth, extends 2 minutes to Cara or Roger.
Roger – would comment specifically on the 2/3 threshold.
Cara – comment on Rebecca’s question, right?
Gwen – separate issues, we’re dealing with Jake’s proposal.
Roger – pass.
Marc – Jake did include 2/3 in his proposal.
Roger – very simply, we see it as structured not requiring any changes in the bylaws, wanted it to be simple.
Jake – Yes
Marc – Yes
Rebecca – No
Steve – No; would have NC work it out
Holly – Yes; does involve bylaws
Jody – Abstain, too muddy, thinks 2/3 threshold is necessary
Gwen – Yes; flawed, two issues to deal with, will run into same problems over again
I. STAFF REPORTS
EMILY – National Office
Have a lot to talk about and don’t want to take up a lot of time; will e-mail a report
1) Outreach Committee is working on a one-page tabloid handout, proposal to get that funded, proposal to get it out in March will be coming soon;
2) Merchandise Committee is finalizing policies on use of logo for states and locals, will be coming within next couple of days.
Site visit (moved up from NEW BUSINESS) – Annual Meeting Committee has planned for a site visit: one person from AnmCom, one SC and one staff should participate. This has been included in AnmCom budget. AnmCom decided Ruth Weill should be AnmCom rep; Emily the rep. on behalf of staff.
There was also discussion about combining site visit with SC Face-2-Face.
Jody – suggest Marc goes for the SC, has worked on AnmCom and Finance. Not sure F-2-F has been budgeted, but if happens, could take place mostly that weekend.
Jake – any other proposals?
Marc – No. Washington had a great proposal but hotel ended up reserving with someone else for that date. Minnesota dropped out early.
Jody – PROPOSAL – approve Marc to go as SC rep. for site visit . AGREED., consensus
PROPOSAL – If that doesn’t work, tpick a second person. Jody? AGREED, consensus
Discussion on SC F-2-F:
Gwen – on F-2-F – in April, during Jake’s tax season?
Holly – other venues will be less expensive to get to; time may not work for all; DC might be better for this?
Steve – Pat purchased tickets for previously mentioned meetings, then didn’t use; make sure we are clear if we decide on something.
Jody – recommend that we don’t have F-2-F in Tucson; we don’t have it budgeted, anyhow.
Gwen – talk about dates for F-2-F in DC, let’s move on.
Marc – PROPOSAL – Are we approving funding for this? If so, he will take to FinCom next week.
BRENT – Political Director; CCC; Fundraising
CCC; Currently 122 identified candidates, 38 Congressional candidates, way ahead of where we were in 2004 at this time. Two projects: one leading up to March prospect mailing (those who contributed to 2005 candidates); second, editing CCC candidate questionnaire for resources program to make it easier for candidates to ask for resources other than money.
Officeholders – one sad news item: Fran Gallegos, municipal judge in NMex, resigned. Good news: Courtney Wege from Gettysburg ran for school board, didn’t win, but ended up being appointed.
–GP-ARK Ex Com is negotiating contract to go forward with their petitioning effort
–GP-Idaho meeting 1/18, a possible merger of GP-ID and ID Natural law Party (which has a ballot line); similar to merger in South Carolina a few years ago.
–GPTX – getting ready for major petition drive
January – direct mail to registered Greens in Santa Monica County, CA;
February – re-solicitation from officeholders focusing on anti-privatization efforts;
March – prospect mailing to donors to 2005 Green Party candidates.
Large donations, in dialogue today with large donor this month, will wire sum on Tuesday. $12,000 . Part of state sharing program, so 50% goes to DCSG.
Holly – question on use of DIA for individual committees’ fundraising?
Marc – some are already doing this, just direct them to FunCom
Jake takes over as facilitator
II. VOTING QUEUE – Holly; 5 minutes
#196 – Platcom: Approval of the GPUS Platform Committee Updated Rules, Policies and Procedures
#197 – GPRI/IAGP: Amendment to Proposal 175 – Creation of a Delegate Apportionment Committee – Broaden Participation
Discussion through 1/30/06
Voting period: 1/31/06 – 2/6/06
Floor Manager: Hart// 1/2
#198 – GPRI/IAGP: amendment to Proposal 175 – Creation of a Delegate Apportionment Comm – Change Vote Counting System
Discussion through 1/30/06
Voting period: 1/31/06 – 2/6/06
Floor Manager: Hart// 1/2
RECEIVED for VOTING QUEUE
received, 1/16/06 – AnmCom: Proposal from Annual Meeting Committee for 2006 national meeting (Tucson, AZ; two possible sets of dates in July, 2006)
IRV vote – will choose between two options and NOTA; AnmCom has schedule they want to stick to
2 weeks discussion, 1 week vote
Floor Manager: Kramer// 1/2
FLA/CA/NY/PA proposal. [See Above]
Secretary will send agreed-upon memo to all state officers, delegates and alternates in each presenting state. Will use January 8th message and amend to clarify that this is coming from the SC, “as adopted by the SC.” Will cc’ SC when sending it to presenters and states’ contacts.
Other two proposals not yet seen by all of the SC; will address online in the next couple of days.
III. OLD BUSINESS – 20-25 minutes (some items will have little to report, but are included here just to note that they are in the works)
1 – Updates
a. SC co-chair Elections working group
Steve – Jonathon Lundell is modifying his software to accommodate various methods, should one be decided on. Discussion as to what the facts were surrounding SC election in Tulsa.
b. Legal team/portfolio
Steve – Exploratory questions as to how to put together a legal team; discussions with Matt Abel, no on else yet.
c. MOU/American Muslim Association
Gwen – have spoken with Jo Chamberlain, am unable to reach International Committee; there seem to be two different perspectives on what should be happening.
Marc – discussed with IC co-chair Julia Willebrand today, they have not had communication with SC about this since last August. IC Co-chair Alan Kaufmann has done some preliminary follow-ups with Green Party of Pakistan. GP-Pak sounds not really developed enough to deal with an MOU, although they would like a statement from GPUS concerning US bombings of Pakistan last week. We need to follow up with AMA.
Holly – MOU was requested by Workers’ Party of Pakistan, not GP-PAK.
Marc – originally told AMA in August that we could not do this until run by GP-Pakistan. 3 of the SC were variously appointed to follow up, and none have until now. Need to follow up with Kaufmann, see what he’s found out, come up with response to AMA.
Gwen will call Allen Kaufmann for final IC recommendation, and will cc’ SC on communications.
Marc – stands aside, we’ve already approved this, no need to do it again.
d. “Coal’s Dirty Secret” request for sign-on from WVA Greens
Steve – this is the proposal brought forward form GP-MD, one sent for the Voting Queue today. GP-MD has approved and is signing on, and has approved a motion to send to GPUS for signatures, as well.
Have already decided this would be addressed online.
e. IDEAL-LIST event
Steve – we pretty much decided not to do this, but to keep on table if funds came in. We should keep our original decision, don’t do this event
f. Contracts – Brent’s contract; other contracts
Steve sent Brent’s contract to list awhile some time ago. Wants to discuss with Rob Tuffts and Jen Walling (CCC co-chairs) a point concerning job description.
Brent’s contract is approved; still needed are a list of duties and job description. We need a copy of former Fundraising Director Kara Mullen’s duties we were going to use.
Jody – not a good job description use it as something from which we should deviate. Will see if she can find a copy and send it to Marc.
Emily will fax her job description to Jody
All contracts are now expired. Marc has volunteered to take job descriptions we have and incorporate into contacts. That’s only two positions. We have no contracts for Scott McLarty, Starlene Rankin. Emily says they may exist. Jody will contact them and send anything they have to the office.
g. “State of the Union” Address
Rebecca – has heard back from Media; are working on something that will go, um, we did footage for commercials over Christmas break, along with statement, putting together something that will go up on website.
Holly – there is still the possibility of something inside Capitol, Ron Paul’s office, although there were concerns about security.
Rebecca will contact Media Committee to see where things stand
IV. NEW BUSINESS – 35 minutes
a. SC co-chair election.
Jake – question of when nominations must be accepted?
Marc – bylaws don’t say, candidates should stay on until they specifically decline.
Jody – thought it was always the other way around.
Gwen – already put the message out that they have ’til 29th.
Jake – PROPOSAL – must respond in writing (email) by Jan. 29th to accept nomination, if they are to go to the voting page.
Marc – stand side
Jody – Yes
Gwen – No
Rebecca – Yes, policy needs to be included in bylaws
Steve – Yes
Jake – Yes
Holly – Yes
Marc – ask WK to include this in their work. Send to voting page to go up for discussion.
b. Forum Managers (see Proposal #186) – Holly
A full list of those contacted or who volunteered have been forwarded to the SC list.
There were 3 confirmed volunteers: Deanna Taylor (UT), Jim Coplen (IN), James DeBoer (RI); also considering it are Steps (Sean Bagley (IN) and Paul Loney (OR). Rebecca had sent in Echo Steiner’s (FLA) name, said Echo has agreed.
Holly didn’t receive anything from her, yet.
Jake – need email from Echo to Holly.
Per Proposal #186, which established list policy and Forum Manager positions, the terms are 2 years. SC nominates 3 forum managers and one alternate, to be approved by NC, straight up or down vote.
Jake – PROPOSAL – nominate for Forum Managers the first three that showed up – Deanna, Jim andJames; and Echo as alternate
— Jody, will put proposal together for voting page, to go up next weekend 2 weeks discussion, 1 week vote
Floor Manager: Jody
–Holly will send out an announcement to the 4 people and ask for email confirmation from Echo.
c. Discuss proposal on committee portfolio reporting – Marc
Has received some comment. TABLED for now, will take up online. Marc will post revised draft. SC will discuss and consider on next call whether to send to Voting Queue.
d. Policies and Procedures – Rebecca
Asks about having a “user-friendly,” kind of a cheat sheet, for delegates to more easily find what they need to do in terms of submitting proposals, and other things along that line.
Holly – currently sends to new delegates/alternates a welcome message that explains this type of thing and has links to the documents, explains where to go for more information. Will send that to SC, also include the SC call observer policy.
Marc – suggestion of sending this out once a month.
Holly – Voting page cannot do this. Listserv program might; otherwise, secretary can just send this out on a monthly basis.
Marc – suggests SC get written policies and procedures, criteria for dealing with proposals, etc.
AGREED, consensus. Will put on a future agenda.
e. Latin American Studies Ed Cut (forwarded by Jody, 1/8/06)
Jody will send again. Not something we have to deal with tonight.
V. Web Update (can also start sending online) – Holly
1 – Explanation of Divestment Resolution
2 – Updating “The Real Difference”
3 – Question on Pair Server renewal; Susan Dridi recommends for 1 year, other hosts may offer better options and deals in the future.
— Jake will renew for one year
VI. Treasurer’s Report – Jake
State sharing to pay out. GPUS is in tough financial shape right now, a new budget, monthly expense of $23,000+/mo. If we pay out this state sharing expense, we will have $13,000 in the bank.
Marc – are we dipping into reserve to pay state sharing? Jake- still waiting to see what happens with large donation in and what happens in the next week or so.
Marc – We should stop including “state sharing” listed under available funds.
VII. Executive session item scheduled for tonight.
Marc -TABLE. AGREED, consensus.
VII. Impeachment update
Steve – now has a list names for the third slot. Attempting to move forward as fast as possible. Have not been able to get Rebecca and Pat on the phone at the same time. Will talk to Rebecca after the call, choose one of the names, post something tonight or early tomorrow.
NEXT CALL: Monday, January 30, 2006. 9:00 p.m. ET
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green