January 2, 2005
GPUS-SC Conference Call
2 January 2005
9:00 p.m. EDT
Jody, Gwen, Holly, Steve, Rebecca, Marc, Brent, Jake, Pat
Robert Tufts, CCC co-chair, on call for the first item
Observers (except for executive session items): Cara Campbell, Cat Woods
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. Executive Session – 9:05 – 9:34 p.m. ET
(Draft) Contract Agreement
SC will work to finalize contract agreement will continue on the SC list during the next two weeks.
Steve or Emily will post current contracts from DC office. Jake will report on what contracts he has in his files.
II. STAFF REPORTS
POLITICAL DIRECTOR – Brent
There are now 102 identified candidates for 2006 in elections database, several more not ready to go public; similar numbers to 2002.
Natural Law Party is talking with GP-Idaho about merging or turning over ballot line to GP-ID. Certain terms apply; Brent and GP-ID need to determine if they’re acceptable.
CCC is way ahead of where they were in 2004. There are 33 identified candidates for Congress. CCC email list is now up and running, ahead of 2004 schedule.
CCC still has two seats open for women.
Gwen is interested in stats and archives
Pat – suggests virtual museum.
Brent – 25th anniversary of GP organizing is coming up 2009. Some may draft a proposal to the NC for a series of events; national archives committee, interviews with elders, book
FUNDRAISING DIRECTOR – Brent
Reached goal for the year.
Will release year-end report for direct mail.
Basically made our goal in December and are on target to do the same in January, will aim to surpass that.
Working with CCC for direct mailing to 2005 candidates and their donors.
Working w/ GP of Santa Monica County, CA, joint mailing around Valentine’s Day.
Working on re-solicitation, focus on officeholders holding back the tide of privatization.
III. TREASURER’S REPORT – Jake
Last week, Brent deposited ca. $2800. No bills to pay except office rent.
Have remained at same level as last month.
Green Affinity Card – Jake
Overall sense was that use of affinity cards is not a good plan. Jake was to discuss this on Fundraising and Finance Committees’ calls and report back.
They are still discussing. SC will address this on the next call.
IV. VOTING QUEUE – Holly — 10-15 min
#194 – GPCA: Implementation Proposal for the Sevigny/Olson joint proposal
1) #192 – GPUS Finance Committee: 2006 Proposed Budget
2) #193 – GPUS Annual Meeting Committee: Approval of Policies and Procedures
3) #195 – GPMN: Establishment of GPUS EcoAction Committee
#196 – Platcom: GPUS Platform Committee: Approval of Platform Committee Rules, Policies and Procedures
Voting period: 12/27/2005 – 01/02/2006
FOR the VOTING QUEUE
1) received, 12/15/05; amended, 12/19/05 – FLA: Resolution for Kristen Olson to fill the 7th SC Co- Chair Seat
12/20/05, CA – co-sponsor (question as to whether two appended questions are to be left in the document CA is co-sponsoring; I’ve written to ask for clarification)
12/25/05, NY – co-sponsor
Jake – suggest someone from the SC ask Kristen to ask CA, NY and FLA to withdraw the proposal and have them unanimously nominate her to SC co-chair position; likely she would be only one nominated, this could be done in about two weeks.
Steve – sounds good, but would need to be agreed on by FLA, CA and NY.
Pat – what would be the assurance that there wouldn’t be another nominee?
Jake – there would be none.
Pat – no one else wants to be on SC? [General mirth and hilarity.]
Jake – there is no guarantee, and no guarantee she would be elected, but it’s likely to happen.
Cat Woods- point of info: CA and FLA won’t agree to it.
Cara Campbell – point of info: proposal submitted on 12/15/05
Marc -also thought this suggestion would not be acceptable to the sponsoring states. Have the bylaws issues been raised?
Holly – no, have not communicated with any of the states on this.
Marc, Jake -same objections stand on bylaws as with last proposal. Contains mistakes and irrelevant background.
Jake – Tom was elected in Tulsa, objects to use of Tom’s resignation as a basis for this proposal; also objects to the implication that there were two valid STV methods possible when there are multiple methods of STV and only one used by GPUS in the past; also cites lack of definition of the terms “regular” and “full” SC member; also that the proposal doesn’t specify how long the term would be – would it end in 2006, etc.
Pat – see no relevance of putting forward someone who was not elected, wouldn’t have done this under any other circumstance.
Jody – have the SC’s concerns about placing this in the voting queue all been put forward? Should secretary run message to sponsoring states by SC?
Gwen – there is no resolution to the problem that was mentioned in this proposal.
Marc will re-send notes. Two items: 1) format; 2) violates two bylaws (Articles V and VI) and needs to cover those points.
Holly – would like re-sent, will run things by SC. Gwen suggests making clear the full SC is signing off on this.
[Apparent extra caller; call shuts down and resumes a few minutes later.]
Holly will collect items, run message past SC, then to sponsoring states.
2) received, 12/20/05 – RI/IA: Proposed Amendment to Proposal #175 (to broaden participation)
3) received, 12/20/05: RI/IA: Proposed Amendment to Proposal #175 (use vote counting system currently on voting page)
For the two proposals, above, to sponsors ask the SC to provide for as short a discussion period as reasonable, suggesting two weeks.
Discussion, 2 weeks
Voting period: 1 week
Floor Manager: Schneider
Question whether 2 or 3 weeks is standard. Holly will track down which is standard and find correct proposal template.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSALS –
#182 – Appointments to SC Elections Working Group
All members have responded, a listserv has been set up, and discussion is underway. Working group is likely to request a time line that will allow them to report back March 1, 2006.
V. Request from West Virginia Greens: Coal’s Dirty Secret Sign-On Letter Request
Please see the sign-on letter forwarded to the SC list, 12/28/05.
Secretary received this after the deadline (press conference). Question is whether the SC can sign on to this now, or whether it should be brought forward by a sponsoring state as a formal proposal the NC.
Steve has been working with them on this, will be presenting it to the GP-MD CC.
Brent -suggests MD bring it forward as formal proposal; points out benefits of national discussion, will help highlight issues of importance to Appalachia Greens.
Rebecca likes the idea of a state sponsoring this as a proposal, others may also want to sponsor
Steve – proposes that he take this up with GP-MD, try to get a proposal for SC to put on the voting queue on the next (1/16/06) call.
Marc – concern: a group is asking us to sign on to letter that doesn’t appear to conflict with our platform; if this can be run by the platcom to be sure, this shouldn’t have to take 6-week process. Secretary should be able to respond more easily to this. Gwen and Jake voice the same concerns. Brent prefers nat’l proposal for the benefit of discussion and education at nat’l level. Marc, Gwen and Jake would stand aside.
Pat – we need a liaison w/ WVA Greens to check out how urgent this is. It would be good to get this sort of focus from nat’l part
Holly was contacted about this and will get back in touch with them.
VI. IDEALIST Conference in Nashville, TN, 3/3-5
On a previous call, Jake had proposed leaving this on the agenda; we have until January 13 to make decision, after which registration costs rise; there was divided opinion on SC, more discussion and study needed.
Marc – still thinks this is a great thing, a missed opportunity if we don’t do it. If others don’t want to pursue, however, he will withdraw the proposal.
Steve – doesn’t see this as a good enough return on “investment.”
Pat – ironic that realism is stopping us from being idealistic. Can TN Greens attend on our behalf?
Brent – issue is registration cost; given current cash flow, recommends retreat to survival mode.
Jake – agreed.
AGREED – Will leave on agenda for next time, look at figures and see where things are at financially.
VII. Forum Managers for national email lists. SC needs to select 3. Two responses; one is willing to serve, one is thinking it over. SC will forward any more names of people willing to serve to SC list, will try to decide by Monday, if possible.
VIII. Memorandum of Understanding with GPUS and Workers’ Party of Pakistan
Gwen has not been able to get in touch w/ Jo Chamberlain. Will also contact IC and report whatever she finds.
Brent leaves call.
IX. State of the Union – GPUS Response; coming up in late January, Media Committee is working on something. Rebecca will follow up.
X. PORTFOLIO REPORTS – now online!
GPUS Committee Analysis; Proposal on portfolio reporting – will be put on agenda for next call
WEB UPDATE (Holly)
Tulsa reports are now on the website.
Marc: someone contacted him that they were having trouble accessing “On the Air” to post information. Holly will follow up with this.
I. 11:22 p.m. ET – 11:35 p.m. ET
Back to Executive Session
NEXT MEETING: Monday, January 16 (MLK *and* Jody’s birthday!)
Time: 9 p.m. ET
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green