Green Party of the United States
2003 National Meetings
Coordinating Committee Meeting
Saturday, July 19, 2000
Mayflower Hotel—State Room
David Rovics—”Coke is the drink of the Death Squads”
Persons are reminded to begin on time, that we may end on time
NY-Julia Willebrand—Re: today’s agenda, being as how we ran almost 1 hour late yesterday. . .
Today’s BRPP agenda has been shortened by 1 hr.
Please write agenda concerns for the SC.
The SC is setting the Agenda for this meeting
Green Network Officeholders Proposal
NC – Gray Newman –
Amy—Laramie, WY City Council
Over 170 Officeholders in the US
ME, FL, AK, HI. . .
Also places you might not expect: WY, TX, NC
In May of 2002, an officeholders list was established. In November, the thought of a network evolved.
Most are the only Green on their own council/board/legislature, etc.
In February 2003, the Green Officeholders had their second ever gathering in Santa Monica (there was an earthquake). We discussed a way to mesh with the Coordinating Committee.
Since then, certain recommendations have been developed, some of which come to this floor today.
PROPOSAL: (was presented as written)
Choosing [Representatives] and Alternates
Additional rule/procedure: All fundraising monies will be routed through the GPUS Treasury
TX—David Pollard—Not all officials are elected, some are appointed. Are there any plans to include appointed officeholders?
(It will include those who were appointed to elected offices)
For instance, will it include appointed Judges?
MI—Since you are creating a new status of membership on committees, there needs to be a change in the bylaws
Il-Mark Samson—A non-voting member to be on CCC also (now a 10 member position elected by this body)—Would this change the number of members to 11? (yes)
IL—Liz Moran—Network Membership—Does it also include elected precinct committee officeholders?
OR—Paul—What is the benefit to the Party of creating this Network?
Why do officeholders need a non-voting position on this body?
DC—Maya O’Connor—Does it include those elected to a non-partisan position?
Echo—Voting can be done in committees, yes? (yes)
HI—Andy—BRPP member—What are the implications for BRPP? What does a “Network” mean and what does it include?
Would it be possible to fit the Green Officeholders network into the current structure?
Jane Hunter—Does the network include Greens who don’t run as Greens? (Yes)
NY—Julia W—Is there a mission statement? (There is a Founding Declaration on the next page)
WA—What does “Adopt” mean? Is this a one-time need, or might be there other Networks?
Do all monies just “Go through” the network, or does the GPUS keep some? (yes)
Daniel Alden—Would an Independent running under the Green banner be eligible or do you have to be a party member? Also, what’s up with the 3rd Bylaw?
Kevin McKeown—Mayor Pro-tem of Santa Monica—asking for party’s assistance in creating what we elected Greens need so we can better connect with each other and the grassroots of the Party.”
Dean Myerson—In the proposal development it was asked, do we fit the structure into the existing bylaws or creates something new? It was felt that a new thing was needed, given the unique nature of the officeholders’ connection.
Officeholders generally have no time to vote, but they want to have input.
Most officeholders get little assistance from their staff—sometimes even resistance from their staffs. . .
Mike Feinstein—re: Who is part of the network? Everyone who is a member of a State Green Party (as defined by the state party) is a potential member of the Network. Language is meant to be Bylaw ideal.
15 min. remain.
Framing Comment: re; Why a Network, not a Caucus or Committee? “Caucuses are for oppressed minorities; I’m an Irish politician. Committees are formed with a specific agenda in mind.” What we’re looking for is communication. We want to start quickly and need your support.
BRPP –just seeing this for the first time. Likes the idea. Concerned about the implications, especially to bylaws. Need to flesh out, harmonize with existing bylaws.
CA—Peter Camejo—We must be careful. In the history of other parties, the elected officials tend to develop an association that is parallel to the party, and it is always more conservative. They must not issue public statements, or begin, ever, to be mistaken for the Green Party. Beware, take note of what has happened in other countries.
MN—Steven Ezninger—Would like to see language that people in the network have gone through an endorsement process by their state or local.
RI—Tony—Agree with fear of developing parallel party. This is sudden, being as BRPP has not seen this. Provisional support is also dicey. Don’t agree with conceptual approach, would like to see a formal vote to endorse the concept but ask they work with the BRPP to work on getting formal language adopted.
AK—Diedre Hefflerich—liking the idea, but concerned about the specific requests for placement on certain committees, especially for the standing member of the Green Pages (Concern about Editorial Independence) Also, some definitions need clarifying.
FL—Milo Lucci—Suggests to table and asking BRPP and new org to work together
RI–Joe Buchannan—GP should be supporting our elected officials, not say no to their proposals.
ME—John Rensenbrink—Supports Joe, understands concerned of parallel officeholders’ party—it has occurred in Europe—but this is a good proposal that we should support. We should recognize we have to have votes.
CA—Mike Wyman—Affirmation of the proposal. Concern (for friendly amendment):In addition to having a report back from the BRPP, we should also have a report back from the Treasurer, re. implications, regulatory compliance, etc.
OH—Anita Rios—This is positive. Changes to bylaws are natural as we grow and change. Still there are gaps, we need to make use of elected officials.
Kevin McKeown — We chose to ask for network status because committee or caucus don’t fit. A caucus is supposed to be for underrepresented minorities. I’m an Irish politician . We want better communication between elected officials and other Greens. The purpose is to connect elected Greens more closely with the party, not to further empower them.”
Mike F.—Agreed that the proposal should go to BRPP, not just the concepts to be approved, but the details also, with the language to be defined later..
That we take the extant proposal, permission to go forward with the network and refer to BRPP to bring it back later in final form, with the intent to allow continued organizing for the network
Financial proposal (to route proposal through Finance Committee) accepted as a friendly amendment.
“This group will endorse the Green Officeholders Network to continue organizing, that we will provisionally accept these categories, and will refer the proposal to the BRPP, Finance committee, and in consultation with the CCC, with the specifics that it will come back to this group for approval with refined language as appropriate.
It would include non-voting representatives to the committees, who are not covered by the bylaws so we need to bring them in.
Outstanding concerns should please be written and brought back for consideration.
SC noted many delegates not ready to stand aside on questions about process.
When a state requests that someone who is not a delegate to speak, the whole CC must approve. Approved.
There are remaining unresolved concerns.
CCC—Current bylaws do not allow for non-voting members.
NY–Rachel Treichler—per meeting rules yesterday, what is this process by which the proponents can call for a vote?
Referred to Number 9.
How can the proponents call the question?
[should be referred to 10—Closing options]
NJ—Gary Novaselski—We are past Step 9 on to Step 10—Closing options. What is not clear is who has the power to decide the closing options. [actually, this is clear, on the back of the sheet: “presenters have the power to:”]
BRPP has agreed to sacrifice 15 minutes of time to further this.
Question of Lavender Caucus’ voting status.
LC was, a year ago, given provisional acceptance for 6 months.
Their votes have been accepted online.
Proposed to extend the LC provisional vote until Sunday, when it will be officially approved.
Any unresolved concerns?
WA, VT, NY, AL, AK, MN, MI, IL
Votes against: 19
Unresolved concerns should be stated, and will be in the future.
Finance Committee –
Budget Time: What we have, what we will get, and how we will spend it.
Time to walk through the refined budget numbers.
Budget was supposed to be over 800k. 300k already received this year. We will fall 20-25% below that projected forecast (unless everybody starts writing checks now). We need commitment for $5-10,000 each in fundraising from the states.
We will break for lunch at noon.
The proposed changes are not, technically, cuts. They are movements of budgeted monies from Tier 1 to Tier 2.
“What is the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2?”
Tier 1 is more realistic. Tier 2 is more idealistic.
Tier 1 is the core expenditures that we are confident we can fund. Currently we are falling short of our projected Tier 1 budget, so we are shifting monies to T2.
30% overhead charge for staff
There was a proposal to move the GPUS to Canada to get healthcare for all, but it did not seem feasible.
Finance Director’s expense account has been cut dramatically. Thank you, Jack.
Orig. budget was $2500.
New rent will be $1764. Supplies and Util. Will be the same. Revision to add $600 for postal expenses corrects an error in the first budget.
Category drops to $50k.
Political Coordinator also accepted a cut in the expense account. (Thank you, Dean)
Office Manager was laid off—total monies paid were $6k.
DC office drops from $176k to $115k.
Financial increases are moved from Tier 1 to Tier 2—there will be no increases unless fundraising skyrockets.
Caucus monies are halved.
Venue balances to zero.
Merchandising—now balances to a small profit.
SC summary drops from 68k to 41k
11k shifted to T2
Fundraising—6k to tier 2
Total T1 budget now 38k
Diversity (Anita Rios)
[need these numbers]
3k from staff stipend shifted to Tier 2
116k now adjusted from T1 to T2, so expenses match expected income.
PE—Carl Romanelli—Where does the 1000 for 1000 campaign stand?
CA—Mike—No line item for total on expenses?
Starlene Rankin—What about hiring freezes, will they be lifted?
HI—What about health insurance?
NC—Gray—Extra Rooms for conference?
CA—Greg—Clarification on Gross Income: What is the adjusted fundraising figure?
VA—Tom –More detail on precinct and polling analysis?
CA—Beth Moore, Gemini—There is a donation envelope in the packet—We may give monthly to our states and or locals, we may not give to the National. . .
Also, why are we cutting media right before a major election year? Especially the staff stipend for Scott McLarty. . .?
Jo Chaimberlain (CA)—
The amount is between 12k and 15k/mo. Don’t know total number of contributors—maybe Dean?
Media is funded w/ stipend of $500/mo.
Health Insurance is very high. We’re insuring families, not individuals, we’re insuring individuals with health problems in different states, we don’t qualify for a group plan.
Mayflower was more expensive than Howard U, especially meeting the room quota. We will negotiate & work out a deal with hotel management later. We also have extra photocopy fees.
Accreditation committee agrees to move $1000 in travel budget to Tier 2, challenges other committees to do the same.
Tom Sevigny (CT):
Thanks for your suggestions, wait until next week, we will review and discuss this online during the next week, no time to incorporate now.
BRPP-Future Issues for Review
6 Item Priority List
Definition of Caucuses/roles
We take votes online. We try to do consensus process in the room. There is not yet a process for consensus online. Need model, Sarah Hier (IL) is working on this, has suggestions, will send out.
? [Grievance Process]
Sarah Heyer—re. Consensus—anyone who wants to discuss it more? Tonight, 9pm, Room 639
WA—Jody—Need for guidelines/protocols for online communication, both for decency and process factors.
Bylaw for structural changes should go through the BRPP. Grievance Process?
Nathalie—Secretary–Delegate Packet Index is circulating. Last 2 pages are welcome, packet to be sent when people subscribe to the listserv. Please forward comments within 2 weeks. Suggested to circulate on internet.
VA—Susan Dridi—States are not all linked on gp.org website—if state doesn’t have a site, that’s not the site’s fault
Website is the domain of the Communications Committee—It is unfortunate to set a precedent of cross-jurisdictional interference.
Since the website is a port of entry for many communications, we need to resolve the decision-making process for what gets on, who puts it on, and we need consensus. Ex. Lavender has special line but individual states don’t. Procedural issues. Need to set up rules of process for inclusion on website. One committee shouldn’t oversee work of another.
Summary of Yesterday’s Comments in BRPP Discussion
–Each committee should be writing its own rules
People like the idea of delegates being asked, but not forced, to serve on at least 1 committee. How to motivate them remains unresolved.
Resistance to hierarchical structure, over-centralization, maybe language issues, need clarity. Maybe write Job Descriptions first, SC maybe should go ahead, what is “coordinator” vs “facilitator”?
What is the relationship of State Parties and Committees?
Many accepted the Portfolio concept, but wanted it more flexible.
Why don’t committee co-chairs network together on conference calls?
The concept of an Oversight Committee seemed to confuse people, morphed into a “Mediation Committee” by the end. . .
Comments will be posted online.
The Coordinating Committee (this body) IS the National Green Party. WE are responsible for the work of all committees, including the Steering Committees. CCC gets all inquiries to GP, passes on to SC.
Our problem is that we have not precisely delegated tasks and issues to the Steering Committee. We need this body, to input to the BRPP, to help solidify & tighten up these areas of delegation/responsibility.
Alternative Concepts include the idea of “floaters”—2 delegates assisting the SC They want suggestions of how and who to delegate. . .
Maybe 7 co-chairs with 2 floaters, need to review structure.
Nathalie—Each committee should have a very specific mission statement. Don’t get too specific or closed in stone, leave room for flexibility.
FL—Don’t try to encumber SC with specific tasks so much other than to delegate/empower others. Flexibility is valuable.
MI—Carol—Bad about reading minutes of the SC—could they make lists of decisions already made to review and consider?
TX—credit to the existing structure. Let us not hinder the growth that has occurred.
WA—Jolene Powell—Not that sure what decisions the SC has made, so hard to know what decisions we want the SC to make. Can these be put out for comment?
MD—Linda Schade—re. Communications & Portfolios—could someone from each committee be tasked with keeping the SC informed about committee activity?
ME—John Rensenbrink All delegates should participate in committees if possible.
Sweet Honey in the Rock
“No taxation without representation”
Michelle Tingling Clemmons, Washington, DC
DC Statehood Green Party
“I see myself as a colonial, last colony in country. My children were born into the colony of the District of Columbia.
Problems in DC: more taxes per capita than any other state, but no vote. Congress controls our line items. Many other problems.
And I hope I can enlist your help today. The mission is statehood for DC. If GP wants to distinguish itself, this is issue.
All that is required for DC statehood is a majority vote in the House and in the Senate. We need a vote in House & Senate; help us find way to put them on floor. We want our rights & we want them now.
T-shirts so rest of country can know about problem, people from other states shocked when they find out, please support.
Also, DC has been a leader in pushing for a Nuclear Free Reality, HR 2647. DC is a nuclear free zone.
Let one of the calls for party be Statehood for DC, waiting over 200 years
Assorted Proposals and Reports
Tom Sevigny introduced
Brian Sandberg—National Director for the Campus Greens
Now based in Northampton, MA
Came on board at the end of March
3 room office to pack with interns this fall, to support 200+ chapters
Nat’l convention in Austin, Aug. 7
Setting up the first Green Party primary National Debates
Troublesome last year, but we are rebuilding and moving forward.
Best way is to develop good projects.
1. Future Focus Institute: 2 weeks electoral organizing and training. (Check the Flyer!)
Immediate Goals of program: to ID and develop 80 more young activists each year—turn them into experienced organizers. To have immediate impact on local campaigns across the country (2 or 3 young interns can make the difference between winning & losing) To wit: John Eder—Maine State Rep.
Do you feel it, too? Something is really happening here. We are becoming more thoughtful, smoother, more professional, more competent, right before our own eyes. Have many interns? We could get more from campus greens if more tools available, with them we can win, have workshops, go cross-country, inject their energy & produce results.
The only thing preventing us from winning more races, is getting more tools into the hands of more good candidates. Greens can win, and will win. There will be direct effect of more Campus Greens working on more races, can make difference, need support.
The only thing holding us back is a commitment to developing organizers
Identify the campaigns to put the young organizers on.
Identify the students & select. To get 80 students we need 300 applicants and 500 possibles, can have real impact around the country.
Really the first thing: Seed Money. Need to find resources to hold program together, opportunity to move forward. Revenue is tight. It’s always hard to ask for money, but we request that everyone here, before you leave, write a small check to the Campus Greens.
WA—Jody—What about the status of individual campus chapters fearing mal-consequences of affiliating directly with the state or national political party, could lose money from campus. What up with that? (Need to explore & find answers.)
CA—Beth Moore Haines—Challenge to other locals: consider supporting CG chapters at local levels, example of several local high schools.
OR—Marnie Glickman—CGs have agreed to help develop the pacific northwest campaign school.
PE—Carl Romanelli—The campus greens are huge! Among most important organizational tools, they are more committed to change than regular voters, directly connected to growth in local communities in country.
IPPN – Independence Progressive Politics Network
Requesting to renew our membership for participation for another year
Annual meeting was in Ann Arbor last week, hosted by Michigan Green Party
CA—Clarifying Questions: Stood aside concerns last year on the issue of a written affiliation agreement—is there one signed? How much are dues? ($200) From where in budget? Is there enough left for other affiliations? What about diversity? (Hard to assess, but IPPN is more diverse than we are.)
Any progress in bringing IPPN members into party?
Dues are $200/yr. More diverse but GP bigger, provides forum to discuss issues in African-American communities, Cynthia McKinney keynote speaker, on C-Span. It has been a mixed bag. (Badilli Jones is the official representative to the IPPN.)
DC—Jenefer Ellingston—The Greens should surely affiliate with this group, as with so many other positive progressive groups. Maintain contacts, many good reasons, Positive Networking is a large part of what we’re not doing, but should be. Good IPPN work after GWB Selection.
Nathalie—In favor of affiliating for at least one more year.
NY—Howie Hawkins—In favor of Affiliating, helpful for contacts with independents
CA—Ginny Case— Should we really do this now?
Anita—As part of Renewal, a clarification of Roles for contacts with IPPN, put aside for vote later.
Straw Poll—in favor of later, online vote, raise your cards (maybe 20 cards up) In favor of trying to reach consensus now (vast majority)
Concerns that are standing aside, more specific on language 
Concerns that would not stand aside 
Proposal: To renew membership to IPPN for another year, clarify relationship, conditional on further definition of the mutual responsibilities of IPPN and the Green Party by September 1, 2003.
Consensus Test—5 Stand-Aside Concerns
No Concerns that would not Stand Aside.
United For Peace and Justice—George Martin (WI), largest coalition in country, 660 organizations, organized many peace marches, first convention last month in Chicago, 500+ participants, massive agenda, 86 proposals for action on war & peace, workshop on elections for 2004, A. Rios was there, getting different points of view, GP had chance to explain issue of spoiler effect. Of 86 issues, only key proposals were addressed.
Re: Elections to Steering Committee for UFPJ
Eliz was nominated, as was a member of the Campus Greens. Election was done on paper, by organizations, without the individuals being introduced. No GPUS or Campus Greens were elected. George was elected as part of another organization.
In future, Pushing for more local organization representation and less Nat’l.
George volunteered to lead the Elections WG, make peace relevant to GP agenda.
Sunday vote for SC & CCC
GP Platform and Bylaws call for Proportional Representation (PR)
There are many kinds of PR, the kind we use is single transferable vote – STV, also called choice voting. Sample Ballot is in the packet.
Ranked voting for co-chairs. Please do not put Xs or Checks on the ballot. However many you vote for, rank them by number. The counting system is explained online.
The CCC election will also be using this Ranked Voting System.
The accounting system is more complex. It has been on the web.
There is a threshold number of votes candidates need to win, depending on how many people vote and how many offices are up (for the CC—3).
TX –Proposal. Re: The right of the CC to re-open nominations for positions with insufficient candidates, TX, for lots of good reasons, jointly & unanimously nominates Tom Sevigny for Secretary.
Bylaw interpretation comes back to this body for a majority vote.
Process point. Would Tom accept the nomination? (Yes—he has resigned from running for the SC Co-Chair).
“Nominations may be reopened at the meeting of the CC if there were insufficient nominations.” Ambiguity lies in the word “insufficient.”
VA—There is a write-in space on the ballot.
RI—Tony Affigne—Rules are for a 1 month review period for a contested election. Question of “Insufficient number of Candidates”—what does this mean? We can do 2 things—we can suspend our own bylaws and set a wild precedent to suspend bylaws, or We can go with the extant ballot and anyone can write in anybody in the room.
No time budgeted on the agenda: Pause for reflection.
No discussion on question of bylaw interpretation—it goes straight to a vote for simple majority. The motion is not about suspending the bylaws, which is also different (and also gets no discussion).
TX–P.O.O. There has already been (significant) discussion on this issue. At least a rebuttal is in order.
FL—When was it announced that Tom had withdrawn from SC candidacy? (well, now)
NE—Is anyone else withdrawing their candidacies?
Proposal by the SC—allocating 10 minutes for this proposal, hearing from people for 30 seconds.
PASSED by show of Cards
WA—Last year, bylaws were suspended to allow a nomination at last minute, not responsible thing to do.
VA—Why not ask Tom what he’d prefer
TX—We agreed to this to make sure that there was not clear definition
More candidates is healthy. Contested elections are healthy.
TX—Choice is important, we should have the opportunity to explore the differing views, who we have in position is crucial.
–This is not a suspension of the bylaws. By way of promoting contested elections throughout the world, we should have them ourselves whenever possible.
ME—Tom Fusco (Alternate Delegate)—from the out side looking in this looks manipulative, contrived and petty
Julia—It is rude to this body to bring this up at this point in time, don’t change rules
Holly—IA—concerned about process
Carol Miller—NM—Unfair to us all that we’re having this discussion. It’s been known for a long time that the Secretary seat was uncontested. We have to play by our own rules, move to cut off discussion.
OH—Anita Rios— Bothered that there is only one candidate for the position. This was an honest effort to make a contested election—not some huge conspiracy.
LavCauc.—Bad Vibes now, divisive, shouldn’t be debated.
IL-Need two-thirds vote to suspend bylaws
NE-Cindy—We’ve been campaigned for the last month. This is unfair to those who have made decisions on rankings.
VA—This bylaw should be sent to the BRPP. Meanwhile, lets not get upset over process when substance is more important.
NM –This vote is illegal unless there is a suspension of the bylaws
Return to the Proposal on the floor: Nomination—accept or decline.
Does the CC accept the responsibility of making this decision?
Yes means you vote to accept the nomination.
Proposal: Because there are currently insufficient candidates to make a contested election, etc. . ., Tom Sevigny is nominated for the position of Secretary. Abstentions: 11
AK—Deborah Alpern—Is Tom still running for the SC? (No—he is a write-in candidate for the position of Secretary, and he will not speak as if he were running for Co-Chair)
Juscha Robinson–MI—Incumbent, current co-chair, proud of work on the CCC. Please look through the bios. Help support local campaigns
Gray Newman—NC—only elected official running for the Committee that helps elect, unique perspective. Volunteers are key. Won by about 1 vote per precinct. Would address the quest for database of campaign suppliers. Shoestring budgeting: 36k votes by $700 (under 2 cents/vote in a district half as big as RI)
Penny Teal—CT—Incumbent, ran for state senate, worked for Nader, served on CCC for year & a half. Wants to help Susan Kin with Candidate recruitment strategy
Joseph P. Buchanan—RI—Incumbent, Would help CCC get black and minority candidates into this org. need candidates of color & funding, will help enlist candidates, esp. candidates of Color. This is one of the few parties that will embrace people of color. I am a big, aggressive, but friendly and loveable, black man, so go ahead and vote for me.
Masada—NY—incumbent, worked on website need to support campaign at all levels
Susan King—CA—incumbent, worked on training, developing manual, committed to recruiting candidates, esp. of color and women
Dan Kinney—PE—has co-chaired w/Juscha for the last year. Set up campaign hotline, need to give technical resources, i.e. voter history & tools. Keep giving candidates impeccable resources—so critical. We can beat the old parties at their own game. Adrianna MI—ran as candidate for Lt. Gov. Collected 56k sigs in 6 months. Diversity is key, and we must fight to let people of color, and all people, understand that this party is a great vehicle, address issue that GP mainly white, some think racist, need to expand participation
Mike Livingston—MD—Incumbent, Wants to work for candidates that are ready to be elected. Was the first state (City/District) don’t tie hands of candidates, example of problems for Linda Schade with $100 limit contributions
Roy Williams—TX—Thanks and praise to the creator that brings us all together here, now. The Green party is the only hope that America has to. . .increase the Bill of Rights, and to carry this nation forward. . . .I’m here to bring the conscious awareness to this collective body that we must be inclusive, we must come together and let (etcetera) participate in the level that we/they should. Need to address issue that minorities not included, lack of presence in African-American communities troubling, must be inclusive if GP is truly about democracy, peace, concerned about disenfranchised, need funding
Steering Committee Statements
Tony, Joe, Morgan, Mike, Alan, Ben
Tony: challenge over next 2 years to make democracy happen, clear & concise budgeting, more engaging public face of party
M Glickman – must apply values to work, walk our talk to reshape future & world, can be grassroots, embrace transparency, focus on decentralization. Need creative feminist structures, sustainable, prioritize expenditures based on strategy, do more to support campaigns
Ben Manski (WI)—This body is made up of incredibly hard working, passionate, intelligent people. First national director of Campus Greens. I’m youngest in this room, and have extensive Green experience. Worked hard for unity between the factions of the party, and am proud of the caucuses and a result of that unity. Worked hard to foster conciliation—am proud of receiving support from people who won’t speak to each other. The next year is vital for party. I want to keep the growth curve growing. So it cannot be said 7 generations ahead that we stood aside in a time of crisis.
Jo Chamberlain (CA)—It was an honor when you elected me in 2000, and it is an honor now. I do the administration, because foundation for organization. The one thing which we have, and which we must protect, is our integrity, line up to values. You know how they say, “Stuff runs downhill?” Well, at the bottom of that hill of the Green Party of the United States is the SC. My complaint. First, it is true: We, the CC, Are the GP of the US. And you may not realize it, but when we leave here on Sunday, SC will feel abandoned
Alan Kobrin (FL)—I’m here because I want to help take this vision and make sure that people around the country and around the world, get a chance to get to know us. We are incredible people, each of us has an incredible story of how we got here. If people can find out whats in our hearts, our minds, our platform and our values, people will line up behind us & show vision for future.
Member of Miami/Dade election reform coalition.
What happens here is amazing. People need to see this!
We have to reappropriate our language of Freedom, of Justice, see ad with Statue of Liberty, we are the new Patriots of this land, I want to make it known, and I want all of you to come along.
Morgen d’Arc (ME)—Looking at this room, I had a flashback to the UN.
I believe that we will elect a Green president in 2004. And visions and images are great, but they have to be grounded in reality. There are a lot of things that have to be done to ground our visions. Need to empower Coord Committee. Focus more on goal setting, priority setting. Attention on Diversity, our future is there also. A grievance/mediation process is also necessary. Bumps in the road will slow us down—our grievances need attention. We have some serious numbers, and we have to practice negotiation with outside organizations. We can negotiate hard.
Greg Gerritt (RI)—I want to be your Secretary. What does your secretary do? He gets information to you in a timely and effective fashion. Need to improve communications
I come to you with experience. I was secretary for the Maine Green party, a long time ago, secretary for the Rhode Island
One of the things we have to do better is to welcome new delegates.
You know the story of Tom Sawyer and the whitewashed fence (this is history—we have to be aware of our history, grounded in American culture)
The only way this work gets done is if You All do it, if We All do it.
We will reconvene at 4:15. . .
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Michelle Tingling-Clemmons (DC)
Diane White (PE)—Mayoral Candidate in Harrisburg, PE
Beautiful woman in Green Spoke too fast (MA)
Jason Ravin (DC)
Roy Williams (TX)
Malik Raheem (LA) Green for 9 years
Div. Com is over 100 strong.
We see the GP as the solution and salvation for our people in America.
We are trained in terms of outreach… not used to marketing!
Reminder: our country will soon be majority of minorities…ask for test market.
How to reach out & build trust? We had to dig for relevant issues, found good stuff in platform. Our mission to translate, address issues like healthcare, education, misdirected war on drugs, illicit justice system, reparations, need to differentiate from republicans, end War on Drugs, affirm. Action, Reparations. Can help in colleges to draw in minorities.
Targeting historical black colleges, suggested black tour of America for GP, bring in black notables & prominent individuals, bring in young blacks to vote systematically, relate experience to platform.
NEVER FORGET FLORIDA
GP joined demo at state cap, we will not forget.
Translate our issues to votes…clarification sheet.
Asking you as family to support. Need $ for multiple college tour $6600 for first event, issues have appeal, need travel money
Chuck D! Public Enemy, Walter Mosley: wrote: we ought to be the ones to lead the revolution.
We want to lead the revolution! Money for Website to promote tour, part-time staff If it doesn’t pay for itself, we will cut next budget, need $33,000 for test market to grow African-American participation in GP, grow to be party of future, party of the people.
Beth CA – Support, but procedural problems. How do bylaws address requests for money, Diversity Commmittee (DC)? Any check to see who would go? What do people proposed for tour expect re $?
(Went thru DC. Jason & I have spoken to some, not final commitment, some outreach, Moseley has agreed for first event planned for DC, also Chuck-D. Proposal put together by volunteers. Important qualifier: all are independent, concur w/green values, already committed.
When will we have this money? Want to do this right! Successful & professional, get past mindset of doing halfway, asking approval as concept & step to next level
Are speaker fees necessary? funding already in diversity budget
Marnie of OR—How does this request for funds fit into DC budget?
Jane NJ—How to define success? (cost/benefit analysis with outreach)
MN Steven—1st 2 items doable w/o fulltime staff? (no doing it halfassed)
Event should pay for itself, $5 admission
MI—Borrow the money?
Mark—likes proposal, new members bring in $, SC role in clearing staff hires? (yes)
Any consideration of half & half? National pays half, state pays half? (we’ll be alright with national) We will be flexible.
AK—initial funds? $30K? or less?
Do we have to use advertising & Ticketmaster? (no)
Jack: will give his all, fundraising committee committed to assist Black Caucus. There is a way.
George: Asking for trust to prove we’re family, compare to how much Democratic party spends to woo blacks. Don’t want to be put in position of negotiating with states for money, focus on setting it up. Working on this since Philadelphia, proposal submitted last December.
Too many people think GP means white. We needed to do this yesterday!
Money for next event set aside before hooking up GP
Gary–Who does staff report to? Will budget be amended to show additional expenses? (finance comm. Has BC member)
Susan NC—who is on this on the SC? How long? (proposal has been around since December)
Concerns & Affirmations:
Tony RI—any investment for future always risky. Supports prop, risk is small compared to benefit to party & also need to demonstrate trust
Cindy NE—Wonderful, crucial to recruit voters in African-American communities,
IL–Liz—some student orgs can’t be partisan or be charged admission, GP can become a black party, this is a first step
Clare HI—Critical proposal, will write a personal check for $1000! Challenges others to do the same or what they can. Precedent concerns if other diversity caucuses get less.
Steve WA—Saw no minority representatives in crowds, trust black caucus, has $50 cash to give, urge all support
VT—Cooperating w/region would be a good thing, as events expand, go to NE where blacks have less dense populations.
Dave Pollard TX—refuse to treat staffers as volunteers, support living wage for staff!
TN—Would be honored to work w/you, bridge of understanding, 2 black colleges in Nashville will support
PA- responsibility of national, not states, 2 years ago party had no money, now have $, use on this kind of proposal, no better way
States set up for competitive bid, especially CA
NC- contacts already, event waiting to happen
NYC suggests including Elizabeth Horton-Sheff (?), Jennifer Daniels
Unresolved concerns: none
Thanks for support, will submit caucus for accreditation next week