SC Minutes — July 3, 2003
Nathalie Paravicini, Ben Manski (facilitator), Jake Schneider, Jo Chamberlain, Tom Sevigny (timekeeper), Dean Myerson (notes), Anita Rios, Jack Uhrich, Allison Muller
AC = Accreditation Committee
BRPP = Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures Committee
BC = Black Caucus
CC = Coordinating Committee
CCC = Coordinated Campaign Committee
CG SC = Campus Greens Steering Committee
DC = Diversity Committee
FC = Fundraising Committee
FEC = Federal Election Commission
GP = Green Party
GW = George Washington University
IC = International Committee
ICA = Institute for Cultural Affairs
LC = Lavender Caucus
LG = Lavender Greens
PEC = Presidential Exploratory Committee
SC = Steering Committee
[Brackets denote editor’s suggested corrections. Some punctuation corrections done with no content change. -ed.]
Proposed Agenda for USGP Steering Committee
Thursday, July 3, 2003, 8-10pm Central Time, 9-11pm Eastern, 6-8pm Pacific
1. Intros, Minutes, Meeting Process, etc. (5 minutes)
2. Financial Fundraising Report (30 minutes)
a. Reports – 5 – Jake, Jo
b. SC Fundraising – 5 – Jack
c. Nader Letter – 5 – Dean
d. Megan Case continued – 5 – Jo
e. SC financial revisions – 10 – Jo
3. Committee & Liaison Reports/Action (35 minutes)
a. Annual National Meeting Committee
– Logistics – Allison & Dean – 10
– Pres Discussions – Ben – 5
b. Communications Committee – Voting Page – Nathalie – 5
c. Campus Greens – Tom – 10
d. Others – 5
4. Pending/in-progress votes (20 minutes)
a. BRPP – Tom – 5
b. Caucus Submissions to Platform Resolution – Badili – 1
c. Accreditation of SC – Ben – 1
d. 2004 Convention dates – Ben – 1
e. Caucus Accreditation – AC & DC – Nathalie – 10
f. Credit Card Policy – Jake – 2
6. Office Move & Policy – Jo/Annie? – (10)
7. Personnel – (15)
a. Policy – (5) – Tom & Anita
b. Operations Director (10) – Ben
8. FTAA & Florida – 5 – Ben
9. Falun Gong invite – 5 – Ben
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION – 20 minutes
Anita > SC report to the CC [in executive session]
Jake > Additions to emailed report: conference registration income at $8531; new deposits: $790 (credit card settlement), check deposits: $4150 and $4155.
Jo > Overview of Fundraising activities: phonathon to support resolicitation, good income this month because it is a resolicitation month, not bringing in enough to fully fund the reserve, revising the budget, monthly mailings, talking with CCC on their income, Care 2 web project, fundraising workshops at DC meeting, Colorado fundraiser proposal. Colorado wants to do concert fundraiser with fixed $1000 profit for national party, they want $2500 loan for up-front costs, pay back $3500. Fundraising Comm will keep SC updated.
Jack > 4 SC members (Ben, Jake, Tom and Jo) working on followup phonathon. Sent each of you lists to call. Will send out more names to everybody.
Dean > Just leaving a message can help since this is supporting the resolicitation mailing and they will all get a letter as well.
Dean > Got response, not sure how you want to follow up. They acknowledged not selling us all non-internet major donors. Gave a lot of irrelevant history.
Jo > Fundraising Comm is discussing this. We will respond and maybe ask to purchase additional names.
Jack > Urge the committee to move forward not getting into argument over the history, but asking for the rest of the names. Eye on the prize.
Jake > Agree with Jack.
Ben > I also agree. My sense is the SC agrees and would encourage Fundraising Committee to do so unless there are concerns.
Jo > Dean has requested that we bring Megan back for ongoing difficulties with the donor database that Dean doesn’t have time for. Proposing 3 items: credit card sustainers, random donor problems, finish some monthly counting. Fundraising Committees approves 15 hours at $15/hour for $225, and asks SC approval.
Nathalie > Is she a Green Party member?
Dean > I assume so, not sure. Also, as an example of why we need this. A Green in Washington state is working with Jack to recruit more donors, and saw that one donor he knows was missing from the list I sent him of Washington sustainers. Ends up that we have this person in the database, but the “1000 for 1000” box was not checked, so he wasn’t coming up in the search. This is an example of the kind of thing that Megan would fix. It would also result in more sustainers coming back on line.
Nathalie > Not volunteer type work.
Anita > In favor question what is Annie’s role?
Dean > Annie has a role in the office, but not in this. And Megan can help some during the day, when I sometimes get overwhelmed.
Ben > consensus reached?
Steering Committee Budget Financial revisions
Jo > We are asking committees to move 20-25% of their tier 1 budget to tier 2. Also will be cleaning up things like removing office manager and adjusting staff overhead to be more accurate. Coming to you from Finance Committee and to suggest SC’s budget changes. No changes to travel or phone, legal, staff raises moved to tier 2, lowered memberships in tier 1, caucuses cut in half to $4650, merchandising is supposed to break even so it has no total cost. Went from $68,400 to $41,250 in tier 1.
Anita > Some discussion in Finance Committee call as to whether we should do these tasks here. Thanks to Jo for this work, and I think her SC changes are appropriate. We hope to get this dealt with in a couple of weeks after national meeting.
Nathalie > Budget changes are fine. Leave space to discuss budget issues at the meeting.
Ben > We have an hour and a quarter on Saturday for budget discussions.
Nathalie > We should ask CC delegates to contribute to the national.
Jake > Ben covered it.
Jo > It would be nice if we had revised numbers from committees. Finance Committee had hoped to have this done July 1, but numbers weren’t ready. It is important that we have a budget that reflects the ongoing work of the party. Marnie and Anita are going to contact committees for working numbers. We should have a draft in DC. Would be good if we could approve this as a draft tonight for the SC, though we could make changes later, so we have some progress.
Jake > SC should lead the revision process, which we would be doing if we approve this tonight.
Anita > A stronger point needs to be made than just because we did it. Some explanation of the process needs to happen. It’s a communication issue. I’m okay with the budget revision, though I don’t like doing it that quickly. Would rather that we have the chance to discuss them and bring them back to the next meeting. They seem okay but it is a lot to digest that quickly.
Jo > We should, with qualifications, provisionally approve it and reserve the right to change it.
Nathalie > Can we give you feedback until Sunday?
Jo > That’s fine with me. Finance Committee deadline is next Tuesday at 9pm.
Ben > Out of time, so let’s test for consensus to get comments to Jo by Monday morning.
Committee & Liaison Reports
Allison > Just sent out delegate mailing. Now getting that material on the web. Planning social events, I was just at the DC Statehood Greens monthly meeting. Jay Marx was recruiting for notetaking at the meeting. Now I’m working on the packet.
Nathalie > As to social events, David Rovics spoke to Allison today. Also had questions about the national meeting.
Allison > I will follow up with him, and give him more details.
Dean > He called me to talk about his performance. He needed some details and was concerned that if he plays at the place away from the hotel, that they charge a cover so that he is not just background music for the non-conference attendees.
Jake > How to handle 15 rooms that we reserved?
Dean > We need to sell these directly to whoever wants them. If anybody needs to reserve a room for Thursday night, they should contact me or Allison directly.
Nathalie > Texas is sending a full delegation, raised $1100. Not wanting to take rooms for all of them because of the expense. We might need an additional room.
Anita > Clarification on Thursday.
Dean > Working on homestay situation, seems to be enough space.
Ben > We don’t have another SC meeting scheduled before the meeting. Next Annual National Meeting Committee conference call is next Wed at 6:30. Would suggest that SC try to join that call.
Jack > Discussion of presidential reception at that meeting?
Ben > No, that is separate.
Allison > Saturday reception conference call was earlier this evening. Next call for that is Tuesday, and will be once or twice a week after that. I sent you all a proposed schedule for the entire meeting. I would like to get approval so it can be posted on the web.
Jake > Dean, 43 rooms already used on Thur, not 30-something.
Ben > Anybody not seen schedule Allison sent out? Any objections to posting it?
Allison > The schedule on the web now has no committee meeting content. The new one has committee meeting schedule.
Jo > Please include revision number on posted version.
Ben > Allison, we are near the last week, we are needing you to move into full-time mode on this. Where are you on this?
Allison > I have 7 days of vacation and can use them if I need them.
Presidential discussion event
Ben > PEC event on Friday afternoon and evening. Have a joint committee with members of SC, PEC, CCC, and possibly Diversity Committee. Had second call. Agreed on two-part format. First is small groups. Second after dinner is visual consensus building. Jane and Juscha are MCing the first part. Final proposal coming out over the weekend. There is one issue disagreement as to whether we should admit news media. CCC generally wants to admit the media while PEC doesn’t. I’m supposed to get SC opinion tonight. My opinion is to admit them. If they are not there, they will report based on heresay rather than what they actually say. Others say that if the media is present, the discussion may not be as frank.
Nathalie > Allow media with understanding that they can be asked to leave.
Tom > Opposed to media. Would inhibit people. They are going to report whatever they want to report. Maybe we can have a press conference afterwards.
Anita > I agree with Tom. Having media in there is a bad idea. If they report from heresay, we can respond. If they are in there, they can spin it any way they want.
Jake > No media.
Jo > No media. Green Party people only.
Ben > Will report that majority of SC was opposed to admitting the media.
Anita > Absolutely essential that people be in the loop.
Nathalie > Should be ready to give something to the media afterwards.
Communications Committee/Voting page
Nathalie > It is up and people are receiving their passwords. Everybody on CC should have been called. Switching listservers to Pair.
Anita > This is all largely going over my head. I will sit down and figure it out soon. Can we get Latino listserve up and running? When can I call you on that?
Nathalie > Right after this weekend.
Ben > 3 things. First, looks great. Two, looking at vote totals, looks like people are using it. 33 votes in on BRPP proposal. 3, I tried to post the 2004 dates there, but wasn’t able to do it because vote choice is “yes, no, abstain” we need other kinds of choices.
Tom > First Joint Committee conference call. Not everybody was able to get on. Talked about DC meeting. Brian Sandberg will do presentation to CC in DC, updating everybody where they have come to. Future Focus campaign for next June. Also will talk about their speaker’s bureau a fundraising effort. Two co-chairs are Shelley Fite and Tyler Endsley.
Tom > Looks like it’s going to pass, vote is ongoing.
South Carolina accreditation
Ben > Voting starts Monday
2004 convention date
Ben > Voting ends Monday. June date is winning.
Anita > This whole thing is a mess. I think we have reached an agreement between Diversity and Accreditation Committee that we want this tabled for now so we can come up with a joint proposal.
Jo > Want to thank Anita for agreeing to the joint committee conference in DC (with Accreditation and Diversity). I was having a hard time sorting through the proposal. Was having a hard time explaining it to my California delegation. Hopeful that the conversation in DC will resolve this.
Anita > Want to point out that the Diversity Committee does not feel that we have been treated as a peer in this discussion, given that we are primarily people of color who are objecting to this process. We have been asking to be heard on this process and our pleas have been futile. We approached Accreditation Committee and asked for this joint meeting and were not even responded to. When I talked to Ginny about how it felt, she said flat out, not it’s not a good idea. But now that you want the meeting it is a good idea? It is the ultimate in white privilege that has allowed this to happen. There is not a lot of good will.
Nathalie > The Accreditation Committee has made us jump through hoops. I don’t understand why they have to make things so complicated.
Ben > Accreditation Committee co-chairs has made a good faith effort to involve the rest of their committee. New Accreditation Committee members are behind this. I sense some give. As a member of the Accreditation Committee, I have not agreed with the Accreditation Committee overall on this particular question. I’m glad this meeting will happen. I want to know what happens next, Nathalie?
Nathalie > Proposal is tabled and out of the meeting, something will come out to be put on the floor the next day.
Anita > My understanding as well. Despite being pissed off, I’m committed to making it work out.
Credit card policy
Jake > SC had already approved this to go to a vote, but two Finance Committee members came up with more edits, so we want to bring it back to SC before going to a vote. It’s not a pressing issue.
Anita > Committee organization proposal is still under the discussion phase.
Jo > Can’t download it from the voting page. Can it be posted again?
Ben > What was resolved at the last meeting?
Jo > Tom was going to email policy headings to Anita and send his full draft to the SC. He will also bring his draft to DC, so we can look at it on our SC meeting on Thursday.
Anita > Tom sent the headings to me. I would like us to pull some people in and get more people to volunteer to be on the personnel committee.
Nathalie > IPPN just finished writing their policy and national organizers alliance has something as well.
Ben > What comes next?
Jo > Should we do an appeal in DC for a committee?
Anita > I agree with that. I don’t think it would sink in if we tried to do it sooner.
Ben > Anybody uncomfortable with this?
Ben > Sent first draft to the SC. Partially based on Dean’s job description and our discussions of what we want.
Jake > Looks good.
Tom > Good for a first draft.
Dean > I responded regarding including direct mail task in the list. That is a much different kind of task from most operations.
Ben > Any thoughts about process for approving this and our hiring process?
Jo > Issues are how to advertise this, timeline for deciding and hiring, hiring committee people who do first run over applicants. Difficulty is that a new steering committee may be coming on. We need to make sure that the timeline doesn’t require any action that the new SC can’t deal with and change if they want to. Are we going to advertise outside the Green Party? Just on our list? Open time period or deadline for responses? There are already people who have their eye on this position. We should send it out on all Green lists. Applicant must be in DC area. Must say something about the salary. And about when the hiring would occur.
Ben > Some of that stuff is already in there. How about August 1 for resume deadline?
Anita > Have some real concerns about this. I’m certain that we don’t have the mandate to do this. We have to be transparent about this office reorganization. This meeting is our opportunity to do that. We can share some of this at DC meeting. Some of how we want the office to go comes back to our report to the CC.
Nathalie > Not good timing because it is an important decision. We should have a first period of recruitment, limited to members of the Green Party. Depending on what we get, and what happens at the meeting. Then maybe a more open period to take other input.
Ben > Anita is saying we should involve the CC in the process, and to have something in DC. What do you want in terms of involving the CC?
Anita > Yes, it’s a part of an office reorganization process. We should have included other people in this. It’s not our prerogative to make these kinds of policy decisions. We have moved in good faith, but if we don’t include it in a report to the CC as part of a coherent plan, it won’t make sense.
Ben > I’m half way where you are Anita, but not all the way. I put out a job description for one position. We decided to change the title to “operations”. But we have not put any time and energy into the major question restructuring of staff. We’ve talked about the need for development and political directors. All we have now is this operations director. I’m happy to take that to the CC. I’m at a loss as to the overall staff restructuring. The political director position is already budgeted for. But that would come out of the CCC and other committees. Job search could go till August 15, and then hiring process for another month. In terms of Dean getting out by Sept 1, we’re in a time crunch.
Nathalie > A good plan. We will be meeting for about a week.
Dean > We set a general goal of replacing me by September 1. I can be flexible on that, and can have decreasing hours after that. Let me know if this is wrong, but I’m assuming you are going to want me to work at the same time as the new person for a while. This job can’t be learned from a piece of paper with instructions on it. But I am going to be moving into things that may not be appropriate for the party’s political coordinator to do, so I can’t leave this open-ended.
Ben > Propose this: kick around job description for week and a half; then forward to CC. Tell CC that because Dean is moving on, we are looking for a replacement. More thorough reorganization taking place over the Fall. Come to the CC for their approval. The timeline Aug 15 job application deadline, Sept 15 decision on who to hire, Oct 1 start date.
Ben > Dean, we talked loosely about September 1, but is that a hard date for you? What do we want to get from the CC regarding job description?
Dean > After I leave I may be getting involved with a draft committee or may be publishing articles that take a position on things that you don’t want staff people taking positions on. That’s why I need a deadline. At some point, I could change status and continue to help with the transition, but not deal with the public and be more of a contractor.
Tom > I think we should get opinion and feedback from CC.
Anita > I think the CC should vote
Nathalie > not sure.
Jo > not policy, doesn’t need CC vote. Don’t feel strongly though.
Ben > People are leaning towards feedback. We can make a final call when we meet in DC. So the proposals is a week and a half discussion of job description in the SC. In DC decide on CC process what we will ask them to do. Aug 15 deadline for resumes, make a decision by Sept 8, Oct 1 start. Dean as staff or consultant available until Nov 1. Concensus?
[1 standaside from Anita.]
Jo > Given notice to current landlord, vacating on or before Aug 1. Would pay through then, which works out to 6 weeks notice, half what she asked for. She countered for 3 months and asked for advertising expense. We agreed to pay $250 advertising, but didn’t agree to more than 6 weeks notice. Haven’t heard from her since. We have a pro bono attorney. DC Statehood Greens have vacated their office on June 30. Office has been steam cleaned. Dean and Annie will use DC’s room for storage. Office looks good, if trash and recycling been removed. For new office, Meli is out of the country. She wanted us in by July 1. She has agreed to pay July rent, though we are tenant as of July 1. We will start paying rent on Aug 1 if we approve the new lease. Jake, me, and the lawyer have the lease and we are reviewing it. Annie said she would start boxing stuff this weekend.
Jake > Lawyer got a faxed copy of the new lease. She will let me know. Rent is $1657.
Jo > With utilities, rent is $1800.
Jake > Right.
Dean > Some DC stuff still outside, stains gone from carpeting.
Ben > Can we have access to new space during the meeting?
Dean > I’ll check.
FTAA & Florida (Free Trade Area of the Americas)
Ben > Florida folks on top of this. Sharing some ideas. Gist of it is to rent a hall and put on our own event with speakers, etc. They are excited and planning for it. In Miami, last weekend on November.
Jo > Question is whether this would be more fundraising or outreach?
Ben > More outreach, but could recoup its cost with a low entrance fee. This is going to be like Seattle. Organized labor is putting a lot of money into turning out tens of thousands of union members.
Falun Gong Invitation
Ben > Received invite from US rep of Falun Gong. Rally taking place in DC on July 22. Protest of Chinese government’s treatment of Falun Gong. They want a Green Party speaker. They approached DC Statehood Greens first, and they referred it to us. I don’t think we have a position on this, not familiar with this. I’m not comfortable with having the national party have a speaker.
Jo > In California, Falun Gong table at our state meetings, and are active in the GP. Some Greens have taken a position in support of Falun Gong.
Jake > I also would like to hear from the International Committee on this.
Anita > We need to vet it a little bit.
Ben > My concern is that movements like Falun Gong have played a major role in uprisings. I’m not sure it is a movement that Greens would support.
Dean > Need not support all things that oppressed people think to criticize their oppression. Makes sense to see if it can be referred to a committee to come up with a resolution.
Ben > Refer to International Committee for a week to investigate it, not decide.
Jo > Last time we will be having a regular call as a group. Thanks to all for your hard work over two years.
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green