SC Minutes — June 19, 2003 (Approved)
Tom Sevigny (timekeeper), Jo Chamberlain (co-facilitator), Ben Manski, Jake Schneider (co-facilitator), Jack Uhrich, Dean Myerson (notes), Anita Rios, Badili Jones (in NJ for first part of call)
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.]
Jack will leave the call after item 4.
Jo has 2 executive session items.
Anita > make sure we deal with Diversity proposal, double check on CCC election went to CC list, procedure for committee room assignments at the conference
Ben > Did post CCC info to CC list today; also most agenda items are critical, can’t be dropped.
Jo > Group agreement to keep comments quick and to the point?
Minutes approved and posted from last time.
Anita > Suggest we post unapproved minutes to CC right after the call, to avoid 2-week lag. CC should see them the same time we do, with disclaimer that they are not accurate.
Jo > I support your position regarding timely minutes, but I have been misquoted in the draft minutes, and would be embarrassed. If our minutes were for decisions only, that would be okay. But because minutes are almost quotations, I am uncomfortable with putting those out without a review.
Jake > I have similar reservations. Don’t want unedited and unapproved minutes to go out.
Ben > Would be in favor of a 3-day minutes policy.
Anita > I share those concerns. I really think it’s important that we send a message to the CC that we are making every effort to the CC that we are being transparent. At least we should communicate to the CC that we are doing this for the case of accuracy.
Jo > Would you like to post a message to the CC that we are working towards a 3-day turnaround policy? Is that acceptable?
Anita > Yes.
Jake > Anybody not received treasurer’s report? Additional deposits of $2342. Finances looking fairly good. $9000 into the reserve. Have $15000 in the bank with no bills.
Jo > Just peaked in income and new mailing is just going out, so not much income coming in next couple of weeks.
Fundraising Committee report:
Had a request from Jack of a computer for $1000, approved conditionally depending on finances after conference; $500 for Jack to do training at Campus Greens meeting; clarification needed on Forever Green and Growing reports; personal solicitation reporting being worked on; pop-up is down, checking on its income; CD income project; budget revision; developing committee roster; proposal to CCC for fundraising; older check sustainers that aren’t contributing will be dropped; stopped charging anonymous credit card donors, moved responsibility to fundraising committee to try to find them.
Dean > We had some donors who signed up when we contracted our sustainer program out. We had problems and when we left them, they only gave us credit card numbers, but not the names. We had a project to get those names, but only got a few. 40-some left, so we needed to stop charging them to avoid violating FEC rules.
Ben > What about CD project?
Dean > Fundraising Committee is looking at selling 3 CD’s. All already exist and are ready for us to sell. First was produced by Mercer County Green Party in NJ, with Nick Mellis pushing the project. This is an explicitly Green CD that includes kids reciting the 10 key values. Folks in Mercer County will do the shipping. Second CD produced by Peace not War and is a double CD with some top name artists on it. Costs $5 in bulk purchases. Third CD has farthest to go; produced by Pressure Point, the organization that is pushing Exxon/Mobil boycott. At least I think they made it. Need to talk to them. We would send out a flyer in our existing direct mail project 40,000 pieces per month, and have web link. So almost no new marketing is needed. Last two CD’s would need to be shipped through our office at the start, and farm out when it is too much to do.
Anita > Marnie had offered to do fundraising, [said] that she was turned down or put on hold. Juscha Robinson was asked to respond but hasn’t yet.
Jo > Haven’t heard back from Juscha on committee proposal on fundraising for CCC.
Ben > She is busy.
Jo > We accepted an earlier proposal from Marnie, but recent one was different.
Anita > I hear that a fundraising project using lists of Marnie has been rejected. If Marnie says the lists are okay, we should just use them.
Jo > List wasn’t rejected. Juscha said she would do some legal analysis, and hasn’t gotten back to us yet. Invite any SC member to join fundraising call next week.
Anita > State for the record that I think we should just accept Marnie’s fundraising proposal.
Jack > Response from two SC members on fundraising. Put out a report on statistics on phoning for last resolicitation mailing. Statistics indicate that the effort was successful in increasing our income by a factor of 3. Keep in mind that when a co-chair calls, finding out what these donors feel is important, even if they can’t donate this time.
Ben > I confirm what Jack said. They were good conversations.
Dean > The letter regarding the list we purchased from him was delivered to his office last week. No response yet.
Annual National Meeting Committee
[Allison is not on the line]
Ben > I’d like to solidify the process for finishing this. Send it out again to you, and send to Allison next week. When is the SC going to meet on Wednesday in DC?
Jake > I’m arriving on Thursday, mid-late afternoon.
Anita > Different subject, but the same. Diversity Comm had wanted our proposal for committee organizations scheduled for a vote prior to the meeting. We wanted it started last week. Asked for 2 proposals. One was held up to merge with Accreditation Committee proposal. The other one didn’t need to wait for that, want to schedule it ASAP.
Jo > Nathalie said she would floor manage both of them. Maybe you should contact Nathalie. I’m arriving late Wednesday night in DC.
Badili > Just got a job with the state. Probably will be in late Thursday due to my new job.
Ben > Not much we can do about a Wednesday meeting then, have to meet on Thursday. I rescheduled my final exam and tickets based on meeting on Wednesday. Other committees are meeting on Thursday. So now we need to schedule a time on Thursday. Regarding Anita’s concern, we should deal with this later on the agenda on pending/in-progress votes, and I will remove it from the CC agenda in DC.
Jake > We should schedule the Thursday meeting now. Anybody disagree with that? Suggestions for a time?
Ben > We should meet in the morning, since a lot of other stuff will be going on. Two hours.
Anita > I’ll be there when needed, I’m driving. Ben, can part of the SC meet in the morning and do preliminary work?
Ben > Yes.
Jake > I’m going to suggest noon on Thursday. Anyone disagree?
Ben > Dean, ask Allison to schedule the room.
Jack > Workshop issue: do we have a sense of how many non-delegates? Might be able to schedule a workshop during the CC meeting if there are enough non-delegates.
Ben > I’m assuming one third will be non-delegates. Agenda in front of you is CC agenda only. Overall schedule is from Allison.
Anita > We gave Allison a list of committee meetings to schedule. We gave that to her several weeks ago. Now we are getting messages that we need to get to her what is needed. This seems backwards.
Ben > She is trying to make sure that meetings don’t conflict. She is asking for this information to meet various concerns.
Anita > I am concerned because I didn’t check my email for a while, and she listed committees that she hadn’t heard from that I had already sent a request in for. I did call her and haven’t heard back.
[Dean suggests that somebody call Allison, Anita leaves to do so]
Ben > Overall gist is that we need to prepare a welcome on Friday morning, from SC members not running for reelection. Secondly, committee reports. Some have requested time, some haven’t. Big proposals are from BRPP, restructuring committees and SC. Friday afternoon they present proposals. Then have PEC/CCC strategy forum. They are having a call next Thursday. SC members want to join in? Saturday morning, come back to BRPP proposal, take amendments and make decision. After lunch are assorted proposals: peace committee, renewing IPPN affiliation. SC and CCC candidate statements at 2pm, break, budget revision, if it is happening. That evening, likely that presidential candidate hopefuls can talk, open to the public. Sunday morning, SC and CCC elections. Dean looking at balloting, counting. Left-over business. End at lunch. Changes now or send to me by email?
Anita > We discussed this. Don’t think we are going to bring a budget revision to the floor. Will have a training or something for committee budgets.
Jake > Not exactly a revision, maybe a discussion. So maybe rename that to 2003 budget discussions.
Jo > I wouldn’t put a date on it, since we were talking about a 2004 budget as well. Just budget discussion is adequate.
Anita > Same point as Jo. Diversity Committee has been working on impact of 2004 for disenfranchised communities. Looking at issues. Prototype of what a good candidate would look like for diverse communities.
Ben > Anita, what do you want to do to bring the Diversity Committee into this?
Anita > If this is the PEC forum, I have real reservations about what they are doing. I want to see what they are doing before validating it. Second, propose having a Diversity Committee member (not me, others showing leadership) to help on this committee and provide feedback.
Ben > Will send info to the Diversity Committee.
2003 meeting logistics
Jake > Travel requests from David Pollard (Accreditation Committee) $200, $884 from Starlene Rankin (airfare, hotel, registration).
Anita > Last convention, we paid for all of Starlene’s expenses out of Diversity Committee budget, but we haven’t raised the money, though it is in the budget.
Jake > Starlene called to say that she is unemployed and can’t come otherwise.
Ben > What committee would she be coming for?
Jake > Lavender, PEC, media.
Ben > Two things. Did you make clear to them that we are expecting delegates to find money elsewhere?
Jake > The money is not for delegates?
Ben > We were telling delegates that we would like them to consider them as other [non-committee] delegates. Money in committee budgets is for people who are on committees but who are not delegates. We can’t afford to pay for 100+ delegates. That was my clear understanding of what we decided before. There are a lot of people who are scraping to make it there without help.
Jo > $884 is a huge amount of money. Starlene needs to find a less expensive way. Suggest that she also ask GPCA for funds. We need to get an email from states indicating what they are doing to help their delegates.
Jake > Was clear in my emailed request, that they go to their states and ask for money. If they didn’t succeed, they come back to us with total or partial request for funds.
Anita > I have to disagree regarding not helping delegates. Last year, we raised money to send people through Diversity Committee funds. All were delegates. So there is already a precedent to send delegates. Diversity Committee budget states that part of travel is for Diversity Committee members to attend GP meetings. Doesn’t make a distinction between delegates and non-delegates. The point is to help disenfranchised people participate in the CC.
Ben > I understand that. But we decided 2 weeks ago that we didn’t have enough money to fund many things. We decided to ask those whose travel funds were in a budget to ask them to go to their states first, since we are low on funds. Media committee is also asking. How are we supposed to decide which committees can get travel funded? I don’t want to put Jake in the position of deciding that.
Anita > I agree that we can’t afford to send everybody. I’m just saying that we can’t decide based on who is a delegate. We can’t afford everybody, but we can’t use an arbitrary formula based on being a delegate. Maybe as Lavender Caucus can do a fundraiser to raise some money to help.
Jake > [reads email sent out]
Jo > Each person needs to present a realistic budget, and they need to have an email from their state indicating what, if anything, they can do to help. Then let’s collect these, and set a date where we can go through a list and decide how to break up the money. Shouldn’t be first come first serve some people could be getting money from their state or fundraiser and come back with a partial request later on. We should restate outgoing message, go to state, limited travel money available from the national, deadline to request is X.
Ben > Should also mention the travel policy, which conflicts with the budget. We don’t have enough time to work this out now. If one or two people could work this out, and come back with a proposal on email. I am concerned about us losing money with this meeting.
Anita > I agree we can’t solve it now. I will go back to the diversity committee.
Dean > We have generally broken even with meetings, and this one is going to be the toughest to do that unless we can get a really large turnout. It wouldn’t be hard to lose $10,000, but we won’t know until it is much too late to decide on travel funds.
Ben > A couple of people really need to sit down and work this through. May need to put out a proposal to CC that we consider the travel policy the rule, and overrides the budget. We could easily lose $10,000 at this event.
Anita > Some of us should get together to work on this. I volunteer.
Jake > Me and Anita.
[Badili has to leave]
Jo > Alex (chair, merchandising subcommittee) is not here, needs more guidance. We’re going to have Alex join fundraising call next week, and come back. Fundraising is ending up doing some merchandise, anyway.
Ben > That’s great. I continue to have an interest. We have an offer, one of many lucrative ones, to sell coffee. Please do a good job of evaluating how it is going. I want to see it move, maybe we need to bring more people in.
Jo > Do try to find more people.
Jack > Perhaps new fundraising committee members could help Alex. We have a few new members.
Anita > Question: how far are we from having a plan for merchandising?
Dean > We have two tracks. The original plan involved a thorough process to vote on a logo, choose designs, and choose a vendor to manage the project. So far that big process has fallen through completely. In the mean time, materials already produced by others and ready to go keep falling in our lap. That drastically reduces our effort, but means that the products are not explicitly Green products. Maybe we should simplify the first part of this and choose one or two things that are specifically ours, and do the other stuff that is easier until we have more support.
Ben > I think it was close with Gregg Jocoy. What should I do with this coffee company? Will sell to us at cost and we can follow up.
Jo > Would send that to Alex.
Ben > Did so and didn’t get a response.
Jo > Let’s respond after next week’s meeting.
July 4th in Philly
Ben > Carry over from last time. Peace action meeting tomorrow night, so let’s pass on it.
Tom > Proposal is out there. Will combine CT/WI proposal, accepted as a friendly proposal. New draft should be going out tomorrow. Same timing. Voting first week of July.
Anita > Was there a BRPP proposal out there already.
Was it in the discussion phase?
On the voting page?
Tom > New draft coming out tomorrow anyway.
Anita > Concern sent to Greg Gerritt that I couldn’t find a copy, wanted another one.
Ben > Same request elsewhere. Link posted today.
Caucus Submissions to Platform Resolution
[Badili not here]
Anita > Did he compute the vote?
Ben > It was supposed to go out a second time with the new version, Holly Hart’s version. Quite a few comments came in after the vote total was posted, saying they were ‘yes’ votes. Need new actual total.
Accreditation of South Carolina
Ben > Entering the second week of discussion. Voting will conclude 3 days before CC meeting.
Dean > Alabama application arrived yesterday. They want to vote at the meeting, Accreditation Committee said not sure they could decide in time.
Anita > Good request. We should ask Accreditation Committee to make this a priority.
Ben > Depends on the content of the proposal.
[Nathalie not here]
Anita > Nathalie did a modified proposal using proposals from Accreditation Committee and Diversity Committee. It was fine, not everything I wanted, but good enough. I asked her to send it to Jason Ravin. It did get sent to Diversity Committee list. Haven’t seen any communication on it. It’s a good compromise.
Ben > Accreditation Committee co-chairs have a different view of process. Accreditation Committee has consensed on this: intends to submit its own proposal. As soon as it is on the floor, plans to accept Nathalie’s hybrid version as a friendly amendment. They think process should follow a certain path that we have been on.
Anita > That’s sort of belligerent. I don’t know where that comes from. There are Diversity Committee people who are upset that their proposal isn’t being put on the floor. Not sure how they will react.
Ben > My perception is that some Accreditation Committee members think the process is more important than the content of the proposal. Anita, you need to follow up with Nathalie, and she needs to follow up.
Anita > If we put through the two proposals simultaneously, and let both committees accept the hybrid proposal at the same time. I’m sorry for how that sounds. Let’s get this voted on by email before the meeting. I can follow up with Nathalie.
Credit Card policy
Jake > Fiscal policy change needed for credit cards. Finance Committee has proposed policy drafted by Dean and edited by Jo and me. Want to submit to CC for 3 week discussion and 1 week vote. I want the SC to review it first. Will send it to you.
Anita > We would like committee organization proposal schedule for a vote. I hadn’t wanted to floor manage it because I will be in the discussion. But not sure if Nathalie can do it. Time is getting very short before the convention. Asking for feedback.
Jo> I think you should ask Nathalie about this. I understand your feeling of conflict of interest on floor managing this.
Ben > Would need to be two and one to finish before the meeting.
Ben > More discussion with Jane of Labor Notes. Looking at some kind of forum on the election. Maybe one Green, one independent, and one Democrat. I would not be the best person to have on the panel. I don’t have a legitimate union card. Looking for suggestions of Greens with strong union history. One person suggested is Howie Hawkins, though that may not be popular to all. I would be willing to follow up. Sept 11-13 in Detroit.
Anita > How about Paul Felton from Detroit?
Ben > Could be good. Would like to look further afield than Detroit.
Anita > Isn’t he the head of his union? I’ll get back to you.
Jo > Would be good to have a woman, and to have local person so we don’t have to pay travel.
Jo > Have had 2 rounds of negotiation with Kathie Dematatis [current landlord]. Our first letter was an offer of 6 weeks notice, having facility clean and ready to show. She countered to Dean that she was going on vacation and wanted 3 months to start after she got back. I said vacation was her problem, will pay $250 for advertising for new tenant, ready to show on July 1, will leave on Aug 1 and pay through then. Final letter handed to Kathie [reads letter]. Our next letter will reference our attorney. I talked to Adam, in DC Statehood. They are ready to leave at any time, staying to support us. Will ask him to clean their room. Meanwhile, Jake wrote a letter to Meli, current tenant on Connecticut Ave whose place we want to take over the lease from, that we want to start on Aug 1, and are reviewing their lease. It has a 3% increase every year. It’s a reasonable lease. Originally they wanted us in July 1, but later they said it was okay.
Dean > Annie and I talked about it and we agreed that it should be steam cleaned by us. The carpet in our room is new and has lots of stains on it, tracked in on shoes. Annie suggests hiring somebody so they can get under the furniture. Landlord also suggests we need to remove all the boxes, Greenpages, and wood from the back room, but I told her that is normal office use, and Annie agreed. It will be clean, but not empty.
Tom > Sent Nathalie an email asking her if it would be ready for the DC meeting. Will call her tomorrow.
Anita > My understanding that we have significant materials on the internet. Have we considered using that?
Tom > Want to check with Nathalie first. If she says she doesn’t have anything, then we should do that.
Anita > There is a prototype manual on the internet that Nathalie put up and gave us the link then. I reviewed it then. Some detail. On Nathalie’s website, or was on it then.
Tom > You will be getting some stuff early next week.
Anita > I have a problem with this. I read minutes from last time, but wasn’t on the call at that point. We haven’t followed the process. I have asked to see the software but haven’t had the chance to do so. Wasn’t sent to DC when I was heading out that way. Personnel policy is small issue compared to having a Personnel Committee. I need to know about this software.
Tom > No way to do this by committee with this software unless you buy the software for each person.
Jo > Wondering at this point if Tom could give us a draft sample online and bring the CD to DC for the meeting, and we could fine tune it there. I would be happy to sit with whoever and do the fine-tuning. But would be nice to have a draft from Tom, so we can see what we would be working on.
Anita > I would like a printout of the materials that the software produces, without any additions to them. We can do it that way. Just print out the headings of the policy blank without the content, and I can look at that. We can assign that to different people.
Tom > We’ve been at this for over two years. I am 80% done, using this software. It takes you step-by-step. Let’s move on this. I’ll complete a draft as Jo said. We can look at it and fine-tune it. We need the policy since we will be hiring people soon. Personnel Committee hasn’t been functioning. It’s going to take months more to complete it.
Anita > It has been a long time. I have been asking to see the software, and to include other committees in the process. I couldn’t do that because you didn’t send me anything. You just went ahead and did the writing. Approving what you wrote is not democratic. In dealing with this, I have seen the personnel committee atrophy. If you had complied with my requests early on, maybe this wouldn’t have happened. I know it’s been a long time.
Ben > I’m calling vibes. I am concerned about our ability to resolve this in a consensus-oriented fashion. It’s getting touchy. All opinions have been “my” opinion. Take a breath.
Tom > I would like to bring a full draft to the convention. Some decisions are going to have to be made. As to democratic process, I find nothing undemocratic about having one person draft something for a group or committee to decide on. There are probably 50-75 headings. We will be here forever if we do it that way.
Jake > I’m making a proposal current version bring to the convention for SC to look at noon on Thursday. Objections?
Jo > [takes over facilitation] Point of process. We can call questions. We can restate the proposal. We can accept amendments. Jake has put out a proposal and Anita has a concern that has not been resolved. Either we can try to meet Anita’s concern, or we can move it to a vote.
Jo > Anita, is there a solution that would involve bringing a draft to DC?
Anita > Yes, if the headings are sent to me, so that the committee can be regenerated.
Jo > Are you willing to send out a list of headings to the committee?
Tom > I’m willing to send a draft of the policy.
Jo > Can you send her just the headings?
Tom > What is that for?
Jo > I think it’s a reasonable request to send that out and also bring Tom’s draft to Washington, with the CD. Are there concerns with that proposal?
Ben > 2 items. First is release, approved. Jane does release distributions? [Yes] I’m going to Milwaukee tomorrow afternoon. Will be meeting with the convention bureau. Not going to sign anything. But will look at the facilities, discuss concerns raised during the vote.
Web page changes
Dean > In the past, Nathalie and Tom and I were the authorized people to approve web changes so Kevin wouldn’t have to do that. Now we have many of our committees asking for changes, and all are asking for buttons on the top of the front page. They can’t all get them, and we have no process to decide this. Also some will take a long time. The CCC’s request might be 10 hours, though they might accept a phased implementation. Kevin has asked for editorial guidance. Further he thinks that much of the material is really internal party business and that the home page should be kept for more public stuff. I assured him that the committees think it is of public interest, even if he doesn’t think so. In theory, I could make the call, but I don’t think it was expected that I was going to pick and choose between committees when we set this up. The Communications Committee is supposed to resolve these things, but it isn’t really functioning. If we just hand it off to them again, then it falls to Kevin’s or my lap to decide. We need a policy to use now.
Anita > I talked to Kevin about this. Old system fell through. Need to get Communications committee going.
Ben > Problem is getting Communications committee up and going. Depends on the new secretary. We need a stopgap for the next month, and then expect the next Secretary to get the Communications committee up and running.
Dean > Need to have somebody decide as a stopgap.
Anita > We need a list of which committees have made which request. At least we could get started.
Jo > Please have Kevin send us a list. Anita will speak with Nathalie, ask if Communications committee has somebody who can take that over. Fallback is we will do it.
Jake > Anita, impress on Nathalie the importance that this involves content for the convention.
Jo > Kendra asked when we were going to negotiate the license for the software. Suggested she send her request to the SC. She wants $120,000 and will discount to $80,000.
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green