June 6, 2003

SC Minutes — June 6, 2003 (Approved)

Anita Rios, Ben Manski, Jake Schneider, Jo Chamberlain, Tom Sevigny (facilitator), Nathalie Paravicini, Dean Myerson (notetaker)

Abbreviations used:
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.]

Nathalie requests to leave after her reports so she can get some work done.

Accreditation Committee report
Nathalie > Spoke with Anita, Ginny, and David (latter two are co-chairs of Accreditation Committee). Trying to get a good process for caucus accreditation proposal without competing proposals. Want to work on that tonight. They were amenable to working on that.
Anita > Ginny and David were amenable to discussing a revision that would support including Diversity Committee in the process?
Nathalie > They were open to looking at the SC process. I don’t want to go over it all on the call now.
Anita > I support that. I want a joint proposal, don’t want to fight about this. I find it disturbing that they will talk with you, but not me. I misstated earlier that there was only one change, that Diversity Committee wants to be a part of the Caucus accred process. There are 3 (2 others): did not feel that there should be separate platforms for caucuses, didn’t want caucuses to have to present documentation of activity if they weren’t active prior to being accredited.
Tom > Nathalie wants to leave the call to work on this to get a proposal that is a synthesis of Accreditation Committee and Diversity Committee desires. Concerns?
Nathalie > Also, Pair Networks needs to report back to me on new listserves.
Ben > Did you get my feedback on lists?
Nathalie > Didn’t get to my email since then.

Anita > Am traveling tomorrow. Have to be at the airport at 5 AM. Will leave the call in an hour.
Jo > Want to note that the minutes from the last meeting were posted.
Ben > What is our quorum requirement? Do members have to [be] present during a vote, or just in general on the call. If Anita leaves, it could deny us quorum.
Jo > I think 4 is considered a quorum. I think that if Anita has any priority items, please let us know so we can deal with them first.
Nathalie > I’ll be home, I can come back on line.
Ben > Jo was correct, we will have quorum even if Anita goes.

Old Business

Tom > Let’s move the issue of attending conferences up since that is Anita’s item.
Anita > Annual meeting issue, also. As for conferences, I contacted Jason Ravin, let him know what we decided last time. No decision on BRC or Labor Notes conferences. But that he is going to Rainbow/PUSH affirmative action. Asked Jason to look into costs to go, and to send info to us. Also asked that he let them know that we are going to send 3 people overall.
Ben > On Labor Notes conference, got a confirmation for a workshop at the conference in Sept. in Detroit. Talked to Jane Slaughter, she is taking it over. Will put something to Labor Greens list. They want a joint Green Party/Labor Party workshop. Only thing for this, I would like in theory to agree that we will pay for a table there, and some registration fees. Registration fees are expensive ($100?), so maybe not. But at least a table.
Anita > How much is the table?
Ben > I don’t have a specific proposal because I don’t have the cost. I think we should commit in principle. I just don’t want to pursue this if the SC isn’t interested at all.
Anita > I think we should make an effort. As to housing, I’m 50 miles away, you can stay with me, or I can get you a place with friends of mine in Ann Arbor. I will be commuting. Housing shouldn’t be an issue. We should nail down the costs.
Jo > Support Anita. Let’s get a proposal with a timeline for money, and how much. Would like to support as many of these as we can.
Ben > Not asking for a blank check, just whether people think this is something to pursue.
Tom > Yes, we should.

Committee/Liaison Reports

Annual National Meeting Committee
Anita > Had a phone conversation with Allison. Wanted to visit with her in Washington DC, and that fell through. On my way to Delaware, I had a blowout, got stuck on the turnpike. The wrench got bent and couldn’t change my tire. Didn’t make it to Delaware or DC. Allison wasn’t available and C-Span canceled, so it was a well-timed blowout. Talked to Allison, will get a listserve set up. She told me that she would be talking to Annie. Made some recommendations on that to me. I don’t have resumes for facilitators, I think Dean has them and would like to get them. Others interested in helping are Jenefer Ellingston, Ginny Marie Case and Maya O’Connor.
Ben > Jay and Adam expressed an interest in helping out. I told them they would have to be vetted by their party. I think this is a great committee and we should move on it. We need to schedule a call for this committee. We are behind the ball. Maybe we can have one Monday evening?
Anita > Go ahead and do that. I can’t make it then. I could do it Tuesday. Could do it Monday late.
Ben > What about 7 PM eastern on Tuesday.
Anita > No. I’ll be in Seattle, 4 PM there.
Ben > How about same time Wednesday?
Anita > Okay.
Dean > I don’t have any resumes for facilitators. I have talked to one so far, and have left a message for another. Will get more details and pass on to the SC. We need to decide something on the process for what [we] will choose to pay facilitators. Don’t need to decide the exact amount now because we don’t know their experience or what they are asking for. But I need to know how it works.
Ben > I’m not sure how the budget is broken down. SC should be making a hire, not Dean.
Jo > I’m not sure if it should be paid per day. Maybe per hour.
Dean > I’m not expecting to make the decision, I was expecting to bring it back to SC. So far as I know, the budget was to follow from last year’s in Philly. Whoever makes the hire, we need to decide on how the pay for this is decided and what to tell people when we talk to them.
Tom > Do we want to set a price now?
Jo > We could set a maximum amount. We need to see what people will charge. We need 2 or 3 facilitators. I would recommend that we not exceed, for example, $250 each day for 3 full days of facilitation; $750 maximum.
Ben > Dean should tell them a range, depending on experience, up to $750 total.
Jake > $1000 is budgeted for the meeting.
Dean > So I see myself talking to them first and sending info on the best choices to the SC. You can then follow up by calling and talking to them to finalize. I don’t know if you want to come here to decide or not.
Tom > Everybody okay with $750?
Tom > Dean suggests he do initial interviews, and SC follow up. Everybody okay?
Dean > Issue of Allison’s cell phone during event maximum of $100.
Allison > Moving ahead with facilitators, Dean already covered. Been talking with Annie Goeke. We are talking about local housing, catered meals menu. Registration page is up and running. Dean or I are going to send email out. As far as committee meeting coordination goes, I have a list so far, including which meetings can’t overlap. Need to know number of people attending committee or caucus meetings, and how rooms should be set up.
Dean > Need to also tell you that due to the process used, we didn’t get enough rooms reserved for meetings Thursday night and the hotel wants more money for the rooms we need. Allison and I are talking about how to negotiate that away, and will meet with them. If we fail on that, will come back to you. Also, registration web form is almost ready. Forgot to include food type choice (vegan, veggie, meat) so need to add that before I announce it widely.
Ben > I just registered. Allison, are you free at Wed 7 PM?
Allison > Yes.
Ben > We scheduled a call for then, same number as this. Would you be free for a call from me early tomorrow evening?
Allison > How early? [6 PM] Okay. We found somebody who is interested in doing the layout for the conference brochure. She wants $200 for that.
Ben > If you could send us a pdf of her prior work, that would help.

Jake > Anybody not receive treasurer’s report? Additions are $1368 deposit. No deposits today. Let Dean report on fundraising income.
Dean > We are near the peak of monthly income from the previous mailing. Might peak this weekend, but it was a smaller mailing than usual, so it won’t peak as strongly as others, but the bills due are smaller as well.
Jo > Coming to the end of our ForeverGreen and Growing Spring Drive. Alexandra was able to collect 5526 names from states and candidates. Mailing to this month. Candidate list income from that will go to Coordinated Campaign Committee projects, as we decided last week. When we told candidates that the money is going to support campaigns, response was strong. Earmark to Coordinated Campaign Committee is going to make this project stronger. Working more on developing personal solicitation reporting process. We do that well for mailings. Removed Nader book from website because we have never received our cut. They are a corp, so we can’t take a direct check. Moved the website pop-up to the volunteer page.
Ben > How much income from pop-up and why aren’t we getting funds from Nader book sales?
Jack > Can’t answer the popup question yet. Book has just been moved, not removed. Reason we haven’t got any money is that the issue of how to share the money hasn’t been dealt with.
Ben > Intent is to get the money, just need to figure out how?

SC Fundraising
[Notetakers note: names of potential major donors withheld for privacy]
Jack > [celeb] has expressed interest in talking with us regarding donations. Trying to find out if he wants a phone call or a meeting. XX has written a letter to his contacts, telling them of our desire for a series of meetings, sent to 28 people (movie/entertainment people).
Ben > This is about our plans in 2004?
Jack > No, about meeting with the GP, using 2004 as the hook, how to build the GP.
Ben > I’m not comfortable with these people meeting with the PEC. What makes me uncomfortable is the idea that certain people with a lot of money get more influence with our presidential process than our members. SC is different, party has an interest in cultivating these relationships. PEC shouldn’t have a track for celebrities separate from members.
Anita > Echo Ben. In addition, we could pick and choose committees if we want to highlight our committees. Makes no sense to have the PEC involved. Could have rotating committee participation. Very questionable to have VIP’s, deep pockets, meeting with PEC. Wrong action to take.
Ben > Jack, continue to follow up. Bring it to the SC. Let us deal with whether other parts of the party get involved in fundraising.
Jack > Hook has always been what we are doing in 2004. Thought this had always been clear. We have been going down this road. At the meeting we had in Calif, we made clear that the decision-making process is ongoing that people in the meeting have no control over. We invited them to attend normal discussions and Green meetings.
Ben > Jack, I understand what you are saying. I have grown more uncomfortable with it over time. We did start down that road; I don’t think that we should continue down that road. PEC is charged with facilitating in a non-partial manner. I think it is improper for PEC to be meeting with big-time celebrities.
Anita > Absolutely agree with Ben. We can’t give these folks access to our PEC. Jack’s point is well taken. This is a good dialog to have. We need to develop a way to continue a dialog on this issue with these people, but not with the PEC. We can find other representatives to do this, and do it well another way.
Tom > Jack, go through the SC for these meetings with celebrities. SC willing to talk to them when 2004 comes up then. We would just like to keep the PEC out of these meetings.

Nader letter
Dean > The SC previously approved sending a letter to Nader regarding the incomplete list we purchased for direct mail, and that it come jointly from the SC and the Fundraising Committee. The Fundraising Committee drafted and approved a letter I already sent to you, so now we need your approval to send it to him.
Ben > I mentioned my concern to Dean. My folks were Nader donors, and received a solicitation from a Chicago group tied to Theresa Amato, but they didn’t receive ours. They were not major donors. Why were they filtered out?
Dean > We know they filtered out all web donors because they promised on the web to never give those names away. Were your parents web donors?
Anita > How did we know that large donors were purged?
Jack > I suspected when Dean said that the average donation was small. I looked up Nader donors on the FEC web site and asked Dean to check for them on the list, and they weren’t there.
Jake > Nader people acknowledged the filter?
Jo > I think we should send the letter.
Dean > Nobody we have talked to knows exactly what was filtered. Seems that a list was delivered to their list broker, and they are not sure exactly how it was filtered. The draft letter doesn’t explicitly ask for how it was filtered. Do we want to wait on the letter until we find out if Ben’s parents were web donors?
Ben > We should ask that either way. I will find out how they donated.
Dean > Send it off for the SC and FC?

Anita > I’m leaving the call. Bye.

Jack > Am I needed for anything else?
Ben > Merchandise?
Dean > We’ve been trying to free Jack from merchandise.

Merchandising Update
Dean > Alex in California took over coordination, but I’m not aware that he has done anything with it. We have platform summaries available for sale, and that should get on the web page soon. Regular GP buttons are selling slowly.
Ben > Somebody should contact Alex to ask him and nudge him.
Jo > I know him and can ask him

Campus Greens
Tom >Met with Brian Sandberg briefly. He gave me a more detailed plan for their 2-week school for campaigns next week. Will send it to everybody. Campus Greens would like a donation from us. I said we’ll get back to him. Joint Committee will have a call in the next 2-3 weeks, after the 18th.
Jo > Can we legally give them money?
Dean > I think so. Also, seems Campus Greens [are] not able to respond to queries that we receive from young people.
Tom > Will bring this up to the Joint Committee.
Ben > They are not a PAC.

Pending/in-progress vote
Dean > Issue of process for choosing the date for the 2004 convention.
Jo > No time for it tonight. Next time.
Ben > On the agenda later tonight. This is about the vote.

Tom > Proposal is ready to go. Suggest regular 3 week discussion and 1 week vote schedule. Deals with committees primarily. Like to get it out on the 9th with me as floor managing. Will be easy to deal with.

Accreditation of South Carolina
Ben > Propose that we put this out for normal schedule. I’m willing to floor manage.

Clarification on Committees/Advisors
Tom > Ben and I have been working on proposal to deal with this – Feinstein/International Committee issue has exposed weakness in bylaws. We have a proposal that rectifies those problems. We want to put it out as soon as possible. This weekend?
Ben > We should start it on Monday as normal.
Tom > Sent to Jo and Annie. Use of the term “in good standing with their party” needs to be refined.
Jake > SC proposal?
Tom > No, coming from WI and CT.
Ben > The proposal clarifies 3 types of committee interaction: members need to be vetted. Second, for advisors are subject to state party rules if states have such rules. Advisors are to have lesser involvement than members. No votes, proposals, discussion participation like members. Finally, for observers, don’t require vetting. Don’t participate in deliberations.
Jo > Would like to thank WI and CT for taking leadership. Other term that needs to be clarified is who can be spokesperson on committees.
Jake > Intention to incorporate these into BRPP? Stated in the proposal?
Tom > I could. I’ve gotten some flak from two BRPP members that this is meddling in BRPP affairs, despite me being BRPP co-chair.
Jo > Need to talk about caucuses as well. Everything I have seen indicates unlimited participation as well.

Office search
Ben > Anybody not see report I put out, and Dean’s addition? [None] So far, there is clearly a favorite. Annie and I had a lengthy discussion, and she thought it was perfect. Double recommendation (Annie and me). We could continue looking. Or we could make an offer. I think we should do that. Given that the SC has a desire to move this summer, and that needs to happen before the July meeting. As Annie pointed out, this move involves a lot less work. Close by to current office and comes with office furniture. They are asking $1800. We could counter with $1600. Annie pointed out that we could use a plywood ramp at the front door for handicap access for those two steps.
Tom > Lease? Go in at $1500 for an offer.
Jo > Best to go in at $1500; that’s the amount Anita would like to limit us at. Furniture: would we own it? [Yes] When is it available? [July 1]. Conference room available separate?
Ben > No. We are talking about 2 rooms: larger front room and small room. Remove our large hallway, bathroom and DC space in the current office, the space is about the same. Same amount of working space. 3 large windows face on to Connecticut Ave. Could put a large desk there and have work environment there. Half of one of the rooms could be a conference room.
Jo > Janitorial service for bathroom/kitchen? [Don’t know] Need exit strategy for current space. Approval?
Jake > Want to know [if] that offer is conditioned on escape from our current space.
Jo > We need documents and to start negotiation, will take a long time. Won’t sign final lease until we have an exit strategy.
Ben > I agree with that. [all]
Jo > Who is going to start this? [Annie]

New Business

Delegate manual
Tom > Are we going to have one available in DC? Nathalie not on the call now, she has been working on it. Anybody know?
Ben > You should call her, and take it from her if necessary.

Personnel Policy
Tom > Waste of time to go through all these channels to work with the committee that doesn’t exist. I can get it done, and have copies for the SC for the DC meeting, if not before. Then and there, we can approve it. Anita wants to look at the software. We’re jumping through so many hoops, have been working on this for a year. With possible new hires, we need a personnel policy.
Jo > Can you send us what you have now, and tell us where the holes are, what decisions are needed?
Tom > Yes.

July 4th in Philly
Ben > Invitation for GP speaker in Philly demo. Peace Committee has talked about this several times. If it develops, we should get involved. Since we have an invitation, we should go. I will get some inside info this weekend on what the status is of the organizing. I think we should send a speaker.
Jo > By when do we need to make this decision?
Ben > Whether or not to do it, tonight. We can decide who later. We won’t have a confirmation by tomorrow.
Jake > I’m okay with the date, less with the who. I don’t want a last minute decision like last time.
Tom > Ben, is the Peace Comm taking this on? Leave this with them?
Ben > Peace Comm could decide how much energy the party puts into mobilizing for it. But committees should never decide who represents the party for major events. Matt Gonzales was a popular choice last time. We have a new mayor in New York, not far away. I hear he is a good speaker.
Tom > Maybe the Peace committee can make a recommendation to the SC?
Ben > Good.
[all agree]

2004 Convention Date
Dean > Once we choose the venue, the host city is going to need to move fairly quickly to finalize their reservation on the venues. I don’t think they want to wait for another full month-plus voting process. My impression is that there are multiple options for the bidding cities.
Ben > Will depend on the site. Both Milwaukee and Minneapolis have specific dates they are open. Main issue is when large facilities are open. They tend to get booked up. We should see what city it is, what options are, and then go back to the CC.
Jake > Second shot to CC on the date. Maybe two or three options with IRV.
Ben > Milwaukee and Minneapolis have multiple weekends and dates, not more than 2 or 3 of them. For San Francisco, I think none of the spaces are reserved. Probably the same situation for San Francisco. We should put it to the CC, maybe for a vote, maybe on a fast track. We are pushing the boundaries of losing these spaces.
Tom > Not a huge number of options, 2-4 at the most.

Myerson memo
Dean > I want to send out the notice that I am leaving because I am talking to some Greens about my options in the future, and I don’t want it to start spreading as a rumor.
[no concerns]

[more] 2004 Convention Date
Ben > Go back to Badili’s items: 2004 convention vote, caucus submission proposal. Concerned whether delegates are reading the convention proposals. Asked Milwaukee webmaster to see how many hits there have been. Not many it seems. Concerned that people maybe voting without studying the options. Might be a reason to extend the voting.
Jo > Don’t think we should extend because of web hits. I think people are voting based on the city they want to go to. I think people are trusting the host city to put a good event on. People aren’t reading the web proposals because it takes time.
Ben > My concern is that the key issues are not just what city, location, rate, cost, unionization. Part of the reason is that a lot of other things are going on. Idea is to have an informed vote.
Jo > Marnie put together a good breakdown. Good discussion about that. Since then, the voting has begun. I think people have done a good job.
Dean > Has been some discussion on the criteria for extending votes. Need to keep that in mind.
Ben > Has San Francisco actually reserved the sites?
Jo > I think that there are enough of them. I don’t know.
Ben > Difficult to remove me from being a WI delegate. This concerns me. I know the proposal was put together late. I don’t want the party to get into a situation in which its not there and the SC is left to deal with it. That’s where I’m coming from. As a delegate, I hadn’t gotten a clear answer on that.
Jake > Problematic that we will have a quorum by Monday. We shouldn’t do an automatic extension now. Come back on next call and discuss it more, based on some of the items that Ben mentioned. If quorum doesn’t happen, the SC may recommend a particular site for a particular reason.
Tom > So we see what happens when the voting ends Monday?
Jo > I will ask Susan to contact Ben about this.

Platform submissions
Jo > This didn’t pass and was going to be resubmitted?
Ben > Yes, we sent Badili new language almost immediately, using Holly’s language. Badili has been on the road and Marc is a bit frustrated at the delay. Wanted to ask Badili whether the outcome was affected by late votes.
Tom > Ben, do you want to contact Badili?
Ben > Sure.
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green