SC Minutes — March 20, 2003 (Approved)
Jake Schneider (time keeper), Ben Manski (facilitator), Dean Myerson (minutes), Anita Rios, Jo Chamberlain, Badili Jones, Nathalie Paravicini, Holly Hart (Platform Comm)
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
SC = Steering Committee
[Brackets denote editor’s suggested corrections. Some punctuation corrections done with no content change. -ed.]
Jo > request for report on office search, number 8.
Ben > Any concerns about minutes from last meeting?
Jo > Question about including names in the minutes.
Dean > PEC letter names and 
Ben > Err on side of caution and remove those names and then Dean release?
Jake > Approx $1400 additional deposits since my last email report. Received two invoices today for $9000, mailings for next month.
Jo > Dean has emailed us about Compaq computer problem and putting credit charge software on the Dell. Need to find a person to focus on managing sustainer program, will report on this after next Fundraising Comm meeting.
Ben > Health insurance situation for Jack
Dean > Somebody needs to be assigned to handle this without Letitia.
Anita > I will do it if I get contact info.
Dean > I will send.
Jo > Jack’s COBRA expires at end of April.
Discretionary Funds Policy
Jake > Very little discussion on the list.
Dean > People have asked whether friendly amendments are getting included.
Jake > No amendments yet, just discussions. Misunderstanding on the CC, discussion not [mean] the same as amendments.
Jo > I think it does, Jake. We need to clarify to CC what amendment means.
Nathalie > Second what Jo says, when something comes in during discussion that can be easily integrated into the proposal [, it should be]. Before we start vote, we include good suggestions from the discussion.
Jake > 3 or 4 comments so far. I will reply to them and ask if they are submitting as friendly amendment.
Anita > Question. I haven’t heard back from states about co-sponsorship. I have a concern about this since we froze hiring. Gut sense is that after what we did last week, would be very bad and problematic to go ahead with this proposal at this point. Would like to wait for a few months. Won’t be well received unless we are in good financial status. Bad to fire employees because of financial status and then ask for stipends.
Ben > Generally agree; also need to recognize that policy covers other stipends as well, right?
Anita > Not this one, it is only for the SC.
Ben > Put it on hold until we are in better financial shape.
Travel funding policy
Jo > Committee members requesting additional information. Like to give them through the weekend [to evaluate], [then] put out for a vote in the next couple of weeks, [and] back to SC [the] next week for [our] evaluation.
Conflict of Interest
Jo > Personnel component, BRPP component. Also some New Mexico bylaws having to do with mediation and COI. Not sure how much we want to pursue this. With BRPP or independent of them. Asking for guidance.
Anita > Would like us to stay specific, don’t want mediation and COI in the same package.
Nathalie > Rather see it in BRPP than bylaws.
Web research Nebraska proposal
Nathalie > We never went into a vote, missed the deadline. Need to send out a vote call; discussion period over. Will send it out on Monday for one week vote.
Jo > I did not see a call for vote.
Nathalie > Never went out.
Jo > Voting page working?
Nathalie > Kendra sent email last weekend, haven’t had a chance to look at it yet.
Ben > Fair bit of discomfort about proposal. I’m not the only one, including in my state. I’m a little bit concerned about putting it out with so little discussion.
Anita > I feel we have to follow procedure on this. True, little discussion. We still have to put it to a vote. They followed the procedure, we have no choice.
Ben > Nathalie, can you put out a notice that the voting will start on Monday. Any concerns need to made before then?
Nathalie > Yes.
Jake > Vote ended on March 13; failed for lack of a quorum. 16 states voting. 1 caucus and 16 delegates. 26 states is a quorum. Can we extend the vote even though we are expired?
Anita > Yes, I would ask you to go ahead and do that. It got confusing. Sorry I didn’t vote, but I will.
Nathalie > I think there were some good suggestions on the proposal. We have taken good suggestions, like typos, and included them in the proposal. We have extended votes in the past when they were critical.
Jake > Finance Committee has already been approved. We are voting on members of the committee.
Ben > Sounds like people want you to extend the vote.
Jake > Will do so, to 7th of April, or end of March.
Ben > Recommend that you do a one week extension, picking up the vote from where it left off. Put out regular reminders every two days. I have been successful in getting high turnout with regular reminders.
Jake > Will on Monday will. Extend it for one week and reminder every two days.
Ben > Any objections, concerns?
Back to discretionary at Jake’s request
Jake > 4 comments: Mike Wyman on tiers, Andy Parx great, Kevin McKeown asks if SC approves these by consensus?
Anita > If discretionary funds had to be approved by CC, would take forever. Finance Comm will be approving discretionary funds by a majority vote.
Jo > We need a middle ground. Cap of $2500 without going to CC for a vote. This was an emotional part of the budget. I picked $2500 because most requests are below that. Above that we would need more input. I would consider a higher amount. With this, we would have a better chance of getting this passed. Our consensus is different than in Calif, which is what I think Kevin is referring to. Mention our rules to Kevin, and ask if this is okay.
Ben > Agree with $2500 cap for SC decision; good policy. Second, might be enough that we make the decision as we always do: try for consensus and then fall back to majority vote. Third, would like to entertain Jo’s suggestion as a motion: $2500 cap for SC approval. Concerns?
Anita > Phone connection is not great. Are we saying FC or SC? Who has responsibility? Finance Comm or Steering Committee?
Ben > I said Steering Comm.
Jake> $2500 limitation could be submitted to SC or Finance Comm. Person who committed on it wanted SC and CC. Maybe SC and Finance Committee makes more sense.
Jo > I meant that the SC would deal with discretionary funds. Above $2500, we would go to CC.
Ben > Proposal is SC would have authority up to $2500 per item, then to CC. Stand asides? We need to resolve this or table it, due to time.
Jake > If this is a budget item, then why the limit?
Ben > This is a pot of money, not allocated to any specific purpose, unlike other funds. Are we ready to move to a decision or postpone? Any standasides? Jake stands aside. Any blocking concerns?
Holly > Where caucuses should fit into the submission process was discussed earlier on and we thought we had a good system. Starlene sent a message last week. In talking to PlatCom, we thought we might ask SC your opinion, and if a change should be made; and PlatCom issue a clarification permitting caucuses to submit, or stay as we are. Not a big burden one way or the other. Some people have sent in concerns regarding caucus role. Should PlatCom just issue a clarification?
Nathalie > What’s the sense of the PlatCom?
Holly > Concern about caucus abusing the process. Mostly figure that for submissions, it won’t make much difference. Other questions are not PlatCom business.
Nathalie > To okay submission of caucuses until their role is defined?
Holly > Guess you could say that. It’s a bit of an insult to caucuses. At the beginning, it was a fair process. Does SC think this should sent to the CC for a vote?
Anita > Your resolution for this is excellent. Decision to make clarification to permit caucuses to submit resolution is a good idea and your thinking is very clear.
Jo > Request that this be included somewhere that people are clear whether it comes through Accreditation Committee, or BRPP. Needs to be clarified so that everybody feels clear about it.
Ben > So far people are in agreement. A way to state this, if PC wants to put out a clarification as follows: PlatCom will accept proposals from accredited caucuses until such time as the BRPP’s proposal for caucuses is approved.
Anita > I would revise that. Would be more comfortable, until the CC decides otherwise, which come through the BRPP. Could be rumbling in the CC. May not be, but gives them the option. Let’s not specify the BRPP.
Ben > I’m comfortable with that. Are you, Holly?
Holly > Yes. Not a problem if the CC doesn’t think so. Two other questions.
Ben > SC in agreement on this?
Holly > Wasn’t able to respond to this this weekend, because I couldn’t write to the discussion list. Can this be adjusted so I can post to the CC list?
Nathalie > I did it. Now you will get all emails.
Holly > I was getting the emails, but wasn’t able to post.
Ben > Sounds like a technical problem that Cameron or Dean can clarify.
Holly > Budd was concerned regarding finance difficulties. We have gone ahead and committed money to getting platform summaries laid out and printed. Are those funds available?
Jo > Policy is that monies are never to be spent without getting Jakes approval.
Holly> He did, some time ago.
Jake > She is right. I did approve that quite some time ago.
Ben > Sounds like something for Jake to work out with Holly and Budd. Feel free to put out the clarification.
Ben > To Jack, Anita is going to deal with your health insurance.
Jack > I’m in the process of moving. We’re starting the move tomorrow. Contacted Jo and sent out that list. Sent out a revised version of the letter, though not satisfied with it. Hope to get to most of you at the beginning of next week.
Jack > I’m excited about this and have some ideas for lead-ins.
Jake > Want to back up to platform issue again.
Jack > If you check minutes from yesterday DC meeting, you will see message we are putting out. Feel free to chime out with the message we are putting out.
Jake > Budd and Holly submitted request for $2136 for platform summary printing and shipping.
Jo > I’m assuming that you approved those monies, and that has to be included in our financial report.
Jake > Good point.
2003 CC meeting
Anita > Don’t have the information I should have. Haven’t been able to get in touch with Jason Ravin. I did call Howard to try and get the dates. They said we need a sponsor, which is Jason [because he is a student there]. Until we completed the application, which I asked them to fax to the office (Tuesday). Do you want me to continue to try to reach Jason and ask for that fax?
Dean > I got prices for meeting rooms at GW. About 3 times the cost of Howard. Availability for July 19 weekend is okay as long as we finish CC meeting on Sunday by 3pm.
Anita – $35/night/person + 14% tax for a room with private bath. Rooms sleep 2-6 people at GW.
Ben > 3 potential venues, writing off the Hilton. We need a plan that will result in a decision in the near future.
Nathalie > Is there anybody else besides Jason that can sponsor us? We are leaning towards Howard.
Anita > That’s my sense as well. There might be somebody else besides Jason, but I would have to ask him.
Jake > I have Jason’s home phone in Texas while he is on vacation. I will dig for it and send to Anita.
Dean > I have his cell number.
Jo > Badili did research on caterer at Howard, and there was a problem.
Badili > They use Sodexo/Marriott, a multinational that has investments in private prisons around the world. Not sure if there is organizing around that.
Jo > I have a problem with the Sodexo/Marriott private prison investment. They are not acceptable to me.
Ben > I think that we have got pluses and minuses for each place. GW uses Aramark for catering, they are union busters and are nasty. No advantage either way between campuses. Are some substantial advantages for Howard: historical setting, most Greens would be more comfortable there than the hotel. Significant downside is 5-6 block walk from subway and not a safe neighborhood for people to go out at night. GW might be price competitive with Mayflower hotel. Hotel is a good deal financially for what we are getting, but hotel will make some Greens uncomfortable because it is so luxurious. We should put out a summary with a pluses and minuses and get feedback from CC and make decision next week. Maybe somebody could draft and post to CC.
Nathalie > Are we obligated to use that caterer?
Ben > Yes, at Howard, probably at GW. What do people think about my summary idea?
Anita > Good idea. Simultaneously get more info so we can nail it down.
Ben > Who volunteers to write the summary?[ . . . ] None, so I will do it. Will put basic list plus/minus list. Come back to this next week.
Dean > Anything else I need to get from GW?
Ben > Need per-person cost breakdown?
Nathalie > Including everything.
Ben > I had committed to get a hold of Minnesota. Have been playing phone tag. He did provide some extensive information. They are having a state meeting this Saturday. Taking up and down vote on a simple proposal about hosting the convention in Twin Cities area.
On Monday, Minneapolis local will be meeting (Monday, I think, next week). Erik Makela expects that both will approve. Flip side is I left him with some questions that I don’t have answers for yet. We need size, venues, availability, and ballpark costs. Need room for a major floor meeting to accommodate 3000 or so. We can’t expect anything back for a week and a half. I propose I continue to hopefully catch directly up with Erik and bring it back to SC. Is that okay?
[Hearing nothing, okay]
Office manager/data entry
Jo > Is this for executive session?
Ben > We can move it there.
Jake > I think it should be exec session.
Ben > We can move it there.
Jo > IPPN decision?
Jack > Decision about fundraising staff position, passing policy position for that.
Ben > Do you have notes compiled?
Nathalie > No, but I have Badili’s notes.
Anita > I was supposed to get that personnel policy on contract/temp employees updated, including definitions. I haven’t done that.
Dean > Asking for confirmation of decision as to who goes.
Nathalie > I didn’t vote for it.
Anita > I think it was a final decision.
Ben > Would like to reconsider. Juscha was upset. Ballot access stuff is CCC’s domain, and SC doesn’t know what’s going on. I know decision was made, and I’m upset it was made in my absence. Dan Kinney has said he can go and will not cost us anything and Dean is busy with other things.
Anita > I don’t care if Dan goes, but I think it will cost us something. I want a report on this. Some of us do know what we are doing. Whatever is generated has to get out. As long as Dan will do that and generates a report, I’m fine with that.
Ben > On condition that Dan submits report, Anita is comfortable with Dan going. Standasides or concerns?
Next weeks SC conf call: have an extra one?
Ben > We discussed this, but I don’t think we decided. Are we moving to weekly meetings? Only one hour next Thursday, before 9pm. I suggested extra meetings be only one hour.
Jake > I do not have any more time for conference calls.
Anita > I agree with Jake. If we sometimes go over, we can schedule another one. I am on both calls prior to that call.
Dean > You already scheduled next discussion on 2003 CC meeting venue for next week.
Ben > That could wait till the following week.
Anita > I don’t think it can wait, but we can do it by email or private calls.
Jake > Agree with Anita, would like to see emails on it.
Ben > Stay on biweekly.
Office situation discussion
Anita > Would like clarification. Badili, were you our rep at the last meeting? [Yes] We really need some consistency. A number of us can attend because we are close, but will not necessarily attend the next one, so I think it’s important that Badili attend.
Ben > Good idea. Also, within the next couple of weeks, to get an idea of what has gone on and report to the CC. There were concerns when we joined and we need to get people updates on what has progressed.
Badili > I can do that.
Forever Green and Growing
Jack > We know somebody who is available. I talked to her and told her SC would be making their decision tonight and let her know tomorrow. She needs two weeks notice. Her schedule doesn’t matter as much since there is no shortage of phones in the office now. If we put this off, she would need to give notice later.
Anita > I think we need to decide even though we are lacking in some details on the personnel policy. We did promise Jack a decision.
Jack > She is not going to be concerned about policy details.
Ben > Did we ever get a resume from her?
Jack > You were out of the room when we went over it last weekend. She has extensive experience in phone fundraising in college. I called reference at CT College, she said they wish they could clone her. Very high recommendation. I have a resume, sent to fundraising committee.
Jake > We have talked about this in great detail. We should approve it.
Jo > Contract amount?
Jake> $2500, $15/hour.
Ben > Anita already said she was working on this. Anything additional?
Anita > I will give you a time frame within one week.
Ben > I followed up with Ken Sain, sending suggested changes to editorial policy, some rather substantial. He wasn’t upset, but some on the Greenpages Editorial Board were.
2 sign-on resolutions
Ben > child obesity and 10 reasons environmentalist oppose the war. What did we decide?
Dean > My memory is that people were supposed to take a look and send concerns since one of them had a deadline on Tuesday.
Anita > We put these off because you were out of the room, then I left the room.
Ben > I can try to get back to the sponsors to see if there is any additional time. I will send them back out tomorrow. If I don’t hear any negative comments, I will sign on.
Anita > What was the one for Gary Ruskin?
Ben > Child obesity
Anita > Absolute no-brainer.
Ben > Concerns? None
Dean > Questions about temp hire person? Also, data entry not taking a lot of time now, will be in about two weeks when the next mailing response peaks. As background, a number of us worked in detail with her in Nader 2000. She had major responsibility which meant working with the database they used. I am suggesting we hire her for one or two days worth of hours to focus on sustainer recovery project. I sent out a fairly detailed email on that a few hours ago.
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green