March 6, 2003
SC Minutes — March 6, 2003 9pm midnight (EST)(Approved)
Participants:Jake Schneider (timekeeper), Ben Manski (facilitator), Gregg Jocoy, Dean Myerson (minutes), Nathalie Paravicini, Jack Uhrich, Anita Rios, Jo Chamberlain, Ginny Case, Jane Hunter
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
IC = International Committee
ICA = Institute for Cultural Affairs
LC = Lavender Caucus
LG = Lavender Greens
PPO = Preferred Provider Organization
SC = Steering Committee
[Brackets denote editor’s suggested corrections. Some punctuation corrections done with no content change. -ed.]
Jake> Sent my treasurer’s report. Additions: Dean sent email regarding credit card charges that went through for slightly under $8000. So we’re not in quite as bad a shape as we thought. Not out of the woods yet, but looking better.
Dean> Good day today, brought in over $3000.
Jack> Sent out Fundraising Committee minutes in last few minutes. Did decide to ask Gregg Jocoy to head up merchandise comm. Received pledges of 3 $500 contributions plus a $1000 contribution. Other pledges for unstated amounts. So another $3-4000 there. If personnel policy approved tonight, we will be interviewing two very good people that have applied for contract position for fundraising.
Anita> How much do we need daily to break even for tier 1 and tier 2?
Dean> A little over $1000/day for mandatory expenses, a little over $2000/day to meet tier 1 budget. Not sure about tier 2 budget.
Anita> Is that for a 5-day week or every day?
Dean> Every day, 7-day week.
Steering Comm Fundraising
Jack> Suggest we put it on the agenda for the retreat next week since 5 minutes won’t do it justice. Haven’t talked to anybody individually yet. I will commit to talk to folks individually before the retreat.
Anita> I think it’s fine what Jack suggested. I want to request that I will commit to doing phone calls half a dozen names that are priority that he would like me to contact.
Ben> Same for me. Don’t have time to do research. If you get me a new list with contact info . . .
Jack> Will get you a clean list. I can send you large donors who sent money over 6 months ago and who do not donate regularly.
Anita> Also suggest, add to that list people who you have contact information that you have not been successful in getting donation from.
Jo> (joins call) I want to add an agenda item I didn’t see minutes from last time.
Nathalie> I posted them last week.
Jo> Could you repost them? I didn’t see them. Also, we have an additional vote for Finance Committee.
[2 minutes Jake]
Ben> Will move merchandise agenda item up on the agenda. So will do Accreditation, merchandise and then PEC, since people are on the call to talk about those items.
Ginny Case> (Accreditation Committee Co-Chair) Couple things to touch base on. First is identity caucus, Lavender Caucus, states we’re working on, other items we’re working on, including Pres convention, BRPP. Starting with Identity Caucus, we worked with Diversity Committee, primarily Joe Mosley (Chair). What we drafted, nothing points out who is to incubate or grow the caucuses. There is a concern that the AC would be left with that to do. I don’t know if Diversity Committee has had more discussion about this, but the AC doesn’t feel a need to rehash anything in their committee and are ready to go to the CC to vote on the proposal.
Anita> There has been significant discussion in the DC about identity caucuses. We are working on our own proposal which puts DC in the role of incubating caucuses, but also assumes accreditation of the caucuses. In addition, there is significant opposition to the existing proposal as being too cumbersome. Another call this Wednesday, that’s our deadline for coming up with a decision.
Ginny> Anita, at what point — I don’t want to step on anybody’s toes — at what point did the Diversity Comm intend on letting the Accred Comm [know] that you were working on a different proposal?
Anita> Some of the feedback — I’ve given this feedback many times. That information went through to the AC before we had the meeting last year. Concerns have been expressed again, at numerous times. It didn’t seem like anybody was really listening because the mods were very minimal. It is on the Diversity Comm listserve.
Ben> I serve on both committees, and I believe that Joe Mosley has been drafting something, with nothing approved. I’ve given some input. It is a version of the AC proposal, not from scratch. My input has been that the Accreditation Committee needs to be a part of the accreditation process for caucuses, as should DC. Should be a dual recommendation process. I hit the point today that I’m getting frustrated; we’re completely out of process. Accreditation Committee was tasked with the proposal, Lavender Greens as well, within 6 months from the Philadelphia meeting. There has been very little communication chair-to-chair; Lavender Greens not yet re-accredited; and now we have a new proposal?
Ginny> Ben, I disagree with you. Joe and I have had a number of discussions on the proposal. This is the first time I have heard of any opposition. The Lavender Greens have updated their bylaws, elected new co-chairs, etc. There has been movement with the LC to come into compliance. What I need to know from the SC is the intent to [of?] Accreditation Committee to lead on this proposal? If not, what direction from the SC? Last time, you asked me to get feedback from DC. We have done that. If we could discuss this on email, because we have other things to talk about tonight.
Nathalie> Suggest that by next week, that the DC send its proposal to the AC, after the next DC call.
Ben> We have a proposal from Nathalie.
Anita> A good proposal. Opposition to the DC proposal is not that great. I can make sure you get what we have decided upon by next Wednesday.
Ben> To clarify, something can be worked out, but my understanding is that LC needs to be accredited permanently under new rules. Not an internal thing to the LC. We are two months overdue not AC’s fault. We need to address that the CC’s instructions are being ignored.
Ginny> Fine with Nathalie’s proposal.
Nathalie> My recollection was that LC met general criteria, only problem was the bylaws and election. I’m not too concerned with being out of compliance with the CC, because we are coming up with something that has greater inclusion. By next SC call, we will have something to take to CC.
Ginny> We have passed one state, we do need to ask for a CC vote.
Ben> Nathalie, please restate.
Nathalie> DC to send next week, their proposal or suggestion to AC to review, and send to SC for next conf call. We then schedule it for a vote. Proposal would include identity caucus, accreditation process, and LC reapproval.
Ginny> We have two states that we have consensus to accredit Indiana and Louisiana. We would like to get a CC vote.
Jo> I’m assuming that AC has done its usual thorough job. My question is whether Ginny can be the floor manager and whether we need to wait before scheduling.
Nathalie > Voting page will come on line on Sunday.
Ben> Jo, I think it would be better if one of us was floor manager and Ginny was contact. I would be willing to be floor manager. I think we need consistency as to who people send votes to, etc.
Ginny> Let folks know that Louisiana is way overdue. Their 3 month window for accreditation was over in December. They should have precedence to go first if we need to choose.
Anita> Thanks Ginny, good recommendation. I support Jo’s recommendation that somebody else be floor manager. I hate floor managing. It’s good for us to mentor other people who may one day be on the SC.
Nathalie> I agree with Ben. Trying to get final results from people who were not SC has sometimes been a problem. People do get confused about where to send votes. With the voting page, it will be easier. I don’t mind managing the votes because it is an easy thing.
Anita> I don’t feel strongly one way or the other. Good to have a mechanism to have folks from the CC do this.
Jo> I think that co-chairs that bring proposal forward should be prepared to manage them.
Ben> For structural reasons, I think we need consistency. And this is one of our more central responsibilities. Ginny will be active on the listserve. I propose that we put Louisiana out for a 2 week discussion, 2 week vote. Indiana the next month.
Nathalie> Recently we have been doing 3 week discussion and one week vote.
Jo> Prefer 3 and 1.
Anita> No brainer. Almost a rubber stamp.
Jo> I agree that it is a no-brainer. 3 and 1 gives reps time to go back to their states. Should stick with it.
Dean> Plenty of precedent for doing more than one state at the same time.
Ginny> One state at a time prevents confusion in the discussion.
Ben> Test for consensus for 3 and 1 on Louisiana.
Nathalie> Friendly amendment: lot of votes recently; do both states at the same time.
Ben> Ginny suggested separate are you blocking?
Ginny> Update on Wyoming. Talked to Amy Moon and we are offering them the temporary inactive status until they can get back on their feet.
Gregg Jocoy> Merchandise Comm as it currently stands is an ad-hoc committee: Jack Uhrich, Jo Chamberlain, Dean Myerson, Tom Sevigny, Ben Manski, Alex Brideau, Jim Polk. Thus far, committee has not met because we want approval from SC for this ad-hoc committee. Fundamental goal is to have a line of products that the general public and Green Party members can purchase and use to raise money and raise level of general awareness. Procedures for identifying vendors that have products that meet our guidelines, and then distributes the products that they produce, but that others produce as well. For example, we have an offer from an artisan to produce peace signs. I’m asking the SC to approve me to head the committee for 3 months. By then, we hope to have identified a vendor, will then have a functioning system where people can provide ideas, it will then roll on its own.
Ben> Going to move the proposal. Any questions?
Anita> I have concerns about what we could do, though I support it 100%. I would like reports on a regular basis. I would like to know what the criteria is for selecting the vendor. Is that a reasonable request?
Gregg> Yes, that’s a reasonable request. I would have somebody on the committee take minutes, and would have that posted after every meeting. I will send Jack or Dean an update a day or two before your regular meetings.
Nathalie> I am quite overwhelmed with email. I would suggest a report just when things get nailed down.
Ben> Sounds like Anita and Nathalie are requesting opposite things. I think Gregg has done a good job of keeping us updated. A lot of the initial criteria are on there. I would lean towards more reporting.
Gregg> I will change my position this way, whatever the consensus is of the SC for frequency of reports, I will do.
Jack> Gregg, if you are up to it, perhaps you could come on these calls for a quick update.
Ben> I don’t think we should put Gregg on the spot on this. We need to decide this. That’s a different item. Proposal is a 3 months authorization for the committee. Test for consensus.
Jane Hunter> (PEC co-chair) Try to help you make up some time. Very quickly cover where we are. As you know from report to CC, we sent reports to 43 individuals, primarily named from state party questionnaires from last Fall. Have received at least preliminary responses from 13 of them, am in process of following up with others. Response varied. We have determined that it’s about time to publish the list of prospective candidates to the CC. I admit to personally not wanting to send out the list to the CC of people we haven’t talked to yet. Some people’s reactions are such that we may not want to associate their name with the Green Party. We will be discussing how to do that in our next call in a week and a half. Ongoing discussions about strategic criteria for evaluating people, leading into the development of quantitative assessment process.
Anita> I hate to be the first person on the stack every time. Some clarifications and some feedback about what I’d like to see. If you would publish the list of names and the list of positive responses,
Jane> There are some people who don’t want to be associated with the GP. They said they didn’t want to have anything to do with us. Certainly for people who are positive about us.
Anita> This information is not proprietary. None of us, [nor?] the Green Party owns it. If people don’t want to be associated with us, this is something we should know.
Jane> The committee decided to release the full list with the appropriate caveats. I’m usually the one for open process; I’m the one with hesitation this time.
Anita> I sent you a couple of things. First is elsewhere on the agenda. I just sent you something on leave time policy. It was to address snow days issue. Take a look and please give me feedback. Snow time policy allows people to borrow from their leave time if they have already taken it. This affects Letitia the most because she has kids, also has the possibility of extra days. The other piece that was changed is that I’m suggesting that we take out the ability to carry over leave time. Dean said it would be difficult to take his by his anniversary each year (end of Sept), and wants to do so at New Year’s time, but that is not the case with Letitia. Did put the option that it could be carried over with approval. I’d like to get this approved. Also sent out policy on contract work. Did anybody not have a chance to look at that?
Jo> I have responded with some notes.
Anita> Did see them, good comments. I haven’t had a chance to rewrite it yet to include them. The part we should we move on [is that] Jack needs to hire somebody for this fundraising position; so setting up the priority for hiring, it makes fundraising the priority. The other thing that occurred to me, after seeing Jake’s financial report, I get very nervous. Perhaps we would want to set some kind of monetary threshold for letting a committee bring somebody on.
Ben> Suggest that some of these things that need to be decided on can be decided at the retreat.
Jo> You bring up an excellent point as to cash flow as it pertains to new-hires. Maybe Jake and I can look at that next week and bring guidelines.
Jack> Plans were to contact the two people that are the most likely candidates, both are known as good activists, and set up interviews next weekend. I have been very clear with one as to the fluid nature of this. Will write to the other one. If its okay, I will set up the interviews, leaving the door open of the possibility that it may not start right away.
Ben> Any concerns?
Please schedule the interviews so they don’t conflict with the schedule.
Jack> Let me know when you will have your executive session that Dean and I don’t attend, I will schedule them then.
Anita> One last thing. I’m going to be bringing you one more thing on contract issue.
Nathalie> Most important thing is voting page is going online this Sunday.
Jo> Are you working towards a protocol for who has access to post to the website? For who can post and when?
Nathalie> We will work on it. Committee is starting very slowly.
Jo> Came up during the campaign, when people could update, with passwords.
Ben> I am also concerned. CCC set up a system for updating the elections webpage. Members of the committee have states assigned to them. Thing that concerns me is that information is made the property of the party. Should be clear that information and the program are the property of the party. Only CCC co-chairs have passwords for all states.
Dean> I had passwords for all states at election time. Not sure if I still do.
Jo> Basic software is owned by Kendra. Nathalie we need a contract with Kendra to determine where the line is.
Ben> I agree with Jo that it is very gray and that we need to clarify it. I would prefer that the party obtain a permanent license to the software. Maybe we agree not to sell it or let anybody else use it. We need to have a guarantee that we keep our copy of the software. This is very important. The vast majority of the data there is national. California (through Mike) took the lead in developing it. So I would appreciate any contribution from Calif, but the final product should belong to the national.
Nathalie> I agree with all of this. I will have a proposal for the retreat.
Ben> Has approved both a criteria for targeting campaigns and a timeline for approving matching funds for campaign staff. Will be reported online in the next week. People should be aware that there will be some turnover on the CCC since Juscha is moving to Wisc so I will be dropping off. RI (name?) committee member has never participated. We sent him a long distance calling card and sent him paper notes, to no avail.
Nathalie> So CCC will be sending a call about turnover and need to replace committee members?
Ben> All members are up for reelection at the meeting this summer.
Anita> Had a couple of conference calls. Attendance hasn’t been great, but enthusiasm has. I’ve been wanting this group to be big enough so they can take it and run with it. Greens have had a tremendous impact on peace movement and have not gotten credit for it. We want to coordinate a specifically Green effort. Where we stand is that you may all have seen the message calling for specifically Green activities, calling for a date and time. We have a conference call every other Thursday (when SC doesn’t meet). You’re all welcome to join, please spread the word. Ben suggested we try to coordinate an activity for Earth Day. We’re going to have to jump quickly so we can organize it and claim it.
Nathalie> Forgot to mention that on March 18, we are getting a report on a new conference call line.
Anita> Plugging along too. Hard to get this committee going. Joseph Mosley is the only remaining co-chair and has had a lot of health problems. I have been trying to be his administrative aid. I have been on the phone with him a lot [to] get the calls scheduled and [to] get the word out. Seems to be a consistent core group committed to doing the work. A lot of phone work because some of our folks have very inconsistent email access.
Three things on our agenda: setting ourselves up as a standing committee (was never set up as a standing committee): working on proposal for that, working on bylaws, [and] working on input and role on caucus procedure. We want to play a role in the identity caucus accreditation procedure, whether we do all of the accreditation process, or just a part of it. We are also in the process of rewriting our budget, reviewing the black caucus’s proposal on outreach to African-Americans.
Jo> I heard you mention the Black Caucus. We got a large proposal from Jason. What is that status?
Anita> It’s been slow. Has been some opposition. Finally that proposal was modified and put on our agenda, and we have a deadline on Wednesday as to whether to sponsor that proposal or modify it.
Jo> Appreciate the difficulty with this. This is a wonderful idea, but a long way from reality. Didn’t seem to be many locations on the west coast. Has that been addressed?
Anita> It hasn’t at this point. I’m not sure that we can do that right now. Whatever proposal is on the table, it has to be dependent on somebody being there to do it.
Ben> I think part of the reason for the delay is that the Black Caucus was not entirely on board, but people are more comfortable with it. [An]Other thing about Jo’s concern: same for upper Midwest. Lot of areas here that have a large black populations that were not on the lists. I see that farther down the road. Only concern with participation now. I was on a PEC call this week and there were only 4 or 5 regular members on a committee with 21 people. Sounds like Anita is acting as co-chair for peace committee. Same issue for media committee. SC needs to address this at our retreat.
Anita> Points very well taken. I would stress that the Diversity Comm must be strong. We are going to need to nurse it along. What we all can do to make it stronger.
BRPP (Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures) Committee
Ben> Greg Gerritt sent the SC a list of questions for response. I hope people will send theirs in.
Anita> I’ve been an observer on the BRPP. It is very crucial work to function well. I’m really worried about this committee. Looks like they are wandering far afield, working on different levels. On one level they are fine. On another, they are reinventing the wheel. For instance, they are writing a manual, orientation packet for CC members. Greg’s communication to us was in response to message from me. I said that was the job of the Communications Comm to do an orientation packet. Barb sent them the information on the conflict of interest. Problems with communications in the committee. Even the questionnaire is a little bit broad. Maybe they need help getting more focused.
Jo> Yes, time for a little more than “ookay, they’re doing great.” Should we ask Tom for a report? Will he be in DC next week?
Nathalie> I spoke with Annie; she mentioned to me that Tom was staying there.
Anita> I think we need some input. I’m wondering if you would like to see the communications. Some is going well. Did you all see the message from Greg Gerritt about fighting for the soul of the party?
Ben> Can somebody contact Tom and let him know that he needs to give us a report?
Anita> We should let BRPP co-chairs know.
Ben> Barb sent an email asking whether there needed to be SC approval for Joint Comm members. I spoke to Tyler a week ago, he had called about fundraising. She said she had people for the committee. SC members cannot individually appoint committee members.
Jake> Proposal went out Feb 24, 3rd draft. Ready to proceed if it meets with SC approval.
Ben> Do you have a timeline?
Jake> On all of these budget implementation issues, are we doing them in separate votes?
Jo> I think they should be separate. Very important to some people.
Anita> I don’t quite agree. I agree that most of these can be bundled with the exception of stipends. It will be the most contentious. The others are fairly bureaucratic. As long as we get the language down, it would be all right to bundle them.
Ben> Tend to think they should be separate. Might be easier otherwise. I do think they are separate items. Easier to address concerns if they are handled separately.
Anita> Still trying to bundle things. How about bundling travel and conflict of interest?
Jo> No COI proposal coming from me. I asked the CC. Barb took what I had, and sent it to BRPP.
Jake> Other question is whether to send out at separate times? Or are we doing them at the same time.
Anita> About COI, I don’t think it’s ready for a proposal. It was given to BRPP, and they said they didn’t think they were working on that. Other thing regarding stipends, it’s not ready yet because I want sponsorship from states, and they haven’t gotten back to me.
Nathalie> Suggest that we move travel and discretionary for a vote on Monday.
Jo> What Nathalie said. I would do discretionary and travel 3 and 1 on both separately going out Monday.
Ben> I hear a proposal. [Jo floor manager for travel and Jake for discretionary]
Anita> I didn’t get to review your more recent proposal.
Jo> Yes, I saw your friendly amendment and used it. Also took Carol Miller’s suggestion that lodging not need to be anywhere they don’t feel safe and comfortable. Also sent out a draft travel reimbursement form. Form needs to be on a website before it goes out for voting.
Anita> I would like input from committees proposing travel funds for the travel policy.
Jo> I could send that [on] Monday to the co-chairs, asking for approval within two weeks.
Nathalie> Suggest anybody who has a proposal to post, please send it to me by Sunday so I can get everything posted.
Ben> Sounds like Jake’s discretionary proposal goes out Monday.
Jo> Do we get link from you or Kevin?
Jake> Can you put something out to SC about how we are to work with this new system?
Nathalie> SC members will have username and password.
Ben> Testing for consensus. Jake will put discretionary for 3 and 1 on Monday
Nathalie> Very little feedback on this proposal. In the last week of discussion. Will send a reminder.
DCSGP HR 20
Anita> Apologize to all of you for how this went. It did pass. DC delegates apparently not taking the friendly amendment, want the money. Doesn’t mean that we couldn’t apply the criteria for funding.
Ben> I think that we should put it out for a vote again. We should suspend implementation of the proposal.
Dean> They are already spending some of the money, so you should let them know.
Anita> I don’t think that’s fair. People had a chance to change their vote. Jo pointed out that it was a money proposal. I knew it was a money proposal because I worked with them. I don’t think we can reopen this. Fact is that DCS folks need to clean up their own procedure, brought to me by a member of their SC.
Ben> I disagree. What’s the total amount? [$2300] The 48 hour voting period is not designed to handle this. I don’t want to embarrass Anita; that’s not my intention. I don’t think [it] was a real, deliberative discussion. It’s using a large amount of money for a purpose that I think some Greens would not agree with. This is the second time that we have a state operate in a way that is not [in] a consensus oriented way.
Jo> Sympathetic to both positions. There is something in the wording of the funding and the timing for spending it. Some money was already supposed to be spent and that can’t be spent separately. I agree with Ben that states are treating us like a bank.
Anita> I’m not embarrassed about this. I take no personal ownership. I do not feel it is my prerogative to tell a state what to do. I presented it to the SC, and you said yes. Then I presented it to the CC, and they said yes. We don’t have rules on what a 48-hour vote can be used for. Should ask DCSGP for a report on the spending of this money.
Ben> I’m proposing that we reschedule the vote this coming week. Are there any blocking concerns.
Jo> I think it’s a moot point. [Reads proposal] All the dates for spending listed have already passed. The only thing open-ended is the stipend.
Anita> I have a blocking concern.
Jo> Fiscal policy states that you have to have prior approval before spending any money. No exceptions.
Ben> Modify my proposal. Communicate to sponsors that there is still $1500 expensable, and that they need to talk to the treasurer to spend that money. Move to a vote.
Anita> no. [3-2 passes]
Jake> Anyone not see what I sent out?
Anita> I don’t know what’s going on.
Jake> Finance Comm formation consisting of 7 members: Doug, Mill Meyers (CA), Jeff Turner (HI), Marnie Glickman (OR), David Spitzley(?), Jo Chamberlain (CA), and Jake.
Anita> I asked to be on the committee as well.
Jake> I will need to put this out again with Anita.
Ben> I have a concern. Apologize if I missed this. Not a blocking concern, but what we are doing is not electing a committee; SC is putting names out. Later on, we need to have the election be by individual members, not a slate.
Jo> SC is automatically members of this committee.
Anita> No, it says any SC that wants to be on it.
Jake> Correct. On the last call, I was instructed to put out a call for delegate members. Some didn’t even respond till we started the vote.
Dean> Need a decision on the venue. Two proposals from hotels [are] pending, and they would like an answer. Anita has suggested a university, and we have to decide whether to pursue that.
Anita> I do think we need to look at a university to save money.
Jo> Dean expressed concerns regarding volunteer time required for a university event. My experience is that unless they have convention people on staff, this ends up being very time-consuming. At Santa Barbara, I worked 12 hours days, as did Lynne Serpe and John Strawn. I want us to be very careful. Maybe if the DC Greens had been interested, but their interests seem to lie elsewhere.
Ben> I am torn. I agree with some things Jo has said. The lack of focus on the ground in DC makes me nervous of doing [this] at a university. I don’t want to take any risks. I want us to have a good event. Those are my concerns. I don’t know if another week makes a difference. I might be able to decide — let’s make the decision tonight, or we could wait till the retreat.
Anita> In terms of the budget, it’s people’s pocket books I’m worried about. I think I’m the only one who has raised money to get other people to an event and then paid the price themselves. $23/night versus a hotel. I would much rather put our money to a venture like Howard or George Washington University. Secondly, I think that folks need to get used to working in committees. The CC needs to do this and it can’t just fall to us. It doesn’t have anything to do with the DC Greens. I’m sure that there is a wealth of things that we can come up with. That’s how we need to approach it.
Jack> Just a thought, if you can save that much money and board, why not tack on a surcharge to the registration to pay for staff to do some organizing.
Ben> I like that idea. I hear what Anita is saying about out-of-pocket expense. I’ve also raised money.
Dean> You can’t compare room prices because most universities will charge for everything you use. Such as meeting rooms, chairs, tables, etc. It takes a long time to figure out these costs. All this is included at the hotels.
Ben> It varies for different universities. We need to get numbers and set a deadline of the retreat. There are many time-consuming events.
Jake> Deadline at the Spring retreat. Way over time.
Ben> Test for consensus. Proposal for Anita to get numbers from different campuses for the retreat.
Ben> As folks know, [the] Illinois proposal was withdrawn. Up/down vote put out for Minneapolis, then they called to say that Minneapolis Greens weren’t on board. They requested an extension to late March. Having a meeting on March 24 to make sure that the local is on board. I have concerns about the tone of what is going on in Minnesota. There is internal turmoil there, both reps resigned. That concerns me. In talking to the two delegates, I get sense that they want some ownership of the event. We need to oversee the event and have control. Other thing is that there is some paranoia about whether a promise had been made to hire particular people.
Dean> Need to look at how we recruit states to host events. They have grown so much that states are intimidated to host it. We need to design a partnership with states. We should make it so that smaller or weaker states are willing to host annual meetings as organizing opportunities. Now they just feel too intimidated to try.
Jake> Question is at this point, do we consider the $671 joint fundraising [should be?] paid or not paid?
Jo> What do you recommend?
Jake> I want to keep them happy and send them the money, after discretionary policy approved.
Anita> Good way of thinking about this. We should let Maine know that we are considering this. We need to review our budget. There are a couple of things missing, do a budget revision.
Ben> Proposal that we inform Maine Green Party that once there is a discretionary funds policy approved, SC will pay that.
Anita> Discretionary funds sounds presumptuous. We should say that we agree with their position and are reexamining the budget.
Jo> We should say we accept the position, not agree with it.
Jake> Restate proposal: we are reconsidering our position on the $671, and we will be in touch with them real soon about settling accounts.
Ben> There were no explosions, lots of negotiations. A good meeting. The main product is that there was a subcommittee formed with Dean and I as advisors. They are planning on working on bylaws proposals for creating an officeholder network with a draft. Overall, there were over 50 people in attendance, the majority of whom were officeholders.
Dean> Sense that officeholders really want to connect with the party, but not really sure how. We should make sure that the proposal is making progress.
Ben> I think it will move forward. We did talk a lot about getting help from officeholders.
Nathalie> Exact nature or form of subcommittee was derived from the work that needs to be done. Wouldn’t fret too much about the exact structure. Has there been an outline of where we can support each other?
Ben> There was a fair degree of discussion, but not necessarily agreement. Concern that the structure might have developed outside of the party.
Dean> Need to discuss at some point the next officeholder conference hosted by the national.
Jo> no report
Dean> Rental agent will help us to both find a place, as well as find a sublet.
Jake> Find anything out about getting out of the lease?
Dean> Not yet.
Anita> We should get out of the lease. Many things wrong with the place.
Ben> I agree. Not a habitable place.
Dean> We did see the place ahead of time. Ben and I can talk about whether we can get out of the lease.
SC Spring Retreat
Ben> Asked whether anybody had taken on the agenda, so I’m going to take it on unless somebody else wants to.
Jake> I would like to revisit what we discussed last time.
Anita> Agree with Jake.
[discussion of agenda items] Dean> Let Letitia know when you want her there.
Anita> Maybe we could meet with somebody from United for Peace and Justice.
Jack> Jesse Jackson’s aide?
Ben> Not sure if we should meet Joe Leonard. Nothing to talk about. See if Medea will be in town.
Dean> Housing situation. Not enough volunteer housing space so Jake had suggested I check into group hotel situation, where we might get a free meeting room. I need direction.
Jo> I think things go better when we don’t involve automobiles. We should consider having Dean get us a nice meeting room. I’m willing to share a room. Then we don’t have to do a lot of traveling.
Jake> Agree with Jo.
Jack> Dean could ask the two hotels their rate because we want to check out their facilities.
Anita> More productive in a hotel.
Ben> Badili also had a bad time last time. People want Dean to get a deal from a hotel we are looking at.
Dean> Take best rate from hotels we are bidding on?
Jake> Metro accessible. No dump, but not the Ritz needed.
Anita> Badili might need his own room. I would like my own room as well.
Nathalie> Probably stay with Annie. No room for me. Tom is staying there as well.
Ben> Anybody who either doesn’t want a room, or doesn’t want a double occupancy should let Dean know.
Dean> Nathalie could stay with Annie for first night and then stay at the hotel later.
Ben> Jake and Ben share, Nathalie and Jo share. Anita and Badili get their own room.
Minimally edited and HTML formatted by Charlie Green