October 25, 2009

GPUS SC Conference Call
Sunday, October 25, 2009
8:00 ET

To listen:
Dial: (641) 715-3470
Access Code: 332690 #

I. Staff Reports
II. FPVA Delegation
III. Treasurer’s Report; Financial Matters
V. Voting Queue
VI. Forum Managers
VII. SC Call Facilitators Proposal
VIII. SC face-2-face meeting
IX. Portfolios
X. Proposals on email list; memo to NC on legal information
Results of Online Vote on SC approval of memo on “findings” for GPoNYS proposal on SC elections
SC Call Facilitators Proposal (text)

Co-chairs: Jill Bussiere, Farheen Hakeem, Jason Nabewaniec, Craig
Thorsen, David Strand, Mike Feinstein
Secretary: Holly Hart
Treasurer: Jody Grage
Staff: Tamar Yager, Brent McMillan
Guest: Justine “McCabe” McCabe, International Committee co-chair
Observer: Julia Aires (FLA)

Sanda Everrett is in Chile at the FPVA conference and not able to be on the call. She made an attempt to call in, but the call wouldn’t go through.

Facilitator: Craig

EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:10 – 8:33 p.m. ET
Personnel: contractor job description

All parties have signed off on the form for the ACLU lawsuit regarding petitioning at public events, filed by GPUS, Wisconsin GP, Iowa GP.

Massachusetts GRP is working on an IRV campaign, working to get it on the ballot. Brent is working on helping them get a large donation.
In the process, Brent got a $5000 donation from a large donor in MA.

Brent recommended to the SC that our contract with our accountant be revised and opened up for public advertising. Currently, the contract is for $900/mo. Brent would like to have an hourly rate with reports and attendance at staff meetings; FEC reporting with our accountant. Brent, Jody, Mike and Farheen will continue work on this. Item was interrupted – see ^^ below.

DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO “RE-AGENDIZE” AGENDA TO ADD Green Party federation of the Americas/Federacion Partidos Verdes Americas (FPVA) ITEM directly after staff reports; and the contractor job description for accountant to be discussed and decided after executive Director report.
VOTE on whether to change the agenda to have accountant contract vote follow executive director report, and to re-insert FPVA delegation to come after staff reports.

Craig – No
Mike – Yes
Jill – Yes
Jason – Yes
David – Yes
Farheen – not responding (had to briefly leave the call, due to
campaign work)
Jody – Yes
Holly – Yes
APPROVED, to change the order of agenda items

^^Jody asked for a vote on an updated job description for accountant staff contract (see above); Brent, Farheen, Mike & Jody would work on description to send to SC for approval. AGREED, by consensus

Question on whether GPUS will sign on to effort for two Constitutional amendments (see Brent’s forwarded message from Arizona). – This was not taken up.

Tamar sent out 3 reports on direct mail, Empower telefundraising and online fundraising. 10/15 fundraising appeal brought in 6 donations, 4 sustainers. Recent health care action alert was a hit: only one donation, but OVER 1300 LETTERS SENT TO LEGISLATORS. GreenLine and GreenPages will becoming out with e-blasts. 11/11 fundraising appeal by Claudia Ellquist is planned. Fundraising Committee is meeting via conference call.

Need for IT to look into CivicCRM reporting issue. Things are very slow, we are still not getting reports we need. Mike complained that the IT group didn’t yet have an email list, we should just send requests for info to the group (of a half dozen people). Holly recommended that, if we have no one in our midst who has the ability to deal with this, we consider looking for a professional consultant, even if it means shelling out some money.


II.QUESTION ON FEDERATIONS OF GREEN PARTIES OF THE AMERICAS (FPVA) delegation. Sanda Everrett has asked to be made delegate, since she is in Santiago, Chile, where he federation is meeting. She was able to get discounted tickets to go.

Some concerns have been raised on the International Committee about the process. Holly noted that a couple messages had been forwarded from International Committee members on the question of granting Sanda delegate status for this meeting (one in favor, the other opposed). The SC technically has the privilege to appoint delegates, but on a recent conference call, decided to approve individuals chosen by the IC. Some have suggested Sanda should attend as an observer. Sanda has said she would vote the same as Michael Canney (he and Julia Willebrand are the two GPUS delegates to the FPVA) on anything.

Craig made a motion to approve Sanda as delegate. After some discussion, Jason asked why Craig was not calling on Justine McCabe, IC co-chair, who is on the call.

Justine noted her comments sent to the SC. She said the IC feels undercut by Sanda’s gong to Chile at the last minute and then asking to be a delegate. Some feel she has avoided being vetted by her own peers, but because she has the means to go to Chile, she can be the delegate. There had been a process to choose delegates. Another individual, a new member, had wanted to be a nominee and said she could find the money to go; however, members agreed it should be the person’s expertise that determines whether they should be a representative. The IC and then the SC confirmed Julia Willebrand and Michael Canney. The IC was able to raise money for only one person to attend. Julia had deferred to Michael, as he speaks Spanish fluently, and she will be stepping down after this meeting while he will be continuing in the delegate role. Sanda had asked for a week to discuss the process. That was granted, but Sanda didn’t weigh in further.

Mike said Justine’s statement doesn’t represent the IC, only a few have weighed in. He supports Sanda as delegate [technically, alternate] as she has been elected by the GNC as a party co-chair, and she is aware of IC discussion on issues, etc. He said he had asked that we wait to approve delegates until we see how much money we raised, and we didn’t [wait].

Craig stated that presumed IC co-chair McCabe has made her sour grapes known in her note to the SC, characterized Sanda and her actions in a bad light, and that McCabe’s ability to serve in any position in the GPUS should be questioned. He also complained that Holly forwarded her [McCabe’s] message to the SC without identifying the post it came from [NOTE – I first forwarded a message from Michael Canney; then a message from Justine McCabe which was her response to that thread, and which included Michael Canney’s message. Both messages were forwarded to the SC by request. – hh]

David said he feels that Justine’s remarks did not put Sanda in a bad light. He feels that, given that not enough money was raised for Julia to go and Sanda had vouchers [actually, discounted tickets], it would be ok for her to be delegate for this meeting.

Farheen stated that others on the IC feel as Justine does. She believes the SC should not be meddling with the IC’s business and tell them what’s best for them. People of color in the group have been concerned – Why is the SC not as intensely involved in other committees’ business? She feels Sanda would be a responsible person, but the SC should not be telling the IC what to do.

Jody reminded the callers that the SC had voted on a recent call to take the recommendations of the IC in approving delegates.

Mike complained about the process.

Jill pointed out that Sanda had wanted a “healing relationship with the IC,” and that asking the SC to make this decision would not help. She does not think Sanda should be approved, not because of the person but because of the issue.

Farheen noted that complaining that the 14 people who weighed in aren’t representing the IC is not honoring them. She doesn’t feel comfortable confronting a minority within a minority; at the end of the day, we need to think, Who will be most affected by this?

David noted that there had been privileges that allowed Sanda to go. He stated we should [all] have been doing more fundraising to allow delegates to go. He stated that he was changing his position on the question.

Mike stated that a young woman of color on the committee has stopped posting because of her intimidation from people posting different views. He said he doesn’t feel Farheen can draw a “person of color” conclusion.Farheen said there was no “young” woman of color on the committee.

Holly stated if things had unfolded differently, she would have leaned toward approving Sanda. She has seen Sanda try to be fair and thoughtful in difficult circumstances, and believes she would be able to carry out that function well.

VOTE to approve Sanda Everrett as alternate delegate for the FPVA meeting in Santiago, Chile. She will serve as alternate delegate for this meeting, only.

Craig – Yes
Jill – No
Mike – Yes
Jody – No
David – No
Jason – No
Holly – No
Farheen – No
Sanda (included long distance) – Yes
Sanda is not approved as FPVA delegate. She is attending in her capacity as an observer and GPUS co-chair.


There may be a need to determine sequence of bill payments. Jody sent a financial report with recommendations for payments.

a. Recommendations from FinCom:
Approve MerchCom button order for $600

b. Recommendations from Treasurer:
Hold funds until Friday 30 October.
Tier I: If under $10.6k available:
Delay paying vendors for August or accept staff offer to delay end of month check
Tier II: If $10.6k available:
Pay $8.0 staff/contractors end of month, $1.1k vendors for August, $1.5k rent
Tier III: If over $10.6k available, pay in this order:
$1.4k Empower Telefundraising through 1st wk of August
$1.1k vendors for September
$1.3k Empower Telefundraising through 14 August

SC APPROVED MerchCom’s request.
SC AGREED, by consensus, on prioritization of order of bill payments.


(message re-sent to the SC)

Holly will send this in proposal form to SC. If there are no outstanding concerns by Friday, it will go to the voting queue on Monday.

NOTE: Proposal format will be updated on delegate page and in the
delegate manual.

a. Brief review of voting queue proposals in progress. Apportionment Standing Committee formula and approval of Kai Schwandes for FinCom are entering the voting phase.

b. Platcom has submitted 4 short proposals to consider.
Jason noted that the background of one proposal said it was only predicated on passing of other proposal;. He recommended asking them to coordinate with the sponsors the first proposal or hold off until that proposal has passed. Jason also pointed out that the language is unclear, sounds like GNC could amend platform at any time.

MIke suggested the SC approve proposals, contingent on their being re-submitted in the new format.

Jill noted that the proposals were to go forward together, so delegates should see how things are to fit together.

AGREED – all to go to voting queue, contingent on re-submission in proper format. The WI (first mentioned, above) proposal will have two 2 weeks discussion; 1 week vote. If WI proposal passes, the rest will be sent to the voting queue. Will ask WI for clarification to their proposal.If they re-submit with clarification, we will follow the above process; if not, SC will decide online what to do.

In the meantime, Platcom will be asked to forward the rest of their proposals to the GNC list, so the GNC can see how the whole design fits together.

c. Mike – SC agenda setting (see proposal forwarded by Mike).

Holly asked if GPCA would be willing to review SC comments, which would make their proposal workable; as it’s written, it’s not really possible to carry out. Holly noted that many have advocated for proposals to be sent to the NC list at the time they are submitted, with Mike being in favor, yet this proposal had yet not been sent. Mike stated it came in in time in a proper format, and that state parties have the right to write rules for other committees.

Jill asked that, since GPCA expressed a desire to hear from the SC, if they’d be willing to hold off for a week. Mike stated that GPCA, at an in-person meeting, specifically chose this timing rather than delaying. They would take amendments during the week before it goes into the voting queue.

Jason stated that at the Durham meeting, the GNC was very clear they wanted GPUs to focus on things that make us relevant to the outside world, not internal naval-gazing. He is not inclined to support rules that are a waste of everyone’s time on this overly-long proposal – the background [alone] is huge. He is not inclined to move forward.

Jody stated that the committee most affected should be sponsor of rules to re-organize itself. Mike responded that, according to #393, committees may sponsor proposals only in accordance with their mission statements.

Mike stated that we are supposed to treat every proposal the same. if the SC doesn’t go forward with this, they will be subject to a #266 procedural objection, coming right before the budget discussion and vote. Since the proposal concerns the SC, it will appear that the SC has a conflict of interest.

Holly noted that we are supposed to treat proposals the same, and we have just altered the usual procedure to address questions with the 3 Platcom proposals for the sake of a clear process. One task of the SC is to request clarity, and there are things in this proposal that are not clear and some things not workable; both are things the SC should address.

Jill noted that there is a matter of perception. Does GPCA want to give the impression of being a state party that feels they can write committees’ rules?

Mike stated that proposal is clear; said that Holly is trying to break the rules, because she wants to continue doing things the way we have always done.

Jason stated that the background is rambling, voluminous; blabbering; the proposal is way too long for what it needs to say.

Holly stated that this is not a matter of changing “how we do things,” but of not being feasible; in fact, she agrees with the intent and most of the proposal. Proposed to write up response of findings within 48 hours and get back to GPCA.

Mike stated findings must be approved at this meeting, and get 5 votes.

Craig maintained that the findings had to be in writing. It was pointed out that that is not really possible to do right on the call, had not been required previously, nor is it part of the rules.

Holly noted that with the recent proposal from New York (to re-do the SC election), several days were allotted for Mike to write up his “findings,” and then send them back to New York. Could that not also have been seen as a conflict of interest on the SC’s part? Mike replied that the NY proposal hadn’t come in by the deadline, so the SC was under no obligation to respond right away.

Mike insisted several times that we must have agreed-upon “findings,” and that the SC must have specific draft language ready to go on the call.

Holly stated that one issue was the time frame included, which was not going to work based on some types of items the SC routinely deals with, and the times at which input comes in. Mike stated this was not a “finding” but a request for an amendment. Holly stated that the SC is supposed to address issues of clarity and whether something is possible to carry out, and is responsible to do this now.

David noted that some issues are internalities involving committee work, not externalities of interest to people not on the committee. This proposal seems to have a mixture.

Craig stated the SC can only send this back if we have findings, to which we must agree on on this call.

Holly again stated that some of the timelines were not workable, and some of the language and length were not clear, both reasons for findings to send back to GPCA. Mike stated these are only opinions, not findings.

Jody stated that the SC is also charged with functionality. She is willing to work with Holly on writing up a message on findings.

Farheen asked (for the second time) that we go to a vote, it’s getting late.

Mike stated that he couldn’t believe that we aren’t playing by the rules, complained about territoriality; he said, We are asking for amendments, we don’t have “findings.”

David pointed out that we are not paid officials. There are certain things we need to carry out our functions, and we may need to have some control of these. We may need flexibility on internal process. the SC may have the responsibility to respond to things that come up at certain times.

Jill asked why isn’t GPCA sending a proposal working within the SC to work together? It seems like GPCA has decided what should be, the SC can amend it somewhat (compromise), that GPCA thinks it knows what other committees should be doing and can put forward proposal that others will have to live with?

Mike stated he finds it disturbing that because “we” think that people will feel some way or another that the NC rules that define basis of acceptable behaviour should be followed. We felt draft was good enough to put on the table timing was necessary. We feel agenda-setting is not working. The NC suffers, as a result. Considering the SC is busy, it would be better not to wait for the SC to work on a proposal. He thought people on the coasts were “aggressive,” not Midwesterners. Someone (probably a Midwesterner) objected.

Jill said, I hear you about the action; it would have been cool if GPCA had brought up the proposal they were considering before they pushed it through. It does feel aggressive. GPCA might think about this before submitting.

Craig stated that the SC’s handling of a proposal could not be based on the merits of a proposal, and that we were doing so; that Holly disagrees with the content, because she doesn’t want to comply with it.

Holly stated again that her concerns had nothing to do with the merits of the proposal, which she actually agrees with, and already carries most of it out. The fact that the logistics are not possible to carry out constitutes “findings,” and such logistical problems are part of the SC’s responsibility to address.

Jody noted that she has been asked to keep SC apprised of financial matters; often these are last-minute items. These do not mesh with what’s written in the proposal, and she would like to make this part of the findings, as well. Financial reports involve information that arrives at the very end of the week or during a weekend.

Mike stated that, at this point, the probable solution was for some to get off the call and deny quorum, in which case the proposal would pass by default. Farheen disagreed with that interpretation.

It was agreed to move to other agenda items, then return to this proposal after addressing other things that need to be taken up.

[NOTE: This item was resumed a shortly before Midnight ET. Uncertain whether there was a clear outcome, as all but four SC members had left the call, and one more left during this item. Farheen offered to help work on “findings” memo, Holly agreed to send notes to her and Jody. – hh] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

VI. FORUM MANAGER update – Holly
One of the FM’s would like to step down. We need to find a
replacement, and still need to fill the alternate slot. Holly has sent
inquiries to a list provided by FM Deanna Taylor. So far, there have been no positive responses. Holly asked SC members to suggest individuals they feel might be good in this role.


VII. SC Call Facilitators – see proposal from Holly, included @@@ below.

Mike – wanted to add decision on type of facilitation guidelines in place, first. He would like to have this by the end of the year.


VIII. SC Face-2-Face in Minneapolis in November – Jody, Mike and David
Mike says he has worked with David to draw up an agenda. He sent out some logistics. David has looked into getting a nice and convenient meeting space.

Jody has reservations as to whether we will have enough time to make it reasonable to spend the time getting there and back. Discussion of various suggestions for meeting venues and schedules. Jody asked that we make an effort to work on the budget. She asked that we be clear that we will be discussing ideas and possibilities, for further SC discussion and decisions.

IX. PORTFOLIOS – as needed (usually about 10 minutes) (100:00 – 10:10 p.m.). Not taken up.


X. 2 Proposals from Mike
1) Proposal/Decision-Making Item: Establish Email List for State Party
Co-Chairs with Mission Statement
Jody – there is a need for a wider list for state leadership, including treasurers; this is very narrow. She would like to facilitate communication among the states. Is this a two-way list, to ask questions? Mike – yes, can include officers, questions can be posed, but its’ not intended to be so broad for more interaction.

Holly – agrees with the proposal, but would like to hear staff input, what type of communication vehicle they want. Mike said Brent had asked for this. He asked that we vote on the concept, that there be a goal of it becoming operational December 1. SC will approve once we get feedbacK from staff.

Holly recommended that we get input first, since this is something mainly needed and requested by staff, then move forward with what the staff requests. Mike wanted the proposal approved first, then tweaked per staff wishes. Craig said that Holly was calling Mike a liar. Holly and Farheen objected.
VOTE on the concept of having a email list or some communications vehicle, as described above in Mike’s proposal, for communication between the state party and GPUS.

Holly – No
Craig – Yes
Mike – Yes
Jill – no longer participating in call
Jason – no response (he had also left the call)
Farheen – No
Jody – Abstain
David – Abstain
Proposal doesn’t pass. Will continue to follow up. Mike said if this is to go forward, some one else will have to take it up. Holly volunteered to call staff this coming week for input and move forward with this.

2) Proposal/Decision-Making Item: Approve Letter to GPUS Committee
Co-chairs regarding committee actions and GPUS legal exposure. Mike asked that this be deferred, to have time to get a draft finalized.


On the previous call, the SC was asked to review for the voting queue a proposal by GPoNYS. The SC granted online approval of the draft message regarding the following findings in response to GPNY proposal submitted on 10/08/09:


YES: Jill Bussiere, Sanda Everette, Mike Feinstein, David Strand, Craig

NO: Jody Grage, Holly Hart, Jason Nabewaniec

NOT VOTING: Farheen Hakeem

PROPOSALS for selecting SC conference call facilitators

The SC has had an ongoing interest in seeking individuals outside the
committee to serve as facilitators for SC conference calls. Individuals
who have been suggested are:

George Martin
Charlie Pillsbury
Alison Duncan
Wayne Turner
Chris Fink
Ruth Weill
Greg Gerritt
Ron Hardy
Jim Lendall
Josh Ruebner
Frank Young
Claire Ryder
Thomas Kelley
Joni LeViness
Ron Hardy
Bruce Hinkforth
Sarah Echo Steiner

Others suggested include:
Marc Sanson
Duncan Autrey
Rebecca White
Barbara Rodgers-Hendricks
Michael Canney
Budd Dickinson
Lynne Serpe
Pat LaMarche
Mark Jacobs
Dee Berry

1) It is proposed that the SC vote to approve the above individuals now.

2) SC members may submit at any time names of other individuals they feel would serve well in this capacity.

The SC shall vote on whether to approve each such individual.

Facilitators must be approved by at least 7 SC members

If approved, the SC shall delegate a member to contact each such individual to determine their willingness and availability. The SC shall also delegate one or more members to contact potential facilitators prior to each call or set up a schedule of rotating facilitators.
NEXT CALLS: sometime during the weekend of November 7-8, 2009

Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS