From marnie at greenchange.com  Thu Feb 26 10:02:35 2009
From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:02:35 -0800
Subject: [Marin-d] GPCA - Bylaws change to allow GPCA on-line voting and
	electing the CC at-large
References: <49A0694E.50705@feinstein.org>
Message-ID: <6058CFF9-1B3C-4074-96C8-7550F8DEA679@greenchange.org>

Hi folks,

LA County Greens are trying to make it easier for us to vote for our  
GPCA officials.  See a description of the change below.

There are GPCA people who do not want to include discussion of this  
change on the agenda of the GPCA general assembly in May.  LA County  
Greens have asked for our help.

I propose that we conduct an online vote.

PROPOSAL:  Does the Marin Green Party County Council support inclusion  
of the proposed bylaws change regarding online voting on the agenda of  
the GPCA general assembly in May?

Please post your votes to this list by 3/5.

Peace,
Marnie

P.S.  Marin-D list is for our county council business and discussion.   
Marin-annc list is for Marin GP announcements only.



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
> Date: February 21, 2009 12:51:26 PM PST
> To: prisonpedagogy <prisonpedagogy at comcast.net>, Marnie Glickman <marnie at greens.org 
> >, Susan King <funking at greens.org>
> Subject: [Fwd: [bylaws] PROPOSAL: Bylaws change to allow GPCA on- 
> line voting and electing the CC at-large, on-line]
> Reply-To: mfeinstein at feinstein.org
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [bylaws] PROPOSAL: Bylaws change to allow GPCA on-line  
> voting and electing the CC at-large, on-line
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:33:01 -0800
> From: Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
> Reply-To: mfeinstein at feinstein.org, GPCA Bylaws Committee <bylaws at cagreens.org 
> >
> To: GPCA Bylaws Committee <bylaws at cagreens.org>
>
> Dear GPCA Bylaws Committee
>
> After discussing recommending a potential bylaws change at two of its
> previous in-person meetings, the GPLAC County Council is now in the
> discussion phase of an on-line vote, to approve a proposal to  
> recommend
> a GPCA bylaw amendment for consideration at the May 2009 GPCA General
> Assembly. The primary aspects of that proposal would be to allow some
> on-line voting in between General Assemblies and to elect the entire
> Coordinating Committee at-large and on-line.
>
> The GPLAC vote will conclude on March 3rd and if approved, will be
> forwarded to the Bylaws Committee and Agenda Committee for inclusion  
> in
> the agenda packet for May.
>
> As part of that process, the proposal seeks ongoing input on the
> proposal from across the GPCA, in order to continue to improve it  
> before
> it reaches the General Assembly for a decision. For that reason, this
> draft is being sent to you at this time. The proposal will also  
> include
> establishing an ongoing sub-committee that will be assigned to track  
> and
> analyze the performance of the on-line voting and make recommendations
> to the General Assembly on how to improve it.
>
> As for why both major changes are recommended to be considered as part
> of one overall bylaws amemdent - the reason for this is that on-line
> decision-making is contingent upon the Coordinating Committee's
> effectiveness in doing its administrative tasks in coordinating agenda
> items and votes. Adding on-line voting without addressing the  
> structural
> problems that have plagued the Coordinating Committee for several  
> years
> simply will not work.
>
> Finally, please note that a transition plan from the current
> Coordinating Committee to the new one is under development and would  
> be
> added to this proposal at a later date.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A) To understand this proposal, please this .pdf document that  
> explains
> the primary proposed changes and the 'Ten Reasons to Approve These
> Bylaws Changes' (the text of this .pdf will also be posted in a follow
> up to this email):
>
> http://www.cagreens.org/lacounty/2009-02/gpca_bylaw_change_explain.pdf
>
> Primary Changes
>
> 1) Establishes on-line decision-making in between General Assemblies.
>
> 2) Elections for GPCA officers and representatives are elected on- 
> line.
>
> 3) Entire Coordinating Committee is elected at-large with mandatory
> gender and geographical balance. Twelve seats are elected from the
> northern half of the state, twelve seats from the southern half;  
> twelve
> seats are men, and twelve seats are women.
>
> 4) The GPCA Decision-Making threshold is given a two-year test  
> period at
> 2/3 instead of 4/5, with a vote to revisit this at the end of test  
> period.
>
> Ten Reasons to Approve These Bylaws Changes
>
> 1) Allows GPCA to make decisions in between In Person General Assembly
> Meetings
>
> 2) Provides for Much Greater Proportional Representation on the
> Coordinating Committee
>
> 3) Eliminates disputes over Coordinating Committee elections, enabling
> the Coordinating Committee to do its job and removing basis for  
> internal
> conflicts
>
> 4) Ensures Gender Balance
>
> 5) Ensures Geographic Diversity
>
> 6) Provides clear beginning and ending times for Coordinating  
> Committee
> terms, removing basis for internal conflicts
>
> 7) Ensures staggered terms for Coordinating Committee members that
> correspond to internal party timelines
>
> 8) Establishes a clear process for Removal for Cause of Coordinating
> Committee members, removing basis for internal conflicts
>
> 9) Ensures a consistent electoral system for all elections
>
> 10) Ensures that Party Officers and Representatives are elected by all
> active counties, rather than only by those who are able to attend a
> particular meeting, promoting internal democracy and equity
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To see the actual text proposed, see this .pdf for how the GPCA Bylaws
> would appear if the proposal was approved:
>
> http://www.cagreens.org/lacounty/2009-02/gpca_bylaw_change.pdf
>
> and this .pdf to see the changes wiht 'strikeout text' from the  
> existing
> bylaws
>
> http://www.cagreens.org/lacounty/2009-02/gpca_bylaw_changes.pdf
>
> Finally, please note that from a housekeeping perspective, in order to
> insert these rules changes, there was no easy way to just place them
> into the existing bylaws. That necessitated some reordering to start  
> with.
>
> Then in addition, the effectiveness of these changes rests upon the
> integrity of how clearly the voting membership and the manner in which
> proposals are processed is defined.  As a result, sections relating to
> GPCA membership, county councils and agedas were amended and reordered
> for clarity.
>
> In addition, some of the Coordinating Committee?s duties that are
> already in the bylaws, but not in the Coordinating Committee?s bylaw
> section, were added to it for completeness.
>
> Finally, consistency in use of terms was added as part of these edits,
> as the present bylaws varies widely in how the same thing is  
> described.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws mailing list
> bylaws at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws
>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Marnie Glickman
Executive Director
Green Change

www.greenchange.org
503.313.7919 w
707.313.7919 f
skype: marnieglickman

My Green Change page:
http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie

Green Change is a community of people with Green values:  justice,  
grassroots democracy, sustainability and non-violence.  We work  
together to share Green art, politics and culture.















-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/marin-d_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20090226/48a4f05c/attachment.html>

From marnie at greenchange.com  Thu Feb 26 10:03:00 2009
From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:03:00 -0800
Subject: [Marin-d] more on GPCA bylaw proposal
References: <49A0696F.5010800@feinstein.org>
Message-ID: <7C6702CD-38E3-406C-8B3F-ED019B64AEA6@greenchange.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
> Date: February 21, 2009 12:51:59 PM PST
> To: prisonpedagogy <prisonpedagogy at comcast.net>, Marnie Glickman <marnie at greenchange.com 
> >, Susan King <funking at greens.org>
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [bylaws] PROPOSAL: Bylaws change to allow GPCA on- 
> line voting and electing the CC at-large, on-line]
> Reply-To: mfeinstein at feinstein.org
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [bylaws] PROPOSAL: Bylaws change to allow GPCA on-line  
> voting and electing the CC at-large, on-line
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:35:27 -0800
> From: Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
> Reply-To: mfeinstein at feinstein.org, GPCA Bylaws Committee <bylaws at cagreens.org 
> >
> To: GPCA Bylaws Committee <bylaws at cagreens.org>
> References: <49A064FD.6090303 at feinstein.org>
>
> Explanation of primary, secondary and housekeeping proposed changes  
> and
> the 'Ten Reasons to Approve These Bylaws Changes'
>
> http://www.cagreens.org/lacounty/2009-02/gpca_bylaw_change_explain.pdf
>
> Primary Changes
>
> 1) Establishes on-line decision-making in between General Assemblies,
> utilizing a web-based, password protected voting page like that used  
> for
> the same purpose by the GPUS.
>
> Process is designed so that voting occurs on a clear schedule where
> any/all proposals under consideration are on the same discussion/ 
> voting
> timeline, to minimize confusion. Proposals have five-week discussion
> periods and one week for voting. There will be a limit of four  
> proposals
> to be dealt with at any one time, and proposals shall be dealt with no
> more frequently than once every two months. Process also includes  
> three
> different models by which counties can choose to cast their votes, so
> that there is no dispute over whether a county uses an acceptable  
> model.
>
> 2) Elections for GPCA officers and representatives are elected on- 
> line.
>
> To increase participation and to provide a clear and undisputed  
> process
> for all seats, elections for Coordinating Committee, GPUS Delegation,
> Treasurer and Liaison to the Secretary of State are all conducted
> on-line and they are elected by votes from the elected County Council
> members in each county.
>
> To make this process transparent, as part of the Strategic Plan  
> already
> mandated in the bylaws, the Coordinating Committee shall prepare and
> distribute to the active county organizations a schedule of all
> scheduled elections for Coordinating Committee, GPUS Delegation,
> Treasurer and Liaison to the Secretary of State in the ensuing year.
>
> 3) Entire Coordinating Committee is elected at-large with mandatory
> gender and geographical balance. Twelve seats are elected from the
> northern half of the state, twelve seats from the southern half;  
> twelve
> seats are men, and twelve seats are women.
>
> 4) GPCA Decision-Making threshold is given a two-year test period at  
> 2/3
> instead of 4/5, with a vote to revisit this at the end of test period.
> This is done for two reasons. One is that this is the first time the
> GPCA will try to make on-line decisions and imposing 80% upon an on- 
> line
> process might be extremely onerous.  Second, if it makes sense to at
> least try 2/3 in the on-line process, we don?t want different
> decision-making thresholds depending upon whether a decision is made
> in-person or on-line. Hence a trial period to see how 2/3 works for  
> the
> GPCA. As part of this proposal, there will also be a committee  
> assigned
> to track and analyze the performance of the on-line voting and make
> recommendations to the General Assembly on how to improve it.
>
> Secondary Changes
>
> 4) A new Removal for Cause Petition process was created to  
> correspond to
> the fact that the Coordinating Committee would be elected in a new
> manner and this replaces the existing removal/recall section of the
> bylaws, which some Greens found to be a source for disputes.
>
> 5) Lowers the attendance quorum of the Coordinating Committee to a
> majority, while increasing the size of the body to 24
>
> Having a 2/3-attendance quorum for the Coordinating Committee has made
> it difficult to reach quorum on many occasions, delaying or preventing
> business from getting done if/until quorum is reached. By lowering the
> quorum to a majority, this problem is reduced, but by doing it
> simultaneously with increasing the size of the Coordinating Committee
> and other changes, it increases the likelihood that there will be  
> enough
> members in attendance to provide a wide-enough basis for decision  
> making
> and enough members to take on work tasks as needed.
>
> 6) A standardized process across the state was created for Removal for
> Cause for County Councilmembers. The existing bylaws have a single
> sentence. That says any member of the county council may be removed if
> they ?Violate the bylaws of the state plenary or county?. However,  
> there
> is no process described here on how to do this. This potential
> arbitrariness is especially egregious since County Council elections  
> are
> the primary connection between registered Green voters and how the  
> GPCA
> is run and to remove from office people they?ve elected is a serious
> matter. The process parallels that established for Removal for Cause  
> of
> Coordinating Committee members (see new 4-3.1(d) ).
>
> 7) Some small changes were made as a part of this process. The  
> beginning
> of County Council terms was defined to be as starting when the results
> of the County Council election is legally certified. Currently there  
> is
> no definition for the beginning of the County Council term and since  
> the
> on-line voting depends upon this, a clear definition was needed, to
> eliminate the basis for disputes over who gets to vote..
>
> For delegate selection to existing General Assemblies, the existing
> bylaws say that if a Region doesn?t select its own process for picking
> delegates, the County Council picks the delegates ? but the bylaws are
> silent on how.  A definition of how they would do this was added, that
> is based upon traditional GPCA use of IRV and Choice Voting.
>
> Finally, the existing bylaw about counties submitting bylaws changes  
> was
> clarified that the Bylaws Committee would play a consultative and
> advisory role to the sponsoring county and the General Assembly, but
> would not be a gatekeeper for whether a proposed bylaws revision would
> be forwarded to the Coordinating Committee for the agenda-setting  
> process.
>
> Housekeeping Changes
>
> 1) In order to insert these rules changes, there was no easy way to  
> just
> place them into the existing bylaws. That necessitated some reordering
> to start with.
>
> Then in addition, the effectiveness of these changes rests upon the
> integrity of how clearly the voting membership and the manner in which
> proposals are processed is defined.  As a result, sections relating to
> GPCA membership and county councils were amended and reordered for  
> clarity.
>
> In addition, some of the Coordinating Committee?s duties that are
> already in the bylaws, but not in the Coordinating Committee?s bylaw
> section, were added to it for completeness.
>
> Finally, consistency in use of terms was added as part of these edits,
> as the present bylaws varies widely in how the same thing is  
> described.
>
>
> Ten Reasons to Approve These Bylaws Changes
>
> 1) Allows GPCA to make decisions in between In Person General Assembly
> Meetings
>
> California is a large state and the GPCA has a lot of business to do  
> to
> become an effective political party in the state. The limited
> accessibility provided by in-person business meetings and limited  
> amount
> of agenda time available at two to three General Assemblies a year has
> in practice meant that either a few agenda items can be addressed  
> well,
> or many can be addressed poorly. Both scenarios have occurred and
> limited the GPCA?s development.
>
> An on-line statewide voting process that expands upon what the GPCA  
> has
> already been using for years for County Polling on statewide
> propositions can help to address this situation in the following ways.
> First, it can provide an extended on-line period for discussion and
> amendment of proposals over several weeks, providing more time than is
> currently available today. Second, it can remove items from the
> in-person meetings that can easily done on-line, like elections, and
> free up that time for items that are best handled at in-person  
> meetings.
>
> The GPUS has been doing business on-line in this manner for years
> through the use of an on-line voting page software program. An updated
> version of that program is being installed currently by GPCA IT on the
> cagreens.org server and can be used by the GPCA for this purpose.   
> This
> program includes software that runs Choice Voting and Instant Run-Off
> Voting elections, as mandated by GPCA bylaws.
>
>
> 2) Provides for Much Greater Proportional Representation on the
> Coordinating Committee
>
> The GPCA?s current system for the Coordinating Committee has 16 out of
> 20 seats elected regionally, all in single-seat IRV elections, and  
> four
> elected at-large, in two separate Choice Voting elections.
>
> When the Coordinating Committee was first created in August 1990, this
> ratio was 14 regionally-elected and six at-large, but this was changed
> in 2000. This means the current system has extremely minimal
> proportionality. The two, two-seat Choice Voting elections are
> themselves only minimally proportional and they are the only multi- 
> seat
> elections out of the entire 20 seats elected in total.
>
> For the other 16 seats, they are all picked in single-seat,
> winner-take-all elections  - and other than those picked from the San
> Francisco and Los Angeles regions, all the others are picked from
> artificially-created, multi-county regions in which its cumbersome  
> even
> to find a way to meet and make a decision in the first place (and in
> which often the largest county within the region can dominate anyway,
> making them less ?elections? and more ?anointments?.
>
> An on-line, statewide at-large election process would vastly improve
> this by making all the Coordinating Committee elected proportionally  
> by
> Choice Voting.
>
> Part of the way that this would be enabled would be by increasing the
> number of Coordinating Committee members from 20 to 24. This would
> promote more proportionality while also simultaneously addressing  
> other
> party goals of gender balance and geographic diversity.
>
> The proposed process would accomplish these goals through holding two
> simultaneous elections each year, with six men elected in one election
> and six women elected in another. In one year the men would be elected
> from the North Region and the women from the South Region and the  
> other
> year, the women would be elected from the North Region and the men  
> from
> the South Region.
>
>
> 3) Eliminates disputes over Coordinating Committee elections, enabling
> the Coordinating Committee to do its job and removing basis for  
> internal
> conflicts
>
> There have been numerous disputes over Coordinating Committee  
> membership
> in the last several years. These have cost the GPCA dearly in terms of
> time and energy of some of its most committed activists. The party  
> as a
> whole has been the loser, because its chief administrative committee  
> has
> been rendered far less effective than it could have been and activist
> energy that could have been spent on growing the party has been  
> spent on
> internal squabbles instead
>
> The shift to on-line, at-large Coordinating Committee elections would
> solve this problem by providing a clear and undisputed process for
> electing Coordinating Committee members.
>
> There are three main structural problems with the current system.  
> One is
> that there can be disagreement over the validity over a region?s
> Coordinating Committee election process itself.  A second another is
> over who can rightfully vote within that process and hence the  
> validity
> of the reported results. And a third is that there is disagreement  
> over
> whom in the party can adjudicate disagreements on points #1 and #2.
>
> Going to an on-line, statewide at-large election process would  
> eliminate
> all three of these problems.
>
> First, there would be a single clear process for the entire state that
> would be written into GPCA bylaws. That process would be an on-line  
> vote
> by the counties that would be conducted openly on a GPCA on-line  
> voting
> page, utilizing the same on-line voting software, as does the GPUS.
>
> Second, that process would provide a clear basis of who gets to vote.
> That would be those Greens who have won County Council elections.  
> Since
> those elections are run by the state of California through the County
> Registrars and the results are certified by law that eliminates
> disagreement over who gets to vote.
>
>
> 4) Ensures Gender Balance
>
> Although gender balance has always been a key guiding principle of the
> Green Party in California and all over the world, the record of gender
> balance on the Coordinating Committee under the current system is
> extremely poor. Only three of the 16 regionally-elected seats are held
> by women and even when there have been more in previous years, it has
> only been a few more.
>
> GPCA Bylaw state that ?Regions with two or more seats are encouraged  
> to
> strive for gender balance?, but only one of the three multi-seat  
> regions
> (Los Angeles) even has a bylaw mandating gender balance and the  
> Central
> Region which has three seats has sent three men now for several years.
> Of the eight seats elected in single-seat regions, a woman currently
> holds only one of them.
>
> Also, the internal fighting over Coordinating Committee membership has
> been cited often by leading women in the party as a reason why they
> don?t want to serve on the Coordinating Committee.
>
> The on-line at-large election process solves these problems because
> there is a gender-balance mandate for the seats. Of the 24 seats on  
> the
> Coordinating Committee, 12 would be reserved for women and 12 for men.
> Not only would this address the formal balance between men and women,
> but by removing the basis for disputing Coordinating Committee  
> elections
> and hence a major locus of internal conflict, this approach also would
> make the Coordinating Committee a more desirable place to serve for
> women in the party.
>
>
> 5) Ensures Geographic Diversity
>
> As mentioned earlier, when the Coordinating Committee was created, 14
> seats were to come from geographic regions and 6 at-large.  The
> geographic seats were created ? not as some think today, to be  
> ?regional
> reps? for a region the way a GA delegate might be ?representative of a
> county?, but rather to ensure that the Coordinating Committee had  
> people
> on it that were literally familiar with different parts of the state.
> (This was especially because many in the Green movement in California
> (and the United States) at that time also had roots in the bio- 
> regional
> movement.)
>
> However unlike today, those geographic-based seats (from the regions)
> were originally elected by the General Assembly.  However in practice,
> it was found that most Greens from around the state didn?t know many  
> of
> the people running for the Coordinating Committee from within various
> regions, especially because the party was in its first year or so and
> many people hadn?t met each other yet.  That made the GA decision- 
> making
> process relatively uninformed, and ended up promoting ?he said, she
> said? dynamics about people many others didn?t know.
>
> It was for that reason, that the practice was changed from electing
> regionally-based seats by the General Assembly to electing them by
> regions. In other words, at-large members were always from regions,  
> but
> were not always elected by regions.
>
> The shift to on-line, at-large Coordinating Committee elections  
> promotes
> geographical diversity in two ways.  One, it has half the seats  
> elected
> from a North Region and half from a South Region. Two, it increase the
> number of seats and uses proportional representation within each  
> region,
> ensuring a distribution within the region. Enlarging the size of the
> Coordinating Committee to 24 seats increases this distribution.
>
>
> 6) Provides clear beginning and ending times for Coordinating  
> Committee
> terms, removing basis for internal conflicts
>
> Although GPCA bylaws aim for two-year terms for Coordinating Committee
> members, they handle at-large and regionally-elected members
> differently, resulting in terms of greatly different lengths, which  
> not
> only contradicts the goal of two-year term lengths, but also
> incentivizes the kind of internal conflict over Coordinating Committee
> membership.
>
> GPCA bylaws governing the four at-large Coordinating Committee members
> elected by the General Assembly specify that their terms end with the
> first General Assembly of the calendar year.  This results in terms  
> that
> roughly approximate 24 months, sometimes varying by a month or two,  
> but
> rarely more than that.
>
> By contrast, GPCA bylaws governing the 16 regionally-elected
> Coordinating Committee members allow sitting members to remain in  
> office
> for an unlimited time period, if a new election hasn?t been held to
> replace them.
>
> This has resulted in numerous members staying not simply numerous  
> months
> past the end of their terms, but even in one case a member stayed  
> three
> years after his term was over. Having clear beginning and ending terms
> for democratically elected representatives is one of the most basic
> tenets of democracy. Yet the GPCA bylaws allowance for open-ended  
> terms
> contradicts this.
>
> There are two reasons for this. One is that the cumbersome,
> artificially-created regional structure makes it challenging in some
> parts of the state simply to hold a new election in the first place.
>
> But even more problematic is that the ability to stay beyond the end  
> of
> a term also inherently provides an incentive to not hold new  
> elections,
> or to attempt to disqualify the results of new elections, in order to
> leave people on the Coordinating Committee that some individuals  
> favor.
> Internalizing such an unproductive incentive in party rules is not
> desirable.
>
> Going to an on-line, statewide at-large election process would  
> eliminate
> all of these problems by providing clear beginning and ending times  
> for
> Coordinating Committee members and easy-to-use on-line election  
> process
> to conduct new elections.
>
>
> 7) Ensures staggered terms for Coordinating Committee members that
> correspond to internal party timelines
>
> Staggered terms for Coordinating Committee members has always been a
> GPCA goal, since the Coordinating Committee was first created in  
> August
> 1990. The idea behind staggered terms is to combine institutional
> memory, which would be lost if all seats were up for election at the
> same time, with incorporating new membership, at the same time.
>
> Between 1990 and 2000, Coordinating Committee terms were set at 18
> months. But when the first set of Coordinating Committee members were
> elected, some were elected for 18 months, some for 16, some for 14 and
> some for 12 months, so that the terms would become staggered after  
> that
> point.
>
> This new plan also provides for staggered terms and connects them to
> specific internal party timelines.  The first timeline corresponds to
> the election of new County Councils at the Direct Primary election.
> Since it will be elected County Councilmembers who vote for the  
> party?s
> internal officers and representatives (including the Coordinating
> Committee), the first set of Coordinating Committee elections (held in
> even-numbered years) is set to occur four months after the new County
> Councils are elected. This would give time for the new County
> Councilmembers to meet and settle in, but also follow soon on the  
> heels
> of the Direct Primary in order to reflect the will of those elections.
>
> The second set of elections, held in odd-numbered years, would
> correspond to the beginning of the new GPCA fiscal year, with  
> elections
> scheduled to conclude in time for newly-elected Coordinating Committee
> members to assume office along with the beginning of the new GPCA  
> fiscal
> year.
>
>
> 8) Establishes a clear process for Removal for Cause of Coordinating
> Committee members, removing basis for internal conflicts
>
> The current GPCA bylaw that provides for recall and removal for cause
> (Section 6-3) has been yet another source of internal conflict, with
> significant dispute over how it should be interpreted and implemented,
> leading to yet another level of internal struggle over Coordinating
> Committee membership.
>
> Section 6-3?s primary author, Beth Moore (Nevada County), has stated
> that 6-3 was written in reaction to a couple of specific incidents to
> deal with narrow circumstances and believed that the authors failed to
> anticipate the manner in which it could be used and believes it is
> unworkable as written and asked that it be revisited.
>
> The on-line, statewide at-large election process bylaw change
> successfully addresses this by providing a clear, simple Removal for
> Cause Petition process that would be similar to the process that the
> GPUS has to recall its Steering Committee members.
>
> A Removal for Cause Petition would require support from a number of
> counties representing a proportion of General Assembly to call for
> removal, based upon reasons stated in writing. If there were  
> sufficient
> support, it would be forwarded for to the General Assembly for a
> discussion and vote. The 2/3 threshold to remove from office would be
> retained.
>
>
> 9) Ensures a consistent electoral system for all elections
>
> The current system has 12 different ways of electing 20 people ? 11
> different regional processes and then the at-large process at the
> General Assembly. "The only reason for maintaining all of these
> different procedures is because the GPCA delegated the voting process
> from the General Assembly to the artificially-created geographic
> regions. By changing to an on-line, at-large voting process, the need
> for these different processes is eliminated and all seats can now be
> elected subject to the same rules, the same electorate and the same
> approval threshold.
>
>
> 10) Ensures that Party Officers and Representatives are elected by all
> active counties, rather than only by those who are able to attend a
> particular meeting, promoting internal democracy and equity
>
> The current system of holding elections for party officers and
> representatives at General Assemblies results in a widely different
> electorate, both in the number of voters and where they come from,
> depending upon when and where state meetings are held. Factors of cost
> and timing affect who can attend and vote, meaning that major elements
> of party?s basis for choosing its own internal officers and
> representatives are uncertain and arbitrary
>
> Going to an on-line, statewide at-large election process would  
> eliminate
> this problem by allowing all eligible voters to participate in  
> elections
> for the GPCA?s internal party officers and representatives (i.e. the
> Coordinating Committee, GPUS Delegation, Treasurer and Liaison to the
> Secretary of State.)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws mailing list
> bylaws at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Marnie Glickman
Executive Director
Green Change

www.greenchange.org
503.313.7919 w
707.313.7919 f
skype: marnieglickman

My Green Change page:
http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie

Green Change is a community of people with Green values:  justice,  
grassroots democracy, sustainability and non-violence.  We work  
together to share Green art, politics and culture.















-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/marin-d_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20090226/976b8ce5/attachment.html>

From marnie at greenchange.com  Fri Feb 27 10:25:59 2009
From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:25:59 -0800
Subject: [Marin-d] Final date for swearing in
Message-ID: <F02D2987-2879-4A61-98B4-503D8AE2816A@greenchange.org>

Hi folks,

We have an appointment for our swearing in with Judy Arbini.

It is 10am on Thursday March 5th at the Marin County office on Civic  
Center Drive in San Rafael.

Marnie















From marnie at greenchange.com  Fri Feb 27 16:21:11 2009
From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:21:11 -0800
Subject: [Marin-d] cc rep status for North Bay
References: <F0E3E2C2A2404E84B0EFF5E8EE9A91C3@tsm80io3ykjjdk>
Message-ID: <84B51662-D389-423D-8546-A14C393FB794@greenchange.org>

Hi folks,

FYI, the regional GP election is still up in the air.  Gary and I can  
not participate in the election process b/c we will be out of town.

Marnie

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Tim Morgan" <blkcloud at sonic.net>
> Date: February 27, 2009 4:16:55 PM PST
> To: "'Chris Malan'" <cmalan at myoneearth.org>, "'Michael S Wyman'" <mswyman at comcast.net 
> >
> Cc: <GPSCcoordinators at yahoogroups.com>, "'Marnie Glickman'" <marnie at greenchange.com 
> >, <Napagreens at aol.com>
> Subject: cc rep status for North Bay
>
> Mike Wyman knows this but I want to make it formal. After March 2nd,  
> 2009, I am resigning from my position as regional representative for  
> the North Bay Region. My reasons are simple, as of February 2009 our  
> Chris, Mike, and my terms are up as rep and alts and although the  
> GPCA bylaws say that we remain in office until there is a new  
> election, I don?t believe in that and as I did in my last stint on  
> the CC before, I will resign. I had hung this past month on pending  
> the outcome of the regional meeting and election which was to have  
> happened on March 8th. But with it not happening for some indefinite  
> period of time I have no desire to hang on as some cc members do. So  
> I?m gone. This means that Chris Malan, will be our regional rep  
> unless Chris chooses to resign as well which would then leave Mike  
> Wyman as the rep. He has expressed to me his potential intention to  
> resign as well but that?s not official until it comes from him.  
> Should Chris and Mike decide to resign then our region will have no  
> vote on the GPCA CC until we elect a new rep and alts.
>
> So we still need to have a regional meeting and election. To do that  
> we need an election committee. This would consist of three greens  
> one from each county. We have Rob Morse from Napa, myself from  
> Sonoma, and we need one from Marin. When we get the committee formed  
> we can then get about the business of having a meeting and an  
> election.
>
> Tim Morgan
> Outgoing Regional Rep for the North Bay Region
>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Marnie Glickman
Executive Director
Green Change

www.greenchange.org
503.313.7919 w
707.313.7919 f
skype: marnieglickman

My Green Change page:
http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie

Green Change is a community of people with Green values:  justice,  
grassroots democracy, sustainability and non-violence.  We work  
together to share Green art, politics and culture.















-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/marin-d_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20090227/9d10cffc/attachment.html>