[Marin-d] more on GPCA bylaw proposal

[Marnie Glickman]

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>