<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>From: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Mike Feinstein <<a href="mailto:mfeinstein@feinstein.org">mfeinstein@feinstein.org</a>></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>Date: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">February 21, 2009 12:51:59 PM PST</font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>To: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">prisonpedagogy <<a href="mailto:prisonpedagogy@comcast.net">prisonpedagogy@comcast.net</a>>, Marnie Glickman <<a href="mailto:marnie@greenchange.com">marnie@greenchange.com</a>>, Susan King <<a href="mailto:funking@greens.org">funking@greens.org</a>></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>Subject: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica"><b>[Fwd: Re: [bylaws] PROPOSAL: Bylaws change to allow GPCA on-line voting and electing the CC at-large, on-line]</b></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>Reply-To: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica"><a href="mailto:mfeinstein@feinstein.org">mfeinstein@feinstein.org</a></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div> </div><div><br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [bylaws] PROPOSAL: Bylaws change to allow GPCA on-line voting and electing the CC at-large, on-line<br>Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:35:27 -0800<br>From: Mike Feinstein <<a href="mailto:mfeinstein@feinstein.org">mfeinstein@feinstein.org</a>><br>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:mfeinstein@feinstein.org">mfeinstein@feinstein.org</a>, GPCA Bylaws Committee <<a href="mailto:bylaws@cagreens.org">bylaws@cagreens.org</a>><br>To: GPCA Bylaws Committee <<a href="mailto:bylaws@cagreens.org">bylaws@cagreens.org</a>><br>References: <<a href="mailto:49A064FD.6090303@feinstein.org">49A064FD.6090303@feinstein.org</a>><br><br>Explanation of primary, secondary and housekeeping proposed changes and<br>the 'Ten Reasons to Approve These Bylaws Changes'<br><br><a href="http://www.cagreens.org/lacounty/2009-02/gpca_bylaw_change_explain.pdf">http://www.cagreens.org/lacounty/2009-02/gpca_bylaw_change_explain.pdf</a><br><br>Primary Changes<br><br>1) Establishes on-line decision-making in between General Assemblies,<br>utilizing a web-based, password protected voting page like that used for<br>the same purpose by the GPUS.<br><br>Process is designed so that voting occurs on a clear schedule where<br>any/all proposals under consideration are on the same discussion/voting<br>timeline, to minimize confusion. Proposals have five-week discussion<br>periods and one week for voting. There will be a limit of four proposals<br>to be dealt with at any one time, and proposals shall be dealt with no<br>more frequently than once every two months. Process also includes three<br>different models by which counties can choose to cast their votes, so<br>that there is no dispute over whether a county uses an acceptable model.<br><br>2) Elections for GPCA officers and representatives are elected on-line.<br><br>To increase participation and to provide a clear and undisputed process<br>for all seats, elections for Coordinating Committee, GPUS Delegation,<br>Treasurer and Liaison to the Secretary of State are all conducted<br>on-line and they are elected by votes from the elected County Council<br>members in each county.<br><br>To make this process transparent, as part of the Strategic Plan already<br>mandated in the bylaws, the Coordinating Committee shall prepare and<br>distribute to the active county organizations a schedule of all<br>scheduled elections for Coordinating Committee, GPUS Delegation,<br>Treasurer and Liaison to the Secretary of State in the ensuing year.<br><br>3) Entire Coordinating Committee is elected at-large with mandatory<br>gender and geographical balance. Twelve seats are elected from the<br>northern half of the state, twelve seats from the southern half; twelve<br>seats are men, and twelve seats are women.<br><br>4) GPCA Decision-Making threshold is given a two-year test period at 2/3<br>instead of 4/5, with a vote to revisit this at the end of test period.<br>This is done for two reasons. One is that this is the first time the<br>GPCA will try to make on-line decisions and imposing 80% upon an on-line<br>process might be extremely onerous. Second, if it makes sense to at<br>least try 2/3 in the on-line process, we don’t want different<br>decision-making thresholds depending upon whether a decision is made<br>in-person or on-line. Hence a trial period to see how 2/3 works for the<br>GPCA. As part of this proposal, there will also be a committee assigned<br>to track and analyze the performance of the on-line voting and make<br>recommendations to the General Assembly on how to improve it.<br><br>Secondary Changes<br><br>4) A new Removal for Cause Petition process was created to correspond to<br>the fact that the Coordinating Committee would be elected in a new<br>manner and this replaces the existing removal/recall section of the<br>bylaws, which some Greens found to be a source for disputes.<br><br>5) Lowers the attendance quorum of the Coordinating Committee to a<br>majority, while increasing the size of the body to 24<br><br>Having a 2/3-attendance quorum for the Coordinating Committee has made<br>it difficult to reach quorum on many occasions, delaying or preventing<br>business from getting done if/until quorum is reached. By lowering the<br>quorum to a majority, this problem is reduced, but by doing it<br>simultaneously with increasing the size of the Coordinating Committee<br>and other changes, it increases the likelihood that there will be enough<br>members in attendance to provide a wide-enough basis for decision making<br>and enough members to take on work tasks as needed.<br><br>6) A standardized process across the state was created for Removal for<br>Cause for County Councilmembers. The existing bylaws have a single<br>sentence. That says any member of the county council may be removed if<br>they “Violate the bylaws of the state plenary or county”. However, there<br>is no process described here on how to do this. This potential<br>arbitrariness is especially egregious since County Council elections are<br>the primary connection between registered Green voters and how the GPCA<br>is run and to remove from office people they’ve elected is a serious<br>matter. The process parallels that established for Removal for Cause of<br>Coordinating Committee members (see new 4-3.1(d) ).<br><br>7) Some small changes were made as a part of this process. The beginning<br>of County Council terms was defined to be as starting when the results<br>of the County Council election is legally certified. Currently there is<br>no definition for the beginning of the County Council term and since the<br>on-line voting depends upon this, a clear definition was needed, to<br>eliminate the basis for disputes over who gets to vote..<br><br>For delegate selection to existing General Assemblies, the existing<br>bylaws say that if a Region doesn’t select its own process for picking<br>delegates, the County Council picks the delegates – but the bylaws are<br>silent on how. A definition of how they would do this was added, that<br>is based upon traditional GPCA use of IRV and Choice Voting.<br><br>Finally, the existing bylaw about counties submitting bylaws changes was<br>clarified that the Bylaws Committee would play a consultative and<br>advisory role to the sponsoring county and the General Assembly, but<br>would not be a gatekeeper for whether a proposed bylaws revision would<br>be forwarded to the Coordinating Committee for the agenda-setting process.<br><br>Housekeeping Changes<br><br>1) In order to insert these rules changes, there was no easy way to just<br>place them into the existing bylaws. That necessitated some reordering<br>to start with.<br><br>Then in addition, the effectiveness of these changes rests upon the<br>integrity of how clearly the voting membership and the manner in which<br>proposals are processed is defined. As a result, sections relating to<br>GPCA membership and county councils were amended and reordered for clarity.<br><br>In addition, some of the Coordinating Committee’s duties that are<br>already in the bylaws, but not in the Coordinating Committee’s bylaw<br>section, were added to it for completeness.<br><br>Finally, consistency in use of terms was added as part of these edits,<br>as the present bylaws varies widely in how the same thing is described.<br><br><br>Ten Reasons to Approve These Bylaws Changes<br><br>1) Allows GPCA to make decisions in between In Person General Assembly<br>Meetings<br><br>California is a large state and the GPCA has a lot of business to do to<br>become an effective political party in the state. The limited<br>accessibility provided by in-person business meetings and limited amount<br>of agenda time available at two to three General Assemblies a year has<br>in practice meant that either a few agenda items can be addressed well,<br>or many can be addressed poorly. Both scenarios have occurred and<br>limited the GPCA’s development.<br><br>An on-line statewide voting process that expands upon what the GPCA has<br>already been using for years for County Polling on statewide<br>propositions can help to address this situation in the following ways.<br>First, it can provide an extended on-line period for discussion and<br>amendment of proposals over several weeks, providing more time than is<br>currently available today. Second, it can remove items from the<br>in-person meetings that can easily done on-line, like elections, and<br>free up that time for items that are best handled at in-person meetings.<br><br>The GPUS has been doing business on-line in this manner for years<br>through the use of an on-line voting page software program. An updated<br>version of that program is being installed currently by GPCA IT on the<br>cagreens.org server and can be used by the GPCA for this purpose. This<br>program includes software that runs Choice Voting and Instant Run-Off<br>Voting elections, as mandated by GPCA bylaws.<br><br><br>2) Provides for Much Greater Proportional Representation on the<br>Coordinating Committee<br><br>The GPCA’s current system for the Coordinating Committee has 16 out of<br>20 seats elected regionally, all in single-seat IRV elections, and four<br>elected at-large, in two separate Choice Voting elections.<br><br>When the Coordinating Committee was first created in August 1990, this<br>ratio was 14 regionally-elected and six at-large, but this was changed<br>in 2000. This means the current system has extremely minimal<br>proportionality. The two, two-seat Choice Voting elections are<br>themselves only minimally proportional and they are the only multi-seat<br>elections out of the entire 20 seats elected in total.<br><br>For the other 16 seats, they are all picked in single-seat,<br>winner-take-all elections - and other than those picked from the San<br>Francisco and Los Angeles regions, all the others are picked from<br>artificially-created, multi-county regions in which its cumbersome even<br>to find a way to meet and make a decision in the first place (and in<br>which often the largest county within the region can dominate anyway,<br>making them less ‘elections’ and more ‘anointments’.<br><br>An on-line, statewide at-large election process would vastly improve<br>this by making all the Coordinating Committee elected proportionally by<br>Choice Voting.<br><br>Part of the way that this would be enabled would be by increasing the<br>number of Coordinating Committee members from 20 to 24. This would<br>promote more proportionality while also simultaneously addressing other<br>party goals of gender balance and geographic diversity.<br><br>The proposed process would accomplish these goals through holding two<br>simultaneous elections each year, with six men elected in one election<br>and six women elected in another. In one year the men would be elected<br>from the North Region and the women from the South Region and the other<br>year, the women would be elected from the North Region and the men from<br>the South Region.<br><br><br>3) Eliminates disputes over Coordinating Committee elections, enabling<br>the Coordinating Committee to do its job and removing basis for internal<br>conflicts<br><br>There have been numerous disputes over Coordinating Committee membership<br>in the last several years. These have cost the GPCA dearly in terms of<br>time and energy of some of its most committed activists. The party as a<br>whole has been the loser, because its chief administrative committee has<br>been rendered far less effective than it could have been and activist<br>energy that could have been spent on growing the party has been spent on<br>internal squabbles instead<br><br>The shift to on-line, at-large Coordinating Committee elections would<br>solve this problem by providing a clear and undisputed process for<br>electing Coordinating Committee members.<br><br>There are three main structural problems with the current system. One is<br>that there can be disagreement over the validity over a region’s<br>Coordinating Committee election process itself. A second another is<br>over who can rightfully vote within that process and hence the validity<br>of the reported results. And a third is that there is disagreement over<br>whom in the party can adjudicate disagreements on points #1 and #2.<br><br>Going to an on-line, statewide at-large election process would eliminate<br>all three of these problems.<br><br>First, there would be a single clear process for the entire state that<br>would be written into GPCA bylaws. That process would be an on-line vote<br>by the counties that would be conducted openly on a GPCA on-line voting<br>page, utilizing the same on-line voting software, as does the GPUS.<br><br>Second, that process would provide a clear basis of who gets to vote.<br>That would be those Greens who have won County Council elections. Since<br>those elections are run by the state of California through the County<br>Registrars and the results are certified by law that eliminates<br>disagreement over who gets to vote.<br><br><br>4) Ensures Gender Balance<br><br>Although gender balance has always been a key guiding principle of the<br>Green Party in California and all over the world, the record of gender<br>balance on the Coordinating Committee under the current system is<br>extremely poor. Only three of the 16 regionally-elected seats are held<br>by women and even when there have been more in previous years, it has<br>only been a few more.<br><br>GPCA Bylaw state that “Regions with two or more seats are encouraged to<br>strive for gender balance”, but only one of the three multi-seat regions<br>(Los Angeles) even has a bylaw mandating gender balance and the Central<br>Region which has three seats has sent three men now for several years.<br>Of the eight seats elected in single-seat regions, a woman currently<br>holds only one of them.<br><br>Also, the internal fighting over Coordinating Committee membership has<br>been cited often by leading women in the party as a reason why they<br>don’t want to serve on the Coordinating Committee.<br><br>The on-line at-large election process solves these problems because<br>there is a gender-balance mandate for the seats. Of the 24 seats on the<br>Coordinating Committee, 12 would be reserved for women and 12 for men.<br>Not only would this address the formal balance between men and women,<br>but by removing the basis for disputing Coordinating Committee elections<br>and hence a major locus of internal conflict, this approach also would<br>make the Coordinating Committee a more desirable place to serve for<br>women in the party.<br><br><br>5) Ensures Geographic Diversity<br><br>As mentioned earlier, when the Coordinating Committee was created, 14<br>seats were to come from geographic regions and 6 at-large. The<br>geographic seats were created – not as some think today, to be ‘regional<br>reps’ for a region the way a GA delegate might be ‘representative of a<br>county’, but rather to ensure that the Coordinating Committee had people<br>on it that were literally familiar with different parts of the state.<br>(This was especially because many in the Green movement in California<br>(and the United States) at that time also had roots in the bio-regional<br>movement.)<br><br>However unlike today, those geographic-based seats (from the regions)<br>were originally elected by the General Assembly. However in practice,<br>it was found that most Greens from around the state didn’t know many of<br>the people running for the Coordinating Committee from within various<br>regions, especially because the party was in its first year or so and<br>many people hadn’t met each other yet. That made the GA decision-making<br>process relatively uninformed, and ended up promoting “he said, she<br>said” dynamics about people many others didn’t know.<br><br>It was for that reason, that the practice was changed from electing<br>regionally-based seats by the General Assembly to electing them by<br>regions. In other words, at-large members were always from regions, but<br>were not always elected by regions.<br><br>The shift to on-line, at-large Coordinating Committee elections promotes<br>geographical diversity in two ways. One, it has half the seats elected<br>from a North Region and half from a South Region. Two, it increase the<br>number of seats and uses proportional representation within each region,<br>ensuring a distribution within the region. Enlarging the size of the<br>Coordinating Committee to 24 seats increases this distribution.<br><br><br>6) Provides clear beginning and ending times for Coordinating Committee<br>terms, removing basis for internal conflicts<br><br>Although GPCA bylaws aim for two-year terms for Coordinating Committee<br>members, they handle at-large and regionally-elected members<br>differently, resulting in terms of greatly different lengths, which not<br>only contradicts the goal of two-year term lengths, but also<br>incentivizes the kind of internal conflict over Coordinating Committee<br>membership.<br><br>GPCA bylaws governing the four at-large Coordinating Committee members<br>elected by the General Assembly specify that their terms end with the<br>first General Assembly of the calendar year. This results in terms that<br>roughly approximate 24 months, sometimes varying by a month or two, but<br>rarely more than that.<br><br>By contrast, GPCA bylaws governing the 16 regionally-elected<br>Coordinating Committee members allow sitting members to remain in office<br>for an unlimited time period, if a new election hasn’t been held to<br>replace them.<br><br>This has resulted in numerous members staying not simply numerous months<br>past the end of their terms, but even in one case a member stayed three<br>years after his term was over. Having clear beginning and ending terms<br>for democratically elected representatives is one of the most basic<br>tenets of democracy. Yet the GPCA bylaws allowance for open-ended terms<br>contradicts this.<br><br>There are two reasons for this. One is that the cumbersome,<br>artificially-created regional structure makes it challenging in some<br>parts of the state simply to hold a new election in the first place.<br><br>But even more problematic is that the ability to stay beyond the end of<br>a term also inherently provides an incentive to not hold new elections,<br>or to attempt to disqualify the results of new elections, in order to<br>leave people on the Coordinating Committee that some individuals favor.<br>Internalizing such an unproductive incentive in party rules is not<br>desirable.<br><br>Going to an on-line, statewide at-large election process would eliminate<br>all of these problems by providing clear beginning and ending times for<br>Coordinating Committee members and easy-to-use on-line election process<br>to conduct new elections.<br><br><br>7) Ensures staggered terms for Coordinating Committee members that<br>correspond to internal party timelines<br><br>Staggered terms for Coordinating Committee members has always been a<br>GPCA goal, since the Coordinating Committee was first created in August<br>1990. The idea behind staggered terms is to combine institutional<br>memory, which would be lost if all seats were up for election at the<br>same time, with incorporating new membership, at the same time.<br><br>Between 1990 and 2000, Coordinating Committee terms were set at 18<br>months. But when the first set of Coordinating Committee members were<br>elected, some were elected for 18 months, some for 16, some for 14 and<br>some for 12 months, so that the terms would become staggered after that<br>point.<br><br>This new plan also provides for staggered terms and connects them to<br>specific internal party timelines. The first timeline corresponds to<br>the election of new County Councils at the Direct Primary election.<br>Since it will be elected County Councilmembers who vote for the party’s<br>internal officers and representatives (including the Coordinating<br>Committee), the first set of Coordinating Committee elections (held in<br>even-numbered years) is set to occur four months after the new County<br>Councils are elected. This would give time for the new County<br>Councilmembers to meet and settle in, but also follow soon on the heels<br>of the Direct Primary in order to reflect the will of those elections.<br><br>The second set of elections, held in odd-numbered years, would<br>correspond to the beginning of the new GPCA fiscal year, with elections<br>scheduled to conclude in time for newly-elected Coordinating Committee<br>members to assume office along with the beginning of the new GPCA fiscal<br>year.<br><br><br>8) Establishes a clear process for Removal for Cause of Coordinating<br>Committee members, removing basis for internal conflicts<br><br>The current GPCA bylaw that provides for recall and removal for cause<br>(Section 6-3) has been yet another source of internal conflict, with<br>significant dispute over how it should be interpreted and implemented,<br>leading to yet another level of internal struggle over Coordinating<br>Committee membership.<br><br>Section 6-3’s primary author, Beth Moore (Nevada County), has stated<br>that 6-3 was written in reaction to a couple of specific incidents to<br>deal with narrow circumstances and believed that the authors failed to<br>anticipate the manner in which it could be used and believes it is<br>unworkable as written and asked that it be revisited.<br><br>The on-line, statewide at-large election process bylaw change<br>successfully addresses this by providing a clear, simple Removal for<br>Cause Petition process that would be similar to the process that the<br>GPUS has to recall its Steering Committee members.<br><br>A Removal for Cause Petition would require support from a number of<br>counties representing a proportion of General Assembly to call for<br>removal, based upon reasons stated in writing. If there were sufficient<br>support, it would be forwarded for to the General Assembly for a<br>discussion and vote. The 2/3 threshold to remove from office would be<br>retained.<br><br><br>9) Ensures a consistent electoral system for all elections<br><br>The current system has 12 different ways of electing 20 people – 11<br>different regional processes and then the at-large process at the<br>General Assembly. "The only reason for maintaining all of these<br>different procedures is because the GPCA delegated the voting process<br>from the General Assembly to the artificially-created geographic<br>regions. By changing to an on-line, at-large voting process, the need<br>for these different processes is eliminated and all seats can now be<br>elected subject to the same rules, the same electorate and the same<br>approval threshold.<br><br><br>10) Ensures that Party Officers and Representatives are elected by all<br>active counties, rather than only by those who are able to attend a<br>particular meeting, promoting internal democracy and equity<br><br>The current system of holding elections for party officers and<br>representatives at General Assemblies results in a widely different<br>electorate, both in the number of voters and where they come from,<br>depending upon when and where state meetings are held. Factors of cost<br>and timing affect who can attend and vote, meaning that major elements<br>of party’s basis for choosing its own internal officers and<br>representatives are uncertain and arbitrary<br><br>Going to an on-line, statewide at-large election process would eliminate<br>this problem by allowing all eligible voters to participate in elections<br>for the GPCA’s internal party officers and representatives (i.e. the<br>Coordinating Committee, GPUS Delegation, Treasurer and Liaison to the<br>Secretary of State.)<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>bylaws mailing list<br>bylaws@cagreens.org<br>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div><div>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Marnie Glickman </div><div>Executive Director</div><div>Green Change</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><a href="http://www.greenchange.org">www.greenchange.org</a></div><div>503.313.7919 w</div><div>707.313.7919 f</div><div>skype: marnieglickman</div><div><br></div><div>My Green Change page: </div><div><a href="http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie">http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie</a></div><div><br></div><div><div>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.</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></div></div><br></div><br></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></body></html>