[Sosfbay-discuss] Santa Clara County Greens

[Wes Rolley]

Discusssion on the Cal-Forum Green Party list has recently (and rightly) focused 
on specific changes to the bylaws of the party that are on the agenda for 
decision making at the Yolo Plenary.

One of the Proposals will change the voting requirement for "policy" proposals 
from 80% to 2/3's.  What is being argued on Cal-Forum is more about the 
intention of the proposers more than the actual value of the proposal itself. 
The facts of this discussion raised enough question in my mind that I considered 
attending the County Meeting tomorrow in order to register my vote on the 
question.

I am also very concerned about the candidate selection and endorsement process 
for 2006.  With declining registration, it is critical that we put forward a 
strong slate of candidates and back that up with effective organization.
__
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I would not be allowed to vote any 
proposal that would be made in the name of the party.  According to the bylaws 
of the GPSCC:

1.2 Only active members will vote in official county Green Party functions, 
should a vote be required according to the Consensus Process described in 
Article 6. Official functions shall be those at which decisions are made in the 
name of the Party.

1.3 An active member shall be a person who has attended 2 out of the last 5 
meetings of the official functions at which (s)he wishes to vote. For example, a 
vote at a General meeting, a committee meeting, a local meeting, etc.

Since, by definition of the bylaws, I am not an active member, I would not be 
allowed a vote because I do not regularly  attend the County General Meeting.

My question for all is whether this rule, if enforced, discourages participation 
by new party members or those who are at a geographic distance from the meeting 
site.  This would seem to say that if you want to have a voice, you have to 
spend the time to come to the County Meeting on a regular basis, including for 
me, at least 45 minutes drive time each way. These provisions would act to 
prevent those who have a vital interest in a single issue from coming to a 
County Meeting to take some action on that issue.  They would be allowed to 
talk, but not to vote if a decision were required.

If not enforced, then should the rule be removed from the bylaws?

Further, the bylaws state that:

8.2 The County Council, or a committee appointed by the County Council or 
designated at a general meeting, shall review these Bylaws in their entirety 
every two years for the purposes of proposing amendments and assuring that these 
Bylaws are consistent with the rules and Bylaws of the California Green Party.

Has this been done?  I do not remember it beins a discussion on this list over 
the last several years in which I have participated.

Wes
-- 
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you 
are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente

Wes Rolley
http://www.refpub.com/
Tel: 408.778.3024