[Sosfbay-discuss] Santa Clara County Greens

[Gerry Gras]

Wes Rolley wrote:

> 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.


How do you feel about the question about 2/3s vs. 80%?
I think that at our special meeting to discuss the proposals
we were generally, but not completely, in agreement that we
did not want to see this changed.

So will you be attending the meeting?



> 
> 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?


I don't have time to respond adequately right now.

Short answer, almost all GPSCC decisions are made by consensus,
sometimes real consensus, sometimes with one or two stand-asides.
Rarely do we go to a vote.  When we have had a vote, we have
allowed all Greens to vote.



> 
> 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.


I think we have been remiss here.

Gerry


> 
> Wes
>