[Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Re: [GPCA-CC] Fwd: [G-C-F] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US Proposal: ID191 - BylawsAmendment to Clarify Affiliation Agreement]

[Gerry Gras]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [GPCA-CC] Fwd: [G-C-F] Discussion Has Begun on GP-US 
Proposal: ID191 - BylawsAmendment to Clarify Affiliation Agreement
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:59:28 -0800
From: Cat Woods <cat801 at mindspring.com>
Reply-To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc at marla.cagreens.org>
To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc at marla.cagreens.org>
References: <20051117013851.61492.qmail at web51808.mail.yahoo.com>

John Morton wrote:
 >
 > This may have an effect on the plenary discussion of
 > the affiliation proposal.  Should we ask the proposal
 > presenters to consider this?

Proposal presenters have considered this.

After 2 exploded discussions of the proposal at county
council meetings (SF and Sonoma), I'm convinced that we have
to keep this proposal as sharply focused on its point as
possible: the GA was promised the chance to revisit the
*TERMS* of its affiliation and approve them; here is its
chance.

In the SF meeting, most of the people believed we were
legitimately affiliated, there is no question, and I was
suspect for even following through on the promise to bring
it to the GA.

In the Sonoma meeting, most of the people believed we should
disaffiliate and therefore wanted to reject the proposal to
express this.

I would like to point out that failing to approve the
affiliation agreement is not synonymous with disaffiliating.
If people want to disaffiliate, either because of the lack
of proportionate representation or because of this recent
proposal or any other reason, then the thing to do would be
to amend the proposal to say that the GPCA "rejects the
affiliation agreement and disaffiliates." Note that this,
too, would require 80% to pass, and I don't think it would
pass that way.

John, you and Michael Rubin proposed to amend to the
proposal to require a state nominating convention for
national ballot lines. So far, that is the only proposed
amendment I have received. I will make any and all proposed
amendments available on the floor of the plenary, to see
what option can possibly get 80% approval. I want 80% for
one reason: I want clarity rather than further ambiguity.
Failing to pass anything will result in a lot more
dissension and ambiguity, and I neither want that nor to be
held responsible for that. Please send suggested amendments
to me to have available for the GA.

I repeat: people who want to affiliate need to propose an
amendment that says that; people who don't want a state
nominating convention to even be allowed need to propose an
amendment that says that. The proposal as written was the
most neutral interpretation of our bylaw (which is very
explicit) that I could come up with. I can't determine in
advance what has a chance of 80% agreement at the GA. If
people want it amended in a specific way, it would be best
to say so now.

-Cat.
_______________________________________________
gpca-cc mailing list
gpca-cc at marla.cagreens.org
http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc