[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 13:44:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Christina Olague <c_olague at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc at marla.cagreens.org>
To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc at marla.cagreens.org>



I think we should remove the proposal from the plenary ..at least this
is the sentiment I heard expressed at the GM in SF on Wednesday.

Cat Woods <cat801 at mindspring.com> wrote:

     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, ther! e 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.
     _______________________________________________
     gp! ca-cc mailing list
     gpca-cc at marla.cagreens.org
     http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/> 


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: nsmail.txt
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20051118/33485c17/attachment.txt>