[Sosfbay-discuss] Comments on selected plenary agenda items

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

June 15, 2006
 
To: Anyone Interested -- The following are comments related to agenda items  
announced for the GPCA General Assembly in Ventura County June 24-25, 2006
 
These are simply my own questions and positions.  Warner  Bloomberg  
_wsb3attyca at aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3attyca at aol.com) 
 
Consent Calendar Items
 
Proposed Amended Bylaw 5-4.3 re Quorum  Edit item.  At the  beginning of 
subparagraph a) the text should read “Delegates and alternates  shall...”
 
Proposed Amended Bylaw 7-1.3.1 re Coordinating Committee meetings.   
Questions:  I thought 
GPCA Bylaws require committees to publish their  meeting agendas two weeks 
before the scheduled meeting.  If there are going  to be bylaws about this, why 
not make it two weeks?  Maybe that would help  the CC with its planning and 
communications issues.  What happened to the  80% requirement for policy issues 
vs. 2/3rds for administrative issues?
 
Proposed Amendment to Bylaw 7-1.2 to increase at large Representatives to  
the CC from 4 to 6.  This does not make sense to me.  Adding more  people who 
are going to be contentious, or nonparticipating, or unwilling to do  their jobs 
to appoint committee members and work group liaisons, or get plenary  agendas 
published on time, or even show up for a teleconference to constitute a  
meeting quorum (including absent alternates), are unable to schedule their own  
annual retreat (including dealing with budget), and have been unable to even  
respond to the CoCos proposal for a joint retreat, is NOT a formula for  
addressing the longstanding problems with the Coordinating Committee.  I  would 
support a bylaw which creates alternates for At Large Reps, but not  expanding the 
number of the CC votes at this time.  
 
Bylaw 2 Purpose statement proposal.  This item does not belong on the  
consent calendar.  This is the kind of philosophical and writing item that  first 
should be presented as a report with discussion and then brought back at a  f
uture plenary for adoption with or without revisions.
 
Regular Agenda
 
Proposal to amend Bylaws to add Section 3.1.3 re Membership -- Edit  
suggestions:
 
In 2nd paragraph change text to read:  “County organizations may  extend 
County Green Party membership...10 Key Values, described in the County  Green Party
’s bylaws.”
 
In 3rd paragraph change text to read:  “Only GPCA members...“
 
In the 4th paragraph change text to read:  “... Coordinating Committee  
representative and alternate, ...“
 
Proposal to add Bylaw 7-4.2.1 Questions:  Is this an attempt at term  limits 
in disguise?  If not, there should be an express provision that  states the 
definition of the terms do bar the same person from being  re-appointed for an 
additional term.  What happens when the term ends and  there has been a delay 
convening a General Assembly (e.g., in 2006)? 
 
More questions about the Bylaws proposals:  A number of the proposals  are 
reported as being approved on a 3 to 1 vote.  How many people are  supposed to 
be on the Bylaws Committee?  If it is more than 4, why wasn’t  there a full 
committee to consider these proposals.  Were there additional  appointmens after 
the proposals were considered?  Were the proposals  reconsidered after the 
additional members were appointed?  What were the  opposing considerations for 
each of the proposals?  Why weren’t the  dissenting opinions included in the 
proposals reports?
 
GPCA Candidate Endorsement Policies
 
General Elections:  There is a major flaw in this proposal in that it  denies 
any opportunity for legislative candidates in partisan elections (i.e.,  
State Assembly, State Senate, and U.S. Congress) to receive any state party  
endorsement.  This is tactically misguided and is disrespectful to  candidates who 
may want to be able to list such an endorsement.  The cure  is simple:
 
A.  Delete the proposed paragraphs 5. and 6.  B. Replace those  with the 
following language:
 
New 5.  A candidate for legislative office who has previously received  the 
endorsement of the County Green Party in the elective district, or at least  
one County Green Party where there are multiple counties in the district, who is 
 the GPCA nominee after the Primary Election, may seek  the endorsement of  
the General Assembly delegates at a plenary held within thirty days after the  
Primary Election, which, if given, shall constitute the endorsement by the 
state  party.  Such endorsements shall be placed upon the agenda at any such 
state  meeting.
 
New 6.  In the event a General Assembly is not held within thirty days  
following the Primary Election, a GPCA nominee for legislative office who has  
received County Green Party endorsement, may apply to the GPCA Coordinating  
Committee, which shall have authority upon at least 30 days notice before  
consideration, to authorize endorsement by the GPCA.
 
I am less concerned about the same issues before the Primary Election, but  
note that there is no proposal for GPCA endorsement of nonpartisan candidates  
(although whether they would want such an endorsement is another issue).
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20060616/ba0d4479/attachment.html>