[GPSCC-chat] Volunteers for delegates for the statewide Standing General Assembly and Santa Clara County Council?

[Spencer Graves]

Hello, All:


	  The Santa Clara Greens could use more people on the County Council 
and as representatives for a statewide email Standing General Assembly 
(SGA).  We currently have 4 people on the County Council, only 3 of 
which are officially signed up for the SGA. We're allowed 5 on the SGA.


	  A call for volunteers is hereby tendered for at least one more person 
to serve on the County Council and two more to represent Santa Clara 
County on the SGA.  We currently have 4 males on the County Council. 
More females would reduce the apparent discrepancy between the current 
gender composition of our County Council and our party's commitment to 
gender equity.


	  For the past year or so that I've been on the County Council, our 
duties have essentially been limited to informal meetings to consider 
approving time sensitive issues that can't wait until the next monthly 
meeting.  The duties of members of the SGA have been to monitor email 
traffic on "gpca-votes at cagreens.org" and do whatever you think is 
appropriate.


         For more on this, see the email below -- or ask me.


        Best Wishes,
        Spencer


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: SGA Quorum
Date: 	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:00:53 -0800
From: 	Jared Laiti <jared.laiti at gmail.com>
To: 	Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>


Spencer,

Below is the message that went out to the county contacts list including
the email to report delegates to.

<snip>

Jared


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: County Contacts <contacts2006 at cagreens.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Subject: [GPCA Official Notice] Announcement: GPCA Standing Green Assembly
To: County Contacts


<snip>


Subject: Announcement: GPCA Standing Green Assembly

Dear Green Party County Council

This is an initial announcement to let you know that the GPCA 
Coordinating Committee has acted to establish a GPCA Standing General 
Assembly (SGA) for these two purposes

*(1) To conduct County Polling on the ballot measures that will be on 
the statewide ballot in November. *


<snip>


*(2) To conduct voting on the individual sections of the SGA proposal
presented at the San Francisco General Assembly, as requested by many
delegates there*
*
*
Voting on these sections would occur after voting upon the ballot measures,
to leave time for careful consideration of each.

The SGA will consists of delegates from each county, just like a
face-to-face General Assembly, and will be conducted on-line via a 
voting page similar to that of the Green Party of the United States 
(http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/index), supported by email list and 
conference call discussion.

Counties are asked to identify their Standing Green Delegates for this
process before July 1, appointed by the outgoing 2010-2012 County 
Council, and send their names and email addresses to 
applications at cagreens.org. The number of delegates per active county 
with data based upon the annual February statewide registation count is 
listed on this web page <http://www.cagreens.org/sga/2012-2013/delegates>

Further details on the operation and exact timing of the SGA will be 
soon forthcoming. Please contact us with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Sanda Everette, Alex Shantz
Co-coordinators, GPCA Coordinating Committee
http://www.cagreens.org/committees/coordinating

PS - Please note that the use of the SGA for these two purposes does not
affect the scheduling of General Assemblies. Since the San Francisco
General Assembly did not set the next date and location, GPCA Bylaws 
task the Coordinating Committee with that responsibility. At present, no
potential host county has been identified. It is expected that no 
General Assembly would occur before the November election.

*Attached below - Proposal approved by the Coordinating Committee on 
June 4th:  *

That the CC adopt the following bylaws interpretation

Whereas there has been broad interest within the GPCA in establishing a
Standing General Assembly since at least 2004-2007, when a CC-appointed
sub-committee was tasked with researching how to bring one to the GPCA 
(http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sgarc-l); and

Whereas there was strong support for a Standing General Assembly during 
the December 2011 General Assembly strategy session discussion in Los 
Angeles;
and

Whereas the strategy session is designated by GPCA bylaws to provide 
input into a two-year party work plan for the CC to present at the 
subsequent General Assembly; and

Whereas the GPCA Bylaws Committee subsequently began work on an SGA 
right at that meeting and thereafter; and

Whereas the GPCA Bylaws Committee determined that a revision of the GPCA
Bylaws to incorporate a Standing General Assembly would be best
accomplished as part of an overall reordering and simplification of the
existing bylaws text that reformatted, renumbered, and edited for 
brevity, clarity, consistency and better organization, without changing 
any meaning;
and

Whereas the GPCA Bylaws Committee additionally determined that to ensure 
a smoothly functioning SGA, other amendments to the text should be made 
to resolve ambiguities and disputed points in related processes that 
would affect the SGA, including how delegates would be chosen, which 
counties are active, which committees and working groups can bring 
proposals to the SGA and upon what areas, and when and how coordinating 
committee elections are held; and

Whereas the Agenda Team, Coordinating Committee and General Assembly all
agreed upon dedicating less than two hours to the SGA proposal on Sunday
morning, May 13; and

Whereas it was clear from discussion from delegates during that agenda 
item that they wanted to see an SGA; and

Whereas the GPCA’s consensus-seeking process was followed, where 
clarifying questions were taken and outstanding concerns expressed on 
the text, and amendments proposed to address the outstanding concerns; and

Whereas many delegates did not express concerns with specific parts of 
the SGA proposal, but instead requested breaking up the proposal into a 
series of votes on various parts of the proposal; and

Whereas for the purposes of responding to this outstanding concern, the
presenters separated the part of the proposal about Coordinating 
Committee elections from those parts relating to an SGA;

Whereas by the end of the time allowed, there was not a decision to 
approve bylaws language to establish an SGA; and

Whereas the General Assembly approved of a two year work plan calendar 
on May 12th, which was based a Standing Green Assembly being in place 
and in use over next two years, starting on July 1; with the calendar's 
approval contingent upon an SGA being approved by the General Assembly; and

Whereas there will not be a General Assembly before the November General
Election and therefore the GPCA must use its County Polling process to 
take its positions on the between seven and nine measures that will be 
on the November ballot; and

Whereas the work plan calendar is based upon the SGA scheduled County
Polling to take place via the SGA this fall; and

Whereas the GPCA did not reach quorum in County Polling held this 
spring, with the email County Polling model used; and

Whereas the GPCA Campaigns and Candidates Working Group is of the 
opinion that the existing County Polling process in the Bylaws appendix 
can be interpreted to allow for the use of the same voting page 
technology such as that specified in the SGA proposal; and

Whereas for the purposes of maximizing its stances on the ballot 
measures, its in the strategic interest of the GPCA to establish its 
positions by Labor Day, when the fall campaign official begins; and 
therefore such County Polling should begin its discussion process by 
approximately the same time as advocated in the SGA proposal – July 1st 
– in order to provide for sufficient discussion and voting before Labor Day;

Therefore it is in the interest of the CC to authorize its IT 
sub-committee to prepare the web-paged voting capability to effectuate 
such a County Polling process in the time period recommended by July 1st 
if feasible; and

Whereas the CC is tasked with calling a General Assembly under GPCA 
Bylaws, when the General Assembly has not done so itself; and

Whereas the San Francisco General Assembly in May did not set a date or
location for the next General Assembly; and

Whereas no county party has come forward with a proposal to host the 
next General Assembly; and

Whereas under GPCA Bylaws the CC is authorized to “make decisions (but 
not set policy) between General Assembly meetings; and

Whereas given the broad support for the SGA concept at the May General
Assembly suggests that the topic continues to need to be heard; and

Whereas to address the SGA proposal in its multiple parts in the manner
requested by some delegates would require a large part of the weekend of
the next General Assembly, if the SGA is agendized for it; and

Whereas attendance at recent General Assembly has been only between the
high 30s to high 40s in delegates, with many parts of the state
unrepresented because of the time and cost involved with travel; and

Whereas a General Assembly that is mostly about bylaws is likely to draw 
an even smaller number of delegates than the low turnout of recent 
years, depreciating the democratic decision-making base of any decisions 
taken; and

Whereas at the same time it was clear that for the just concluded 
General Assembly, many delegates came without having either read the 
material closely and/or didn't know or understand the existing GPCA 
bylaws, suggesting that the face-to-face process may not be the best for 
intricate, extensive bylaw revision work; and

Whereas establishing a SGA would address many issues for the party,
including allowing it to make decisions in between general assemblies, 
to involve more counties in the process, to provide more time for 
delegates to review proposed material, and to take care of various 
administrative decision-making via the SGA to free up face-to-face 
meetings for more direct political work; and

Whereas GPCA Bylaws around bylaws interpretations state that the CC 
"shall decide these questions subject to review at the next General 
Assembly”;

Therefore the CC interprets the existing bylaws that allow it to set the
next GA, to set the next GA as an SGA, based upon the SGA proposal of 
May 13, for the following purposes:

1)    Conducting County Polling; and
2)    Voting upon the individual sections of the SGA proposal, to address
the outstanding concerns from the San Francisco General Assembly (and in
the process allow the SGA to conduct its review of the CC’s interpretation).


_______________________________________________
Contacts2006 mailing list
Contacts2006 at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006


> --
> Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
> President and Chief Technology Officer
> Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
> 751 Emerson Ct.
> San José, CA 95126
> ph:  408-655-4567
> web:  www.structuremonitoring.com