<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>June 15, 2006</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To: Anyone Interested -- The following are comments related to agenda items
announced for the GPCA General Assembly in Ventura County June 24-25, 2006</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>These are simply my own questions and positions. Warner
Bloomberg <A href="mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com">wsb3attyca@aol.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Consent Calendar Items</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Proposed Amended Bylaw 5-4.3 re Quorum Edit item. At the
beginning of subparagraph a) the text should read “Delegates and alternates
shall...”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Proposed Amended Bylaw 7-1.3.1 re Coordinating Committee meetings.
Questions: I thought <BR>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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
future plenary for adoption with or without revisions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regular Agenda</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Proposal to amend Bylaws to add Section 3.1.3 re Membership -- Edit
suggestions:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In 3rd paragraph change text to read: “Only GPCA members...“</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In the 4th paragraph change text to read: “... Coordinating Committee
representative and alternate, ...“</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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)? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>GPCA Candidate Endorsement Policies</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A. Delete the proposed paragraphs 5. and 6. B. Replace those
with the following language:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>