| Green Party Committees:
Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures (BRPP) |
Green Party Committees Overview
Report by the SCOC/BRPP to the GPUS CC on committees
in the Green Party of the United States.
As amended 6/27/03
PART 1 THE COMMITTEES
OUR PROCESS
The Bylaws, Rules, Policies, and Procedures committee (BRPP) was convened
shortly after the November Election (November 22, to judge from the
earliest record in email saved by a subcommittee member). After the
initial email recruitment and convening, about 17 people signed up, and we
convened a conference call that had about 10 people on it. Due to a most
understandable family circumstance, the person designated to convene
missed the call. Not having a great deal of direction, but having more
than a fair amount of experience among us, we convened ourselves on the
call and proceeded to try to divide up the work. We created subcommittees
to look at the structure and functioning of various parts of the Green
Party. Notes from that call were circulated.
The Subcommittee on Committees (SCOC) ended up with 4 experienced
volunteers. We proceeded to work immediately, and within days had drafted
a letter to all GPUS committees asking them to submit a copy of their
rules and procedures, and promptly sent it out. (see appendix) The SCOC
has already been a complete and rousing success because several committees
proceeded to write some rules upon receiving the request.
We read the rules and procedures and founding documents of the various
committees (see appendix), along with many other documents about the Green
Party. We also studied the current CC list, looking at how debates and
decisions take place. We sought input about committee business from
friends, acquaintances and members of Green committees. We looked for what
seems to work, what committees do the same, what they do differently.
As we went into this work, it became apparent that was at issue was not so
much the internal functioning of the committees, although that is
something we reviewed, but more the way in which the SC relates to the
other committees, and how it tries to accomplish its work. The
"flatness" of the hierarchy in the Green Party makes it
relatively abnormal in the world of large, multi-dimensional
organizations. While we are trying not to have to reinvent the wheel, we
do face unique circumstances in our efforts to create a more smoothly
functioning organization in this time of trouble in the world and great
growth in the Green Party. We therefore went back to the SC with more
questions, stimulating thinking there that was sent back to us, including
a very interesting chart(see appendix, for this, and all other documents).
In Part 2 we shall present the materials directly related to the SC, and
relay our analysis and recommendations.
Beginning with the next section, the SCOC presents excerpts from some of
what was sent to us by various committees and our reflections upon that
material. What we looked for in the materials sent to us by other
committees included: 1) How each committee was created; 2) How the
committee is populated; 3) How it is structured; 4) The process by which
the committee's work is accomplished; 5) How decisions are made. As we
analyzed the materials, our experience on other committees helped the
analysis. Following presentation of the data and analysis, we make
recommendations and suggest
actions. The first part of this report deals with those topics we felt
were relevant to our study of committees. Part 2 is a logical outgrowth of
that work and covers our research about the SC and thoughts on how it
might do its work better and more efficiently.
COMMITTEES IN THE BYLAWS OF THE GPUS
"The Green Party may form committees to further its work. The
committees serve at the discretion of the Coordinating Committee and shall
report regularly to the Coordinating Committee. The Steering Committee
shall coordinate the work of the committees and task them with various
duties when appropriate. Unless otherwise decided by the Coordinating
Committee, each member state of the Association may have up to three (3)
representatives on each committee. Voting on committees will be one vote
per each member state represented. A member state may exercise its right
to participate on a committee at any time. Committee participation need
not be limited to those members of a state party who are representatives
of that state on the Coordinating Committee nor to representatives of
member states."
This is what the bylaws say about committees. They exist, they report to
the CC, the CC and SC can ask them to take on tasks, Greens can volunteer
for them, the SC oversees them, the voting is by state, and non delegates
can serve equally. This is actually out of date, though I copied it
recently (within the last few months) from the GPUS website. First, let us
note that it is out of date in referring to the Association, of State
Green Parties, and should be updated to reflect that it is a bylaw of the
Green Party of the United States.
Secondly, we should note the clause about Greens who do not live in
members states and delete it, as that is essentially moot. If Greens in
the various states are joining committees, they live in states are in the
process of joining the GPUS if their home state is not already a member.
The subcommittee on committees also wants to draw attention to two
provisions about membership and decision making in the above quote from
the bylaws. The first is that all committees that have this type of open,
volunteer, structure have a limit of 3 members from any one state on the
committee. We have extensively discussed this, and considered changing or
abolishing this rule. We think it should be kept. It ensures that no one
state can dominate a committee, and that a national committee will have
national membership. Related to this is the provision that each member
state, rather than each member, of the committee shall have a vote.
Committees, as noted below, very rarely, if ever, resort to a vote, so
this provision rarely comes into play. During the consensus seeking parts
of a process, each committee member has their own voice. If it comes to a
vote, it reminds committee members that they not only represent
themselves, they represent, in one sense, their state party, and if a
decision is tough enough that consensus is impossible, they need to
consult with their state parties in some manner. A joint decision by
committee members from the same state is a good place to start.
DISCUSSION OF THE BYLAW
The bylaw quoted above also does not reflect all types of current
committee make-up, as there are committees with a different membership
than described here. As The BRPP SCOC was preparing the first draft of
this report, we saw posted on the BRPP list serve a provision for the CC
to designate special election rules for specific committees. This was
inserted in 2000 so that the Transition Committee could be revived. It's
also been used for the CCC. At last check, that rule change was not posted
on the website with a reconciliation of the bylaws to note that there are
exceptions to the general rule. Be that as it may, there has obviously
been some evolution in our thinking: the Green Party has figured out that
one size does not fit all; and, that form ought to follow function. The
Green Party has therefore given itself the opportunity to use alternative
forms when that is more appropriate to the mission of the committee being
created.
But even before this change in the rules, there was a great variability in
committees. It immediately strikes you once you probe. The committees are
all different. They each have a style that reflects what they are
constituted to do. The International Committee has a great deal on
protocol in its documents, as one would expect from a committee focused on
smoothing communication among various Green Parties. The Media Committee
does not have time for diplomacy; they have very tight deadlines and are
designed for very frequent decisions about the message of the Green Party
on important issues and how to put a public face on it. The Media
committee rules are about the steps in getting out a press release.
Accreditation has to ask really tough questions and maintain the high
standards that Green Parties must adhere to if we are to be successful at
Green politics.
After reading over the various submissions, it is quite clear that there
is a great deal of variability in the rules the committees submitted, as
well as a great deal of commonality. The BRPP wants the CC to note the
variability, note that the diversity of mechanisms serves useful purposes,
and note that committee problems are not that big a deal, and that most
often they are related related to the practice of politics and not the
structure under which a committee operates. It took us several months to
figure all of this out, but that research laid a base that allowed us to
delve more deeply into those things that are problems.
As noted above, most committees were started with the same basic,general
structure laid out in the bylaws. A few were different. After a while the
sameness was almost invisible, so we begin this section with a committee
that does not have the normally prescribed structure.
COMMITTEE SUBMISSIONS
Document submitted by the CCC via email.
The CCC (COORDINATED CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE)
The CCC is 10 members, elected at the CC meeting: 5 men, 5 women, chosen
by IRV. Because the structure and composition of the CCC is so different
from the norm, we are including all of its founding documents and some
commentary form a member. For other committees, we shall only include
relevant sections on decision making, in the interest of brevity. Compare
and contrast the following with the general rules on committees that were
presented above.
The Coordinated Campaign Committee is composed of 10 voting members drawn
from affiliated state parties. CCC members are selected annually by the
members of the Coordinating Committee, and may be members of that
committee or of an affiliated state party; no state shall have in excess
of one member on the CCC. Vacancies on the CCC are filled by the Steering
Committee. The members of the CCC annually elect up to three co-chairs
from among its members. The Coordinated Campaign Committee works with a
pool of CCC Associates; these include one liaison from each affiliated
state party not already represented on the CCC as well as staff or other
persons necessary to the productivity of the CCC who shall be chosen as
deemed appropriate by the CCC. Associates may participate in CCC
discussions and meetings as needed but are not regular voting members of
the CCC.
Coordinated Campaign Committee Description: The Coordinated Campaign
Committee (CCC) is a standing committee of the USGP that cooperates with
state and local parties in the coordination and support of federal, state,
and local Green Party electoral campaigns. Specific functions of the CCC
include:
a) Tracking of Green Party candidates at all levels of government.
b) Facilitation of discussions regarding electoral strategy among state
parties.
c) Identification of target communities and districts for national
support.
d) Support for candidate recruitment in targeted communities and
districts.
e) Volunteer, media, celebrity, and resource mobilization for specific
candidacies in targeted communities and districts.
f) Training and materials support for Green Party candidates and
activists.
g) Analysis of past campaigns for lessons learned.
h) State-by-state tracking of ballot status and laws.
i) Publication and distribution of an annual call for candidates.
j) Organization of a Green Party campaign school.
In carrying out these specific functions, the Coordinated Campaign
Committee shall consider the following priorities:
i) Securing and maintaining state ballot lines.
ii) Existing on-the-ground support for candidate.
iii) Likelihood of winning.
iv) Racial inclusion, diversity, and gender balance.
v) Four Pillars and 10 Key Values of the Green Party.
vi) Potential for Green Party growth in targeted area.
vii) Past electoral success in targeted area.
viii) Likelihood of gaining legislative majority or of securing an
executive
office.
ix) Districts/States where incumbent is unopposed or only one other
candidate has announced for office.
x) Districts/States where Green candidates are likely to run at least
second.
xi) Districts/States where all other likely candidates are highly
objectionable.
The committee member who sent the Charter materials also included answers
to some of the BRPP questions that had been included in the original
letters to the committees:
"I'll take a stab at your questions, and invite anyone else to fill
in the gaps.
We are elected at the convention by proportional representation. There are
five women and five men elected. Co-chairs (one male, one female) are
selected by the entire committee shortly after the election. There is no
process for filling vacancies on the committee (that I am aware of).
(Later communications noted that the SC can replace members between Annual
CC meetings.)
We have 50+ slots for state 'associates' that are tasked with helping to
communicate the
services offered to campaigns by the committee, as well as helping to
compile election-related information for the national party (election
results, filing deadlines, etc.) Currently, perhaps 25 of those slots are
filled and we are attempting to fill them all over the next month.
Teleconferences are facilitated (usually by the co-chair). A stack is
kept. An agenda is created and disseminated by the co-chair before the
meeting. The listserv is used to discuss issues and come to
consensus."
Just from looking at the rules BRPP cannot tell you how well the CCC is
functioning. We have some idea what is up because of the contact some of
us have with the CCC in our work as leaders in our state parties. We can
say that the rules present no real barriers to functioning. How well it
functions depends upon how well the people on the committee take
responsibility, and how well its internal leadership handle their
responsibilities to keep the committee on task and resolve any committee
conflict. On the question of decision making, one we think is of great
importance, and that reflects Green practice as we create a new type of
politics, we note that the committee has no voting procedures in its
documents, but instead relies on consensus to make decisions. Other
committees, usually created and populated by the general process laidout
in the bylaws, have written their rules differently, but with essentially
the same result: they use a consensus decision making process.
From the Presidential Exploratory Committee: a note from one of the
co-chairs.
DECISION MAKING
The PEC (Presidential Exploratory Committee) process is guided by input
from the state parties. In general, consensus is sought for any
significant decision, such as removing a state suggested potential
candidate from the contact list. The PEC is dealing with strategically
important and sensitive decisions and taking the time to reach consensus
on outcome or on appropriate delegation is more than an exercise--it is
essential to the task. A member of the BRPP who also serves on the PEC
made an observation that went out in a first analysis of PEC rules when
the committee was reviewing the materials that had come in: "So far
there have been no votes during my time on the committee. Since the
committee does not make actual decisions about candidates, voting has not
been necessary. We did really practice consensus on removing candidates
from the list such as ....... It took real consensus to get a removal.
From a co-chair of the Accreditation Committee
"Some members would prefer to use a pure consensus mode (PCM), never
going to a vote. At least one of the co-chairs would prefer to use the CA
model (CAM), given that the AC does have 60 days to make a recommendation.
The argument for the PCM is that a vote from the AccredCom would be
considered unanimous, but that the AccredCom had come to an agreement of
give-and-takes to address outstanding concerns. With this model, even
though outstanding concerns could stand aside, making the consensus, the
concern is that the stand aside's concern may be discarded once the CC
gets a report, reading: 'there was consensus, with one stand aside.' CAM
has similar problems: Should the group be unable to come to consensus, the
proposal would go to a vote. The yes/no/stand asides/abstains would lead
to an online discussion session with the 100+ CC delegation."
It is interesting to note that the justification for a pure consensus
committee process is the belief that coming to the CC with anything less
than a fully consensed decision, with dissension laid out by the committee
for the CC to see, will likely lead to a much more difficult process for
the CC, something we all seek to avoid - especially CC members.
>From the International Committee:
"When the period for discussion expires, the Facilitator presents the
proposal to IC members again, in revised form, if necessary to take into
account improvements achieved through discussion. S/he then tests for
consensus, specifying a time limit for response, ranging from one day to a
week. In cases where consensus cannot be achieved, and dissenters are not
willing to stand aside, the proposal may be brought to a vote and will be
considered passed if it is acceptable to 2/3 of the IC members. [This last
provision is tentative. It is not clear that there would ever be a point
at which we would want to pass a resolution on to the CC if it has not
been fully supported by the IC.]"
Every committee that responded (a few did not) noted that even when
committees have a voting procedure, they are reluctant to use it. How much
clearer can a committee make it, than to send along it rules with a note
that it never really wants to vote and has never done so?
The Platform Committee has very clear rules for voting. In its charter it
quotes from the GPUS materials that created it and the general bylaws of
the GPUS. Here, too, it was noted by committee members that the Platform
Committee has never resorted to a vote to make a decision.
"I. Membership and Voting
The Platform Committee of the USGP shall be governed by the follow bylaw
of the USGP: 'The Green Party may form committees to further its work. The
committees serve at the discretion of the Coordinating Committee and shall
report regularly to the Coordinating Committee. The Steering Committee
shall coordinate the work of the committees and task them with various
duties when appropriate. Unless otherwise decided by the Coordinating
Committee, each member state of the Association may have up to three (3)
representatives on each committee. Voting on committees will be one vote
per each member state represented. A member state may exercise its right
to participate on a committee at any time. ..."
The PlatCom then proceeds to lay out a more detailed decision making
process, including the voting process:
"IV. Decision-making
All decisions by the platcom (live or online) shall be through motions
passed by consensus, or by voting. Any state may make a motion if
supported by a majority of its representatives. When a motion is seconded
by another state, the decision-making process shall commence. In the case
of seconded motions online, a two (?) week discussion period shall
>automatically ensue. During the discussion period, the sponsoring
state may accept amendments it deems friendly. Blocking objections may
also be made by states. At the end of that period, if no blocking concerns
remain, consensus will be accepted; if blocking objections remain, the
Secretary shall announce a VOTE on X. States shall then have one (?) week
to vote. Motions which do not pass within that week shall fail. Quorum: A
quorum for any decision-making shall be 2/3 of the states represented on
the committee. Currently, a quorum of at least 6 members ([i.e., states]
is required. (This may have changed, due to some members stepping down and
new ones joining the committee.) Voting will be done by state, as per USGP
bylaws." "Work may be conducted over conference calls.
Conference call decisions are not final, but must be submitted on email to
the rest of the committee for approval, possible objections or amendments.
Members who have difficulty paying personal conference call costs be
reimbursed upon application to the Co-chairs, pending availability of
funds. A call for an expedited decision may be requested by the proposing
state or co-chairs, in case of an urgent need for a decision. Robert's
Rules of Order shall be the default authority for decision-making
questions, unless otherwise specified by these rules or by the USGP
bylaws."
Rules for what are proper decisions are also laid out, probably because
Platform decisions are different than other kinds and need special care.
It has even laid out quorums, which the other committees have not done.
This committee has even enshrined Robert's Rules for when all else fails.
COMMONALITIES
While the committees vary in history, practice and mission, there are some
very strong commonalities that reflect both the Green tradition and the
traditional rules of democracy. Greens try to lay out, and practice, rules
that are open and encourage transparency, and they try mightily to come to
consensus. Our practices do not always come up to this standard: we are
human, and this is politics, where power does count, and influence and
standing make a difference, but we do try. We hope that our practices also
allow true wisdom to be separated from the chaff, and again, we are
imperfect. But as Ron Stanchfield signs his posts, "progress, not
perfection."
Recommendation 1
THE BRPP recommends that the diversity of the committees be allowed to
continue. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and no one can be sure
what method is best. Let those who have the experience to choose, do so,
trying to find the most appropriate form for a task. This is not to say
that electing a 10 member CCC is absolutely the best methodology for the
task, but, then, who is to say that it is not? That we use so many forms
in our committees could be a liability, making it harder to get work done
or for new members to get up to speed; but it could also be a strength
because it makes it so much harder for those who wish us ill to infiltrate
and manipulate, and because it allows committee to be structured in the
way that fits the work being done. There is no way on Earth to decide
which variation of democracy is best for a task other than experience, so
let 1000 flowers bloom.
Recommendation 2
[The current bylaw on committees, as reflected on the website, is out of
date. The BRPP suggests it be replaced with the following:
ŗThe Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of the United States shall
establish standing committees and may create other committees according to
need. The CC shall cause to be produced, and then approve a document for
each committee including the purpose, duties and general charge of the
committee, as a part of the process of creating a committee.
The Steering Committee shall be responsible for oversight for all
committees and ensure that the CC is kept informed about the work of the
committees.
Delegates to the CC shall automatically be eligible to serve on committees
by virtue of their position. Other committee members shall be members of a
state green party and have written permission from their state party to
serve. Permission shall be submitted by the CC delegates or State Party
co-chairs from the various states to the co-chairs of the relevant
committee, and can be submitted on paper or via email. No state shall have
more than three members per committee without a waiver from the Steering
Committee. No committee shall have less than five states represented.
Further, the BRPP proposes that the CC adopt the following Policies and
Procedures for Committees.
All committees shall:
1) develop written policy and procedure (P&P) documents which must be
approved by the Coordinating Committee.
2) strive to achieve consensus for all decision-making and codify
consensus processes and back-up voting systems in their P&Ps for use
under appropriate circumstances such as failure of consensus.
3) when voting, vote by state with each state receiving one vote. The CC
or the SC may, in their reviews of the work of a committee, allow a
committee to waive the one state, one vote rule and replace it with a one
person, one vote standard.
4) codify P&Ps used to conduct general committee business and, when
appropriate, codify rules for decision making via conference calls, email,
and/or in-person meetings
5) report to the CC on a regular basis and set up a schedule for written
reporting, with monthly reports being the standard unless otherwise
approved by the CC.
6) develop policies and procedures by which minority opinions on committee
business may be conveyed to the CC.
7) have two co-chairs unless directed to have a different number by the
CC. Gender balance shall be the norm, though under extraordinary
circumstances committees may choose another arrangement.
8) detail all non-co-chair leadership position (e.g. secretary,
coordinators etc.) in the committeešs P&P document.
9) conduct elections for leadership slots using IRV or proportional
representation and codify election procedures in their P&P document.
10) participate in a biannual review of committee P&Ps conducted by
the BRPP, which shall report to the CC on each committeešs procedures.
11) develop and make available to all members of the committee a packet
including all rules, policies and procedures and provide other training
and orientation, as appropriate, for new members.
12) post rules, policies and procedures on their website.
13) set up guidelines for member participation, with an emphasis on
assuring participation as a requirement of membership and/or participation
in consensus decision making or quorum voting.
14) use Robertšs Rules of Order as the default rules for any procedural
matter not discussed in these by-laws.]
The current bylaw on committees, as reflected on the website, is out of
date. The BRPP suggests it be replaced with the following:
"The Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of the United States
shall establish standing committees and may create other committees
according to need. Each new committee will produce a detailed outline
(including purpose, duties, general charge, structure, and membership
restrictions) of its rules and have it approved by the CC as part of the
process of creating said committee.
The Steering Committee shall be responsible for oversight for all
committees and ensure that the CC is kept informed about the work of the
committees.
Delegates to the CC shall automatically be eligible to serve on committees
by virtue of their position. Other committee members shall be members of a
state Green Party and have written permission from their state party to
serve. Permission shall be submitted by the CC delegates or State Party
co-chairs from the various states to the co-chairs of the relevant
committee, and can be submitted on paper or via email. No state shall have
more than three members per committee without a waiver from the Steering
Committee. No committee shall have fewer than five states represented.
There shall be three categories of activity for GPUS committees:
1. MEMBERS - Committee Membership shall be defined as being a voting
member of a committee who may take part in all decision making. All
committee members shall be approved by their respective state parties
according to written, democratically derived state party rules that ensure
full and open due process
2. ADVISORS - It shall be at the discretion of committees to select
advisors. Advisor status shall be determined by individual committees in
their Rules, Policies and Procedures (RP&P). Anyone may serve as a
committee advisor. Advisors shall enjoy limited participation in committee
deliberations as determined by committees' written RP&Ps. Advisors
shall not be voting members of a committee, shall not formally introduce
proposals and shall not represent either the committee or the party.
Advisors shall serve one-year terms and will be eligible for re-election.
State parties shall be free to express objections to committees regarding
specific advisors. Such objections shall be considered by committee
members in their deliberations.
3. OBSERVERS - Committee approved observers may monitor the listserv
activity of a committee but cannot participate in discussions or votes.
Observers must be approved by committees according to their RP&P
documents.
Furthermore, committees may communicate with individual Greens on an
as-needed basis on specific matters of mutual import.
Further, the BRPP proposes that the CC adopt the following Policies and
Procedures for Committees.
All committees shall:
1) develop written rules, policies and procedure (RP&P) documents
which must be approved by the Coordinating Committee.
2) use consensus-seeking procedure with backup voting for all decision
making, and codify the procedure in their RP&Ps."
3) when voting, vote by state with each state casting one vote. The CC or
the SC may, in their reviews of the work of a committee, allow a committee
to waive the one state, one vote rule and replace it with a one member,
one vote standard.
4) codify RP&Ps used to conduct general committee business and, when
appropriate, codify rules for decision making via conference calls, email,
and/or in-person meetings.
5) report to the CC on a regular basis and set up a schedule for written
reporting, with monthly reports being the standard unless otherwise
approved by the CC.
6.) develop policies and procedures by which minority opinions on
committee business that relate to the internal workings of the Green Party
may be conveyed to the CC. Committees creating documents for external
publication (such as a platform) that will be voted upon by the CC or a
convention can decide whether or not these documents can be conveyed to
the CC or a convention without minority reports
7) have two co-chairs unless directed to have a different number by the
CC. Gender balance and co-chairs from different states shall be the norm,
though under extraordinary circumstances committees may choose another
arrangement.
8) Define all non-co-chair leadership positions (e.g. secretary,
coordinators etc.) in the committee's RP&P document.
9) conduct elections for leadership slots using preference voting and
codify election procedures in their RP&P document.
10) participate in a biannual review of committee RP&Ps conducted by
the BRPP, which shall report to the CC on each committeešs procedures.
11) develop and make available to all members of the committee a packet
including all rules, policies and procedures and provide other training
and orientation, as appropriate, for new members. This material shall also
be available on the committee
website.
12) set up guidelines for member participation, with an emphasis on
ensuring participation as a requirement of membership and/or participation
in consensus decision making or quorum voting.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
While most of the work of the SCOC could be turned into bylaw changes and
rules for committee procedures, there were a few things that came up that
could not be codified in that way, but are still sufficiently important as
to require mention in this report. We ask that the CC think about the
three following topics.
1. There are concerns about individuals or a small group of committee
members running roughshod over a committee and delaying its work. It is
undesirable in an organization like the Green Party to make rules to
stifle debate; however, extremely disruptive committee members can hinder
necessary work. It is hoped that all Greens will participate in good faith
on committees, and that their goal in all their work is the further
development of the party, but we must be aware that we shall be
infiltrated as we grow, that occasionally people may be unable to control
their interruptions, and that power seeking for individual gain or
personal agenda rather than the growth and benefit of the party will
occur. The BRPP will look at this issue again in the future. In the
meantime, we recommend that committees, in their development of internal
rules, look at these
issues and seek solutions. The multiplicity of solutions that will arise
give us a better chance of finding something that works more generally.
2. There has been discussion that every CC member should be mandated to
serve on at least one committee. This arose because, during this growing
phase of the party, there is much going on, and more people are needed if
the party is to keep up with all of its work. The BRPP recommend as
against mandating that CC delegates serve on committees. At our current
state of development, some state parties have a hard time finding CC
delegates, and many CC delegates have enough other things on their plates
internal to their state parties, that actively serving on a committee
would be too much for them. This can be especially true of smaller state
parties. To mandate committee membership may make it even harder to find
delegates and may push some delegates even further into only cursory
attention to CC business. Further, almost every committee already has
members who do not actively participate. To saddle committees with members
who do not have the time or inclination to actually do the work places an
undue burden on the committees. The BRPP does believe that state parties
should be given a strong suggestion that when their delegates do not
participate in committee work, they should find other people in their
state parties able to serve on committees. Of course, state parties are
always urged to find committee members: it is an excellent way to
introduce more members to the work of the GPUS and the CC, and good
training for future delegates, as well as a way to help grow the Green
Party. In the case of state parties with delegates who are not on
committees, it is an even stronger recommendation, so as to more equitably
distribute the load of running the organization.
3. Combined with the changes to be outlined in Part 2 of this report,
there is likely to be a greater burden placed upon committee co-chairs.
They will become a more important node of communication in our network and
have greater responsibilities. The BRPP has given some thought to this
enhanced role and has some ideas about the skill sets necessary to do the
job well. At another time the BRPP will present further thoughts on how to
impart the necessary skills to those in committee co-chair seats, but
would appreciate hearing your thoughts before further delving into this
topic.
Notes correspondence and Appendices
From: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 20:45:40 -0500
To: John Strawn <jcs@west.net>, "Jane M. Hunter" <janemhunter@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: procedures
Hello John and Jane,
I am writing to you in your role as convenors of the Presidential
Exploratory Committee.
Recently the Green Party of the United States expanded and transformed its
bylaws committee into the Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures (BRPP)
committee and asked us to look into ways to make the functioning of the
Green Party more efficient and effective. Initially we are taking a look
at caucuses, the various committees, and the relationship between the SC
and the CC, and have created subcommittees to look into each of these
areas.
The subcommittee of the BRPP that I belong to has taken on the task of
looking into the various committees and finding ways to help them be more
effective. As the first part of that task we are asking each committee to
provide us with information about how they structure themselves, how they
make decisions, how they pick their leadership, and how they communicate
to the CC and SC. We are aware that some committees have set up more
formal ways of doing this in response to the things they have had to work
on, and that some committees are less formal. We are also aware that the
level of trust and the nature of leadership effects how formally a
committee must structure itself to be effective.
We are asking that you send us what you have for formal policies and
procedures, and that you send along an explanation of what really happens
in your committee. We are especially interested in how you make decisions
and how you communicate with the SC and CC. Do you use CC members to
handle most of your communications, do you use committee internal
leadership, do you have an SC member on the committee actively taking part
in the work and being the conduit, etc.
We have been asked to have our entire committee report available by
February. With at least three subcommittees formed in the last week and
just beginning our task now, meeting a February deadline will take an
extraordinary effort, both by the members of the BRPP committee, and all
of the other Greens that we ask to provide information and feedback to our
efforts. We ask for your cooperation as a way to build the Green Party and
as a way to help all of us do our work in the party more effectively.
Please forward any relevant materials to me, "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
. I am also happy to answer any questions you have about this endeavor and
can do this on line, or by phone at 401-331-0529.
Your response is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Greg Gerritt
for the BRPP
From: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 21:34:33 -0500
To: Dan Johnson-Weinberger <midwestdemocracy@yahoo.com>
Cc: Penny Teal <plteal@yahoo.com>
Subject: BRPP request
Hello Dan Johnson-Weinberger, a few weeks ago the BRPP subcommittee on
committees, as mandated by the gpus CC, sent along a note asking the
Coordinated Campaign Committee, as well as every other committee of the
gpus, to send along a copy or note on policies, procedures, and process.
Understanding that this is a crazy time of year, the BRPP subcommittee is
following up asking for this again. We are specifically looking for
operating rules, how leadership is chosen, decison making processes and
how communication with CC and SC is taken care of. We realize that every
committee functions differently, and have no interest in monkeying with
any committee that is working well, but we are looking for areas that are
weak so that proper attention to repair can be made. The reply can be sent
to me as the BRPP subcommittee on committees member responsible for the
CCC. I am happy to answer any questions.
The CC has mandated us to move rather quickly on this project, so we would
appreciate a prompt reply. If there is only limited documentation on these
things for the CCC, we would appreciate knowing this. The mandate includes
the idea that all committees will have properly laid out procedures, if
for no other reason than that this will make it easier for new members to
get up to speed when joining a committee. Thanks. greg
From: Dan Johnson-Weinberger <midwestdemocracy@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:01:46 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
Cc: Penny Teal <plteal@yahoo.com>, ccc@gp-us.org, gp-ccc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: BRPP request
Hi Greg,
Juscha Robinson and Dan Kinney are the new co-chairs of the CCC.
I'll take a stab at your questions, and invite anyone else to fill in the
gaps.
We are elected at the convention by proportional representation. There are
five women and five men
elected.
Co-chairs (one male, one female) are selected by the entire committee
shortly after the election.
There is no process for filling vacancies on the committee (that I am
aware of).
We have 50+ slots for state 'associates' that are tasked with helping to
communicate the services offered to campaigns by the committee, as well as
helping to compile election-related information for the national party
(election results, filing deadlines, etc.) Currently, perhaps 25 of those
slots are filled and we are attempting to fill them all over
the next month.
Teleconferences are facilitated (usually by the co-chair). A stack is
kept. An agenda is created and disseminated by the co-chair before the
meeting. The listserv is used to discuss issues and come to consensus.
One particularly difficult issue -- the targeting of party resources to
particular campaigns -- is the subject of a facilitated decision-making
process.
Communication with the SC and the CC is generally informal, as a member of
the SC and the CC (Ben) is also a member of the CCC. There is formal
communciation with the CC with a few proposals from the CCC.
Minutes are generally kept by a brave volunteer.
Archives of the listserv are intermittently kept through a yahoogroups
listserv, when the sender remembers to cc the gp-ccc@yahoogroups.com email
address.
Dissent is punished swiftly.
Hope that does it!
Dan
__________________________________________________
From: jvannier@umich.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:22:48 -0500
To: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
Cc: Dan Kinney <dkinney@greens.org>
Subject: Re: FW: BRPP request
Is what Dan Johnson-Weinberger sent you enough? It is accurate. We have
bylaws at http://www.greenpartyus.org/committees/campaign/description.html.
Coordinated Campaign Committee
Description:
The Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC) is a standing committee of the
USGP that cooperates with state and local parties in the coordination and
support of federal, state, and local Green Party electoral campaigns.
Specific functions of the CCC include:
a) Tracking of Green Party candidates at all levels of government.
b) Facilitation of discussions regarding electoral strategy among state
parties.
c) Identification of target communities and districts for national
support.
d) Support for candidate recruitment in targeted communities and
districts.
e) Volunteer, media, celebrity, and resource mobilization for specific
candidacies in targeted communities and districts.
f) Training and materials support for Green Party candidates and
activists.
g) Analysis of past campaigns for lessons learned.
h) State-by-state tracking of ballot status and laws.
i) Publication and distribution of an annual call for candidates.
j) Organization of a Green Party campaign school.
In carrying out these specific functions, the Coordinated Campaign
Committee shall consider the following priorities:
i) Securing and maintaining state ballot lines.
ii) Existing on-the-ground support for candidate.
iii) Likelihood of winning.
iv) Racial inclusion, diversity, and gender balance .
v) Four Pillars and 10 Key Values of the Green Party.
vi) Potential for Green Party growth in targeted area.
vii) Past electoral success in targeted area.
viii) Likelihood of gaining legislative majority or of securing an
executive
office.
ix) Districts/States where incumbent is unopposed or only one other
candidate has announced for office.
x) Districts/States where Green candidates are likely to run at least
second.
xi) Districts/States where all other likely candidates are highly
objectionable.
The Coordinated Campaign Committee is composed of 10 voting members drawn
from affiliated state parties. CCC members are selected annually by the
members of the Coordinating Committee, and may be members of that
committee or of an affiliated state party; no state shall have in excess
of one member on the CCC. Vacancies on the CCC are filled by the Steering
Committee. The members of the CCC annually elect up to three co-chairs
from among its members.
The Coordinated Campaign Committee works with a pool of CCC Associates;
these include one liaison from each affiliated state party not already
represented on the CCC as well as staff or other persons necessary to the
productivity of the CCC who shall be chosen as deemed appropriate by the
CCC. Associates may participate in CCC discussions and meetings as needed
but are not regular voting members of the CCC.
If you need more, let me know.
Juscha
Quoting Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>:
> Juscha,, Dan, I believe this has been forwarded to you already, but
thought> it proper to send it along myself. Sorry that it was orignally
addressed to> the wrong person, but the website had old information. If
y'all could> provide this information it would be greaty appreciated.
greg gerritt for BRPP subcommittee on committees
-------------------------
From: Ben Manski <manski@greens.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:11:54 -0500
To: Dan Johnson-Weinberger <midwestdemocracy@yahoo.com>
Cc: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>, ccc@gp-us.org, gp-ccc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [USGP-ccc] Re: BRPP request
Actually - we have CCC election rules which were adopted this past Summer
at the Convention. I believe that they were approved as drafted.
* * * * * * * * * * *
PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION BY THE COORDINATING COMMITTEEGREEN PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES MIDTERM CONVENTIONSUBMITTED BY THE COORDINATED CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEE
Rules for the Election of the Coordinated Campaign CommitteeGreen Party of
the United States
I - Term
Coordinated Campaign Committee members are elected to one-year terms at
theannual summer meeting of the national Coordinating Committee.
II - Nominations
To qualify for nomination to the Coordinated Campaign Committee, a person
must hold membership in a Green Party of the United States affiliate state
party, and receive the support of that state party. No state party may
support more than one nominee.
III - Election
Members are elected by the members of the Coordinating Committee using
preference proportional representation. Each member of the Coordinating
Committee ranks their preference of nominees in order, from their first
through their tenth choice. Results are tabulated with an instant runoff,
calculated on the basis of the preference rankings, with the first five
women gaining more than 10% of the vote, followed by the next five
candidates winning more than 10% of the vote, winning election.
IV - Revote
Upon announcement of the elections results, members of the Coordinating
Committee may, if questions of diversity or representation arise, call for
an immediate revote. This motion takes effect immediately upon the action
of seven or more members of the Coordinating Committee. Only one such
revote may transpire per meeting of the Coordinating Committee.
From: Anne Goeke <ajgoeke@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:49:15 -0500
To: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
Cc: sloan@greens.org
Subject: Fwd: USGP-INT draft of IC procedures for review
>Dear Greg
As requested by the Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures (BRPP)
committee to look into ways to make the functioning of the Green Party
more efficient and effective. We are pleased to enclose the attachment of
our draft IC procedures as well as in the text form below.
We are certain that we can continue to improve them and probably will need
to add new categories as we grow, but at least, we feel that this is a
good start.
Thank you.
Green blessings and peace from Annie and Tod CoChairs IC
[DRAFT 1/03]
International Committee
Green Party of the United States
Procedures Manual
Mission
ˇ Foster collaboration and exchange with Green parties around the world.
ˇ Network with organizations and movements working for global peace,
social justice, human rights, and environmentally sustainable communities.
ˇ Develop international and global aspects of GreenParty policy for the
platform and official position statements.
ˇ Serve as the official international voice of the Green Party of the
United States and coordinate representation to the Federation of Green
Parties of the Americas, the Global Green Network, and international
meetings and events.
ˇ Inform U.S. Greens about international issues.
Membership
Each state party may select up to three delegates to the International
Committee. States vary in their procedures for selecting delegates to
national Green Party committees.
The IC recommends that the following criteria be taken into account when
selecting delegates: expertise in a topic or region of relevance to global
and foreign policy issues; language skills; experience in international
diplomacy; familiarity with national and state Green Party procedures;
commitment to Green process; organizational skills. When a delegate has
been nominated and approved by his/her state party, the IC is informed and
the new member is added to the committee roster and listserv. A short bio
of the delegate should be sent to the IC co-chairs along with contact
information. Potential delegates may confer with the IC co-chairs to
inform themselves about the responsibilities of committee members (see
Responsibilities of USGP International Committee Members below).
Length of term and reappointment: Delegates serve for two years. If a
delegate wishes to continue serving at the end of a term, s/he must be
reappointed. Reappointment requires the approval of the delegate's state
party. In the case of inactivity or other ineffectiveness on the part of a
delegate, the IC co-chairs may recommend to state party co-chairs that a
replacement be sought. If a delegate has been inactive for over 6 months,
the IC co-chairs contact the delegate to gather information relevant to
deciding whether the delegate will be able to continue serving on the
committee.
Committee Roles
Co-chairs: The work of the IC is coordinated by two co-chairs who serve
staggered two-year terms.
Selection of co-chairs: Co-chairs are selected from among members of the
IC. Nominations of candidates for co-chair are solicited from the IC two
months before the annual Green Party convention. Self-nominations are
permitted. The co-chairs request personal statements from the candidates
and circulate these to the IC listserv. These statements include
information on the candidate's relevant experience and express what the
candidate would hope to accomplish during a term as co-chair. At least one
month prior to the convention, IC members are invited to vote for the
candidate they prefer by email in a preference vote. An IC sub-committee
of three members not on the nomination list collect the votes and declare
the results of the election. The new co-chairs serve as conveners of IC
meetings at the convention.
Length of term: Co-chairs serve two-year terms. They may be re-elected
through the process described above.
Other Roles:
Selection process is the same as for the IC co-chairs
Global Greens Network delegates (up to 3 delegates allowed)
Federation of Green Parties of the Americas (FPVA) delegates (2 delegates)
Subcommittees
The following subcommittees are governed by the IC. Each subcommittee
coordinator or point person reports to the IC co-chairs and to other
bodies as necessary.
GLOBAL GREENS NETWORK SUBCOMMITTEE
Coordinators: Delegates to Global Green Network
Functions: participate in the Global Greens Network, circulate
international resolutions, update global party information, alert IC and
USGP of global green campaigns, help organize global greens campaigns in
the USGP.
FEDERATION OF GREEN PARTIES OF THE AMERICAS (FPVA) SUBCOMMITTEE
Coordinators: Delegates to the FPVA
Functions: attend to Federation matters, prep for and attend meetings,
work with specific national parties, inter-American resolutions,
fundraising for FPVA
FOREIGN POLICY WORKING GROUP
Coordinators: appointed by IC co-chairs
Functions: coordinate with CC foreign policy aspects of the party
platform, produce 'green' papers, link with international green policy
groups, develop channels to green think tanks, do background research for
the IC on specific topics (note: Sloan will coordinate subgroups on
regions or topics headed by those who volunteered to help organize)
INTERNATIONAL HOSTING AND EXCHANGE
Coordinators: appointed by IC co-chairsFunctions: Invitations to USGP
events, coordinate visits of int'l greens to connect with grassroots and
local greens, build database of Green hosts in the US, preparation of
greetings, congratulations, and condolences
BUDGET/FUNDRAISING GROUP
Coordinator: Appointed by IC co-chairs
Functions: Draft a yearly IC budget, work on fundraising initiatives for
the IC, and develop an international travel fund for poorer green parties.
TRANSLATION
Coordinator: Appointed by IC co-chairs
Functions: Arranges for translation of key documents
WEBSITE
Coordinator: Appointed by IC co-chairs
Functions: Maintain and develop the IC website
Internal Procedures
Listserv: The IC listserv (usgp-int@gp-us.org) includes all state
delegates and approved observers. Observers are approved by the co-chairs
on the basis of their potential to contribute to the effectiveness of the
committee work. They do not have a vote in decisions require one.
Conference Calls: The committee organizes monthly conference calls to
organize its work. Minutes of calls are circulated to the IC on the
listserv.
Steps for Processing Proposals in the International Committee
The following steps apply to resolutions, declarations, and foreign policy
positions being prepared for CC approval. Other procedures may apply to
nominations and appointments, budgetary decisions, and internal process
matters.
1. The proposal is forwarded to the IC co-chairs for assessment of
priority, adequacy of supporting materials, and appropriateness for IC
consideration. Proposal may be sent back to authors for revision.2. IC
co-chairs appoint a committee member to serve as "Facilitator"
for the proposal (a role equivalent to the Coordinating Committee's
"Floor
Manager"). The Facilitator's main objective is to shepherd the
proposal through the consensus decisionmaking process.
3. The Facilitator introduces the proposal to IC members for
consideration, specifying amount of time allowed by the co-chairs for
general discussion, friendly amendments, objections, etc. Time allowed may
range from one day for emergency matters (in which case a phone tree could
also be used to supplement email) to several weeks for matters that are
complicated or not time-sensitive.
4. IC members confer with state party members regarding the proposal and
develop feedback to be shared by email with the IC. IC members will
respect the cyberspace of others and keep their responses as concise and
constructive as possible. Communications regarding typos, grammar, etc.
should be sent only to the Facilitator.
5. When the period for discussion expires, the Facilitator presents the
proposal to IC members again, in revised form, if necessary to take into
account improvements achieved through discussion. S/he then tests for
consensus, specifying a time limit for response, ranging from one day to a
week. In cases where consensus cannot be achieved, and dissenters are not
willing to stand aside, the proposal may be brought to a vote and will be
considered passed if it is acceptable to 2/3 of the IC members. [This last
provision is tentative. It is not clear that there would ever be a point
at which we would want to pass a resolution on to the CC if it has not
been fully supported by the IC.]
6. If consensus is achieved, IC co-chairs forward the proposal to the
Steering Committee with a recommendation that it be considered for
adoption by the CC or SC, as appropriate.
Responsibilities of GP-US International Committee Members
Keep up with USGP-INT email messages. Respond when necessary and volunteer
for tasks when possible.
Participate as often as possible in committee conference calls.
Join one or more of the IC subcommittees and keep in touch with the
contact person to see how you can help move things forward.
Become familiar with the USGP platform and the Global Green Charter.
Obtain IC approval for attendance at international green meetings if you
want to go as a USGP delegate and have official observer status. (Green
members outside the SC and IC should also seek approval by the IC to be
considered as a 'formal' observer for any international green
conferences.)
Understand that you may not speak on behalf of the USGP International
Committee without full authorization from the co-chairs, and when doing
so, you must distinguish very clearly between official positions and your
personal opinion.
Report to your state party regularly on the work of the IC. Work closely
with your state's international committee. If there is none, help organize
one.
Organize state and local members to help with IC projects and to help you
with subcommittee projects you take on.
Consider serving as an information liaison for a certain region or country
of the world and submit regular briefings to the committee.
Attend USGP conventions, if possible, to participate in extensive
committee meetings held there.
--------------------------------------
Presidential Exploratory Committee
From: Jane M. Hunter <janemhunter@worldnet.att.net>
To: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>, John Strawn <jcs_arts@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2003 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: BRPP request
Greg--
Sorry for the delay--things have been a bit hectic here.
J.
*****
1. Charter- I've attached our charter which was presented and approved
at the Philadelphia meeting.
2. Leadership-The co-chairs were appointed by the CC at Santa Barbara.
3. Membership- The committee has a closed membership. Initially our
charter indicated key states where we would actively seek representation
to ensure that the full range of Green populations would be represented.
We made several open calls to the CC for representatives, resulting in a
membership that is geographically representative of the party. Excepting
the co-chairs, each member entity (state, colony or caucus) is limited to
one voting member. We also encourage the participation of non-voting
advisors, especially those with specific relevant background, experience
and/or contacts. So far we haven't had enough member nominations to have
to decide among candidates nor do we currently have a process for that.
[Note: my personal inclination would be to drop anyone who doesn't
work...]
4. Decision Making
The PEC process is guided by input from the state parties. In general,
consensus is sought for any significant decision, such as removing a state
suggested potential candidate from the contact list. The PEC is dealing
with strategically important and sensitive decisions and taking the time
to reach consensus on outcome or on appropriate delegation is more than an
exercise--it is essential to the task.
5. Reporting
The PEC reports in writing to the CC via the SC at critical milestones in
the process and to the CC directly at the annual CC meeting. While much of
the PEC proceedings are appropriately kept confidential for strategic
reasons and to protect the privacy of potential candidates, any member of
the SC or CC can request specific PEC information for their own use with
an understanding of non-disclosure. Such information will not be published
to large elists.
****
Notes on how it could be better:
1. Membership stability and prioritization Many states did not propose
representatives and some of those who were nominated have not been fully
committed to the effort. Going forward in this effort, we must emphasize
the importance of a committed, active group that has this work as a
primary priority.
2. State participation
Although the original time frame for state questionnaire input was short,
we have continued to accept input-and allowed extensions for the states
that requested them with good reason. The fact that a third of the
affiliated state parties did not respond indicates a lack of concern for
or understanding of this process.
3. Technical preparation
For the next PEC, we can provide a prototype database and analysis
software. (I've spent a lot of time figuring out how to make information
manageable without losing nuances. This has been a very non-trivial task,
especially since Greens are truly resplendent in the way they find to
"color outside the lines"--even when filling in fixed-format
forms!!) However, for the 2008 money should be budgeted to pay a
knowledgeable person to massage the database input so that it can be
summarized and analyzed. This function takes only basic technical skills
but does require an understanding of both Green values and ideas and
political strategy. Also, it would be really good to have the support of a
webmaster/DBA who can put this all up in a fully web-enabled context. I
just ran out of time, so the committee is dependent upon my sending them
stuff.
4. Timeliness
(This is my personal mea culpa...) We probably should have gotten the
questionnaires out
sooner. On an ongoing basis, I should get materials out more in advance of
conference calls.
****
Things that helped:
1. The teambuilding effort in Philly helped establish a context of trust.
Earlier would have been better. More coffee might have helped, too!!
2. Having the database provides a somewhat manageable way to look at what
the states think and want. It will become more valuable going forward.
------------------------------------------
Platform Committee
These were the result of two-three onlien submissions and two-three
conference calls, plsu some final touches during the Philadelphia
convention. A couple points remain to touch up, but I think memebrs put
intact most of what they wanted.
I compiled the following from meeting and call reports, nearly all taken
verbatim from the notes. All was approved by consensus.
Holly Hart
co-chair, Platform Committee
************
************
Working Rules of the GP-US Platform Committee Approved online and
finalized on July ?, 2002 Philadelphia
I. Membership and Voting
The Platform Committee of the USGP shall be governed by the follow bylaw
of the USGP: "The Green Party may form committees to further its
work. The committees serve at the discretion of the Coordinating Committee
and shall report regularly to the Coordinating Committee. The Steering
Committee shall coordinate the work of the committees and task them with
various duties when appropriate. Unless otherwise decided by the
Coordinating Committee, each member state of the Association may have up
to three (3) representatives on each committee. Voting on committees will
be one vote per each member state represented. A member state may exercise
its right to participate on a committee at any time. Committee
participation need not be limited to those members of a state party who
are representatives of that state on the Coordinating Committee nor to
representatives of member states."
II. Meetings
The Committee shall meet face-to-face at each Mid-Term Convention, at each
Presidential Nominating Convention, and otherwise as necessary. The
Committee may also meet online.
III. Officers
The Committee shall elect 2 Co-chairs and a Secretary for 2 year terms.
The Co-chairs shall facilitate the work of the Committee. The Secretary
shall keep the records of the Committee, including minutes of meetings and
online decisions. The secretary would be responsible for minutes of
meetings, archiving bylaws and rules, recording the language of motions,
records of votes, lists of names, and contact information. The secretary
will also work with and assist the co-chairs.
Terms of officers are two years, running from [the mid-year convention to
the nominating convention] now through the 2004 Convention.
[All members of Platcom are eligible for Co-chair and may nominate
themselves or be nominated by another member.]
All Co-chairs' decisions are openly made and distributed to the
membership.
IV. Decision-making
All decisions by the platcom (live or online) shall be through motions
passed by consensus, or by voting. Any state may make a motion if
supported by a majority of its representatives. When a motion is seconded
by another state, the decision-making process shall commence. In the case
of seconded motions online, a two (?) week discussion period shall
automatically ensue. During the discussion period, the sponsoring state
may accept amendments it deems friendly. Blocking objections may also be
made by states. At the end of that period, if no blocking concerns remain,
consensus will be accepted; if blocking objections remain, the Secretary
shall announce a VOTE on X. States shall then have one (?) week to vote.
Motions which do not pass within that week shall fail.
Quorum: A quorum for any decision-making shall be 2/3 of the
statesrepresented on the committee. Currently, a quorum of at least 6
members ([i.e., states] is required.* Voting will be done by state, as per
USGP bylaws.
*This may have changed, due to some members stepping down and new ones
joining the committee.
Work may be conducted over conference calls. Conference call decisions are
not final, but must be submitted on email to the rest of the committee for
approval, possible objections or amendments. Members who have difficulty
paying personal conference call costs be reimbursed upon application to
the Co-chairs, [pending availability of funds].
[A call for an expedited decision may be requested by the proposing state
or co-chairs, in case of an urgent need for a decision.]
Robert's Rules of Order shall be the default authority for decision-making
questions, unless otherwise specified by these rules or by the USGP
bylaws.
[It is recommended that, during periods of activity, each committee member
check their e-mail at least once every other day.]
******
Working Rules Pertaining to Platform Submissions and Development I.
Submissions to the USGP Platform will be filtered through the template
posted on our online submissions page. Submissions must be approved by a
state party before being submitted to the PlatCom.
States which do not have a member on the PlatCom will be asked to
appoint/elect a member to act as "platform liaison," to be
resonsible for ensuring that necessary information gets back and forth,
make sure members know of the opportunity and the submissions process, and
perhaps help facilitate members in decision-making.
II. Online Platform Forum (General Discussion Forum):
The PlatCom wishes to keep communications as open as possible, but also
realizes the need to keep the Forum work-able for its participants. The
right to free speech needs to be set in relation to others' right not to
be subject to hostility.
Our webmaster has registrants sign a web form agreeing not to engage in
hostile behaviour. A message has also been posted on the Forum, with an
explanation of our policy. List moderators will give a warning to someone
whose post is found obviously inappropriate, and ask that communications
be kept respectful. If the problem occurs again, the person will be taken
off the Forum.
********
Still to Consider
1. There is no allowance for the creation of subcommittees when the need
arises (as happens when a number of members are moved to address an issue,
which they believe needs work and which they will later offer to the whole
committee - e.g. summary).
Suggested by one member: Subcommittees may be formed when need arises and
members step forward to form them. Their task, authority and term will be
set by co-chairs and agreed to by members of subcommittee. A subcommittee
may, in effect, be a standing committee for the 4 yrs. between
conventions.
?? - Nomination of co-chairs is open 2-3 (?)mths. prior to the election at
the 2-yr. meeting and the 4-yr. convention. Also, if a co-chair withdraws,
do we replace within, say... a month or when?
*********************************
*********************************
Holly
Back to Committees
|
 |
_1x1.gif){kind=small}
_1x2.gif)
_1x3.gif){kind=small}
_1x5.gif){kind=small}
_1x6.gif)
_1x7.gif){kind=small}
_2x1.gif){kind=small}
_2x2.gif){kind=small}
_2x3.gif){kind=small}
_2x5.gif){kind=small}
_2x6b.gif){kind=small}
_2x7.gif){kind=small}
