1997 ASGP Fall


1997 Association of State Green Parties

October 3-5, 1997
Grange Hall, Topsham, Maine

From Topsham to Santa Fe. ASGP Builds the Green Party across US
by Dean Myerson, Secretary, ASGP


AGENDA: BUILDING A PARTY OF A DIFFERENT KIND

FRIDAY

3:00 to 6:00 Registration
6:00 to 7:00 Dinner at Grange Hall Maine folks will join us for dinner and the Open House that follows. Short speeches by Madelyn Hoffman, keynote speaker on Saturday, and by others
7:00 to 8:30 OPEN HOUSE
8:30 to 9:30 Opportunity for Committees to meet

SATURDAY

7:45 to 8:30 Breakfast at Grange Hall

8:30 to 9:00 Welcome and formal acceptance of state Green Parties who have joined since the Portland, Oregon meeting. 9:00 to 9:30 Opening keynote address by confirmed speaker, Madelyn Hoffman, Green Party candidate for Governor of New Jersey in the upcoming election. She will speak on the theme of the conference, "Building a Party of a Different Kind."

9:30 to 11:00 Section I: Growing Green Parties in all 50 States

Plenary Session: delegates of member states will have opportunity to speak first on each item; thereafter, both delegates and observers. In order to preserve the time, just two observers from any state, whether member or non-member, will speak.

Only delegates have the right to vote.

Clearinghouse Report
Fundraising Prospects and Problems
Ballot Access Efforts in the Various States Platform Development (This also relates to Sunday's discussion of making waves in the wide world)
Web Page
Other related matters

11:00 to 11:15 Break

11:15 to 1:00 Section II: Building Towards a National Green Party Plenary
Report:

Proposals regarding methods and timeline for achieving some form of proportional representation in the selection of delegates for representatives to the Coordinating Committee; and in the selection of delegates to a future presidential nominating convention.
Report: Proposals regarding ways to achieve fair and equitable representation for states in terms of size of population: that is, how many reps/votes should small and large states have in the future national Green Party that-is-to-be, and by what process, and when, can all the states be brought into the discussion; and can a timeline be worked out leading to the creation of a national Green Party?
Proposals for talks with the three-person negotiating committee named by G/GPUSA.

Other related matters

On each item, delegates speak first, thereafer both delegates and observers, keeping the rule that only two observers from any given state, member or non-member, get to talk. Voting is for delegates only.

1:00 to 2:00 LUNCH at Grange Hall

2:00 to 2:30 Opportunity for Committees to Meet 2:30 to 3:15 Small Groups, in preparation for the next Section, will discuss issues of leadership in Green organizations. Open to delegates and all observers.

3:15 to 6:00 Section III: ASGP's Organizational Affairs
Role of the Steering Committee

Proposal for a senior advisory group to be available to give counsel to Steering Committee

Nominations for three Co-Chairs, Secretary and Treasurer; and nominations for Senior Advisory Group (if approved). Election will be on Sunday morning.

Media Committee Report -- Including whether or not ASGP should have a Spokesperson

ASGP Newsletter

Communications Committee Report -- Including proposals re voting on line; and on need to assure full communication for delegates not on line.

ByLaws Committee

Accreditation Committee Report -- including the present situation in New York

Other related matters

In this section, since it deals with internal ASGP concrns, only delegates of member states can speak; and, as before, only they can vote. On the New York issue, observers from New York have the opportunity to speak.

6:00 DINNER:

Ye Olde Fashioned Maine Clam Bake and all the trimmings at Grange Hall
Followed by music, dance, hanging out, plus suitable inspiration from ye olde keg.

SUNDAY

7:45 to 8:30 BREAKFAST at Grange Hall

8:30 to 9:15 Opportunity for Committees to meet 9:15 to 9:45 Elections
9:45 to 10:30 Small Groups discuss "Making Waves in the Wide World" as preparation for Section IV to follow. Open to delegates and all observers

10:30 to 12:30 Engaging the World as Greens: Perspectives on Transformation
Report of the Third Party Cooperation Committee Engaging with organizations of People of Color Stimulating dialog across differences
Relations with non-governmental organizations How does the Platform, and a Short List of Action Items, figure into engaging the world as Greens?
Presidency 2000
Delegates speak first on each item, followed by both delegates and observers. As before, only delegates will vote.

12:30 to 1:30 LUNCH At Grange Hall

1:30 to 3:30 Concluding discussions and left-over decisions
Time and Place of the Next Meeting
Closing

Postscript: Inquiries re housing, transportation, food, and related matters should be addressed to Co-CoOrdinator Tom Fusco at tfusco@clinic.net. Phone is 207-729-8104. John Rensenbrink's home phone is 207-725-6955.


Notes of the meeting of the Association of State Green Parties, Topsham, Maine
Coordinating Committee
Saturday, October 4 and Sunday, October 5, 1997

Taken and transcribed by Richard J. Walton, Rhode Island Green Party

The meeting was opened at about 8:30 a.m. Saturday, October 4 in the friendly confines of the Topsham Grange Hall with greetings from Jane Livingston of the Maine Green Party. She led the group in a spiritual exercise during which she urged the participants To listen to ourselves, to listen to each other and not be afraid to be quiet. Karin Draper, not a member of the Green Party, was the facilitator for much of the Saturday and Sunday sessions, at times spelled by Matt Tilley. Will Neils was keeper of the stack and Tom Fusco, aided by a recorded rooster, was the timekeeper. Richard J. Walton of Rhode Island, was designated as rapporteur.

The first order of business at 8:30 a.m. was the welcoming, to acclaim, of four new members of the Association of State Green Parties: Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Each state was represented by at least one delegate. [A complete list of delegates and observers will be provided in due course by the Steering Committee or the Maine host committee.]

The keynote address was given by Madelyn Hoffman, New Jersey Green candidate for governor. She was introduced by Nick Melis of the newly-admitted New Jersey Green Party.

Hoffman, who had been Ralph Nader's running mate in New Jersey, noted that she had raised $250 at the Friday evening social gathering. She noted that Green candidates ran on more than just environmental issues narrowly defined. For the Green Party the environment includes the earth and all that takes place on it, thus including the wide range of progressive issues. She noted that for 18 years she had been concerned primarily with pollution issues but now had had to learn about a wide variety of issues to which to bring a Green perspective. And she noted, to the amusement of the audience, that she had recently had to attend a public meeting on auto insurance. There she asserted that large insurance companies were trying to protect their big profits. This, she said, provided a link to many other Green issues, for large corporations use their influence to seek to get the government to work for their corporate interests. She said that this happened over and over again in issues beyond the environment, such as the privatizing of health facilities.

Hoffman called for a reliance on grass roots democracy, noting that such organizations can successfully take on large corporations and the government. She said that in New Jersey grass roots organizing defeated 14 of 19 incinerator projects. She suggested that on many issues [such as single payer health insurance, NAFTA, tuition increases at state colleges, campaign reform, etc.] that Greens work with activists in single issue organizations. This, she said, makes us very different from Democrats and Republicans who only seek their votes at election time.

Hoffman said that if the only people you can vote for "don't look like you [she was referring to politicians in their suits with that politician look], don't listen to you, you throw your vote into a deep, dark hole from which it never comes back." She asked, to loud affirmation from the audience, "Are we in it for the long haul?" And she concluded by saying that she was doing what she believed in with people who believe in the same things and that together they could take on the two-party system and corporate welfare. Hoffman then took questions.

Nancy Allen, Maine then asked about ballot access in New Jersey. Hoffman replied that although it required only 800 valid signatures to get on the ballot, 10% in all NJ Assembly districts was required to get major party status. [Check this with NJ.] And she said a party gets state matching funds only if they raise $210,000. The NJ Greens limit contributions to $500 and accept no contributions from large corporations. She noted too that the Greens have been excluded from TV debates and largely ignored by the mainstream media. Hoffman noted that even on environmental questions reporters asked only Democrats and Republicans even though environmental groups at attacked the Democrats.

Joseph Mosely, NJ observer noted that although the ballot access provision in NJ was not hard, election law was extremely difficult in other areas and that the Libertarians raised a lot of their money out of state.

Hoffman did note, however, that there were increasing numbers of forums for third party candidates and the press was beginning to ask if there were more interest in third parties.

Tammy Davis, NM said that Greens should keep asking the media, over and over again, "aren't there other candidates, aren't you misrepresenting the facts?" Much applause.

As there was much applause when Madelyn Hoffman finished her remarks. Thomas Linzey, PA took the floor to discuss the Clearinghouse. He said a Clearinghouse was up and operating with the charge to create legal structures for state Green Parties, to give the state parties maximum power. He said that a state party was an unincorporation association governed by its own by-laws. He said states could establish PACs to raise and disburse money for electoral purposes. A non-profit corporation, under IRS 501 (c) (3) could be used only for non-political purposes, the party s movement activities. He said sample articles of incorporation and sample federal applications for non-profit status were available.

Linzey also spoke of the Green Legal Network, six attorneys around the nation who were available for free legal advice to state Green Parties. He reported on the News Circulator sent out every Monday with national and international news about and of interest to Greens. He said it was transmitted to the states by e-mail and that they could then transmit it within their state by e-mail or other means. Linzey said that Greens should illustrate their successes through the news media, that this was a way to attract people. Noting that the G/GPUSA filing for national party status had been denied by the Federal Elections Commission and he said that he was working with the FEC to see if anything were submitted by any other organization, noting that whoever gets FEC status would be THE Green Party.

Linzey then asked for questions.

Jim Lowenstern, VA, asked the the Circulator be sent in small chunks because some e-mail programs could not handle it as currently sent.

Mike Feinstein, CA observer noted that when he sent out news, he sent it as separate items.

Joseph Mosley, NJ observer said that information did not always filter down; it was not always sent along to all who might be interested.

Linzey note that delegates would have to take more responsibility for this and Karin Lee Norton, CT noted that the Communications Committee would be addressing this problem later.

Linzey urged people to visit the ASGP web site: www.greenparties.org. He said there were 26 active stateswith lots of contacts in other states that ASGP does not have the resources to follow up on and build parties from scratch. He urged member states to take the lead regionally and help neighboring states establish Green Parties. He noted that because of the Nader campaign the Green Party had ballot status in Vermont but there was no party there to use it.

Linzey also stated his conviction that, contrary to what some thought, running presidential campaigns was not counter-productive, that the Nader campaign helped build state parties. He said that in 2000 if only 20 donors from 20 states gave $250 apiece, a national Green Party would qualify for matching federal aid. A number of people signed a pledge to donate at least $250 in 2000. He said that a presidential campaign would build a funding base in each state, allowing candidates to come to states with more than 48 hours notice, a reference to the ad hoc nature of Nader's campaign. Linzey said that in Pennsylvania there were 20 co-sposors in the state House of representatives for less difficult ballot access laws. He said the press picked up on the ballot access issue and that in every state where it is appropriate, it can become a sexy issue.

Ron Kahlow, DC took the floor to discuss various fund-raising efforts. He said there were three avenues: 1) a Web site; 2) marketing,/merchandising; 3) Green Power PAC. He said the Web site [www.greenparties.org] was professionally done, first by Robert Garskof and later by Pat Rice and Nia Esserman [check spellings with Ron]. Linda Martin provided copy for the site and Kahlow wiould fund it for a year. He said Green merchandise could be sold over the Internet but logos, credos, etc. were need. He said the ASGP badly needed a logo and asked for help

Linda Martin, VA suggested that he should look at state designs, perhaps offer various designs for sale and see which were most popular.

Kahlow said that although he had wanted originally to do this marketing through and for the ASGP it engendered some controversy so it made more sense to establish a separate organization for such work. He said that the Green Power Pac would raise money to be divided 50-50 between ASGP and the states. He said too that while the Greensmay be short on dough, they were long on competence and moral standing. Kahlow said he had already purchased the hardware and software to market on the Internet.

Tom Fusco, Maine observer asked if Maine merchandise [Rapporteur's note: Maine has a lot of attractive stuff.] could be sold on the Internet.

Kahlow replied that Maine could have its own page on the ASGP site and market it that way.

Amy Vas Nunes, CT observer said she thought more money could be raised through donations, with ads in such places as The Nation and Mother Jones. She was concerned about the exclusivity of advertising only on the Internet.

Kahlow said he agreed entirely but that appearing on the Internet helped establish credibility.

Karin Lee Norton, CT observed that fund-raising can be contentious if the Green Party received large donations from individuals or donations from large corporations. So there are ethical considerations in fund-raising.

Ron Kahlow had brought 50 tee-shirts with sort of a sunburst design on dark green for sale on consignment. They did not last long.

Thomas Linzey, PA discussed raising money with cutrate long distance service from Telcom, the company used during the Nader campaign. Gordon Straus of Telcome was so interested in the campaign that he donated his commission so the campaign got long distance for 9.9 cents and toll free calls were only 7.7cents. Linzey said state Green Parties could make money without working for it if they signed up members for Telcom service at 12.9 cents. Also the state party would be helping local people get low rates. The states would get 1.5 cents per minute, with payment by check monthly, money that could be used for any purpose. And Linzey said if a state party chose to charge people more than 12.9 cents, they would earn that much more money.

Jesse Perrier, MA noted that people could get even lower rates, although Linzey noted that 9.9 cents was the absolute minimum.

Barbara Bradbury, RI suggested that a packet be prepared for each state so each could make a decision.

Patrick Mazza, OR pointed out that there were other such methods to raise money: phone cards, Internet access providers, cooperative buying, all things that could be explored in the states.

Tom Fusco, Maine observer noted that there were lots of phone companies, that parties seek the best deal in their state, keeping an eye out for special offers and being wary of hidden charges.

Madelyn Hoffman, NJ observer, who was able to stay for a while before returning to her campaign in New Jersey, cautioned that not all companies are ones that Greens would want to do business with.

Jane Livingston, Maine observer said that setting up channels of information was a very complex issue.

Nick Mellis, New Jersey, himself a travel agent, recommended setting up ASGP as a travel agency with Nu-Concepts in Travel (NCT). For $495 the ASGP could get 40% of the commission on all travel [airlines tickets, eco-tours, hotels, car rentals, etc] booked through NCT. The individual traveler would find the lowest rate and then book with NCT, which then would make one final call to see if a lower rate were available.

Tom Fusco, Maine observer spoke of the Dime a Day program that had the potential top generate some serious money. He said, however, that you couldn t just announce the progam but that you had to contact people, have a collecting mechanism and establish a tracking system to see who has given. This would avoid scrambling to pay the bills for printing, postage, etc.

Ron Stanchfield, still New York observer, suggested a Dollar a Day program.

Thomas Linzey, PA took the floor to discuss ballot access. He suggested that ballot access was a wedge issue to gain attention, in the press and with the public. Linzey said that the Pennsylvania Legislature had passed Sen. Bill 200, which raised from 28,500 to 99,000 the number of valid signatures to get on the ballot. Pushed by Senator Arlen Spector, it passed at 1:30 in the morning as an amendment to an unrelated bill. It was sneaked through. Pennsylvania Greens organized phone calls to Governor Tom Ridge, Richard Winger [identify his DC organization] got a story in the New York Times, Nader wrote to the governor and the Greens organized a coalition of third parties to urge the governor to veto it: the Libertarians, the Reform Party, the Prohibition Party, the No Pay Raise Party, the Constitutional Party. Since the Greens led the coalition, Linzey said, they got lots of statewide press attention, including favorable editorials. Yet the major parties in Pennsylvania need only 2000 signatures. All this is causing the public to ask what are they afraid of?

Annie Goeke, Pennsylvaia noted that ballot access gives Green Parties an issue when there is no election campaign.

Jim Nicita, Michigan noted that in his state Greens were undertaking legal action to get party status in local races. Citing the Purity of Elections clause in state law, Greens are arguing that a proportion of the statewide requirement should be sufficient in local races. Since 31,000 is needed for the entire state, in local races only 900+ signatures should be required. He noted that in one area, where the required proportion would have been that 900+, Michigan Greens gathered 2000+. He said that local ballot status would motivate local chapters and build momentum for statewide campaigns.

Greg Gerritt, Rhode Island observer suggested that the Greens organize a conference on the electoral processs, giving all participating parties publicity and working toward fair ballot access.

Tammy Davis, New Mexico took the floor to advocate acceptance of a proposal that would require state Green Parties to take a wide range of actions. After considerable discussion, this matter was put over till Sunday with Davis saying that New Mexico would present revised language in reponse to comments made Saturday.

A number of states spoke out against anything being mandated to the states. Nick Mellis, New Jersey respectfully suggested that it be up to the states to work toward diversity as they determined. Betty Zisk, Massachusetts said we are after all an association of state parties and very wary of dictation from the top. Tony Affigne, Rhode Island argued against dictation, that it was antithetical to the principles of the ASGP to dictate to state parties. Several other delegates spoke along similar lines and John Rensenbrink, Maine suggested that the language be changed to "urge."

Tammy Davis, New Mexico said her state did not want to appear to be dictating to other states and said her state would make a revised proposal later. [The original proposal may be too long to reproduce here although perhaps it could be scanned in for the historical record. The revised proposal, adopted later, will be provided, however.]

1. Davis said that New Mexico wanted to encourage but not mandate some sort of pref erential voting to elect delegates to the ASGP. And NM also supported preferential voting in any eventual nominating committee.

2. NM wanted a committee, operating under a timeline, to define a state organization in good standing. She said that People without Green values should not be able to represent themselves as the Green Party.

3. Davis called for a statement on racial and cultural diversity.

4. NM called for non-electoral work throughout the year. Greens should not show up only at election time but show up at meetings of organizations seeking Green objectives and do such adtivities as tabling.

5. NM favored proxies for those states not able to attend an ASGP meeting. As an alternative NM also suggested a reasonable travel fund shall be established by the ASGP for assisting state party representatives in financial need to travel to national conferences/conventions of the ASGP.

In subsequent discussion there was some opposition to proxies and a number of delegates suggested that each state must be responsible for making it possible for their delegates to attend ASGP meetings.

Tony Affigne, Rhode Island took the floor to speak for a Rhode Island proposal advocating the establishment of an ASGP Drafting Committee [later named Transition Committee] to begin examining ways to proportionally allocate representation on the ASGP Coordinating Committee. The resolution also proposed that brainstroming take place during the Topsham meeting as a first step. [Rapporteur's note: Although a certain amount of discussion took place at this time, there was never a specific brainstorming session on this issue. It got lost in the press of business.] Affigne said such a committee would solict suggestions for proportional represenation and bring a specific report to the next Coordinating Committee. [Note: in subsequent discussion it was decided that the report should be distributed at least 60 days before the next meeting.] Affigne also emphasized that the RI proposal charged the new committee with reviewing alternative ways to make the ASGP Coordinating Committee more proportional, but was not at this time a mandate to design a national Green Party.

Steve Schmidt, New Mexico proposed extending the mandate of the committee to include exploring, and making recommendations about, proportional representation at a future presidential nominating convention.

A wide-ranging debate then followed, with considerable sentiment for retaining the present one-state two-delegate system for the time being.

Patrick Mazza, Oregon suggested that perhaps a bi-cameral system might balance the interests of the big and the small states. Mike Feinstein and Daniel Solnit, California observers suggested that there were many ways to devise proportional representation so it would be equitable. Annie Goeke, Pennsylvania said we could be creative in this matter. Dean Myerson, Colorado said that a bi-cameral system sounded simple but might be difficult. Affigne suggested that the bi-cameral concept could be considered by the committee. And he accepted as friendly amendments 1) the New Mexico proposal that the committee also consider proportional representation in an eventual nominating convention, 2) the suggestion that the committee's name be Committee of Transition, and 3) a reporting deadline of 60 days prior to the next Coordinating Committee meeting.

Following are the operative sections of the Rhode Island resolution. "Therefore, be it resolved that a Committee of Transition is hereby established, to explore thoroughly the various options for the proportional allocation of delegates to the Coordinating Committee of the Association of State Green Parties, and to a presidential nomination convention in 2000.

"And, be it further resolved that the Committee of Transition shall begin its deliberations by considering a list of alternatives which result from an open brainstorming session here at the October 1997 meeting of the Coordinating Committee, and shall then actively seek out the thoughts and ideas of Greens around the country through meetings, e-mail, written correspondence, and other methods of communication.

"And, be it finally resolved that the Committee of Transition shall analyze the proposals it has collected and shall prepare a report, with recommendations, at least 60 days prior to the next meeting of the Coordinating Committee of the Association of State Green Parties."

The RI proposal was seconded by Connecticut and passed by consensus. Members on the Transition Committee, chosen later, were Greg Gerritt, RI; Basil Kyriakakis, AR; Dee Berry, MO; Rick Lass, NM; Mike Feinstein, CA and Annie Goeke, PA, with one more member, a female, to be named by the Steering Committee.

The ASGP then turned to a question that has long occasioned hot debate, relations with the Green Party/USA. The discussion was long and tangled with some participants questioning the good faith of some G/GPUSA leadersbut with general agreement that there were many good people in the G/GPUSA. There was also widespread agreement that most Greens were not interesting in any wrangling between the two national groups and just wanted to move ahead. And, despite the reservations of some, there was agreement that lines of communication be kept open. However, a consensus emerged that any such discussions between the two groups be focussed on two areas: where there were differences and where there was possible cooperation. And the consensus was that the structure of the two groups would not be a matter of discussion. Jim Nicita, of Michigan urged that members of the committee not be those with a history of antagonism toward G/GPUSA.

After considerable debate Dean Myerson of Colorado suggested this resolution: "The Coordinating Committee of the ASGP will constitute a Contact Committee consisting of three people for dialog and discussion with the G/GPUSA on issues of conflict and possible cooperation, such as FEC filing, and excluding structural issues. This committee will be empowered to make proposals to the ASGP, based on its by-laws, resulting from these discussions." It was passed by consensus.

Later elected to the Contact Committee were Patrick Mazza, Oregon; Nancy Allen, Maine; and Jesse Perrier, Massachusetts.

The ASGP then turned to the issue of the powers of the Steering Committee, an issue raised by the Michigan delegation. Jim Nicita,, Michigan said that his state party was so concerned about the Steering Committee that it considered disaffiliation from the ASGP. Consequently the Michigan delegation submitted a formal amendment to the ASGP by-laws that would have limited the Steering Committee solely to administrative functions. Nicita said the Michigan Party believed the Steering Committee acted improperly in asking a member of the Steering Committee elected at Portland, Oregon in April to resign. Nicita asserted that since the person had been elected by the Coordinating Committee, it was up to the Coordinating Committee to act in this matter. [At issue was not the question of whether the person should have been asked to resign but which body, the Steering Committee or the Coordinating Committee, was empowered to act.] Nicita also said that when the Michigan party had submitted a proposal on the Unity matter [relations between the ASGP and G/GPUSA] the Steering Committee did not submit the Michigan proposal to the Coordinating Committee via e-mail but made a proposal of its own.

Then followed another complex discussion, focussed not only on the Michigan grievance but on the question of whether the Steering Committee should be purely administrative or have a political role. There was also the question of how the party should use e-mail in its procedures. [This matter was discussed later by the Communications Committee.]

The Rapporteur will try to separate the discussion into the two major areas: the specific grievance and the powers of the Steering Committee with regard to the requested resignation. As to the resignation issue, Patrick Mazza, member of the Steering Committee, said that because it was ambiguous whether the Coordinating Committee had already empowered the Steering Committee to remove the individual in question, the Steering Committee did decide to turn the matter over to the Coordinating Committee and had been considering this even before Jim Nicita had raised the issue.

Several members suggested that the Steering Committee could submit proposals by having its members submit them through their state party. But Mazza called this surreptitious and said that between meetings of the Coordinating Committee the Steering Committe had to have power to initiate proposals and make recommendations to the Coordinating Committee or else nothing would be done. Tony Affigne said it was a myth that there could be a separation between administrative and political powers. He said I want the Steering Committee to make proposals.

As to the matter of the Michigan proposal on the Unity matter being recast by the Steering Committee, its Secretary, Tom Sevigny said that the Steering Committe hadn't realized that the Michigan missive was a proposal to be sent to the Coordinating Committee. [Note: to anticipate a bit the discussion of the Communications Committee, that committee proposed that a specific format be followed so such problems could be avoided.] He also said the Steering Committee had nothing to take over, that it was not a cabal and that he wished that the language in the discussion would be moderate.

A number of delegates said that the ASGP should establish a grievance procedure and Jim Nicita agreed to a John Rensenbrink proposal that he have some time to work out this problem and he asked that the dispute be taken out of a by-laws context. Nicita agreed and the matter of Steering Committee powers was considered, and action taken, on Sunday.

Linda Martin, Virginia, a member of the Steering Committee, said the committee had had nothing but grief, that the job was too onerous, that it was difficult to steer a baby organization through a minefield. She also said it was difficult to find a woman to serve on the Steering Committee. "Isn't it clear why?," a suggestion that serving was not a pleasant experience.

Karin Lee Norton, Connecticut, in response, said, "We give you tremendous hugs and throw flowers." A storm of applause followed.

Mike Feinstein, California observer reported on the publication that week of the second issue of Green Pages, a publication of the ASGP. He reported that 7000 copies were printed compared to 4000 for the spring issue. Feinstein said the first issue cost $700 and made a profit of about $500. He said the second issue cost $750. He said he hoped to expand to 12 pages and then 16 from the current 8. He said each 4 pages added would cost an additional $100. Feinstein said that he had bundles of 100 available for sale. In response to a question from Nick Mellis, NJ, Feinstein said the content of the newsletter could be posted on the Web with additional material. In response to a question from Pat Mazza, OR, Feinstein said it could be published more frequently than quarterly, that it was just a matter of cash. It was up to the states to push it. He suggested that the co-chairs could have a column, that Green Pages could be distributed at meetings of kindred groups. Feinstein said he hoped that in the future finances could be handled by the Clearinghouse, that till now he had been handling them.

Bill Colucci, New Jersey took the floor to give the report of the Communications Committee with an emphasis on e-mail communication between meetings of the Coordinating Committee. The Communications Committee had prepared a multi-page report on its proposals that was circulated. [The report is too long for inclusion here but it is available.] He said the committee had tried to work out e-mail procedures in the conviction that a lot could be handled between meetings. He noted, however, that there had been problems, one of which was that there was too much e-mail. He said that the ASGP needed formal rules to avoid many of the past problems. Colucci suggested that e-mail was NOT suitable for creation or for dealing with controversial matters but that its proper use could save time so meeting time can be used more effectively.

Karin Lee Norton, Connecticut discussed some of the problems. Some people are anti-technology and will never use a computer, others can't afford one and still others feel they are unable to use a computer. She suggested that some people could use common computers such as in libraries, that old computers could be converted and given to those unable to afford new ones and that training could be provided for those who felt unable to use them. And she suggested that people who did not have computers could provide a stack of stamped, self-addressed envelopes to those who do with important material to be printed out and mailed.

Barbara Bradbury, Rhode Island, a member of the committee, explained how the formal e-mail system would work, with a specific form to be followed. On the subject line, ASGP then the committee name. On the first line of the body Proposal, Amendment, etc. She said that the committee wanted to do a little more work on the template before distributing it.

Nick Mellis, NJ suggested that Internet Realtime Chat conference could be used for discussion.

A number of people asked questions that the Committee will address. Betty Zisk, MA wondered who would make the decision as to what issues would be appropriate for online discussion. Amy Vas Nunes, CT observer asked how people like her [those without computers or access to them] could participate.

Tom Sevigny, CT said that everything should go to the Steering Committee first before being put online and that the ASGP list should be used only for ASGP matters.

Bill Colucci, NJ said the committee would continue its work and submit a formal proposal to the Coordinating Committee.

There appeared to be general satisfaction with the Committee's work and the Committee did note that it was proposing that important matters, like a vote, be given a month so necessary material could get to and from people without e-mail with sufficient time.

Patrick Mazza, OR presented a report from the Media Committee. He said the Committee proposed that there was an ASGP spokesperson at at least one hub, probably Washington, DC because that s where the national media is concentrated. This spokesperson [with perhaps a second and third backup] would respond to the press when it needed a response immediately. However, whenever possible the Hub spokesperson would refer the press to a more apppropriate spokesperson [depending on the issue] anywhere in the country. Mazza also said that the ASGP should be pro-active, actively seeking press coverage rather than waiting for the media to come to it. For instance, the Media Committee could produce boilerplate press releases that states could send out filling in the blanks. There could be national press releases in conjunction with state releases.

Mazza said, in response to a question from Betty Zisk, Ma that the hub system would certainly not preclude people with press contacts on the national level from continuing to take advantage of them.

Tony Affigne, RI asked how the Media Committee would know what the states were doing. Annie Goeke, PA said the states should keep the committee informed. She also suggested that the ASGP should work with the alternative media on the national and state level, that they provided a fine opportunity. Mazza noted that the mass media got wide coverage but that the alternative media got volunteers. Mazza also said the ASGP, through the Media Committee, should create a clippings archive, that that was an effective way to demonstrate to the press that the Green Party was active and effective. Thus, state parties should send to the archives [yet to be established] copies of local press coverage. Mazza also said that the Media Committee believed it should be empowered to select the persons to serve at the hub(s). And he asked for prelimnary approval of the Media Committee's proposals. It was granted by acclamation with much applause.

The Coordinating Committee then turned to the question of an Advisory Council to assist the Coordinating and Steering Committees. Tom Sevigny, CT, Steering Committee Secretary, said the current list of advisors was entirely informal. Someone would say Put this person on the list and he could do it. Tony Affigne, RI suggested that there wasn t time then for adequate discussion of this matter so the meeting moved on, presumably leaving in place the current informal system.

The Coordinating Committee then turned to nominations for the Steering Committee. [Rapporteur's note: plainly there was little pre-nomination discussion for nominations flew from all directions with the nominess often plainly surprised that they were being considered. There was little naked ambition on display.] Several were nominated who said they could not serve and Linda Martin of Virginia had already said she would not seek another term as Co-chairman.

After a few cheerfully chaotic moments, Patrick Mazza, OR; Tom Sevigny, CT; Dean Myerson, CO; and Nancy Allen, ME were nominated for co-chairs. Craig Harvey, MI was nominated for secretary and Tammy Davis, NM, and Dean Myerson, CO were nominated for treasurer. But since the situation seemed fluid, it was decided to hold nomination open until election time on Sunday.

As the final item on Saturday, the Coordinating Committee turned to what developed as the most contentious discussion of the weekend, the report of the Accreditation Committee and the related application of one of two New York Green Parties to membership in the ASGP.

Megan Mullin, California observer, presented the report of the Accreditation Committee dealing with the New York situation. Noting that there appeared to be two active Green Parties in New York and asserted that the ASGP has stated a strong committment to respecting the autonomy of state Green Parties, the Committee proposed a resolution that, in its operative paragraphs, said: Be it resolved that the Accreditation Committee shall prepare a recommendation for two sets of process and criteria, a set for parties in states with multiple state Green Parties and a set for those in single party states, and distribute those recommendations to the CC at least to months prior to the next meeting of that body, and [Rapporteur's note: There apparently was some amended language for this section but it does not appear in my notes; perhaps someone has a copy of it.] Be it finally resolved that the Accreditation Committee shall evaluate the NYSGP application after accreditation process and criteria have been accepted by the CC, with appopriate consideration given to any decision that might be made by the CC on proportional allocation of delegates.

Mullin reported that one New York Green Party, the New York State Green Party [NYSGP], had applied for membership in the ASGP whereas the other, the Green Party of New York State [GPONYS] was considering applying. Mullin noted that both New York State parties were significantly active.She said the ASGP had never before dealt with competing claims, athough there had been a situation of two parties in New Jersey but it was not comparable because one was clearly the active party and asked that the Accreditation Committee be given time to develop appropriate criteria. Mullin said that it would be easy to say one applied, so let s do it. But she said that such recognition would be perceived in the larger Green community as taking sides.

At that point Mark Jacobs, a New York observer spoke. He said he was there on a personal basis but was a member of GPONYS [the state party that had not yet applied]. He supported the Accreditation Committee proposal. and he noted later that the Coordinating Committee was not going to know which side to believe. He said his group had run candidates for office and had been a member of the G/GPUSA since the beginning. And he said that you don't know much about them [NYSGP]. Their first organizing meeting was only last spring. There is some reason to believe that our party is much stronger.

Ron Stanchfield,New York observer, took the floor as a representative of NYSGP [the state party that had applied for membership]. He said "Vote us in today. Allow the New York State Green Party to become a member of ASGP until the Green Party of New York State wants to apply. Then take away one of our votes and give it to GPONYS." Then, he asked, help New York State to work out our differences.

At this point a tangled and heated debate developed, plainly with echoes of the long-standing differences between ASGP and G/GPUSA.

Megan Mullin, who had introducted the Accreditation Committee s Report, said I don't understand why the rush. We have made progress on accreditation and on the New York State situation but our work is not yet complete. Why does NYSGP have to be admitted right now? And she said that the committee s resolution should have precedence over a vote on the admission of NYSGP.

Dan Solnit, a California observer, said that if the ASGP takes sides, it will not play well in California. Mike Feinstein, a California observer, said that if we pick these guys without criteria, we're being factional.

The question of admitting an applicant without criteria was addressed by Tony Affigne, Rhode Island. He said that he was concerned about precedent. That if we refused to accept NYSGP without criteria, we could not accept any other groups until this matter had been settled and that there were other groups perhaps at the point of joining. He he noted that all the current members of the ASGP had been accepted without criteria.

Tammy Davis, New Mexico said that the argument that other state parties were accepted without criteria was not valid because this was the first time there were contesting state parties.

Patrick Mazza, Oregon challenged the assertion that the ASGP would be accused to taking sides. He said one applicant comes in good faith, the other not yet. If GPONY applies, give them also one vote on a provisional basis.

Annie Goeke, Pennsylvania said there was no opposition from GPONYS. Only one application "so I don't see any door closing."

Several delegates expressed what turned out to be the decision of the ASGP: one New York State Party has applied the other hasn't. When the other does apply, admit it and divide the two votes between the two. And during the discussion, and the informal talks that day and Sunday, the debate continued: some arguing that the ASGP was taking sides and others, plainly the majority as the final vote demonstrated, arguing that the door was open for GPONYS.

After this lively debate, which left the dinner lobsters cooking longer than the fine cook had intended, this resolution was proposed: "The Association of State Green Parties agrees to admit the New York State Green Party with two delegates, with provisional status, until the next meeting of the ASGP at which point the affiliation will be reviewed.

"If the Green Party of New York State applies for admission to the ASGP before the next meeting of the ASGP Coordinating Committee, then the NYSGP and GPONYS will share the states allotment of delegates upon approval of the ASGP Coordinating Committee."

The resolution was put to a vote and it carried 27 for, 1 against with 1 abstention. During the debate and in informal discussion later, delegates made it plain that they thought the two parties should make diligent efforts to resolve their differences, that the ASGP did not want to institutionalize a two-Green Party State.

After the vote, the delegates repaired to the dining hall downstairs and fell eagerly upon a dinner featuring lots of lobster and steamed clams, a genuine Maine repast.


Notes of the meeting of the Association of State Green Parties 
Coordinating Commitee
Saturday, October 4 and Sunday, October 5, 1997

Taken and Transcribed by Richard J. Walton, Rhode Island Green Party
Part Two of Two

The Sunday session was convened about 8:30 a.m., Sunday, October 5 in the Grange Hall in Topsham, Maine. Matt Tilley was now the facilitator, Will Neils continued as keeper of the stack and Tom Fusco [still with recorded rooster] was timekeeper.

The first item of business was choosing members of the Transition Committee. With a number of nominations from the day before, Tony Affigne, Rhode Island suggested that all six willing to serve be elected, with a seventh, a woman, to be named by the Steering Committee. The six [Greg Gerritt, RI; Dee Berry, MO; Annie Goeke, PA Basil Kyriakakis, AR; Rick Lass, NM; and Mike Feinstein, CA] were elected without objection.

Nancy Allen, Maine moved that the Coordinating Committee adopt a resolution opposing the imminent Cassini launch. Tony Affigne, Rhode Island suggested adding to the resolution a clause urging that state Green Parties adopt similar resolutions. The combined resolution was passed quickly without objection.

Dan Solnit, California observer reported to the CC on recent developments with the Green Party in California. He said that the California party was close to its goal of raising $50,000 in seed money to hire four fulltime staff. Half the time would go to organizing and the other half to a clearinghouse. He said the party was producing a newsletter and was returning to active tabling, having learned during the hiatus how valuable it was. Tabling, he said, registers voters and raises money. Solnit said that Jason Kirkpatrick was starting a clearing house to assist local campaigns in California.

He also reported on the recent meeting in Lawrence, MA of the G/GPUSA. He said its leadership group no longer were a united front. He said this provided an opportunity for state by state discussions with members of the G/GPUSA. And Solnit urged that the ASGP agree to a moratorium on any group filing as the Green Party until two-thirds of the active states support such a filing.

Tom Sevigny, Connecticut, the out-going Secretary of the Steering Committee made a State of the Party report. He said that often it had been hard to get a quorum for important votes between meetings of the Coordinating Committee. He reported that many people signed up for committees at Portland, Oregon but few people actually participated. He pleaded for people to participate. Please get involved. If you re not going to work, please don t sign up. He said the Steering Committee was going to wipe the committee slate clean ["There's a lot of deadwood." ] and urged people to sign up again. He said that chairs of the committees were needed.

Richard Walton, Rhode Island alternate, left his Rapporteur's desk for a moment, to thank the out-going Steering Committee for their work, with special appreciation for Linda Martin who had worked so effectively for so many years in the birth and development to the Green Party. There was prolonged applause.

After informal discussions amongst the nominated candidates and interested delegates four people were nominated for the three positions as co-chairs of the Steering Committee: Nancy Allen, Maine; Patrick Mazza, Oregon; Tom Sevigny, Connecticut; and Craig Harvey, Michigan. Since Allen was the only female candidate she was elected without objection. Thirty ballots were then cast for the other two openings. Winning were Patrick Mazza and Tom Sevigny. Craig Harvey would become a co-chair if at any time before the next CC meeting either Mazza or Sevigny were able to continue in office. [The Rapporteur has the vote total but by consensus the totals were not announced, just the results.]

Dean Myerson, Colorado, and Tammy Davis, New Mexico, were unopposed for Secretary and Treasurer. Davis occasioned laughter when she, not eager to take on further responsibilities, said she was taking the job only because there was no money in the treasury and thus not much to do.

Voting for the Contact Committee was conducted with Jesse Perrier, MA; Patrick Mazza, OR; Nancy Allen, Maine; Daryl Davis, OH; Al Brooks, AR; Bill Smith, WY and Tom Fusco, ME as candidates. Preferential voting was held and the winning candidates were Patrick Mazza, Nancy Allen and Jesse Perrier. [As with the Steering Committee voting the Rapporteur has the complete vote but only the three winners were announced. Of course, the tally is available.]

Scott MacLarty, DC observer urged that the ASGP join the Congressional Progressive Coalition list of associated citizens organizations. He said the DC Greens had worked productively with the Coalition and that it would bring the Green Party to the attention of other progressive organizations.

Although there was a sympathetic response, a number of delegates said they needed more information. MacLarty said he could circulate some material and the matter was put off until after lunch. After lunch the Coordinating Committee voted 24 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention to join the Coalition. MacLarty's motion: That "the ASGP join the Congressional Progressive Coalition list of associated citizens organizations and join the Progressive Challenge by endorsing the Fairness Agenda." The Fairness Agenda, promoted by the Institute for Policy Studies [a progressive think tank in Washington], articulates a series of goals very much in keeping with the principles of the Green Party.

Patrick Mazza, Oregon returned to the issue of Steering Committee powers that had been postponed from Saturday. In the meantime there had been discussions with Jim Nicita and Craig Harvey of Michigan and others interested. He presented the follow proposal stemming from those discussions. Organizational effectiveness requires that the Steering Committee:

1. Oversee clearinghouse operations, including publications.

2. Receive applications for state parties and assign them to the Accreditation Committee.

3. Represent or assign representatives in relations with third parties in the U.S. and internationally.

4. Gather information and report emerging problems and opportunities to the Coordinating Committee.

5. Make recommendations and proposals to the Coordinating Committee based on those reports.

6. Make task assignments to committees. [The following two paragraphs were added after the discussions.]

7. Administer, using identical procedures, discussion and votes on all ASGP-wide proposals submitted by committees and member states.

8. Administer ASGP fundraising and organizational support expenditures."


The delegates then launched into a wide-ranging discussion of a Green platform. Steve Schmidt, New Mexico urged the ASGP establish a process for a platform and an action agenda. He said that in New Mexico [where there is a detailed platform] having a platform allows us to effectively organize and to argue with seriousness and credibility with the media and the legislature. And when there is no comprehensive platform Green spokespersons are uncertain they speak for the party when they are addressing the issues in public and with the press. Schmidt urged the states to consider the draft platform that had previously been circulated,coming out of the '95 and '96 organizing and from many state s platforms in relation to national issues, asking that it be given serious attention, discussed and debated at the state and local levels and for proposed additions and/or revisions to be sent back to the Platform Committee.

Annie Goeke, Pennsylvania said it was important that one person from each state be involved with the platform process so that when it comes to the Coordinating Committee it won t be mashed.

John Rensenbrink, Maine argued that the ASGP also needed a shorter version that was more accessible. Steve Schmidt agreed. There was also considerable sentiment that the ASGP should have position papers and an even shorter and more accessible bullet list of positions, perhaps based on the Four Pillars or the Ten Key Values.

Dee Berry, Missouri observer suggested that when the material for the platform is gathered, a single writer was needed to give it a consistent style. She also suggested that asking outside progressive groups to prepare papers for possible inclusion would get them involved. And, she concluded, having a platform was a way of holding candidates accountable.

Patrick Mazza, Oregon suggested that it is also important, for communication with the public, to arrive at a short list of key proposals that people come to identify with the Greens, for instance, proportional representation.

Lowell Nelson, Minnesota observer favored a platform saying it was preparation for 2000 and would foster the intellectual discipline he argued had been lacking.

Also on Sunday afternoon the Coordinating Committee resumed discussion on the New Mexico proposal about an addition to the by-laws, a matter that, on Saturday, had caused some delegates to express concern about the ASGP giving mandates to the autonomous state parties. Tammy Davis submitted revised language.

"In the interest of democracy and accountability, the ASGP will include in its by-laws [with language to be determined by the by-laws committee] the following principles.
"1. ASGP urges member state parties to commit to racial and cultural diversity, reflective of that within their own states, in their membership and leadership, and opposing sexism, racism, ageism, classism, discrimination against the differently abled and other forms of prejudice, both within the organization and in the larger society.

"2. ASGP urges member state parties to use proportional representation and/or preferential voting, as organizational capability permits, to elect delegates thus ensuring minority views are represented. Any reasonable plan that does this should be allowed, including apportioning delegates among geographical regions of the state."

New Mexico also introduced a resolution that would instruct the Accreditation Committee "to draft specific language that asserting that in defining a member state party in good standing, ASGP shall urge that membership parties be both legally organized for electoral purposes as well as involved in community organizing, as defined within that state. The threshold for membership shall be low and flexible."

Although no one opposed the principles in the New Mexico resolution, a few delegates said that such language was unnecessary, that, in effect, it was implicit in everything the Green Party stood for and Lorna Salzman, New York said such language was "pandering." Since there was no consensus the matter was put to a vote and the New Mexico resolutions were passed with 20 yes, 4 no and 3 abstentions.

Before lunch Tony Affigne, Rhode Island suggested that the ASGP make specific outreach to the California and Minnesota Green Parties. He said that California and Minnesota [both of which had observers actively participating in the formal and informal proceedings] were obviously influential. Such action would give them something positive to take back to their state parties. His suggestion was not acted on immediately but during lunch there were further discussions with observers from California and Minnesota involving Affigne and Steve Schmidt of New Mexico. From these discussions a draft emerged that Schmidt introduced after lunch.

The Coordinating Committee then quickly adopted by consensus this resolution:

"Requesting the Steering Committee of the ASGP to send a letter to the Green Parties of California and Minnesota, briefly summarizing developments and plans from the ASGP October 1997 meeting, acknowledging the importance of their respective parties, indicating our strong mutual interest in maintaining open communication, and paving the way for ongoing consultation on plans for a Green presidential campaign in 2000."

The meeting then turned to a wide-ranging discussion of a possible presidential campaign in 2000. Patrick Mazza, Oregon suggested a possible Hamburg-Laduke ticket. And he asked how would the Greens nominate candidates? Thomas Linzey, Pennsylvania suggested that the ASGP would be cast as a spoiler if we nominated candidates after another group had made nominations. He said that Winona Laduke was interested and perhaps Dan Hamburg. He said Winona would be a good candidate. She is "beautiful to work with," has given us names of potential members in other states [where we don't have the money to organize]. He said she was willing to speak before us and willing to raise funds for the states. Linzey also said the Greens should provide "a holistic progressive agenda, a Green agenda. A Summit 99 is being discussed by various individuals to accomplish that task" and he said the Greens should do something the religious right has never done, put forward a shadow cabinet that would run with the presidential ticket as a team, allowing them to campaign in different regions simultaneously.

Scott MacLarty, DC observer suggested compiling a raw list of potential candidates so they could get to know us. He also reported what others had been saying informally that Senator Wellstone was considering a run for the Democratic nomination and that if he lost the nomination some of his supporters might be looking for a political home.

Dan Solnit, California observer said that his connection with the earth gives me strength. It was his first time in New England, he said, but he had the sense it didn t matter what part of the earth you were from. He then produced a bottle of spring water he had collected in a California forest and mixed it in a bowl with water from Maine. "My watershed is your watershed." He was greeted with applause.

As the bowl of mixed waters was being passed around the room, Solnit asked the participants "To think of people who are not here. Invite them into the circle, even those not easy to work with." He said there was a spirit to the Green movement that unites us.

The body then turned to the place and time of the next Coordinating Committee. Tony Affigne, Rhode Island spoke for many when he called out: "I want to go to New Mexico." He said it was a good place politically because the New Mexico Greens combine electoral politics and movement activities.

The New Mexico greeted the proposal sympathetically but said it would have to take the matter back to their party council. But Tammy Davis, New Mexico suggested that if her state were to host the next meeting late April or early May would be a good time.

Patrick Mazza, Oregon then reported on a meeting of the Media Committee just concluded. He said:

1. The committee was open to Greens from non-affiliated states. 2. That the committee was beginning an archive of news clips from all across the country and hard copies of state press releases.
3. Send us a list of your resource people, Greens who could be spokespersons on major issues.
4. Tell us of your general resources on such issues as, say, sludge, forestry, campaign financing, etc.
5. Tell us of your major issues and campaigns and list your key contact people.
6. He asked how the ASGP should pick its hub spokesperson. The committee, he said, believed that at least one should be in the DC area because that s where the media was concentrated. He said the committee believed it should be empowered to pick the hubs and he asked for trust. "If, however, there are lots of objections, we've probably picked the wrong person."

A number of delegates then joined the discussion. Linda Martin, Virginia said the Media Committee should direct the press to Greens with various viewpoints, that this would demonstrate that the Green Party is not like others, that it welcomed divergent voices as long as they spoke from basic Green principles. She also suggested that the Greens take more advantage of weekly newspapers. They serve a unique audience, one local Greens know.

Annie Goeke, Pennsylvania urged that the Green Party turn to the alternative press.

Let the Media Committee know of your contacts within the alternative press. Mazza said, "The alternative press gets you volunteers."

Amy Vas Nunes, Connecticut observer urged that we recruit Spanish writers and target the Hispanic press with releases in Spanish.

Rick Lass, New Mexico observer moved that the Media Committee be authorized to make hub appointments and the resolution was passed without objection. [Rapporteur's note: although strictly speaking Lass, as an observer, did not have the right to propose a motion, he so clearly spoke the views of the body that no one objected. And it was getting late after a very busy meeting.]

The Coordinating Committee also decided that the Third Party Cooperation Committee should send a letter introducing the committee to other third parties, including a phone number, e-mail address and mailing address for communications. Linda Martin was then appointed by the Third Party Committee to serve as its representative at the ongoing ballot access meeting in Washington, DC. She is to report back to the Steering and Coordinating Committees.

As the meeting drew to a close, various delegates made remarks in summation. John Rensenbring, Maine urged that we get away from language like "left" and "right." Jim Nicita, Michigan called for openness and accountability, keeping the focus on the grass roots.

Annie Goeke, Pennsylvania said she was a little upset that the meeting had not begun with proper introductions. "It would have been nice to have a few words from everyone." And she suggested that in the ASGP women did not always get full credit for their work. Amy Vas Nunes, Connecticut observer suggested that future meetings provide child care. Patrick Mazza, Oregon urged that when either-or questions are posed [such as choosing between "deep" and "social" ecology, the question be questioned and both/and solutions sought.

Thanks were then offered to the facilitators, to keeper-of-the-stack Will Neils and Rapporteur Richard Walton.

Then, in the final moments, participants listened to a lovely autumn poem [perhaps because I got up to listen, I do not have the name of the person who read the poem, its name or its author. Maybe someone can provide that information Was it Annie Goeke?].

And finally all the participants stood in a circle, holding hands for a long moment. Then smiles and applause and, just as in the movies, the sun, hidden for most of the weekend, emerged and its rays flooded into the Grange hall. And the participants spilled outside, finally enjoying a lovely Maine autumn afternoon in a lovely Maine small town.

* * * * *

Attendance at ASGP Topsham Meeting

Virginia Hartnett AR
Al Brooks AR
Dan Solnit CA
Megan Mullin CA
Mike Feinstein CA
Dean Myerson CO
Karin Lee Norton CT
Tom Sevigny CT
Amy Vas Nunes CT
Scott MacLarty DC
Karen Szulgit DC
Ron Kahlow DC
Barbara Bell HI
Betty Zisk MA
Greg Gerritt RI
Jane Livingston ME
Patrick Mazza OR
Daryl Davis OH
Annie Goeke PA
Tom Linzey PA
Jim Lowenstern VA
Linda Martin VA
Dee Berry MO
Barbara Bradbury RI
Jim Nicita MI
Bill Colucci NJ

Jesse Perrier MA
Nick Mellis NJ
Lorna Salzman NY
Craig Harvey MI
Rick Lass NM
Tammy Davis NM
Xubi Wilson NM
Mark Jachobs GPONYS NY
Nancy Allen ME
Steve Schmidt NM
Oliver Hayes
Tom Fusco ME
John Rensenbrink ME
David Draper ME
Karen Draper - Facilitor ME
Will Neals ME
Ron Stanchfield NY
Lowell Nelson MN
Joseph Mosley NJ
Roger Sedmont
Richard Walton RI
Tony Affigne RI
Alan Cohen TN
Bill Smith WY
Amy Moon WY