Tuesday, April 04, 2006
National Committee Vote Results
The voting on a couple of issues before the Green National Committee ended on Sunday, and I am just now reporting on it. How lame is that? :-) Truth be known, I have been busy trying to bring in enough money to keep body and soul together, and trying to offer some minimal level of support to my state's candidates. I don't have a full run down on our nominees, and won't completely until after the nominating convention on April 22nd, but I can't imagine we won't run everyone who has filed. I believe we may have as many as seven candidates again this year, same as two years ago, but with two city-council level seats up too.
Anyway, the results of the voting are as follows:
The Amendment to establish new regulations for Steering Committee member recall was adopted by a vote of 69 in favor, 25 opposed, and 2 abstentions.
The Presidential Campaign Support Committee Missions and Objectives was also passed. The vote was almost unanimous, with 84 votes in favor and 6 abstentions.
In the first vote, on new rules for SC removal, the vote seemed to break largely along GDI and non-GDI lines. I don't think this is a bad thing per-se, but I do wonder if all the non-GDI folks are giving the GDI perspective enough time and attention, and wonder likewise if the GDI folks are listening to the other side with a mind towards understanding.
I'm not asking for compromises from either side, just dialog.
Issues under current consideration include Pose (a) Challenge to (the) Two Party System and apparently another attempt to establish rules for the Delegate Apportionment Committee.
On this last topic, I have placed the entire text of the proposal behind the "Read more!" link because I think everyone needs to read this. If this party is going to have any shot at coming out of the 2008 convention unified behind a candidate and campaign, everyone must buy into and trust the system used to apportion delegates to the convention. Absolutely no attempt to control the outcome of the convention by virtue of manipulations at this early date should be tolerated. Again I must ask, should we not consider demanding that all of our national level leaders belong to and be active in a local Green Party chapter as a minimum requirement? Are we "hiring" activists who can get things done, or people who think and talk a good game, but have no real following or understanding of how organizing actually works?
And to be clear, I am not one of those folks. I am not qualified to lead the USGP, and only hope the people who run are qualified.
Remember, the text of the proposal is behind the "Read more!" link...
Background Purpose:
To insure that the DAC's final recommendation will truly "adhere to the
principle of proportional representation," as provided in its establishing
proposal.
Present instructions provide that the DAC is instructed "to facilitate the
adoption of a more proportionate system of governance." Such system is to
"adhere to the principle of proportional representation." In recent GPUS-NC
discussion, it has been suggested that "proportional representation" may
mean anything from "One Green One Vote" to "parity between state Green
Parties." This points out the need to define "proportional representation"
before asking the DAC to begin its work. Were the DAC to begin
deliberations with such widely conflicting definitions of its mission, the
chances of arriving at a solution which will satisfy those desiring
"proportional representation" are significantly reduced.
The DAC is constituted and authorized by the GPUS-NC. The DAC must be given
clear, precise instructions by the GPUS-NC. The DAC was neither intended,
nor is it empowered, to define or redefine the terms of its mission; that
responsibility remains with the GPUS-NC. If the DAC is truly mandated to
seek a system of proportional representation, then let us say it in a way
which is clear and unequivocal, and let us say it now, before the DAC begins
its work.
The sponsors of this Clarification proposal want to acknowledge the
difficulty of the task given to the DAC. We encourage the DAC to seek a
system which will place all Greens, whether from a registration state or a
non-registration state, on as even a playing field as possible. We encourage
bylaw suggestions for the appropriate protection of states with small
Green populations and Greens with minority viewpoints within the GPUS.
This instruction is not intended to limit in any way the use of various
criteria and factors in determining a state's Green membership and real, present,
electoral strength.
The test of such factors will be simply do those factors actually and
logically reflect a fair estimation of a state's Green presence?
Proposal
The DAC is instructed by the GPUS NC to work for proportional
representation, defined as a system of Green Party
representative governance providing parity between Green Party members in
all states.
Resources
Contacts:
Cara Campbell clcampbell@ecoisp.com 954 525-4522
Gary Hecker grhecker@ecoisp.com 954 525-5903
References
http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=175
Anyway, the results of the voting are as follows:
The Amendment to establish new regulations for Steering Committee member recall was adopted by a vote of 69 in favor, 25 opposed, and 2 abstentions.
The Presidential Campaign Support Committee Missions and Objectives was also passed. The vote was almost unanimous, with 84 votes in favor and 6 abstentions.
In the first vote, on new rules for SC removal, the vote seemed to break largely along GDI and non-GDI lines. I don't think this is a bad thing per-se, but I do wonder if all the non-GDI folks are giving the GDI perspective enough time and attention, and wonder likewise if the GDI folks are listening to the other side with a mind towards understanding.
I'm not asking for compromises from either side, just dialog.
Issues under current consideration include Pose (a) Challenge to (the) Two Party System and apparently another attempt to establish rules for the Delegate Apportionment Committee.
On this last topic, I have placed the entire text of the proposal behind the "Read more!" link because I think everyone needs to read this. If this party is going to have any shot at coming out of the 2008 convention unified behind a candidate and campaign, everyone must buy into and trust the system used to apportion delegates to the convention. Absolutely no attempt to control the outcome of the convention by virtue of manipulations at this early date should be tolerated. Again I must ask, should we not consider demanding that all of our national level leaders belong to and be active in a local Green Party chapter as a minimum requirement? Are we "hiring" activists who can get things done, or people who think and talk a good game, but have no real following or understanding of how organizing actually works?
And to be clear, I am not one of those folks. I am not qualified to lead the USGP, and only hope the people who run are qualified.
Remember, the text of the proposal is behind the "Read more!" link...
Background Purpose:
To insure that the DAC's final recommendation will truly "adhere to the
principle of proportional representation," as provided in its establishing
proposal.
Present instructions provide that the DAC is instructed "to facilitate the
adoption of a more proportionate system of governance." Such system is to
"adhere to the principle of proportional representation." In recent GPUS-NC
discussion, it has been suggested that "proportional representation" may
mean anything from "One Green One Vote" to "parity between state Green
Parties." This points out the need to define "proportional representation"
before asking the DAC to begin its work. Were the DAC to begin
deliberations with such widely conflicting definitions of its mission, the
chances of arriving at a solution which will satisfy those desiring
"proportional representation" are significantly reduced.
The DAC is constituted and authorized by the GPUS-NC. The DAC must be given
clear, precise instructions by the GPUS-NC. The DAC was neither intended,
nor is it empowered, to define or redefine the terms of its mission; that
responsibility remains with the GPUS-NC. If the DAC is truly mandated to
seek a system of proportional representation, then let us say it in a way
which is clear and unequivocal, and let us say it now, before the DAC begins
its work.
The sponsors of this Clarification proposal want to acknowledge the
difficulty of the task given to the DAC. We encourage the DAC to seek a
system which will place all Greens, whether from a registration state or a
non-registration state, on as even a playing field as possible. We encourage
bylaw suggestions for the appropriate protection of states with small
Green populations and Greens with minority viewpoints within the GPUS.
This instruction is not intended to limit in any way the use of various
criteria and factors in determining a state's Green membership and real, present,
electoral strength.
The test of such factors will be simply do those factors actually and
logically reflect a fair estimation of a state's Green presence?
Proposal
The DAC is instructed by the GPUS NC to work for proportional
representation, defined as a system of Green Party
representative governance providing parity between Green Party members in
all states.
Resources
Contacts:
Cara Campbell clcampbell@ecoisp.com 954 525-4522
Gary Hecker grhecker@ecoisp.com 954 525-5903
References
http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=175
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 7:59 AM 
