Thursday, March 01, 2007
Example of wording issues
The Green National Committee is considering Proposal 261, which I have mentioned before. It involves the GNC endorsing, on behalf of the GPUS a report on war crimes put together, apparently, by a group named "Consumers for Peace".
In a recent message to the GNC, Marc Sanson of IL quoted from the GPUS Green Party Rules and Procedures at some length. The question he asked, paraphrased of course, was why has the proposal been submitted to a vote only one week after it was first presented when the normal procedure is to allow for two weeks of discussion before a vote is cast?
In addition, he asks why the threshold for passage is only 50% when the Rules and Procedures say that an 80% vote is required for passage when a question is submitted for expedited approval.
I will add one more question to his. The Rules and Procedures say, in part,
Well, by my reading, the proposal would have to secure the votes of a majority of 80% of the state delegations. This is not happening, and in fact, the votes are cumulative, not based on a state by state vote. In other words, the way it's set up, CA and VT have the same voice on such a question, but in reality, the individual members of the GNC are doing the voting, not the state delegation.
The Green Party needs to consider appointing a single person or tiny committee of no more than three and charge them with examining all the party infrastructure for conflicts and recommendations for changes so the GNC can begin to actually lead the party. We can win so many races and accomplish so much to promote the Green Planet we all want, but these sorts of wording problems will bite us in the ass if we don't address them.
Personally, I think the GP needs a Parliamentarian.
In a recent message to the GNC, Marc Sanson of IL quoted from the GPUS Green Party Rules and Procedures at some length. The question he asked, paraphrased of course, was why has the proposal been submitted to a vote only one week after it was first presented when the normal procedure is to allow for two weeks of discussion before a vote is cast?
In addition, he asks why the threshold for passage is only 50% when the Rules and Procedures say that an 80% vote is required for passage when a question is submitted for expedited approval.
I will add one more question to his. The Rules and Procedures say, in part,
At least 50% of the member states of the GREEN PARTY must vote on a resolution, and at least 80% of the voting states must approve the resolution before the GREEN PARTY shall be allowed to issue a public statement.
Well, by my reading, the proposal would have to secure the votes of a majority of 80% of the state delegations. This is not happening, and in fact, the votes are cumulative, not based on a state by state vote. In other words, the way it's set up, CA and VT have the same voice on such a question, but in reality, the individual members of the GNC are doing the voting, not the state delegation.
The Green Party needs to consider appointing a single person or tiny committee of no more than three and charge them with examining all the party infrastructure for conflicts and recommendations for changes so the GNC can begin to actually lead the party. We can win so many races and accomplish so much to promote the Green Planet we all want, but these sorts of wording problems will bite us in the ass if we don't address them.
Personally, I think the GP needs a Parliamentarian.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 9:16 PM 
