- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is Proposal 002-17: Amend Bylaws to Clarify Two Year Term of OfficePlease read the proposal and keep comments on the topic of the proposal only. This proposal is moderated, and the GPCO Code of Conduct will apply (located here: http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=28.0).Designate your vote by using the following terms: AGREE, BLOCK, or STAND ASIDE. Any blocks will require a vote of the council.There are currently twelve (12) active voting chapters in the Green Party of Colorado. Adoption of this proposal requires an AGREE of at least 60% of all votes cast and also requires a minimum quorum of at least one response from eight (8 ) chapters.Active ChaptersJefferson CountyAdams CountyArapahoe CountyDenverDouglas CountyGreater BoulderLongmontPikes PeakPoudre ValleyMesaSan MiguelPlatte ValleyThe floor is now open for one week of Agreement Seeking, ending March 5, 2017 at 11.59 pm.1. Basic InfoDate proposed: February 25, 2017Name of the sponsors: Harry Hempy (GBGP Co-chair), Carolyn Bninski (GBGP Co-chair), Kevin Alumbaugh (GBGP Council Representative), Judy Harrington (Poudre Valley), Scott Lupo (Jefferson County)2. Title:Amend GPCO Bylaws to Clarify Two Year Term of Office3. Text of the actual Proposal:To clarify officers term of office and remove obsolete material, the Bylaws of the Green Party of Colorado shall be amended as follows. Replace Section 5.1 which currently reads, "In order to serve the growth of the GPCO and to communicate our message, platform and values to the public, the GPCO will elect two state co-chairs to two year terms. Every effort shall be made to reach gender and geographic diversity." with the following text:
Officers shall be chosen at each annual state meeting held in odd number years to two year terms. The term of office begins immediately upon election and ends with the election of officers at the next odd year annual meeting. Every effort shall be made to reach gender and geographic diversity.
Delete Section 5.7 in its entirety. The section currently reads, "Co-chairs shall be chosen at each annual state meeting and other officers in odd number years to serve two year terms in office." This section is obsolete because co-chairs now serve two year terms.4. Background:Since the co-chair wars in October 2016 Co-chair Andrea Merida has claimed she is entitled to 24 months in office. Andrea is using her position as council facilitator to block all proposals to have the 2017 annual meeting before she gets her full 24 months in. So now, four months after the 2016 election, GPCO Council is unable to set a date for the meeting because we have not agreed on when our officers' terms expire. All other political parties will have held their annual state meeting by the end of March.5. Justification/Goals:Historically, terms of GPCO officers have run from annual meeting to annual meeting. This amendment simply codifies past practice, going back at least to 2007. An explicit reference to the co-chair term in the minutes from the state meeting in 2007 can be found at http://coloradogreenparty.org/about/history/gpco-2007-state-meeting-minutes/.The meeting was held June 23-24, 2007, in Carbondale, Colorado. On Saturday, June 23, after a decision to change the co-chair terms from two years (which they were at that time) to one year, the following is found in the meeting minutes.
11:15 a.m. Election of new state officers and national delegates and selection of webmaster and e-list manager Tom Kelly of the Arapahoe Greens and Dave Chandler of the Adams-Jefferson Greens volunteered to become co-chairs for the 07-08 term.Agreement seeking resulted in a consensus for Kelly and Chandler as state co-chairs for approximately one year, beginning June 23 and until the next annual state meeting.Dan Sage of the Arapahoe Greens volunteered to continue as state treasurer for the 07-09 term.Agreement seeking resulted in a consensus for Sage as treasurer for approximately two years, beginning June 23 and until the annual state meeting of 2009.Eric Fried of the Poudre Valley Greens volunteered to become state secretary for the 07-09 term.Agreement seeking resulted in a consensus for Fried as secretary for approximately two years, beginning June 23 and until the annual state meeting of 2009.
This is an explicit description of a one-year term being approximately one year from the date of the election to the date of the following year's meeting. It is also an explicit description of a two-year term being approximately two years from the date of the election to the date of the meeting two years hence. Although the co-chair terms were reduced from two years to one year, the other offices continued with two-year terms, so both the one-year term and the two-year term are described in the minutes. The description of the term length is repeated for each office, so it does not seem to be a typo.The 2008 meeting was held on May 3, so the nominal one-year term from the 2007 meeting (June 23) to the 2008 meeting (May 3) was approximately ten and a half months. The 2009 meeting was held in July by teleconference, no specific date available on the history page, so the nominal two-year term from the 2007 meeting (June 23) to the 2009 meeting (sometime in July) was several weeks longer than two years.6. Pros and Cons:Pros: There is no precedent for setting the annual meeting date based on the date the current officers were elected. Delaying the annual meeting, so as to put the desire of an officer to serve 24 months ahead of the needs of the party to organize for the 2018 election cycle, hurts the party's prospects for the 2018 election.Cons:7. Alternatives to the proposal:8. References:
This amendment would appear to codify what has been the practice in the past. I can find an explicit reference to the co-chair term in the minutes from the state meeting in 2007, which can be found at http://coloradogreenparty.org/about/history/gpco-2007-state-meeting-minutes/.The meeting was held June 23-24, 2007, in Carbondale, Colorado. On Saturday, June 23, after a decision to change the co-chair terms from two years (which they were at that time) to one year, the following is found in the meeting minutes.
11:15 a.m. Election of new state officers and national delegates and selection of webmaster and e-list manager Tom Kelly of the Arapahoe Greens and Dave Chandler of the Adams-Jefferson Greens volunteered to become co-chairs for the 07-08 term.Agreement seeking resulted in a consensus for Kelly and Chandler as state co-chairs for approximately one year, beginning June 23 and until the next annual state meeting.Dan Sage of the Arapahoe Greens volunteered to continue as state treasurer for the 07-09 term.Agreement seeking resulted in a consensus for Sage as treasurer for approximately two years, beginning June 23 and until the annual state meeting of 2009.Eric Fried of the Poudre Valley Greens volunteered to become state secretary for the 07-09 term.Agreement seeking resulted in a consensus for Fried as secretary for approximately two years, beginning June 23 and until the annual state meeting of 2009.
This is an explicit description of a one-year term being approximately one year from the date of the election to the date of the following year's meeting. It is also an explicit description of a two-year term being approximately two years from the date of the election to the date of the meeting two years hence. Although the co-chair terms were reduced from two years to one year, the other offices continued with two-year terms, so both the one-year term and the two-year term are described in the minutes. The description of the term length is repeated for each office, so it does not seem to be a typo.The 2008 meeting was held on May 3, so the nominal one-year term from the 2007 meeting (June 23) to the 2008 meeting (May 3) was approximately ten and a half months. The 2009 meeting was held in July by teleconference, no specific date available on the history page, so the nominal two-year term from the 2007 meeting (June 23) to the 2009 meeting (sometime in July) was several weeks longer than two years.
I have (just now) modified the draft to incorporate Judy's research. I will give this draft a couple days, to see if there are any other comments.
Seeing no more comments, I did a final edit of the proposal, adding the following co-sponsors: Harry Hempy (GBGP Co-chair), Carolyn Bninski (GBGP Co-chair), Kevin Alumbaugh (GBGP Council Representative), Scott Lupo (Jefferson County Council Representative), and Judy Harrington (Poudre Valley Council Representative)I believe the proposal is ready to begin agreement seeking on the Proposal Agreement Seeking board.I'll notify the Council Facilitator now.
An update:On February 25, I requested this proposal be posted to the Proposal Agreement Seeking board in a message to Co-chairs Andrea Merida and Dave Bell and Secretary Sean Friend, with copies to the co-sponsors.
GPCO Council Facilitator and All,Please find a proposal to amend the GPCO Bylaws below and post it to the Proposal Agreement Seeking board. The proposal was drafted on the Proposal Drafting Board (http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=317.msg1648#msg1648) over the past week. Five council members, including three from the same chapter, are co-sponsors. Thanks, Harry Hempy
The proposal has not appeared on the Agreement Seeking Board and there has been no response to the request, to date.I will leave this topic open on the Proposal Drafting board to track the proposal until it is posted on the Proposal Agreement Seeking board.
Ok, apologies for not being able to reply sooner.We're back to the same problem here, in which a proposal for the council needs to be co-sponsored in the appropriate way, and that is via the sponsorship of LOCALS, not individuals. The only individuals who can forward a proposal are the officers of the state party.Five individuals or more can forward a proposal outside of their locals for the state meeting.Since this proposal is being forwarded through the council, it has to be sponsored by a local.I see that you list officers of GBGP, but did you not have an official action at your latest meeting? If not, why not?
Andrea, GPCO Bylaws and GPCO Procedures and Guidelines do NOT support your ruling.GPCO Bylaws and GPCO Procedures and Guidelines do NOT provide for officers to make proposals directly to Council.GPCO Bylaws and GPCO Procedures and Guidelines do NOT provide for local chapters to make proposals directly to Council.GPCO Procedures and Guidelines section 3.5.3, DOES provide for a representative on Council to make proposals to Council directly, providing that the proposal is co-sponsored by at least two other members of the chapter, at least one of the co-sponsors being an officer of the chapter.Here is the complete text of procedures section 3.5.3:
The Council will discuss via email issues raised among its representatives or by any Green Party member who participates. Any councilmember or Committee may submit a proposal to the convener or facilitator for discussion. Appointed state representatives of local chapters will have the ability to make proposals to the State Council directly under the following conditions: 1. That the proposal be made by the representative and two more members of the local chapter, one of those members being an elected or appointed officer of that local chapter. 2. That the proposal be published on the local chapter's listserve as soon as possible. 3. That the state representative making the proposal need not have written confirmation but simply email confirmation from the other two members making the proposal, and that copies of these emails be sent along to the State Council with the proposal.
This proposal to Amend Bylaws to Clarify Two Year Term of Office meets all three criteria.1. The proposal is made by three members of the Greater Boulder Green Party and other Council members. The Greater Boulder sponsors consist of three Council representatives, including both chapter co-chairs.2. The proposal is published on the Greater Boulder Greens Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1608017305880273&id=1727009861108273. Copies of emails confirming co-sponsorship by Greater Boulder Greens Carolyn Bninski (Co-chair and Council Representative) and Kevin Alumbaugh (Council representative) are here:
Kevin AlumbaughFeb 24 (7 days ago) YesKevin AlumbaughOn Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Carolyn Bninski
wrote: yes. On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Harry Hempy wrote: I am drafting a proposal to amend GPCO bylaws to make it clear that officers' term of office goes from annual meeting to annual meeting in odd-numbered years. Will you co-sponsor this proposal with me? Please reply, "YES". -Harry To clarify GPCO officers term of office and remove obsolete material the Bylaws of the Green Party of Colorado shall be amended as follows: Replace Section 5.1 which currently reads, "In order to serve the growth of the GPCO and to communicate our message, platform and values to the public, the GPCO will elect two state co-chairs to two year terms. Every effort shall be made to reach gender and geographic diversity." with the following text: Officers shall be chosen at each annual state meeting held in odd number years to two year terms. The term of office begins immediately upon election and ends with the election of officers at the next odd year annual meeting. Every effort shall be made to reach gender and geographic diversity. Delete Section 5.7 in its entirety. The section currently reads, "Co-chairs shall be chosen at each annual state meeting and other officers in odd number years to serve two year terms in office." This section is obsolete because co-chairs now serve two year terms. The full draft proposal is on the GPCO Forum at http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=317.msg1648#msg1648 This proposal meets all requirements for direct submission to Council. It should be posted on the Proposal Agreement Seeking board without further delay.
Andrea,After a good night's sleep I realize I may have misunderstood your rationale for rejecting this proposal to clarify GPCO officers' term of office.I had thought you were were saying the proposal did not have enough co-sponsors to be submitted directly to Council for agreement seeking and, if necessary, a vote.But perhaps you were saying the proposal has TOO MANY sponsors, instead of TOO FEW sponsors.If Scott Lupo, from Jefferson County, and Judy Harrington, from Poudre Valley, were removed from the proposal's co-sponsors, leaving just three co-sponsors from Greater Boulder, would this satisfy your rules for making a proposal directly to council and would you post then the proposal on the Proposal Agreement Seeking board?
I haven't rejected anything yet. If this proposal goes forward, the non-GBGP “sponsors” will have to be removed from this proposal, again because proposals brought before the council have specific requirements that support the local's right to bring proposals. Here's the concern I have, and why I'm asking for a copy of your bylaws. It appears on the surface that this proposal was not brought forward in a transparent, democratic fashion in a regular meeting of GBGP. Do your bylaws allow for proposals to be sponsored by the local outside of a regular meeting, in which Boulder Greens can attend and at least watch?Our state party bylaws, under Section III, state at the beginning that a Green local must agree to "accept the Ten Key Values and to manage the chapter in accordance with those values." Please provide me with a copy of your bylaws.Thanks.
Andrea,Your rejections, delays, foot-dragging - whatever you want to call them - are becoming ludicrous, but I will do as you ask.I have removed Council representatives from Poudre Valley and Jefferson County from the sponsor list. The proposal is now sponsored only by three representatives from Greater Boulder.Please post this proposal for agreement seeking now.Regarding your concern that:
It appears on the surface that this proposal was not brought forward in a transparent, democratic fashion in a regular meeting of GBGP.
You are correct that this proposal does not come from a GBGP meeting. The proposal comes from me, Harry Hempy, a GPCO Council member representing GBGP. I submitted it for discussion on the Proposal Drafting board, amended the proposal to incorporate contributions from Council members, obtained the confirmed support of two members of GBGP, including a co-chair, and requested the Council Facilitator to post the proposal for agreement seeking. This complies with the letter and the spirit of Procedures and Guidelines section 3.5.3. I think your concern is unfounded.
Our state party bylaws, under Section III, state at the beginning that a Green local must agree to "accept the Ten Key Values and to manage the chapter in accordance with those values.
Correct.
Well then, it's clear that this proposal doesn't meet the basic requirements for action on the state council.Right?Please go get your local's full, transparent and democratic approval and resubmit as is proper. Once you meet the basics, I will put this forward for a vote.I still would like to see a copy of your bylaws, so we can archive them here for exchange of examples and ideas, at the very least.Thank you.
Wrong, Andrea,You cannot quote any section of the bylaws or the procedures and guidelines that requires, or even allows, a local chapter to make a proposal to Council.If I'm wrong, show me the relevant section.I understand you are adamantly opposed to this proposal because it might result in you serving less than 24 calendar months as the party dictator. In my view, if you continue to block this proposal you are doing so for your personal benefit, without regard for the needs of the party.I like your idea of comparing the bylaws of the local chapters. There is quite a variety. I expect I would sign on as a co-sponsor if you draft a proposal on the Proposal Drafting board.
- The topic ‘Amend Bylaws to Clarify Two Year Term of Office’ is closed to new replies.