- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Two friendly amendments:1. In this text,
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 seven (7) chapters.
change "seven ( 7 )" to "eight ( 8 ).2. In this text,
After the 2017 state meeting, amend Section 4.1.1 to read4.1.1. In order for official decisions to be made at a state meeting, a quorum of at least 60% of local chapters must be represented, with a minimum number of voting participants (registered in the Green Party of Colorado not less than 180 days) equal to twice the number of local chapters represented. Exceptions apply to persons who have: become eligible to vote via new citizenship; or have been released from parole and have been re-granted their right to vote; or have recently reached voting age and have subsequently registered with the Green Party within the 90 day window.
change "90" to "180".
I have a couple problems with this proposal to create a six-month waiting period for new Greens before voting in state party meetings.Image: If Council adopts this proposal the Green Party will become the only political party in Colorado to impose voting restrictions on members based on time in the party. This is a terrible image for a party that claims to be a grassroots democracy where everyone has a vote.Green Registrations: In the years since I affiliated with the Green Party on May Day 2013, GPCO's primary goal has been to grow the number of registered Greens in Colorado. Dave Bell was elected co-chair last fall on a platform of 50,000+ Green Party registrations in two years. (there are currently around 12,000 registered Greens in Colorado)How will future registration drives turn out when prospective party members are told, "We are a grassroots party; come join us; OH, but you won't get voting rights for six months"? As Art mentioned earlier, annual meetings are an opportunity to bring new people into the party; not turn them away. This is especially true of nominating meetings, where much of the attendance is from candidates' supporters.In my view, this proposal will damage GPCO's ability to attract new members and function as a grassroots democracy. I would ask the new chapters to consider carefully before taking the party down this path.
My apologies for any confusion, I'm new as a delegate, I vote in favor AGREE as the PVgreens have reached a quorum in favor of this proposal.
BLOCKThe word "block" has a number of meanings, including:Normal: In organizations that use a consensus process (think of Occupy) a person blocks to force discussion of proposals that they believe are contrary to organization's fundamental mission. GPCO: In the GPCO agreement seeking process, the word "BLOCK" has been perverted to mean "end discussion". In our process any council member can shut down agreement seeking and end discussion of any proposal. I posted my reasons for not agreeing with this proposal on April 14. And I cannot bring myself to stand aside and watch the party become more exclusive, more protective of its ideological purity, and more paranoid. The remaining option is to block.
- The topic ‘Proposal 003-17: REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING AT GPCO STATE MEETINGS’ is closed to new replies.