- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Our chapter is also in agreement on this proposal. My vote is Agree.As a side note, I don't see a problem with running the two proposals at once. While there was some confusion last fall related to two different proposals, there's certainly precedence for having multiple proposals running consecutively without issue.
I am surprised to see that the location will be in the Denver metropolitan area. At a Poudre Valley Greens meeting in January, we were discussing the advisability of holding the annual meeting on the Western Slope in Grand Junction and Dave Bell himself assured us that “plans are already underway” at the state level for holding the annual meeting in Grand Junction.
In the opening paragraph of this proposal the following excerpts fro the bylaws were included:Per Section 4.1 of the GPCO bylaws, "State meetings will be held yearly or more frequently at a location agreed upon by the members at the previous meeting, or by a special call of the Council at its discretion.Also per section 4.2.3. of the GPCO bylaws, "The Council sets the agenda for the state meetings..."I did not see any discussion on the state council as to the specific date of the state meeting. It has been customary in the past to have a discussion of the date of the state meeting in the proposal drafting stage with several possible dates considered so that council members can weigh in on what dates work for them in an effort to ensure that a date is determined that works for as many council members as possible. August 12th is virtually the only date over the summer that I cannot attend due to a long-0planned vacation/reunion.I also did not see any council discussion of the agenda. The text of the proposal lists the agenda as "tentative." Does this mean that it is still open for discussion? If so I move that this proposal be moved to the proposal drafting board so that both items can be discussed further.Also I did not see Council Facilitator listed in list of officers to be elected at the meeting. Was this an oversight?Thank you.Kevin AlumbaughGreater Boulder Green Party
Kevin, the agenda is in fact listed here as “tentative,” because the process for finalization is delineated in the proposal:"The agenda will be finalized via friendly amendments offered at a forum workgroup to be created, entitled "2017 Annual Meeting Workgroup."I'm happy to entertain your friendly amendment regarding the date. What is your suggestion?If you are not able to attend, I would suggest that GBGP adopt some sort of proxy arrangement and ratify it in your bylaws, so that your voice can be heard.
There is a calculation error in the introductory material of this proposal. With 12 chapters, adoption of this proposal requires a vote from eight chapters; not seven chapters.I would ask the facilitator to update/amend the proposal accordingly.
Yeah, you're probably right, Harry.I copied from your last proposal, and I thought rounding down from 7.2 would be more fair to you. 12 x .60 = 7.2Either way.
My apologies for missing that sentence.However due to a lack of council discussion on the specific date I Disagree.Kevin AlumbaughGreater Boulder Green Party
Harry, you are reminded yet again to keep your comments in line with the proposal and according to the code of conduct of this forum.Personal attacks are not allowed. Ask clarifying questions, offer friendly amendments, or vote. Those are your options.EDIT: you may disagree and say why as well, as long as they comport with the code of conduct.
Folks, now with 8 votes either way from locals, we are now at quorum.As a reminder, this proposal ends on Saturday night. Thank you.
. . . I would suggest that GBGP adopt some sort of proxy arrangement and ratify it in your bylaws . . . .
It would be disastrous to allow each chapter to make up their own proxy rules for state meetings. The Greater Boulder Green Party, or any chapter, could show up at annual meeting with hundreds of proxies from Greens living in the chapter's boundaries.GPCO Bylaws are silent on the subject of using proxies at annual meetings. Maybe we need a bylaws change to explicitly disallow proxy voting at state level general membership meetings. But for now for proposal 004-17, I offer this friendly amendment:Add the following note to the tentative agenda: Members may attend the 2017 annual meeting in person or remotely. There will be no voting by proxy.
GBGP could restrict proxies to only council delegates.I would prefer to handle the matter of proxies outsidr of this proposal, in the same way the issue of length of tome as a registered Green is being handled by a separate proposal.This proposal only deals with one meeting, so it would be inappropriate for such a change here.Besides, decentralization. If GBGP wants proxies, they can have them for their council members if they wish.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.