- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is Proposal 007-15: length of co-chair termPlease read the proposal and keep comments on the topic of the proposal only.Designate your vote by using the following terms: AGREE, BLOCK, or STAND ASIDE. Any blocks will require a vote of the council Per Section 4.3 of the GPCO Bylaws, "All decisions concerning policy, finance, and objectives shall require consensus or a vote of at least 60% of the membership present at a state meeting and/or the Council".There are currently eight ( 8 ) active voting chapters in the Green Party of Colorado. A vote of at lease 60% quorum requires at lease one response from five ( 5 ) chapters.Active ChaptersAdams/JeffersonArapahoe CountyDenverDouglasGreater BoulderPikes PeakSan MiguelSouthwestThe floor is now open for one week of Agreement Seeking (Ending July 30th, 2015).Thank You,Brittany Hoover, Council Facillitator1. Basic InfoDate proposed: 7/23/15Name of the sponsor(s): Andrea Merida, co-chair, Denver Greens2. Title: Bylaws Change: Length of Co-chair Term3. Proposal: The Bylaws of the Green Party of Colorado shall be amended as follows: V. Officers 5.1 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.This change shall take effect as of the co-chair elections scheduled for August 29, 2015, and the Secretary of the Green Party of Colorado is instructed to file these amended bylaws with the Colorado Secretary of State office, according to applicable state law.4. Background: While our bylaws have always called out one-year terms for the state party co-chairs, recent practice has created de-facto two-year terms for the co-chairs. 5. Justification/Goals: With this change, we codify the practicality of having party leadership that spans through election cycles. Additionally, this term length brings the GPCO more in line with the practice of other state Green parties around the country.6. Pros and Cons: Pros include having stable leadership through an election cycle and the ability for co-chairs to follow through on long-range strategic planning. Cons could include difficulty of removing a co-chair from office, but this can be remedied through the normal recall provisions listed in Section 5.9 of the Bylaws..7. Alternatives to the proposal: One alternative is to take no action.8. Supporting statements: 8. Supporting statements including references to other sources of readily accessible materials to aid in the members’ decision making process. The Maine Green Independent Party has two-year co-chair terms (http://www.mainegreens.org/bylaws). Members of the Green Party of California’s state coordinating committee serve for two years (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2013-06-23#Section_4-2_Coordinating_Committee).
I agree with 2-year terms for co-chairs for the reasons stated in the proposal. To make the bylaws consistent, I offer this friendly amendment:V. Officers 5.7 OFFICERS
Co-chairsshall be chosenat each annual state meeting and other officersin odd numberED years to serve TWO-YEARtwo yearterms in office.First, Harry, good call on that amendment!! I was concerned about that inconsistency. My vote: Stand aside (I've been out of town, but wanted to chime in with my stance.) My concern is that there has been no discussion about what we are giving up by lengthening the terms. While a two year term would help with planning and consistency, we should note that by lengthening the terms, we are a) making it more difficult to change the course of our leadership, outside of recalling them which seems a little severe when you really would just like new chairs. b) asking twice as much from potential candidates, with twice as much risk for our party (the party has had problems keeping people in the chair for a full term) Without that discussion I'm a little uncomfortable supporting the change.
Sorry all, I'm without a computer to attach the official results. I will have to do this at a later time. Anyway, I do believe the proposal has passed without consensus but within parameters. Final Tally:6 Agree1 Stand Aside0 Block6/8 Chapters voting.
I prefer to leave the term as one year. We can easily extend the term of an officer annually. If an officer is not performing then we need the option to make a change annually. I agree with the post about what we are giving up. I think we can have all the benefits under the current one year term.Michael HaugheyAJ Greens
Michael and Bill,I think your case for one-year terms applies equally to ALL officers; not just co-chairs. Please reply if I am mistaken.The reason I favor two-year terms is that election cycles are two years. Consistency throughout an election cycle is desirable and encourages the party to plan for the whole election cycle. In even-numbered years the party's focus is on candidates, nominations, and elections, so election of party officers and restructuring are best done in odd-numbered years.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.