Proposal for GPOC Council

[Bob Kinsey]

Whereas the Colorado Revised Statutes give the Central Committee/GPOC complete authority to make rules for the Party (when the Annual State Meeting is not in session), and,Whereas the GPOC State Bylaws give the Council the same powers, and,Whereas the time frame for the State Convention was moved to March because of the new Primary Election date on June 15, months earlier than the date when our bylaws were revised, and,Whereas the  GPOC bylaws state a time period for a candidate to be registered as a Green Party of Colorado member  as 6 months before the General Election and 2 months before the State Convention, and,Whereas at least two local chapters of the GPOC  have potential candidates who have become Green Party of Colorado Registered voters too late to meet the 2 month deadline before the State Convention  (San Miguel for State Legislature and Pike's Peak for Congressional District 5 USHR)and,Whereas the GPOC needs candidates on the ballot willing to give voters a voice for Green Values in all levels of Government,Be it Therefore Resolved by the GPOC Council that the requirement of registration 2 months prior to the State Convention on March 31 be waived so long as the potential candidate be registered Green Party prior to the State Convention (which would have been held much later in any event if  Primaries in Colorado had not been moved from August to June) and the candidates can show that they have been working for Green Party Values prior to their registration.

[Bob Kinsey]

I think that the issue of a major party not being able to change the bylaws is so that it cannot favor one announced candidate over another in the Primary Process.  Since we don't have any such challenges–wouldn't that be amazing, we should not be intimidated by all the formalities.  We can just interpret the bylaws as having the purpose being that any candidate for office must be registered as a Green prior to the State Convention.  Or even a month before as would be the case if the State Convention were held as it was in 2010 in early June.  It would seem to me that the party parliamentarian or the council could issue a statement that the intention of the bylaws is met so long as a candidate is registered as two months prior to the previous June Convention Date as that was the case when they were written and before the State changed the date of the Primary and thus the Convention.  I see no reason why a Republican or Democratic Secretary of State can override the original intention of our bylaws shown clearly by saying that a candidate must be a registered Green Party voter six months prior to the General Election.  That would be around May 2.    Bob Kinsey303-949-4073'Unlimited Growth is the Ideology of a Cancer Cell"

---

Original Message

---

From: ericfried@comcast.netTo: R. Jones Cc: Tanya Ishikawa , Bill Bartlett , Art Goodtimes , daniel sage , misha lizov , Bob Kinsey Sent: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:08:05 -0500 (EST)Subject: Re: request for waiver....well, maybe there is a way for late-blooming greens to runI think maybe Jonesy is right after all!The SOS election calendar says:6-February (Monday) Last day for state central committees to file party bylaws or rules with the Secretary of State. (No bylaw or rule may be filed or amended after the 1st Monday in February) 1-3-103(9)(a)so now I looked deeper, and the actual state statute 1-3-103 (9) (a) references the major political parties, and the definition section in 1-3-100.3 says "political party means a major political party." In Article 1 (Elections), the definition of "political party" is a major political party or a minor political party. It differs from Article 1 to Article 3 (Political Party organization) but since the limiting factor here is article 3, it does not apply to us by the article 3 definition. Nowhere do I find a definition of "state central committee" to clarify whether those are only major party state central committees. Geez, you have to be a lawyer to understand this!Minor parties are mostly governed by Section 1-4-13, which sets deadlines but then overrules them saying "unless otherwise provided" by the minor party constitution or bylaws. If we change our bylaws, so the newer greens candidacies are in accordance with them, they should therefore be legal under state law. That must be how the American Constitution Party changed its rules to allow Tom Tancredo to run on their line in the last election. It would be good for someone to check with the ACP and also the SOS office just to make sure. If the party as a whole agrees - and the council is empowered to change bylaws between state meetings - we can make it possible for our CD5 candidate to run for Congress and our Gunnison County Commissioner candidate, which would be splendid.

[Art Goodtimes]

I think we need to have people log in with their real names and not invented addys. otherwise we don't know who is actually speaking. i take it that “cosenator” is Bob Kinsey, correct?the resolution format, which we use in roberts rules process, is not how our P&G specifies we present proposals in our Green agreement-seeking process. until we change the P&G and the Bylaws, this is not the correct format. on undertaking something so important as changing the date of eligibility (which will have to pass muster with the SOS to allow our candidates on the ballot), making a change without following our own rules is unwise, and likely will be challenged.i don't have a problem with considering making this change, but i recommend we do not try to undertake while we're within the time line currently specified by our bylaws.further, in my opinion, we ought to put our energies into preparing for the convention, and getting the agenda refined, and learning how to use this forum so we can begin the restructuring, rather than trying to hurriedly make a major change in our candidate eligibility timeframes.

[Bob Kinsey]

Both Eric and Jonsey seem to believe that changing the bylaws is something we can do when we want to.  I would be happy to wait till the Convention where it takes a supermajority vote to change.  Then I won't have to write the cumbersome proposal and since we have no agreed upon method by which the Council can make a decision anyway, after a year with this Forum, I guess Art is right that we can't do it prior to the Convention even though our bylaws give the Council the power to do so.  Unfortunately we are a year into this process and have effectively made ourselves powerless rather than more effective.  Of course, I could write a Proposal as Jonsey did.  And like I did for several years prior to this non-system.  Personally I find that proposal format to be pretty bureaucratic, redundant and just plain cumbersome rather than more grass roots democracy.  Yes cosenator is Bob Kinsey.  Nobody else criticized my using in on the several posts I have made.  If I had a clue how to change it I would.  Remembering how to log into this is my major block to using it.

[Bill Bartlett]

We can make changes to people who already have login names at another time (maybe at the convention?)  From this point on, the registration of new members will be done by the admin who will assign the login/password to the council member as they become part of the forum, along with the proper permissions.  This also gives us the opportunity to train the new member or give them some kind of quick start guide to the forum. As for remembering the login name, it will never be an issue if its firstinitial.lastname for everyone, then no one will ever have a hard time remembering their login and we will avoid a lot of the confusion.  This is a process of learning for everyone.  We'll sort the bumps out over time.

[Bill Bartlett]

I have locked this thread.  Please move all further discussion on this topic to the official proposal thread: http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=106.0

[Author]

Posts