- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Team, there has been a flurry of activity regarding the date of the state meeting. To reiterate, we will be scheduling it for July or August 2017, and all officer positions will be up for re-election at that time.You are welcome to offer a preference of dates within those months, as well as a location. As we get closer to the date, Dave and I will pull together a planning team to work on logistical details.Thank you!
Regarding paragraph 3.5.3 of the procedures,"3.5.3. The Council will discuss via email issues raised among its representatives or by any GreenParty member who participates. Any councilmember or Committee may submit a proposal to theconvener or facilitator for discussion. Appointed state representatives of local chapters will havethe ability to make proposals to the State Council directly under the following conditions:"There are two paths for submitting proposals. One path is to submit the proposal to the convener/facilitator. There are no conditions attached to this path. The other path is to submit the proposal to the State Council directly, and this path has conditions attached to it. Five councilmembers have submitted a proposal to the facilitator for discussion. Will the Colorado Green Party follow its own rules and put the proposal up for discussion?Judy HarringtonCo-Chair, Poudre Valley Green Party
Judy, the material part of 3.5.3 is the following, which I have bolded for emphasis:3.5.3. The Council will discuss via email issues raised among its representatives or by any GreenParty member who participates. Any councilmember or Committee may submit a proposal to theconvener or facilitator for discussion. Appointed state representatives of local chapters will havethe 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. The proposal is out of order, and as I have instructed the presenters of the proposal, you can resubmit once you meet that threshold.The entire document is here, for everyone's perusal: http://coloradogreenparty.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/PG-20041.pdfThank you.
The material part is who can submit via what channel and whether there are conditions attached. There are no conditions attached to councilmembers submitting a proposal to the facilitator. The conditions are attached to appointed state representatives making a proposal directly to the state council.Five councilmembers have submitted a proposal to the facilitator for discussion. This is the channel that has no conditions attached.
“Five members” refers to proposals for the state meeting. At that point, five separate members could bring a proposal.Because you are attempting to bring a proposal within the council, however, 3.5.3, item 1, applies.Again, one your proposal has reached the 3.5.3 threshold, you all may resubmit. Thanks.
Thank you for pointing out a potential point of confusion. I did not intend the “five councilmembers” to refer to anything except the number of councilmembers who have signed on as co-sponsors. 3.5.3 does not specify any particular number of councilmembers (beyond one) who may submit a proposal to the facilitator for discussion. The wording "any councilmember" is structured to allow one (obviously the minimum number) councilmember to submit. I assume that two, three, four, five, or any number in addition to one would not invalidate the submission. In this case there are five co-sponsors. I do not intend any additional significance to the number.Item 1 is attached by a colon to proposals that are made to the state council directly, without the involvement of the facilitator. Proposals submitted to the facilitator are not conditioned upon item 1. Note the period at the end of the sentence describing submission to the facilitator, in constrast to the colon that connects the conditions to the pathway of direct presentation.
Andrea,I will resubmit our proposal for the annual meeting to be held on May 6 with more co-signers, as you request.But I am baffled by your ruling that the proposal, with five co-sponsors, is out of order. Please reread Judy's comments about rule 3.5.3 carefully. Rules section 3.5.3 has NEVER been used to require three members from the same chapter to co-sponsor a proposal. Of the 17 proposals considered in 2015 and 2016, only 2 proposals, 005-16 and 007-16, met that requirement.Do you, as Council Facilitator, intend to start enforcing rule 3.5.3 consistently?Harry Hempy, Co-chair, Greater Boulder Greens
Every single proposal that has been entered into Agreement Seeking since the time I became co-chair, approximately August 2015, has comported fully with our procedures.The procedures call for council proposals to have the sponsorship of locals or state party officers.Please resubmit your proposal according to the parameters I have delineated above, which are completely consistent with our procedures.Thank you.
- The topic ‘State meeting will be late July or August 2017’ is closed to new replies.