- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If I were to pick three, they would be:1/ to find and run Green candidates for office2/ to meet all state requirements to keep ballot status for Green candidates3/ to grow the Green Party membership in Colorado
( There are some notes I've made over the last few weeks. They are no complete, but encompass a good deal of my views on the place of the state party. )The purpose of the State Party: - Foster communication between local party leaders- Bring in volunteers for local parties- Build relationships with local organizations- Create press for local greens- Polling about green issuesCoordination - Find out what locals are doing, see how their activities align with Party platform or values - Do the same for active locals in other states, working with the state parties as well to keep aligned with a bigger picture of the party - Maintain a central events calendar that includes all other state calendars, and important dates and activities of out of state chapters - Manage a volunteer network for maintaining phone trees, documentation, blogs, etc. § Must include each person's talents, abilities, and availabilityCommunication - Maintain active communication with locals here and nationwide. Important information may include: § Local officials and where they stand on Green issues § Current political and social trends § Potential local leaders that may be Green-minded*Propagation - Encourage distribution of flyers to public spaces, at large local gathering, etc. - Flyers will link to state to be sent a personal invite to the party, with contact for locals and volunteer options both locally and at the state level
( There are some notes I've made over the last few weeks. They are no complete, but encompass a good deal of my views on the place of the state party. )The purpose of the State Party: - Foster communication between local party leaders- Bring in volunteers for local parties- Build relationships with local organizations- Create press for local greens- Polling about green issues
good notes. thanks, bill. i can see we have a bit of a difference in perspective here. i'm hoping to simplify the tasks and duties of the state party until the local chapters can grow to a size large enough to support and staff a state party. i'm for devolving authority to our local chapters as much as possible. not building a bigger state leadership group with more and new tasks...my comments in lime green foster communication between local party leadersthis is a "leadership" role, and presupposes that some members are more important to communicate with than others. that kind of works against what some people believe is important -- the egalitarian nature of the Greens... and it doesn't seem like the highest priority -- in fact, maybe the lowest -- something done if there's time to do...bring in volunteers for local partiesi see that as a local chapter function, not a state function -- except to perhaps refer folks who contact the state website about the local contact to make...build relationships with local organizationsanother worthy goal, but not the core of the state's job, in my opinion. ideally we'd have various persons taking on coordination with various state organizations, but this is a huge time drain. and i think unrealistic for the current state of the state party. let's leave it to local chapters to make these contacts...create press for local greensagain, i don't think all state greens are united in their thoughts (our state platform is way out of date) and so i'd like to leave the press to local chapters -- though, at some point in the future, it would be great to see the state co-chairs coming out in statewide press on issues. but that's not something i see us moving towards too fast...polling about green issuesgiven how easy it is to do this on line in this forum, i like the idea of having the state party run polls on subjects of state-wide interest... but again, this is not a core function.my sense of it is, the purpose of the state party ought to be:1) maintain our ballot status by meeting all state regs pertaining to minor parties2) solicit, encourage and support local candidates from among greens and/or among progressive groups to run on a green campaign platform in consort with our ten key values3) to maintain the website, make contact with new members, nake replies to inquiries, and manage this forum
( There are some notes I've made over the last few weeks. They are no complete, but encompass a good deal of my views on the place of the state party. )The purpose of the State Party: - Foster communication between local party leaders- Bring in volunteers for local parties- Build relationships with local organizations- Create press for local greens- Polling about green issues
I think all of these notes on goals for the Green Party Members are worth pursuing. These goals encourage us to extend our thinking about the Green Party. Fostering communication, building relationships with org., press issues and polling are all a means to say to the public we are here and stand for wanting a better gov. good notes. thanks, bill. i can see we have a bit of a difference in perspective here. i'm hoping to simplify the tasks and duties of the state party until the local chapters can grow to a size large enough to support and staff a state party. i'm for devolving authority to our local chapters as much as possible. not building a bigger state leadership group with more and new tasks...my comments in lime green foster communication between local party leadersthis is a "leadership" role, and presupposes that some members are more important to communicate with than others. that kind of works against what some people believe is important -- the egalitarian nature of the Greens... and it doesn't seem like the highest priority -- in fact, maybe the lowest -- something done if there's time to do...It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to sit around and wait for the Green Party to grow. The Green Party has been around for 10 years and needs to grow faster in every way, and not just people, but strength of conviction, desire in knowing and supporting each other. Boulder is said to have had a fair amount of party participants a few years back, but I didn't know about them and they dissipated. Now we are back & I hope to stay. If we have too much to do, we might feel guilty for not meeting the expectation, but if we don't have enough we might go somewhere else. This is an important ideal. Boulder has worked together with several groups to get the Move to Amend issue on it's ballot. The Boulder Greens with RMPJ endorsed the goal. However those of us in the Gr. Party who spoke at the City Council forgot to say who we were representing and many of the meetings of support were held at the Dem. party. I felt a little weird about meeting there, but didn't get time to communicate it. Certainly it is important to work together on important issues like this; communicating that we are GREEN and want to work at a neutral facility would have been at least worth communicating. Although I missed this opportunity, my eyes will be open for another. The location communication was something to disagree on, however Boulder Greater Greens had already agreed on hosting a speaker for the Move to Amend and welcomed the Democrats at a location planned by the GBGP, Bonnie.Although this was a local issue, the Move to Amend is working to join all the cities it can & I think the state could offer assistance. The state could also look at other issues like this and connect with groups to help encouraging them. Also our state leaders should be in contact with the State Senators to be asking and publicizing where they stand as opposed to where the Green Party and their constituents stand on these issues that are beginning at ALL LOCAl levels. bring in volunteers for local partiesi see that as a local chapter function, not a state function -- except to perhaps refer folks who contact the state website about the local contact to make...I think bringing in volunteers is a great goal for both state & local groups. As the state helps the locals, the locals can be more cognizant of how to help the state. The more positions and places we are all helping each other and bringing in new people the more we all feel valued and want to see our party grow. It is a bit of a bragging right to know people at different levels of an organization and with the great characters we have in the Green Party we need to give more Greens the opportunity to appreciate them. The conversations that take place between different Greens are informative and inspirational, so the more of one group, including the State leaders group with the public volunteers and the local groups the better. build relationships with local organizationsanother worthy goal, but not the core of the state's job, in my opinion. ideally we'd have various persons taking on coordination with various state organizations, but this is a huge time drain. and i think unrealistic for the current state of the state party. let's leave it to local chapters to make these contacts...I think the Green Party STATE leaders should be watching & working to know were STATE leaders (CO - Senators) are standing and what they are doing & how it compares with where our GP state leaders would want to stand. create press for local greensagain, i don't think all state greens are united in their thoughts (our state platform is way out of date) and so i'd like to leave the press to local chapters -- though, at some point in the future, it would be great to see the state co-chairs coming out in statewide press on issues. but that's not something i see us moving towards too fast...I think the more & sooner the press can be brought in at ever level the better, as long as the matters are supported by the Green Party. Most of the time societies fight new ideas, but with enough exposure, conversation they can begin to change. A few examples might be the equality of races, respect for diverse religions, women in the work place, and many, many others. My grandmother once shared with me how shocked they were when people began wearing swimming suits with their forearms and the tops of their legs showing - lol (We've come a long way baby). I think the public needs to get used to seeing more than the old 2 party monopolized political system and the more we hold back the longer it will take. Personally I think the most important issues in society move ahead by jerks. It would be nice if they moved by a sweet smooth discussion over lemonade, but I think the jerks and the time make the most impacts on change. polling about green issuesgiven how easy it is to do this on line in this forum, i like the idea of having the state party run polls on subjects of state-wide interest... but again, this is not a core function.my sense of it is, the purpose of the state party ought to be:1) maintain our ballot status by meeting all state regs pertaining to minor parties2) solicit, encourage and support local candidates from among greens and/or among progressive groups to run on a green campaign platform in consort with our ten key values3) to maintain the website, make contact with new members, nake replies to inquiries, and manage this forumThe above three issues are also of the utmost importance. However the 2nd issue about selecting candidates I agree with, but I am troubled that there sometimes seems to be more of a emphasis on bringing in outside qualified people rather than training & preparing people from the inside. Are there current college students who are Green Party members? I would love to see people encourage someone who has been in the GP to run for office and then ask for some support from Kinsey to run for Senate & Swing for Congress and Tonya for City Council. It would be nice to encourage people on where to go for training and positions for leadership, writing, and working with the press or other things that will help the party grow with professionals. Perhaps workshops and teach-ins would be an idea. Ft. Collins strength through peace had a recent teach-in on the war in Afghanistan. But I think public teach-ins about how the political system works would be good too, because if you were to take a poll in the local neighborhoods about who the officials are, how they get elected, and what they do from the County Commissioner up to the president, few people would know. Everyone is always afraid to be involved in organizations they don't know about, including politics. This gives me some other ideas:=KGNU would probably be willing to announce state actions, events, and maybe even a newspaper. Maybe a 5 min. spot on the radio could be used by a State Green leader to speak on what positive issues and candidates the Green Party is supporting. -Maybe we could start a long list of tasks and try to put 2 or more persons in the list to work on things. I love to see people caring and sharing - Thanks all you Green Party Patriots.
foster communication between local party leadersthis is a "leadership" role, and presupposes that some members are more important to communicate with than others. that kind of works against what some people believe is important -- the egalitarian nature of the Greens...and it doesn't seem like the highest priority -- in fact, maybe the lowest -- something done if there's time to do...It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to sit around and wait for the Green Party to grow. The Green Party has been around for 10 years and needs to grow faster in every way, and not just people, but strength of conviction, desire in knowing and supporting each other. Boulder is said to have had a fair amount of party participants a few years back, but I didn't know about them and they dissipated. Now we are back & I hope to stay. If we have too much to do, we might feel guilty for not meeting the expectation, but if we don't have enough we might go somewhere else. This is an important ideal. Boulder has worked together with several groups to get the Move to Amend issue on it's ballot. The Boulder Greens with RMPJ endorsed the goal. However those of us in the Gr. Party who spoke at the City Council forgot to say who we were representing and many of the meetings of support were held at the Dem. party. I felt a little weird about meeting there, but didn't get time to communicate it. Certainly it is important to work together on important issues like this; communicating that we are GREEN and want to work at a neutral facility would have been at least worth communicating. Although I missed this opportunity, my eyes will be open for another. susan, i'm breaking this up into discrete parts, since it's too hard to deal with long long postings in this kind of a forum. bill's original state party function suggestion is in bold, my reply to him in lime green, your reply to me in purple...it IS important to work together. but, as one who was around when boulder was the largest and most active chapter in the state, i think putting too many talks on STATE officers is unrealistic. it's led to burnout and most of the old guard Greens leaving the party. i'm hoping to restructure so, in our current very very small status as a group, we can function and figure out a way to grow. loading up state officers with tasks does not seem like a good way to grow, in my humble opinion.The location communication was something to disagree on, however Boulder Greater Greens had already agreed on hosting a speaker for the Move to Amend and welcomed the Democrats at a location planned by the GBGP, Bonnie.Although this was a local issue, the Move to Amend is working to join all the cities it can & I think the state could offer assistance. The state could also look at other issues like this and connect with groups to help encouraging them. Also our state leaders should be in contact with the State Senators to be asking and publicizing where they stand as opposed to where the Green Party and their constituents stand on these issues that are beginning at ALL LOCAl levels. you seem to be suggesting that state leaders need to be communicating with more than local party leaders, but state legislators and other groups. i think local chapters need to do that. not state leaders. until the Green Party has the money to pay for state leadership functions ON TOP OF local chapter functions, this is unrealistic, in my opinion.again, i think this function is a good one, but in our current state it should be among the lowest priorities. i would rather devolve this function to local chapters and their leadership.
bring in volunteers for local partiesi see that as a local chapter function, not a state function -- except to perhaps refer folks who contact the state website about the local contact to make...I think bringing in volunteers is a great goal for both state & local groups. As the state helps the locals, the locals can be more cognizant of how to help the state. The more positions and places we are all helping each other and bringing in new people the more we all feel valued and want to see our party grow. It is a bit of a bragging right to know people at different levels of an organization and with the great characters we have in the Green Party we need to give more Greens the opportunity to appreciate them. The conversations that take place between different Greens are informative and inspirational, so the more of one group, including the State leaders group with the public volunteers and the local groups the better. again having watched state leader after state leader resign and, many, drop out of the group over the past 12 years, i would urge you to consider the essential functions of a state party. we almost collapsed as a group recently and we need to figure out a streamlined structure and functions that are essential for the state leadership, not load them up with every good idea possible. certainly, if we can grow the party to more than the 20 or 30 folks who are willing to take on state as well as chapter responsibilities for free, than i agree this would be a good goal.
build relationships with local organizationsanother worthy goal, but not the core of the state's job, in my opinion. ideally we'd have various persons taking on coordination with various state organizations, but this is a huge time drain. and i think unrealistic for the current state of the state party. let's leave it to local chapters to make these contacts...I think the Green Party STATE leaders should be watching & working to know were STATE leaders (CO - Senators) are standing and what they are doing & how it compares with where our GP state leaders would want to stand.if we paid state leaders for their time, sure. but having volunteers take on all these time-consuming functions is a recipe for failure. we do not have the capacity to do this yet. at some future time, perhaps. but for now i think we need to leave that to local chapters and their leadership.
create press for local greensagain, i don't think all state greens are united in their thoughts (our state platform is way out of date) and so i'd like to leave the press to local chapters -- though, at some point in the future, it would be great to see the state co-chairs coming out in statewide press on issues. but that's not something i see us moving towards too fast...I think the more & sooner the press can be brought in at ever level the better, as long as the matters are supported by the Green Party. Most of the time societies fight new ideas, but with enough exposure, conversation they can begin to change. A few examples might be the equality of races, respect for diverse religions, women in the work place, and many, many others. My grandmother once shared with me how shocked they were when people began wearing swimming suits with their forearms and the tops of their legs showing - lol (We've come a long way baby). I think the public needs to get used to seeing more than the old 2 party monopolized political system and the more we hold back the longer it will take. Personally I think the most important issues in society move ahead by jerks. It would be nice if they moved by a sweet smooth discussion over lemonade, but I think the jerks and the time make the most impacts on change.again, susan, i don't disagree with you that the more press we can generate the better. but asking me, as state co-chair, to create press for local groups on the front range is unrealistic. local chapters can generate local press, as the Southwest Greens have been doing quite successfully. once we get a functioning organization going, i think creating press for our statewide party will be a good goal. but we have to get our group to organizational stability first...
my sense of it is, the purpose of the state party ought to be:1) maintain our ballot status by meeting all state regs pertaining to minor parties2) solicit, encourage and support local candidates from among greens and/or among progressive groups to run on a green campaign platform in consort with our ten key values3) to maintain the website, make contact with new members, make replies to inquiries, and manage this forumThe above three issues are also of the utmost importance. However the 2nd issue about selecting candidates I agree with, but I am troubled that there sometimes seems to be more of a emphasis on bringing in outside qualified people rather than training & preparing people from the inside. Are there current college students who are Green Party members? I would love to see people encourage someone who has been in the GP to run for office and then ask for some support from Kinsey to run for Senate & Swing for Congress and Tonya for City Council. It would be nice to encourage people on where to go for training and positions for leadership, writing, and working with the press or other things that will help the party grow with professionals. Perhaps workshops and teach-ins would be an idea. Ft. Collins strength through peace had a recent teach-in on the war in Afghanistan. But I think public teach-ins about how the political system works would be good too, because if you were to take a poll in the local neighborhoods about who the officials are, how they get elected, and what they do from the County Commissioner up to the president, few people would know. Everyone is always afraid to be involved in organizations they don't know about, including politics. susan, i'm glad we agree on these three essential functionsre: your concern about candidates -- i guess the problem i've seen in the past 12 years is that folks we've trained on the inside haven't won many elections -- in fact, none until tanya's wonderful recent win in Federal Heights with 300 votes. in 1996, when the Greens didn't have ballot status in the state, i ran as a dem, and won. in 1998, with Rep. Tupa's bill (D-Boulder) that gave ballot status to minor parties, i changed parties and have won as a Green three times now. which has led me to the conclusion that seeking leaders to run on a green ticket may be a better way to grow the party quickly than limiting our candidates to current green members. it took me 20 years living in my community and volunteering for many leadership positions before i attempted elected office. anyone can run for office, but winning an elected position takes a long time and lots of work in one's community.i understand your concerns about few people knowing how to run for office and win. i attended a non-partisan (although predominantly dem) leadership training workshop in the state several years back for how to win elections. running for office has become a science, and consultants make big sums helping people get elected. but with our organization without any real money or financial backers, we are stuck in a place where we send folks with no chance of winning into races where they are lucky to get single digit approvals. as someone who's won my elections as a Green three times running over the last 15 years, i'm a strong advocate for finding other winners, so the greens don't fall into the third party trap in this "rigged system", as jill stein calls it, of becoming a party of losers.
This gives me some other ideas:=KGNU would probably be willing to announce state actions, events, and maybe even a newspaper. Maybe a 5 min. spot on the radio could be used by a State Green leader to speak on what positive issues and candidates the Green Party is supporting.-Maybe we could start a long list of tasks and try to put 2 or more persons in the list to work on things. I love to see people caring and sharing - Thanks all you Green Party Patriots. for actions in my area, we notify KOTO-FM in telluride and KVNF-FM in paonia. again, i think making state officers try to notify all the radio stations in the state or all the newspapers is unrealistic. let local chapters notify their local media.rather than try to add more state officers, when we have trouble filling even the officer tasks we have (i can't tell you the number of times we've set up state committees to take on many of these tasks, and nothing happens and/or the committee folds), let's let local chapters take on these tasks, until we build a party with thousands of members, instead of one with only a few dozen active members...
I have been reading this conversation for some time now and I agree with everyone in one way or another. I feel that views that have been expressed so far are compatible enough that a compromise can be reached. I will throw my thoughts into the mix. Art, I really think your top three priorities are very well said. I think almost everyone can agree with your choices.
If I were to pick three, they would be:1/ to find and run Green candidates for office2/ to meet all state requirements to keep ballot status for Green candidates3/ to grow the Green Party membership in Colorado
I think where most the disagreement is around if resources should be used on building up the state party or if the locals should use their own resources on themselves. The resource that is most available is volunteer time, but money should also be taken into consideration. Art, correct me if I am wrong but it seems like you disagree with adding positions at the state level because is it would deplete the locals of their volunteer resources. This is a concern to me too, but I feel that if done correctly, putting more resources in the state party will benefit all the locals more than the amount of work the individual locals contribute to the state party. I am somewhere in the middle of the issue of strong locals vs. strong a strong state party. I feel that the state absolutely depends on strong locals that are self-managed and free to operate how they best see fit. On the other hand, I think that the locals would benefit if the state party could use pooled resources to help these locals operate, communicate, and form new locals where none exist. Strong locals should be a priority and I wouldn't want organization at the state level to interfere with this. I would like to even see some locals grow larger than the state party if they are able to. I just see a need for strong organization at the state level as well. My priorities for the state party are
- Mantain ballot status and comply with laws regarding the Colorado Green Party
- Assist locals with legal assistance for filing Green candidates and complying with campaign finance laws
- Encourage voters to register Green in Colorado, assist locals in recruting members
- Create a framework for Greens to participate in the GPCO (including but not limited to Council)
- Fundraising and volunteer coordination to make sure the GPCO will thrive
My list isn't so different than the others posted here. I think the bigger question is how do we modify the state party to meet certain goals?I would like to quote Art from a different topic. http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=6.0
hmmm. do you realize, jonesy, that the unintended consequence of "a lot more quality discussion" means a lot more time that volunteer reps from all our chapters must spend interacting on the state level instead of working on the local level. i'm fine with a discussion group on the state level, but forcing all chapters to be part of this (what could be very busy) council or be ruled "inactive" is worrisome. i was hoping we might restructure our organization, rather than replicate what we've had, but in a new venue.
I agree, Art. I don't want the state party to burden the locals. I would really like to see the state party be participatory. If locals don't benefit from participating on the council, the locals shouldn't be punished by losing their active status and the Council shouldn't be punished by quorum not being met. I think we should look at other options for locals to prove that they are active if they don't want to participate in Council. The GPCO has done a good job with complying with laws and finance regulations. I hope there are always resources available to maintain this. I think the real challenge is for locals running candidates. Campaign finance laws and ballot petitions are complicated enough to prevent some great candidates from running for office. I don't know even how much the state party is allowed to help with campaigns. It would be great if we could get someone onboard to answer some of these questions and perhaps even help some candidates at the national, state, and local level. It is my dream to see a Colorado Green Party billboard one day. Encouraging voters to register Green is something that should be approached from both the local and state level. The state could provide overall awareness of the Party through advertising campaigns, while the locals target voter registration specific to their region and provide new members with support. There are not locals in every part of our state. I don't want to exclude individuals that want to participate but don't have a local to go through. It is important to let these individuals know that the Green Party exists in Colorado and its growth depends on building up our registration numbers across the entire state. Some might argue that there are more important things to spend money on than a billboard, while some may consider a billboard to be a necessary part of growing the party. Instead of using party funds, those that consider the billboard worth the money could pool their own personal money to fund the billboard. So long as the council approves of it, Greens should feel free to support the party in the way they feel is best. The role of the state party in this scenario is just to make sure that people are representing the party in an appropriate and agreeable way. I feel an important role of the state party is to ensure that those representing the party are accountable to the locals and to the Green of this state. Council is a great way to ensure the locals are represented at the state level. The Greens that are not members of a local can provide input at a state meeting. I think it is important for the state party to have a balance between allowing input and being able to run efficiently without needing constant approval. I feel that council is a great way to allow the most dedicated individuals, the council members, to have a say in important matters of the state party. I know that most Greens wouldn't want to be bothered with most of the decisions council makes. Beyond that, there are things that Council would rather not waste its time on. I hope the new structure of the GPCO works on committees being used for the items that are not worth running through council. If the committees are accountable to council, and council is accountable to the locals, and the locals are accountable to the party members, then we have a system that is efficient but also answers to the members when they have input. I feel that the forums a wonderful tool for conducting council business and organizing committees.A great way to further empower the members of the party would be to provide a way for them to vote on issues at a state meeting without actually attending the meeting. I would initially limit this to the most important votes for the sake of simplicity. This would be items that could be prepared in advance of the meeting and not the votes that spontaneously come up at the meeting. The most important thing that could appear on the absentee ballot are officer elections. We would have to prepare the ballot before the meeting but this is very doable. I would be in favor of limiting this absentee ballot to members that contribute at least $15 a year. This fee would be to cover the cost of the election, ensure that there is a threshold for participation to limit insincere voting (such as a plot to influence the party from outsiders), and a way to raise much needed funds. I would want there to be a way for those that truly cannot afford this to have the fee waived. Some have considered GPCO dues to be elitist. I feel that this system would be less elitist than the current system. It costs many people at least $15 in gas to drive to the state meeting. This doesn't include the cost of lunch and lost hours at work. For some, it is not an option to travel to the state meeting. This could be due to cost, lack of transportation, or scheduling. Providing another option for participation addresses these issues. The $15 would allow the party to conduct an absentee election. Without this fee, there would be no absentee election and those that could not attend the meeting would be unable to participate. Anyone that does not want to pay the $15 could participate at the meeting as always. I am not an expert on the matter, but I think the GPCO could really increase its fundraising efforts. The dues system I mentioned above is one of many ways the GPCO could raise some much needed funds. I would like to see some goals toward some specific projects. If people knew their money was actually going to a project that they supported, they would be more likely to give. a service like http://www.kickstarter.com/ is one way to organize project specific fundraising. I would suggest the formation of a fundraising committee to investigate ways to encourage donations. These are just some priorities that came to mind. I am certainly open to the other ideas that were presented. I hope we will continue this discussion and eventually come to an agreement. The main issue that I want to raise is that I think it is possible to have strong independent locals and a strong and supportive state party. I think the two depend on each other. I feel that the concern around the state party diverting resources away from the locals can be remedied by building a participatory state party. The GPCO would only be as strong as the members make it. A structure at the state level is necessary to give the members and locals the opportunity to make it as effective and beneficial as it can be. Jonesy
Replying to Jonesy on state party priorities
I have been reading this conversation for some time now and I agree with everyone in one way or another. I feel that views that have been expressed so far are compatible enough that a compromise can be reached. I will throw my thoughts into the mix. Art, I really think your top three priorities are very well said. I think almost everyone can agree with your choices.
If I were to pick three, they would be:1/ to find and run Green candidates for office2/ to meet all state requirements to keep ballot status for Green candidates3/ to grow the Green Party membership in Colorado
I think where most the disagreement is around if resources should be used on building up the state party or if the locals should use their own resources on themselves. The resource that is most available is volunteer time, but money should also be taken into consideration. Art, correct me if I am wrong but it seems like you disagree with adding positions at the state level because is it would deplete the locals of their volunteer resources. This is a concern to me too, but I feel that if done correctly, putting more resources in the state party will benefit all the locals more than the amount of work the individual locals contribute to the state party. I am somewhere in the middle of the issue of strong locals vs. strong a strong state party. I feel that the state absolutely depends on strong locals that are self-managed and free to operate how they best see fit. On the other hand, I think that the locals would benefit if the state party could use pooled resources to help these locals operate, communicate, and form new locals where none exist. Strong locals should be a priority and I wouldn't want organization at the state level to interfere with this. I would like to even see some locals grow larger than the state party if they are able to. I just see a need for strong organization at the state level as well. My priorities for the state party are
- Mantain ballot status and comply with laws regarding the Colorado Green Party
- Assist locals with legal assistance for filing Green candidates and complying with campaign finance laws
- Encourage voters to register Green in Colorado, assist locals in recruting members
- Create a framework for Greens to participate in the GPCO (including but not limited to Council)
- Fundraising and volunteer coordination to make sure the GPCO will thrive
My list isn't so different than the others posted here. I think the bigger question is how do we modify the state party to meet certain goals? jonesy, again, long arguments are very hard to reply to in this format. i've broken your comments up, in order to reply. and just to note -- long arguments are a serious problem that we are going to need to address in forums. and i'm not sure how to do that... other than to break things up into parts... and even then my reply post below is ridiculously long itself...i appreciate your middle ground, jonesy. and i find your thoughts very helpful in working through this issue of the function of a state green party. i think you are right that after 13 years in the state party, i'm having difficulty with a state party that has not been able to function without draining locals of volunteer time and money. i think, until we can grow into a party with strong locals throughout the state, we ought to downsize and limit our state party functions.in my experience, as an english-speaking american, strings of three are about all i can assimilate as compound thoughts. notice that european greens have three pillars. i can name those easily. we have ten key values in the U.S. and few of our members can remember them all, let alone explain them to others.when i run for office, i select three of the ten key values -- that's about all one can get constituents to remember as a message. that's why i listed only three priorities.your first of five priorities is my second priority. i think it's a key difference. i think running candidates for office is the most important priority for political parties worldwide. that's our reason for being. keeping ballot status and complying with state law is absolutely a priority -- and we've been able to do that for the past 13 years i've been an active member -- but it's an organizational (internal) priority. when we face the public, the thing they expect most of us are candidates that offer them an alternative to the status quo two-party duopoly and that have a chance of winning. i think that has to be our first goal and our primary task. i don't think we've been very good in doing that in the 13 years i've been in the party. in fact, i think i'm the only colorado green who's actually used our ballot access status to run as a green and has won (we have had a number of folks win non-partisan office where green party ballot status didn't matter). just one person in 13 years? what's the priority of keeping ballot status and complying with state laws if we don't have any candidates that win?what we expect of ourselves as green party members is that we keep the green party on the ballot when we do run candidates and that we comply with state laws. i still think it's our second priority, not our first.your second priority is a noble goal. but i haven't seen it operating, in my experience. in my three runs as a green, i have only received help from the state party in two of those races -- both were financial, and neither were substantial (less than 1% of the money i raised to run). and i've had to rely on my local for almost all my help with filing and campaign finance laws.so maybe it's a priority we want to shoot for. but it's not a priority we've done in the past. and given that we have almost no money on the state level and all volunteer labor from folks who are also involved in their locals, i'm not sure this priority is realistic at this point in our development.encouraging voters to register green and assist locals in recruiting members, your third priority, is another great goal and also my third priority. but where we differ may be in the strategy we each have for getting us to this goal. i think having strong locals and winning greens is our best method of getting to this goal. that's the strategy i would use to get us there. and that's why winning elections is my first priority and why i'm thinking that decentralizing power to our locals (at this point in our development as a very young, very new minor party in colorado) will get us there the fastest. certainly running a celebrity candidate on the national level (nader) got us new members and new locals for a short period of time. but since that spike in 2000, we've steadily lost membership and locals. now there's a renewed interest, as demonstrated by the occupy movement, in having an alternative to the two-party system. i hope we can take advantage of it, and not lose this opportunity. getting greens elected to office in the state will, i believe, do that.creating a framework for greens to participate in the colorado green party (not limited to council) is your number four priority.it's interesting. when i look at the major parties, very very few people participate in the dem or repub parties -- except party insiders (read the Colorado Statesman if you want to see who those folks are). i'm wondering why we think citizens who register green would want to participate in the party structure, unless they want to be "insiders"? citizens get involved in candidacies they believe have a chance of winning and that they support. that's why i think your number four is again part of my number one. we need to involve people in candidacies that have a real chance of winning -- that will get people involved, as it does with major parties -- not internal party operations.finally, your last priority (#5) is fundraising and volunteer coordination. i've raised over $20,000 for the greens in the last 13 years -- not for the state party, but for my three winning candidacies -- and paid green managers to run my campaigns and manage volunteers. again, i think we have to link fundraising and volunteer coordination with green candidacies that have a chance of winning. why would people give money, in these hard times, for a political party that doesn't get people elected to office? i think it's a critical question.and once again, it goes back to my first priority. that's our best chance for achieving your fifth priority, in my mind. now, i imagine you were thinking of raising funds and managing volunteers for the state party, but i haven't seen that happen very well in the past 13 years, and i just don't see how we're going to do that in the future -- unless we start winning elections.one of the reasons i've arrived at as to why in my 13 years in the party we have had a complete changeover in leadership and members who are active is that we have tried to pursue the goals you've listed in the manner you are suggesting, and we have not been successful. people have lost heart and left the party. as one who's demonstrated in my little arena that by winning office i think we can do many of the things locally now that you and i would both like to do statewide eventually, i just wanted to explain how i've come to my current line of reasoning.i may be completely wrong, but what i'm saying comes from real experience and my long time in the state party. and i think i have a responsibility to share it.
I would like to quote Art from a different topic. http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=6.0
hmmm. do you realize, jonesy, that the unintended consequence of "a lot more quality discussion" means a lot more time that volunteer reps from all our chapters must spend interacting on the state level instead of working on the local level. i'm fine with a discussion group on the state level, but forcing all chapters to be part of this (what could be very busy) council or be ruled "inactive" is worrisome. i was hoping we might restructure our organization, rather than replicate what we've had, but in a new venue.
I agree, Art. I don't want the state party to burden the locals. I would really like to see the state party be participatory. If locals don't benefit from participating on the council, the locals shouldn't be punished by losing their active status and the Council shouldn't be punished by quorum not being met. I think we should look at other options for locals to prove that they are active if they don't want to participate in Council.when i first joined the state party in 1998, the goal of the party then was to be participatory as well. the thought then was face-to-face meeting and conventions were the primary method to do that and at those meetings, it should be one person one vote, using agreement-seeking as our process with a skilled facilitator leading us.after a couple of years, dave lilley and i got the group to agree to an on-line council, since those of us on the western slope were so far away from the front range that we couldn't easily attend meetings on the front range. by 2000 there were locals in cortez, telluride, paonia, carbondale and grand junction. we instituted geographic balance as a guideline, along with gender balance, to address that. we also had a colorado springs local back then.but we've lost half our locals over the years, and our state meetings seem to have gotten smaller, or stayed at about the same numbers (although the faces have mostly changed). i do not know how we can make the state party more participatory. in fact, at this point, i think it's become an energy drain for those of us who live on the western slope. which is why i'm advocating for decentralizing the state party and letting locals be more autonomous for a while.i do agree it's inappropriate to punish locals for not participating in the state council. that's an area of our bylaws that most definitely needs changing.The GPCO has done a good job with complying with laws and finance regulations. I hope there are always resources available to maintain this. I think the real challenge is for locals running candidates. Campaign finance laws and ballot petitions are complicated enough to prevent some great candidates from running for office. I don't know even how much the state party is allowed to help with campaigns. It would be great if we could get someone onboard to answer some of these questions and perhaps even help some candidates at the national, state, and local level. i agree. we've managed to keep our ballot status, and to comply with finance laws. that's one success we certainly should be proud of. running candidates is a challenge. none of our state candidates have ever won. but a handful of local candidates have -- like tanya's recent win (for non-partisan office). which is why i think, at this stage of our evolution, we ought to focus on letting local run candidates and not running state candidates. campaign laws ARE rigged to favor the major parties, no question. and providing advice or help for local candidates could be a party function -- although for most questions one's local county clerk and the state secretary of state's office are the best sources of info.It is my dream to see a Colorado Green Party billboard one day. Encouraging voters to register Green is something that should be approached from both the local and state level. The state could provide overall awareness of the Party through advertising campaigns, while the locals target voter registration specific to their region and provide new members with support. There are not locals in every part of our state. I don't want to exclude individuals that want to participate but don't have a local to go through. It is important to let these individuals know that the Green Party exists in Colorado and its growth depends on building up our registration numbers across the entire state. Some might argue that there are more important things to spend money on than a billboard, while some may consider a billboard to be a necessary part of growing the party. Instead of using party funds, those that consider the billboard worth the money could pool their own personal money to fund the billboard. So long as the council approves of it, Greens should feel free to support the party in the way they feel is best. The role of the state party in this scenario is just to make sure that people are representing the party in an appropriate and agreeable way. ah, here we are at strategies again. billboards may seem powerful to those of you living on the front range. they sure don't to those of us living in the mountains. in fact, we mostly find them offensive. i would have to argue that winning elections is how we get people to register and vote green. to my mind everything else may or may not help. but winning elections is the essential way to grow the party. as it is with any political party around the world.I feel an important role of the state party is to ensure that those representing the party are accountable to the locals and to the Green of this state. Council is a great way to ensure the locals are represented at the state level. The Greens that are not members of a local can provide input at a state meeting. I think it is important for the state party to have a balance between allowing input and being able to run efficiently without needing constant approval. I feel that council is a great way to allow the most dedicated individuals, the council members, to have a say in important matters of the state party. I know that most Greens wouldn't want to be bothered with most of the decisions council makes. Beyond that, there are things that Council would rather not waste its time on. I hope the new structure of the GPCO works on committees being used for the items that are not worth running through council. If the committees are accountable to council, and council is accountable to the locals, and the locals are accountable to the party members, then we have a system that is efficient but also answers to the members when they have input. I feel that the forums a wonderful tool for conducting council business and organizing committees.that was our original thought. that council would be a great way to represent locals at the state level and be sure state officers were representing locals. but what those of us living on the western slope (cortez/southwest and san miguel locals) have found is that it's an energy and time drain. and it doesn't really help us grow the party at the local level. in fact, we've watched as we lost the grand junction, paonia, and carbondale locals completely.as for state committees, forgive me for feeling jaundiced. but i've watched as council after council have set up committees that start out intending great things, and accomplish little or nothing. i really don't think we can run a strong state organization (let alone separate committees) on volunteer labor alone. it hasn't happened in over a dozen years in spite of repeated tries.A great way to further empower the members of the party would be to provide a way for them to vote on issues at a state meeting without actually attending the meeting. I would initially limit this to the most important votes for the sake of simplicity. This would be items that could be prepared in advance of the meeting and not the votes that spontaneously come up at the meeting. The most important thing that could appear on the absentee ballot are officer elections. We would have to prepare the ballot before the meeting but this is very doable. I would be in favor of limiting this absentee ballot to members that contribute at least $15 a year. This fee would be to cover the cost of the election, ensure that there is a threshold for participation to limit insincere voting (such as a plot to influence the party from outsiders), and a way to raise much needed funds. I would want there to be a way for those that truly cannot afford this to have the fee waived. Some have considered GPCO dues to be elitist. I feel that this system would be less elitist than the current system. It costs many people at least $15 in gas to drive to the state meeting. This doesn't include the cost of lunch and lost hours at work. For some, it is not an option to travel to the state meeting. This could be due to cost, lack of transportation, or scheduling. Providing another option for participation addresses these issues. The $15 would allow the party to conduct an absentee election. Without this fee, there would be no absentee election and those that could not attend the meeting would be unable to participate. Anyone that does not want to pay the $15 could participate at the meeting as always. as a board member of over 50 different organizations over the past 30 years, i must say that absentee voting is a very controversial issue. i would not support it, if only because people would vote without hearing in person all the arguments for and against an issue. basically, folks would have to make up their minds before a meeting. i think that's a bad policy. but i understand your wanting to include more folks in decision-making on the state level, jonesy. as for charging $15 for being able to absentee vote -- that goes against all thoughts on voting and participation in political parties. it's analogous to a poll tax. we've had many many disagreements over the years about dues, and i think the concept of charging to be able to vote would be a non-starter for many folks, including me.I am not an expert on the matter, but I think the GPCO could really increase its fundraising efforts. The dues system I mentioned above is one of many ways the GPCO could raise some much needed funds. I would like to see some goals toward some specific projects. If people knew their money was actually going to a project that they supported, they would be more likely to give. a service like http://www.kickstarter.com/ is one way to organize project specific fundraising. I would suggest the formation of a fundraising committee to investigate ways to encourage donations. i think the best way to raise money is to have a green candidate running for office who has a chance of winning. i think dues have to be voluntary, if we have them at all -- and i know some people who are completely opposed to the idea of dues for political parties. kickstarter has worked well for some fundraising campaigns. i sure wouldn't be opposed to a committee or anyone coming up with fundraising ideas, but for all the talk of fundraising over the last 13 years, i have never seen anything serious happen, outside of individual campaigns.These are just some priorities that came to mind. I am certainly open to the other ideas that were presented. I hope we will continue this discussion and eventually come to an agreement. The main issue that I want to raise is that I think it is possible to have strong independent locals and a strong and supportive state party. I think the two depend on each other. I feel that the concern around the state party diverting resources away from the locals can be remedied by building a participatory state party. The GPCO would only be as strong as the members make it. A structure at the state level is necessary to give the members and locals the opportunity to make it as effective and beneficial as it can be. Jonesythanks for all these good thoughts and taking the time to explain them, jonesy. i share with you the hope we can come to some kind of agreement. i would love a strong state party and strong locals. but it's an argument analogous to what i was told by colorado green party leaders back in 2000 -- we can run celebrity candidates at the top and still build the party from the bottom up. but the truth is, we didn't. and i don't think we can. we are too small. too marginalized in a rigged system. we have to figure out how to make this work given the unfair situation we find ourselves in. we have to focus. and it's still my feeling, after over a decade of wrestling with these issues, that we need to let the locals build and work for local winning candidates before we try to field a strong state party.blessings, artg
Having just figured out how to funtion a little bit on the forum I would like to enter this discussion of major functions.Polling on Issues is not sufficient: A State Platform created from discussions on this forum addresses the local and State need to show voters what a Green Candidate would support: Inviting persons into discussion in developing policy statements will invite them into the party and to run on carefully worked out platform statements. County Commissioners implement state policy to a large degree State Law shapes what County Commissioners, School Boards and even Sheriffs can do. Water quality/Fracking/development/chemical agriculture is one area where State Policy is critical. Richard Hamilton is one who is completely focused on this/these issues.Economic development dependent upon military budgets and bases makes us in Colorado a slave of the Military Industrial Complex.A fossil fuel based economy in Colorado makes us a slave to Big Oil/Coal.An economy based upon growth (via: competitiveness, lack of environmental regulation, and exploitation of the 99% keeping them enslaved to a for profit health care system,) that is based on growth in consumption and growth in corporate production--especially of items that further separate us from the natural world and its need must be challenged. That is our job in the Green Party -- to challenge this and show another way forward.Because, all of the above are current subtle assumptions in all Colorado policy making including from our "Democratic" Governor to a general "Republican" mind set of voters who have been hypnotized into believing there is no other choice.Even if the Green Party Candidate is not capable of winning an election, a candidatge should always be available at all levels advocating for such specific changes as we collectively recommend.(for as long as there is an always)in order to give awakening voters a vision of why current state and local policies are a soon to be experienced dead end and what kind of policies are more likely to create the possiblity of survival and even to vote for someone who represents those policies. Whether it is new mining and milling of uranium, or subsidies for any mining and drilling for extraction that take the full cost pricing of all energy and production, or lack of disposal regulations, protection of clean water and air in Colorado this should be a major function of the Green Party of Colorado--to reveal the bad in specific situations and to propose the good.Maintaining this kind of forum leading to a State Platform presented on the State Web site, -including policy that effects Counties and Cities and Agriculture is one of our big jobs. This will provide candidates a stance that they can then put forward in their campaigns. This will engage young people who care about having a future beyond one based on having a vacation land to which to escape This will give our ballot access meaning even when we don't win.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.