Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
most county boards in our 64 counties have one or two commissioners up for re-election in november. that's over 100 potential seats. many municipalities have elections in the spring or fall. that's hundreds more. not sure why we need a state list. we haven't elected any green above county and town seats in our history. i think we'd do best to focus on local elections where we might have some chance of winning.
i agree with you michael. you might want to post that on the GP Council Forum discussion. this thread is about using the council temporarily to decide on a location for the convention. i want us to eventually move to this Forum and i would hope there is a switch that lets individual members decide whether they want an email notification or not. i certainly don't. that's the problem with the listserve — it clogs up my mailbox. i will check the forum regularly as a council rep, i just don't want emails coming into my mailbox. on the forum i can decide what to reply to. with new mail, i feel obliged to respond.
after some discussion on the council listserve, particularly from bob kinsey, i agree that we should have two dates — a backup one in case weather is so bad no one can travel. so, for march 31, i would hope we'd continue our planning for a glenwood/carbondale site. and if the weather makes that impossible, let's have a backup date of april 14 at gunny or glenwood.at this point, given the difficult weather in the spring and the amount of folks coming from the front range, i would concur with those who think telluride might be too far in early april, when the weather can be very difficult and the roads dangerous. instead, i would look forward to a late spring or early fall meeting in telluride (our off-seasons) in 2013. as john wontrobski noted, we have a lot of electoral and appointment successes with greens in political offices in san miguel county that we would like to showcase.so rather than a simple poll, i think we need to revise our proposal to council...
See attachment proper formatting. Date: January 21, 2012To: GPCO CouncilFrom: Ryan Jones, GPCO Councilmember (Arapahoe Greens)Subject: Proposal for planning the 2012 State Nominating Conventionfirst, let me thank ryan for taking the initiative to post this. this needed to get done, and in the transition between a listserve and a forum, it wasn't happening. i think we all owe him a heap of thanks... my comments will be in green -- interspaced with ryan's proposal, since there are so many parts PurposeThe purpose of this proposal is to select a date and location for the Green Party of Colorado 2012 State Meeting & Nominating Convention (referred to as the convention or nominating convention elsewhere in this proposal), authorize a committee for planning the convention, and request funds for items relating to organizing the convention. SummaryThe GPCO Bylaws state that a nominating convention shall be held every even numbered year. This year, state law requires minor parties to hold their assemblies by April 14th, 2012. March 31st has been mentioned by many within the GPCO as a preferred date. i wasn't clear why april 14th wasn't okay with the group -- did eric suggest that we would have notification issues with the secretary of state? while we have to have a convention by the 14th date (because of our bylaws and state law), did we not have time after that date to notify the secretary of state of our candidates? i'm not clear on this issue, and i'd love someone to clarify for me.A state meeting in the Glenwood Springs area would be convenient for both the Western Slope locals and the Front Range Locals. Many GPCO Greens from various locals have supported a state meeting location in the Glenwood Springs area. i would echo madeline williams of the southwest chapter -- glenwood springs is not central nor convenient for our two western slope chapters. in winter it is at least 5 hours from norwood or telluride. 6 and a half from dolores/cortez. and if there is a snowstorm, there are several high passes that must be crossed on our side of the divide to get to glenwood that could be closed. that said, san miguel greens are willing to entertain (and approve) this proposal if it turns out to be the only option we can all agree on. i am committing to coming from the san miguel greens, regardless of weather (unless I-70 is closed), but i can't promise any other delegates from my chapter at this point.A meeting location has been found and the cost is $150 plus a $100 cleaning/security deposit. This puts the estimated cost of the convention at $475. Passage of a proposal is needed to reserve the meeting space and to begin the planning of the convention. i would certainly support this expenditure, if glenwood is our chosen site.The passage of this proposal would authorize a committee to begin planning the convention with oversight from the GPCO Council. IntroductionBylaws of the Green Party of Colorado specify that state meetings will be held yearly (or more frequently) at a location decided on by a special call of council [1]. Section 4.1 of the GPCO bylaws state, “The state nominating convention is held in even number years”. Passage of this proposal shall be considered the “special call” of council, thus authorizing the planning of the GPCO 2012 State Meeting and Nominating Convention. State law requires minor parties to hold their party assemblies no later than April 14th this year [2].Saturday March 31st, 2012 is a favorable date for the convention because it falls on a weekend, is late enough to allow planning, is early enough to provide time to file post convention forms to the Secretary of State, and allows time for emergency rescheduling in case of extreme circumstances. unfortunately, that date conflicts with a scheduled poetry festival in Carbondale that i will be attending. as poet laureate for the western slope and one of the event's advisers, i am unable to change that date which was decided on last year. luckily, the event is close by, so i will certainly make what parts of the meeting i can. but i will not be available friday or saturday evening, and possibly at times on saturday.The Glenwood Springs area was suggested at the 2011 State Meeting because it is of comparable distance to both the Western Slope and the Front Range. The Denver Greens and the Southwest Greens chapters have stated their preference for a location in the Glenwood Springs area. A poll was conducted on the GPCO forum to gauge interest for the location of the convention. The selection “Glenwood Springs, CO” won a plurality of the votes with 40% [3].again, those of us who live on the western slope are always intrigued that folks on the front range have such little sense of the distances western slope folks must travel to get to the front range. it's a common mis-perception, but madeline i think made it clear that glenwood is almost twice as far for western slope greens to travel, as for denver/boulder folks (not such a disparity for fort collins or colorado springs)After researching the rates for a one-day meeting at various locations in the Glenwood Springs area, the cheapest option was found to be just south of Glenwood Springs in Carbondale, CO. The Third Street Center (520 Third Street Carbondale CO 81623) is just 23 minutes south of Glenwood Springs on State Highway 133. Based on estimates from Google Maps, the Third Street Center is a 3 hour 28 minute drive from San Miguel County and a 3 hour 10 minute drive from Denver. In terms of distance, this location is closer to San Miguel County than Denver by three miles, a negligible difference. not sure where you found those time estimates, ryan. but they're wrong. i've driven via mcclure pass (the shortest route) and it's 4.5 hours driving in good weather. in the winter it could be five or more. going via grand junction is longer in miles, but takes roughly the same time. coming from telluride or norwood requires topping dallas divide -- a very dangerous pass when the snow is blowing as it ices over. and going via paonia means going over mcclure -- a narrow dangerous pass with extreme rockfall hazard (i hit a rock on that route once and almost totaled my car). as for miles, I-70 (if open over vail pass) is a freeway with speeds up to 70 mph, almost the entire way to glenwood. our roads are small, twisty mountain roads for a large part with speeds ranging from 45 to 55 mph max (except the ridgway to delta segment on the mcclure route) unless we go up to junction and around -- longer in mileage. i can get you more exact figures if needed, as i've logs of my trips over the last 16 years as a county commissioner traveling back and forth across the state.The cost of reserving a 150 person capacity space for one day at the Third Street Center on March 31st, 2012 is $120 a day for non-profit groups plus a required $150 cleaning/security deposit [4]. March 31st is currently open on the Third Street Center’s Calendar, but it may not be for long. Another cost for the convention is posting an announcement in a newspaper of statewide circulation (as required by GPCO bylaws. The Colorado Statesman provides advertising for $150 [5]. A miscellaneous item of $75 will be requested in this proposal’s budget to cover miscellaneous expenses such as nametags. An itemized expense list shall be provided at the convention and any unused funds shall return to the GPCO’s general fund. Section 4.2.3 of the GPCO Bylaws state “The Council can make appropriations from the GPCO bank account of $200 per item or less by a 60% vote of the Council, in consultation with the Treasurer to insure availability of funds [6].” Approval of this proposal shall be considered authorization to use these funds in accordance with the GPCO Bylaws and applicable state law. More funds may be requested for the convention through additional proposals. Contributions from individuals and GPCO Locals may be donated to fund the convention. i would certainly support those expenditures, if glenwood is chosen. thanks for researching them, ryanUpon the passage of this proposal, a convention planning committee shall form and may be composed of GPCO councilmembers, GPCO state officers, and others that are interested in participating in the planning of the convention. This committee shall have at least two GPCO councilmembers representing at least two different GPCO locals. Section 4.2.3 of the GPCO Bylaws state, “The Council sets the agenda for the state meetings [7].” The committee that plans the convention shall honor this requirement by accepting submissions for the convention agenda from council and having council approve the final agenda. agreedProposed TasksWith council’s approval, the following tasks will be performed. 1. Form a committee to organize the convention2. Use approved and/or donated funds to reserve a meeting space at the Third Street Center. This includes a $100 cleaning/security deposit. A change of the convention date or location shall require a modified proposal.3. Allow this committee to begin organizing the convention with input from council. agreedScheduleTask 1: Form committee upon passage of proposal. This committee shall be formed as soon as possible, but at least by January first if the council vote allows. i wonder if we shouldn't separate out the committee as a separate proposal. that should be formed now. ryan has taken the initiative, but others who've proposed glenwood need to help and support him. also, bill, i think we have the authority to appoint committees, and -- if that's the case -- i would suggest that we do so immediately, and appoint ryan as chair of that committee. and allow anyone interested in helping him join.Task 2: Reserve location. This shall be done as soon as possible or by January 2nd. Task 3: Announce convention 15 days before the meeting in a newspaper of statewide circulation as per section 4.1 of the GPCO bylaws. Task 4: Conduct general planning of the convention. The committee shall provide regular progress updates to council and a final report with the convention agenda shall be provided to council roughly one week before the convention. BudgetCalaway Community Room Rental fee - $150Cleaning/Security Deposit - $100Colorado Statesman (or other) Ad - $150Miscellaneous - $ 75 Total - $475References1. Green Party of Colorado Bylaws (Section 4.1). Internet: http://www.coloradogreenparty.org/gpco-bylaws-revised-2011/2. Colorado Secretary of State. Internet http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/docs/2012ElectionCalendar.pdf3. Green Party of Colorado Forum. Internet: http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=16.04. The Third Street Center. Internet: http://thirdstreetcenter.net/content/photos-and-renting-rates-available-rooms5. The Colorado Statesman. Internet: http://coloradostatesman.com/print-advertising6. Green Party of Colorado Bylaws (Section 4.2.3). Internet: http://www.coloradogreenparty.org/gpco-bylaws-revised-2011/7. Green Party of Colorado Bylaws (Section 4.2.3). Internet: http://www.coloradogreenparty.org/gpco-bylaws-revised-2011/
again, i think we have a few things to work on here with the full proposal. but i'd like to see the committee formed immediately. and if gunny is not an option, for us to move quickly on the glenwood proposal. and finally, much thanks to ryan for doing all of the footwork here.
tanya is right. steve schecter, an old activist ally of mine, has written me that he has joined the green party and may be interested in running for county commissioner in gunnison county. i've suggested he try to pull several local greens together and form a chapter. and i just emailed him about perhaps hosting a state convention in gunny, since it is more central than glenwood for those of us in norwood, telluride, dolores and cortez. i will post his response both on the council listserve and on the forum here. thank you tanya, for passing that along…
shucks, i'm afraid we are not moving forward on this issue and it's crucial. the san miguel greens have offered to host the convention on April 14th in Telluride. a number of expressed a desire not to travel to our half of the state because of the distance and uncertain weather — things those of us who have to travel to the front range for green meetings have to deal with regularly.however, if the state party is not going to accept the san miguel greens offer, then another chapter needs to make an offer to host it somewhere else. and soon...finally, we do not seem to be getting folks to participate on this forum. perhaps we need to go back to the listserve system that we had in place, since this experiment with technology does not appear to be working.artg
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
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 think maddy must be right on some level, since so few have joined us here (except for a handful). could there be a forum tutorial here so folks could get basic info on how to proceed?i agree with jonesy. i think having this forum up is important. while i think we ought to decentralize, i know that not everyone is in agreement, and whatever we decide on the direction of the state council in colorado, we ought to have a good functioning process for state decision-making. and while i appreciate maddy's comments, i think that the old listserve model had some serious flaws and led us to an impasse that needed fixing.finally, thanks bill for explaining the "locked" function on some messages. we may need a tutorial at our next state meeting on how to access and utilize the forum...
Hey Art, Here is the most important part of the system I am Proposing: A Council Membergroup should be created to allow council access to a specific set of boards. There should be a Category created called Council, where only council members could view and post to the boards within it. i agree It should be organized like this:
- Council Floor (with child boards titled "Proposal Discussion", "Proposal Voting", and "Proposal Results"
- Proposal Drafting
A/the council facilitator monitors proposals while they are on the Council Floor, submits proposals to Proposal Voting, and tallies votes and moves proposals that have been voted on to Proposal Results. i'm fine with beta-testing this idea, jonesy. but i was hoping we'd consider a different system of organizing council deliberations and voting. you know, most of our civil institutions in this country work on a modified roberts rule system, and i wonderf if using this system, which so many folks are familiar with, might not be a better way to make our actions as a third party transparent to members and the public.The rest of this post describes the possible procedures and advantages of the system. ___________________________________The Council Floor is where proposals are discussed and voted on. When a councilmember has a proposal drafted, they submit it to the Council Floor. There could be a set amount of time that a proposal can be discussed on the floor, perhaps with an option for an short extension if modifications are being worked out. When it gets the needed amount of support to progress to the voting phase, the final text of the proposal is moved to the "Proposal Voting" board. Another option is the author may decide to withdrawal the proposal and resubmit a different version if there are significant modifications to be made. Councilmembers vote on the proposal after it has been submitted to "Proposal Voting". This vote would resemble the method of voting that the council previously did over email. We could experiment with the poll function, or just have members post their votes as they did before. After the vote, the Facilitator moves the topic to the board labeled "Proposal Results". A sticky post is added to the topic with the information of the vote (such as the number of votes, passed/failed, etc.)This system separates the drafting process, discussion process, voting process, and the results of the vote. This allows the boards to be kept neat and usable. An obvious advantage of a forum over an email listserv is that each proposal is a separate message board topic with its own thread of discussion. This allows a smoother discussion process without the information overload of the old system. This will allow a lot more quality discussion to take place. The structure that I am recommending is designed to keep the forum organized and usable. It allows proposals to get feedback before they are voted on so that they can be improved. It allows those that just want to participate in the voting process to easily do that. It allows councilmembers to easily view the results of past votes.
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.
no, i think many of us who voted (like myself) felt that our state is low in educational funding, just as we are almost last in the nation in cultural funding. it's a serious matter.but the overwhelming defeat of the recent initiative to fund education here in colorado (103 was it?) has made everyone realize that this downturn is hurting a lot of people, and government has to learn to do more with less, not ask for moreand when half of our annual taxes (and who knows what offshore millions) goes to fund the military/intelligence arm of amercia's international commercial alliance -- the "free world", if you will -- as in saudi arabia, israel, afghanistan, iraq -- what can you expect but inadequate funding for social programs.
i think kevin and jonesy have got us moving on the right track.we've invited folks onto the forum to discuss the reorganization, but hardly anyone has responded. i think by getting us moving on the next really important matter of business, our convention deadlines (thank you, gary), we can jumpstart the reorganization and form an on-going reorganization committee, while focusing on finding candidates for local offices in our state who have a chance of winning.artgco-chair
well, i would like to volunteer southwest colorado for our next convention. i haven't talked to anyone else yet. but as the organizer for an annual mushroom festival in telluride (over 30 years now), i think (depending on the times we choose), we could get very favorable rates in telluride for shared condos in the spring off-season. and i have several possible halls i might rent.those of us in the four corners area of the western slope -- southwest (cortez) and san miguel chapters -- have gone to the front range several times now. and i don't think the san miguel chapter has had a chance to host a meeting in recent memory (or ever -- john w, do you recall us hosting anything?)art goodtimesnorwood
