Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
OK. Thank you, Andrea.Will the Web Committee be posting a follow up on its priorities and discussions on the committee's discussion board, soon? The latest post was on March 13.
WEBSITE COMMITTEE: The link to the GPCO Forum from the GPCO website has disappeared. Why? Did the Website Committee do this?
I AGREE with the Text of the actual Proposal. I do not believe the proposal in its current form authorizes expenditure of GPCO funds, but I won't pursue the issue.As Sean wrote earlier, paying money to be in the CoorsLight PrideFest Parade is problematic. Certainly the Green Party wants to reach out and support the LGBTTQQIAAPC+ community, but does supporting an event sponsored by Coors, US Bank, Walmart, Smirnoff, Wells Fargo, Xfinity, United Airlines, Target, Kaiser Permanente, Oppenheimer Funds, Noble Energy, etc sound like a good way to go about it?A better alternative might be to march in the parade in protest of the corporate exploitation of non-cisgendered people -- by refusing to pay a fee for the privilege of celebrating our pride.
Sean, The “entire proposal” = “the actual text of the proposal”. The title, background, goals, justification, pros, cons, and alternatives are not being agreed to when council agrees to a proposal.But more to the point,Does GPCO have the money?In mid-March the party did not have $200.00 to use for tee-shirts for the March for Science, which would have been recouped from donations by people receiving shirts at the march. Do we have $300.00 now?I would like a Treasurer's report of the current balance in our coffers, and a summary of receipts and disbursements since March 1 this year.
To Arapahoe County representatives: Do you realize that this proposal does not authorize GPCO to spend any money?Read the actual text of the proposal (item 2). The proposal, in its current form, is a no-op.
The text of this proposal doesn't authorize the party to take any action or spend any money. I would ask the Arapahoe chapter to resubmit it, with a stated action for Council's consideration.
Damian, Brittany Hoover was elected Council Facilitator at the August 29, 2015 annual meeting. She facilitated proposals to Council using GPCO Forum processes for drafting, agreement seeking and voting. Brittany resigned as Council Facilitator in November 2016, shortly after the resignations of Co-chair Bill Bartlett and Treasurer Tom Hall.The Forum's membership list still shows Brittany as the Council Facilitator and no appointment of an interim Council Facilitator, either by Council or state co-chairs, has been announced.GPCO Council needs a dedicated, fair-minded, unifying Council Facilitator to operate.
Regarding Election of State Officers:Election of GPCO Council Facilitator is missing. Please add Council Facilitator to the officers to be elected.
Out of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved, I don't intend to publish their names or contact information publicly or to Council. They have contact information for their chapter co-chairs and can make contact when/if they want to get involved.The last thing I want is for random Greens to descend on them when factions of the party are talking about throwing bricks and punching people in the face.
The March for Science was the biggest march in Denver since the Women's March the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated. See Denver Post photos at http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/22/photos-march-for-science-rally-draws-a-huge-crowd-to-downtown-denver/Thanks to everyone who worked to coordinate GPCO's participation in the march, marched with the Green Party, and volunteered with March for Science Denver. This is Kevin Alumbaugh's account of the march:
It was a pretty impressive turnout. Apparently the lead marchers were returning to Civic Center Park before the end of the line had left. Begs the question how many potential Green voters were among the tens of thousands of enthusiastic and very concerned citizens that attended? Scott Lupo and I carried the Green Party banner and talked to some folks. There was a woman and her kids behind us representing federal employees who told us that Trump was investigating federally-employed scientists who were attending this and other events and had the authority to fire them if they participated. Lots of cameras along the route so we speculated about facial recognition technology being used.A quality line up of speakers (Harry was stuck at the Science and Policy table) in the amphitheater and enthusiastic crowd. And the weather cooperated too! When Gov Hick got up to speak the anti-fracking folks took to the steps and got in front of him and began chanting and nearly blocked him off with their signs. You could hardly hear him at times. He actually handled it pretty well-talked louder into the mic and paused a few times but it was a pretty short speech. Surprisingly no security reaction. A great morning all around!
Candidate Recruiting: I found two people who may be interested in running for office as Greens. One is receiving a PhD in environmental studies at CU Boulder this year. The other is a young, articulate person from Denver.I'll send them the link to the GPUS online candidate training and copy the appropriate chapter co-chairs, by way of introduction. These "potential" candidates have made no commitment to run; but are interested.Yours,Harry
BLOCKThere are a number of defects in this proposal. The first two were introduced by the facilitator when moving the proposal from Agreement Seeking to Proposal Voting. The last two existed in the Agreement Seeking version of the proposal and are carried over in the Proposal Voting version. Friendly amendments were offered during Agreement Seeking to fix the last two defects. (see http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=332.msg1838#msg1838. The sponsors of this proposal did not act on either amendment.1. “Proposal 003-17” is missing from the topic title.2. The voting instructions are wrong. The voting options on the Proposal Voting board are Yes, No, and Abstain; not AGREE, STAND ASIDE, AND BLOCK.3. The quorum requirement is wrong. I believe Judy Harrington's analysis which was censored out of the discussion is correct (see attachment). Adoption of this proposal requires a Yes or No vote by at least one representative from 75% of the chapters, i.e., 9 chapters (Procedures and Guidelines section 3.5.6).4. There is a typographical error in the text of the proposal. “90” needs to be changed to “180” in the following text:
After the 2017 state meeting, amend Section 4.1.1 to read 4.1.1. In order for official decisions to be made at a state meeting, a quorum of at least 60% of local chapters must be represented, with a minimum number of voting participants (registered in the Green Party of Colorado not less than 180 days) equal to twice the number of local chapters represented. Exceptions apply to persons who have: become eligible to vote via new citizenship; or have been released from parole and have been re-granted their right to vote; or have recently reached voting age and have subsequently registered with the Green Party within the 90 day window.
I will remove my block when these defects are fixed.
