Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Harry, agreement was met when nominations were made during the last few weeks in a separate section of the forum. I'm not sure what the problem is.
I see no evidence that agreement was met to appoint an interim state co-chair.The topic "Call for Co Chair Nominations" started by the GPCO Secretary on October 4, 2016 on the Private Council Discussion board says, in part, "I'd like to invite nominations for the position of interim state party co-chair, to serve the remainder of the two-year term."The problem is that, per section 5.8 of the bylaws, the state secretary does not have authority to start an appointment process (including calling for nominations) to fill a vacant co-chair position, unilaterally. In fact, the state chair and secretary, acting together, do not have authority to decide to fill a vacant co-chair position. The decision about whether to fill a vacant co-chair position with an interim appointment is reserved for GPCO Council.The call for nominations cannot be considered to be a Council agreement, first, because it was done in private and did not use Council's agreement seeking process. Secondly, even if Council thought of the call for nominations as a proposal to be agreed on, in spite of using a hidden board and not using the standard proposal format, agreement could not have been reached because only 4 chapters responded.That is why this proposal, 008-16, to appoint an interim state co-chair needs to go through agreement seeking.Voting for co-chair makes no sense until Council has agreed to fill the position.
There is a process problem with this proposal.Logically, voting cannot begin until Council has agreed to appoint an interim state co-chair and hold an election (this proposal).Council should have a week for Agreement seeking, ending 11/22, before voting starts.
CORRECTION: I misstated the date of proposal 002-16. The question should read as follows:
The Poudre Valley chapter was not recognized as an active voting chapter in the Green Party of Colorado on 2/23/16 when agreement seeking began on proposal 001-16. The Poudre Valley chapter was recognized as an active voting chapter on 7/28/16 when agreement seeking began on proposal 002-16.Did Council reinstate the Poudre Valley Chapter?If so, is there any record of this action?
CORRECTION: I incorrectly identified Larry Dunn as state secretary in this post. Our secretary is Sean Friend.
Nominations for US Congress and all partisan state and local offices will also be made at the 2016 annual meeting.If the meeting is on March 12, candidates for nomination would have to be identified by January 27 (45 days prior to annual meeting).We can give ourselves an additional month for candidate recruiting by having the meeting on April 16.
Well said, Andrea. [Clearer than my statement.]So we need to: 1. Revise the Bylaws 'to make mention of the platform'. 2. Revise the Procedures and Guidelines. last updated in 2004, to define a platform process.Can we agree that this proposal will only address the Bylaws revision?
Bob, I agree GPCO and GPCO chapters should have a platform process and I expect to support this proposal. I offer two edits for consideration:1. Reword the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED for clarity, as follows:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Green Party of Colorado and all of its Chapters create, endorse and maintain a Colorado Specific Platform AND CHAPTER SPECIFIC PLATFORMS and to use
itTHEM to vetitscandidates for office, to educate voters and to characterize all candidates for public office.2. I think the party's platform process is important enough to the party that it should be described in our bylaws. In other words, I would like this proposal to be presented as an amendment to GPCO bylaws.I gave some thought to adding ways to speed up the 'very slow process for responding' to this proposal, specifically by improving information flow on the GPCO Forum. But I think proposals to create a platform and proposals to speed up the process are separable and would be better handled as two different proposals.
Sean, I read this proposal and support it. I found nothing in the draft to improve on. Thanks for doing this. -Harry
Andrea, I missed this update to the meeting announcement. Do you have any idea when the update was made?Thank you for pointing it out.-Harry
Council's role is defined in these sections of GPCO bylaws:
4.2.2. The Council will meet and make decisions between state meetings by means determined by council.4.2.3. The Council sets the agenda for the state meetings, decides on issues needing expedient attention between state meetings, handles administrative tasks, and acts as representative to the press on state issues, as well as representing the Green Party of Colorado to groups interested in establishing locals where none exist. 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. Expenditures above $200 per item require consensus of the Council or a 60% vote at a state meeting.
There is nothing about "steering". Grassroots party members steer the Council; not the other way around.
Abstain.There is no reason for Council to vote on this. The general membership will vote on it tomorrow.
I don't know what it means for 'a chapter to block', but more to the point:I am maintaining my BLOCK position on proposal 008 because I want Colorado Greens to discuss it tomorrow without a position from Council. Council exists to maintain communications with chapters and take action between annual meetings. Council is not charged with steering policy. That role belongs to the members of the Green Party at its annual meeting.
