Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Michael, You asked:
Is anyone reading the general forum or are most of the posts from the council?
There have been 2 topics and 1 reply on the General Forum this year:
- In May: announcement of Andrea Merida's candidacy for GPUS National Steering Committee
- In June: question about the date of the 2015 state meeting and 1 reply (to go to private council discussion for the answer)
There have been 15 topics and 100 replies in Private Council discussion this year.
Michael and Bill,I think your case for one-year terms applies equally to ALL officers; not just co-chairs. Please reply if I am mistaken.The reason I favor two-year terms is that election cycles are two years. Consistency throughout an election cycle is desirable and encourages the party to plan for the whole election cycle. In even-numbered years the party's focus is on candidates, nominations, and elections, so election of party officers and restructuring are best done in odd-numbered years.
A small correction to the agenda:The agenda says 2 "National Delegates" will be elected. The text should be changed to "National Representatives".
• Harry – draft sample ballots if we were to use either approval or rank voting. Will then make recommendation on voting method.
I would like to withdraw the suggestion we use approval or rank voting to elect party officers. Rationale:1. The agenda is full enough that introducing a different voting method, with the discussion that would be involved, might not fit conveniently in the time available. 'Voting methods' does not need to be a topic of discussion in this meeting.2. The question of voting method for this meeting will likely be moot. I would be surprised if there is actually a contest for positions.So, for co-chair and national representative positions I suggest members vote for up to two candidates. This is probably what the party has done in the past.-Harry
Lots of registered Greens are probably going to re-register as Democrats to be eligible to vote in the Democratic Primary next year. . . . "HOPE" that the Democratic party will be changed for the better and move to the "LEFT" springs eternal among some Progressive leaning folks, given that our system is locked in a two party duopoly. . . . We can wish them well in their Quixotic effort but we have already said that playing the two party game is deadly to a healthy democracy and a healthy planet. Lets keep it clear.
I have struggled with the question of whether "taking over the Democratic Party" (which Thom Hartmann advocates) versus "creating a multi-party political system" (which 60% of Americans want, Gallup poll) is the more worthwhile effort.My answer mirrors Bob's. Even if the Democratic Party could rid itself of Republicrats, nominate candidates who are invested in the party platform instead of their big donors, and achieve solid legislative majorities, we would STILL have the same two-party system of government that George Washington decried and urged the American people to resist.The Green Party of Colorado is well-positioned to answer the call from 60% of the population who have lost faith in two-party government and want a third major political party with candidates to vote for.
Greater Boulder Greens discussed our chapter's policy with respect to the Sanders candidacy in June, arriving at the following consensus.1. The Greater Boulder Green Party will not spend time or resources to influence the outcome of any political party's candidate selection process. I.e., no support for Bernie from the Greater Boulder Green Party.2. The Greater Boulder Green Party is an openly welcoming organization for people who subscribe to the Green Party's 10 Key Values. Members' activities outside the Green Party, including association with other political parties, is entirely at the individual's discretion and is not a matter of interest to the Green Party. This policy applies equally to elected leaders and general members.
This should not be private council discussion.The Green Party of Colorado, which values decentralized, grassroots democracy, must invite general input before telling the membership where the leadership stands.To quote from GPUS 10 Key Values, "FEMINISM . . . . We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting. . . . We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want."
We will have to agree to disagree about having a requirement for length of affiliation for state party officer candidates. So, with the incorporation of H1, H2, and H4 into the proposal, I AGREE with the proposal.Harry Hempy
I agree with 2-year terms for co-chairs for the reasons stated in the proposal. To make the bylaws consistent, I offer this friendly amendment:V. Officers 5.7 OFFICERS
Co-chairsshall be chosenat each annual state meeting and other officersin odd numberED years to serve TWO-YEARtwo yearterms in office.Regarding H3, . . . what I'm looking for is a track record in party activism to be a basis for consideration for nomination.
The amount of time a person has been a registered Green indicates nothing about the person's record of party activism. I dare say the vast majority of long-time Greens in Colorado have no record of party activism. I hope we are not saying Greens without a track record of party activism will be prohibited from self-nomination.Nominees have the opportunity to describe their track record in their candidate statements. Please, remove the length of affiliation requirement and let the voters decide.
Thank you for this proposal. I will eventually agree but first I would ask Council to consider the following changes/amendments.Amendment H1: Strike archivist and meeting facilitator offices from the offices open for nominations.
The state party offices open for nominations are: 2 co-chairs, 1 secretary, 1 treasurer, 2 National Committee to GPUS delegates,
1 archivist, 1 meeting facilitator,1 forum facilitator.Amendment H2: Strike unnecessary text in this sentence.
Nominations may be made by any
active and recognizedmember of the GPCO council, by state officers or by chapter co-chairs.Amendment H3: Remove the length of affiliation requirement. It is not required by state statute, GPUS rules or GPCO rules and could eliminate excellent candidates. Completion of 6 months of affiliation does not necessarily mean a candidate has adequate experience and knowledge of the Green Party for office. Greens in Colorado are smart enough to take 'length of affiliation' into account when they vote for party officers.
Nominees must BE
have beenregistered as a Greenfor at least 6 months, accept the 10 Key Values and upon acceptance of the nomination, agree to support the presidential nominee as selected by the Green Party of the United States (GPUS).Amendment H4: Clarify this sentence by breaking it into 2 sentences.
Nominations must be submitted by email to the GPCO secretary and posted on the council General Discussion forum within 24 hours of receipt. THE OFFICIAL CALL FOR NOMINATIONS WILL INCLUDE
, includinga description of EACHtheposition as delineated in the GPCO bylaws or Procedures and Guidelines, as applicable.ColoradoCare – a comprehensive, universal health coverage cooperative for all Colorado residents – should be of great interest to Greens. My understanding is Denver Greens are preparing a resolution on ColoradoCare. I suggest it be discussed during the Resolutions part of the meeting, currently planned as the first agenda item after lunch.
Part of the annual meeting will be about goals/strategy for the coming year. I'd like recruiting candidates for U.S. Congress to be a significant part of that discussion.
