Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Above is my proposal for the 2012 State Convention. I should note that I although I called many places in Glenwood Springs, I have not yet contacted the Third Street Center. I will try giving them a call tomorrow during the daytime. I also am not entirely sure that an ad with the Colorado Statesman costs $150. Does anyone know if this is true or if there is a cheaper option?I will post this proposal to the council listserv as well. I thought I would post it to the forum so we could see how council votes on the forum work. The attachment in the listserve version will have images. I had to remove the images here because I ran into a size limit of 128kb when uploading the attachment to the forum.
I looked into some meeting places for the state meeting in the Glenwood Springs Area. Gary Swing recommended a place called the Third Street Center in Carbondale, CO. It has a meeting room with a 150 person capacity for $150 per day. From the looks of it, this seems to be the best location and March 31st is open on their calendar. http://thirdstreetcenter.net/content/photos-and-renting-rates-available-roomsThe Third Street Center is just 23 minutes south of Glenwood Springs and cheaper than anything I could find in Glenwood Springs. Here is what I found in Glenwood Springs:Glenwood Spings Community Center - $50 per hour or $300 per day - 100 people - http://www.glenwoodrec.com/node/164Glenwood Springs Center for the Arts - $400 for the day - 200 people - http://www.glenwoodarts.org/events/index.htmlRamada Inn and Suites - $250 per (I forgot to ask) - 100 people - http://www.ramadaglenwood.com/packages.htmlSilver Spruce Motel - Cannot accomodatehttp://www.silversprucemotel.com/home.htmlCedar Lodge Motel - did not answerhttp://www.cedarlodgemotel.net/location.htmColorado Mountain College - Does not host outside groups on weekendsGlenwood Springs Library - Too SmallGlenwood Canyon Brewing Company - does not host events on Friday and Saturdayhttp://www.glenwoodcanyon.com/events.htmHotel Denver - $350 full day (quote based on phone call) - 75 peoplehttp://thehoteldenver.com/Meetings/MeetingRoomSelection/QuickComparePricing/tabid/101/Default.aspxQuality Inn & Suites - No meeting roomGlenwood Suites - No price given - max. 60 peopleHotel Colorado - Could not reachhttp://hotelcolorado.com/meetings.htmlHotel Glenwood Springs - waiting for price - 80-85 peopleI was told that the US Bank building can be rented for meeting space. I wasn't able to find anything about this.
It looks like the preference is for the Glenwood Springs area based on several things. It is hard to gauge the results of the poll because is it is a first-past-the-post (rather than IRV) and the winner does not have the majority. Based off of the comments on the forum and the listserv, it feels like more support Glenwood Springs than any other location. From the looks of it, Denver and South West Colorado support Glenwood Springs and Adams-Jeffco are split between Glenwood Springs and Montrose. March 31st seems like it is the most favorable date. The Denver Greens are open to a state meeting in Telluride but feel that it is not an ideal location for this year's meeting. This is because we are concerned about the driving conditions this time of year and about having to wait until April 14th, the last possible day that state law allows. We feel that Telluride would be a better location for a state meeting in the Spring or Summer. We feel that Telluride would be a great location for the 2013 state meeting.
Here is the number of active registered Greens in the suggested counties. Glenwood Springs - Garfield County - 64Grand Junction - Mesa County - 93Montrose - Montrose County - 30San Miguel - San Miguel County - 37Vail - Eagle County - 60Cortez - Montezuma County - 48Boulder - Boulder County - 561Denver - Denver County - 693Colorado Springs - El Paso County - 290Pueblo - Pueblo County - 61http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2011/December/VotersByPartyStatus.pdfI think the Co-Chairs and Secretary have access to the voter registration lists with the voters' contact information.
Art, Thank you for your detailed comments. You have brought up some great points and given me a lot to think about. You know the history of the GPCO a lot better than I do and I trust the knowledge that you have gathered through your experience with the party. I am really starting to understand your arguments for an emphasis on winning elections by strengthening the locals. As for the restructuring, I would like to leave the council intact but work on some modifications so it doesn't burden the locals. Perhaps we could work on some proposals to address these issues to vote on at the State Meeting. Before now, I had it in my mind that the state party would be the best entity to encourage growth across the state and support the locals. Now I am starting to see that the locals themselves are the best entity for this task, at least for now. I realized that instead of relying on the state party to provide resources, locals could work together at their discretion to pool their resources. I still think the state party should have the functions of ensuring that legal requirements are met, planning the state meetings, maintaining a website, and maintain Council.As for my long post, I felt that the length was necessary considering the that the subject is very open ended. I rarely write long posts because I know they take a long time to read and they take an even longer time to write. My initial post on this topic was long because I had a lot to say and I felt that it would be far easier on both the readers and me if I wrote my opening thoughts in a well planned essay. It would have been much messier if I posted it one thought at a time.
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
Art,I see where you are coming from. My goal was always to improve the communication structure for the Council as it exists currently. Some of my comments may not be applicable if we change the role of the Council or state party. Whatever does happen, I am glad we got the forum up. My suggestions for the organization of the council on the forum are intended to provide an improved environment for council. I felt there was a risk that the council could continue to face issues with disorganized communication if there wasn't some kind of structure in place during the transition. I hope that council will suggest enhancements to this structure as they see fit. I think it is time for Council to resume business. I also hope that we can continue the discussion on the role of the state party. It would be great if we could have some restructuring proposals to present at the next state meeting. I will join the conversation on The Function of the State Party topic.http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=5.0
Kevin Started a great topic about the location of the Convention http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=16.0. The topic is posted on the public board so that non-council members can provide input.
Bill, I just saw the new layout of the Council Boards and I am very impressed. You did a great job setting all this up. Now the question is: when do we start using the forum for Council business? I am in favor of moving to the forum as soon as possible. I realize that council may need to modify the bylaws before we start conducting official votes on the forum. The bylaws regarding how the council meets are vague. 4.2.2. The Council will meet at its discretion between state meetings andimmediately after each state meeting and may take votes through email.It could be interpreted as: council may meet between state meetings in any location or in any manner it decides to, including but not limited to taking votes through email. This interpretation has its basis in the bylaws not mentioning any requirements for conducting council business. Just that it may meet at its discretion and this meeting may be conducted by methods including but not limited to email voting. If Council members are uncomfortable with this interpretation, we could amend the bylaws to say "The Council will meet at its discretion between state meetings andimmediately after each state meeting and may take votes through email or other internet-based methods.I am really excited for the forum to start getting used. I hope that we are able to make modifications to it as we become more familiar with how it is being used. It is difficult to imagine how best to configure the forum before we actually use it. That is why I think your idea of a board for forum suggestions is a good one. I could see such a board going under Council General Discussion, or anywhere else it would make sense to put it. Thanks for all your hard work in getting this forum going, Bill. I believe it will greatly increase what the GPCO can accomplish. Jonesy
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. 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. 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.
