Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Harry,The proposal includes the authorization of funds in the title. The council is voting on the entire proposal, including that title. If you'd like to suggest a friendly amendment, you're welcome to do so.
Although I asked my chapter to sponsor this proposal, I have a few concerns that I want to share in the interest of full disclosure. I'm also working with a bi+ group that's marching this year because we're routinely ignored and excluded within the community and by the Center in particular. Transgender individuals and groups have had similar experiences. I'm also super upset that Coors is sponsoring the March given the high rates of mental health issues including alcoholism among queer folks. I definitely understand why some folks don't like to participate in Pride and would respect anyone who votes No because of these concerns.With all of that said, there's more than a little bit of a middle finger in my desire to march anyway. Pride has been pinkwashed but I think there's still room for disruption and an opportunity to create a radical community around the non terrible parts of Pride. There will be radical queers at the March who are just as disgusted with what it's turned into (Stonewall was a riot led by trans and bisexual folks!), and I think we may be able to appeal to that group.To be perfectly honest with you, though, I have doubts about whether this is possible, and we may end up deciding that this is not the right way to engage in the future. Either way, this will very possibly be the most high profile thing we do this year, as this is the third largest Pride in the country, with 375k attendees last year.
Our chapter is also in agreement on this proposal. My vote is Agree.As a side note, I don't see a problem with running the two proposals at once. While there was some confusion last fall related to two different proposals, there's certainly precedence for having multiple proposals running consecutively without issue.
Section 3.7 of the Procedures and Guidelines document is also relevant, as it states that the co chairs can cooperatively appoint a new facilitator. Until an interim is in place, this obviously wouldn't be possible.'The GPCO co-chairs, after conferring together, can make a "good until challenged appointment" of a volunteer for a vacancy to any of the following positions: coalition representative; meeting facilitator or council facilitator; meeting agenda collector; press relations director; representative to a GPUS committee, other than the GPUS-CC; web master; archivist; state phone line minder, or any other nondecision-making position'
The role of council facilitator is explicitly part of the co chair duties unless a designated facilitator is appointed by the co chairs. Please check the bylaws and the Procedures document for clarification.This Council is run democratically. Since 26 out of the 34 council representatives from ten out of eleven chapters have already voted on this proposal, your accusation that a coup is taking place is completely unfounded. If this had followed your preferred method of going through Agreement Seeking, your block would have just forced this to a vote, and we would be in exactly this place. Given that your block would have just forced this into voting anyway, I personally would like to hear from the Boulder representatives who they would vote for as the new interim co chair. Registered Greens in Boulder County have so far had no say on this question, since their council representatives have not voted.
The call for nominations was posted October 4 and hasn't met any resistance until now. Restarting the process now would only serve to delay getting our interim co chair in place so we can pivot towards the party building work we so desperately need to focus on.Given that neither the bylaws nor the Policies document detail the process for Council appointing the interim and this isn't a traditional proposal but rather an election, our determination (co chair, secretary, and now-former facilitator) was that this would be the best and most democratic way to proceed. In other words, it's not possible for this proposal to be out of order, since the procedure isn't specified anywhere. The Procedures and Guidelines document also explicitly allows this flexibility: 'Suspension of these procedures may occur with issues of urgency, again at the discretion of the convener/facilitator' (top of page four). As co chair, Andrea has now taken the place of acting facilitator since the resignation of Brittany Hoover. Based on these facts, I believe voting should proceed.
I second Dave Bell.Since we have reached the end of the 30 day nomination period, I suggest that we begin a vote using RCV among Council members. Brittany, can you please facilitate a vote for interim co chair in Council Voting, or wherever would be most appropriate?
I wasn't trying to imply anything about your job as facilitator, just looking for clarification on what the exact nature and intent of this proposal was. That said, if this isn't a recall proposal, it should be retracted or significantly reworked by the sponsors. You can't call for elections for a position that is already filled. Andrea has not resigned from her position and cannot be removed except by recall. If a recall proposal were submitted and passed by 75%, then a call for nominations and elections would be appropriate. We need to follow our bylaws, especially with something as important as this.
