Search
 |
 |
Draft raw notes from GPCA Berkeley General Assembly, April 30-May 1, 2011
GPCA Plenary Notes – April 30, 2011 Berkeley CA
Finnish Hall, UC Berkeley
Saturday 4/30/11
8:00am – Set-up, Registration and Breakfast
9:00 - Morning Session
Opening, Laura Wells (Alameda) – The Color Green: Ecology, Economy and the Heart Chakra
Host Committee Announcements – Greg Jan (Alameda)
Accreditation – Barry Hermanson: All 11 regions present
Facilitators: Kendra Gonzales (Ventura), Matt Leslie (Orange).
Timekeeper: Randy Hicks (Sacramento):
Notetaker: Adrienne Prince (Ventura)
Vibes: Gloria Purcell, Mato Ska (San Francisco)
Delegate Orientation – Jim Stauffer: Consensus-seeking process and voting
Approval of the Agenda
Additions to the Agenda: Matt Leslie
1. Affirmation of Treasurer appointment plus back-up signatory
2. Affirmation of Secretary of State Liaison appointment
3. Affirmation of Proposal to Close Nuclear Power Plants
Clarifying Questions/Concerns:
Warner Bloomberg:
1. How did Green 2012 item get onto the agenda without CC approval?
2. Is this a discussion item or a decision item?
3. What IS the Green 2012 proposal?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco), GPCA Co-Co Responds: Since this proposal was backed by several committees and working groups, including CCWG (Campaigns and Candidates Working Group) we put on. Marnie Glickman will be presenting this proposal. I don’t see this as an all-nothing decision item, though she would probably want that. This is an idea that is on the table, and because we need as a party to move forward, I find that it has promise and will encourage discussion on this pressing need.
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara): The process was not followed. A sponsoring committee or working group should have voted and sponsored it. I would prefer that this be a discussion item, not a decision item.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): The entire agenda and its process was not according to protocol. Most especially, it was put together and posted very late. When we get into the budget discussion, elements of this Green 2012 proposal will come up, point by point, priority by priority.
Clarifying Questions:
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): If Green 2012 is mainly a collection of budget items, why are we devoting 2 hours to discuss this in concept? I don’t think it’s necessary to spend this time.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Might it be better to label this item as a discussion. Time constraints will be a consideration in this discussion. We need time for the anti-nuclear proposal.
Michael Borenstein (El Dorado): Why is this coming through as a decision item when the only sponsorship was GROW’s selection of this as a discussion item?
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): We need less than 15 minutes to discuss and affirm the anti-nuclear item.
Concerns and Affirmation:
Sanda Everette (San Mateo): I am all for following rules, but this valuable proposal had elements that pertained to many different committees, so no one group could sponsor it in its entirety.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): Proposals that don’t fit into our regular “boxes,” the Coordinating Committee itself could choose to sponsor it. The entire agenda was created in last-minute duress in a disorganized way.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): It began as a discussion item and has turned into a proposal (decision item).
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): There is no way for us to pass Green 2012 in its entirety today. It’s just too big. But the individual budget items will get line by line consideration. Let’s just talk about this and not consider it a final decision item.
Matt: Are all the concerns about the agenda just in regard to this one proposal, and in regard to the discussion/decision item concern?
Yes. (consensus – no disagreement)
Outstanding Concerns:
Michael Borenstein (El Dorado): Friendly amendment to make this a discussion item
Paul Seeger (Contra Costa): Feedback was misrepresented. Our local specifically affirmed this in writing, as a discussion item, not a decision item.
Caroline Yacoub (Santa Clara): If we discuss it only, how can parts of it be part of the budget?
Lew Tremaine (Marin): There is only one main decision point in Green 2012 that is not a budget item. The one critical decision is whether or not we will engage as policy a statewide voter registration drive.
Test for consensus: Green 2012 as a discussion item only.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles) (standing aside): It is important to officially endorse a statewide voter registration drive.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): – not willing to stand aside. Same concern as above.
M. F: Would it help if we take a straw poll to determine our interest?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): We owe it to our registered voters for us to take decisive action.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): We don’t need a plenary decision to start a voter registration drive. We just need a committee to sponsor it. What you really need is buy-in from the counties. This does not need to be a formal decision.
Facilitator: Barry H. can either withdraw the proposal or take it for a vote.: Even if this becomes a discussion item, we will have the opportunity to support it and take action. Will presenter choose to stand aside?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): If we approve it officially, this decision will have more clout.
Point of Process: Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): We have a friendly amendment to the proposal, that item be changed from decision to discussion item (Barry H. accepts this).
Vote: Green 2012 as discussion item only, and overall approval of agenda
Yes: 37, No: 7, Abstain: 4
10:00 Item passes. – 30 minutes behind schedule.
Approval of previous plenary meeting minutes.
Passes by consensus.
Affirmation of Treasurer: Jeanne Rosenmeier to continue in her duties.
Passes by consensus.
Proposal: Barry Hermanson as backup signatory.
Passes by consensus.
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): If anyone knows of a qualified treasurer, please put them forward in the future. Jeanne has served for 4 years and would appreciate a replacement!
Affirmation of Liaison to Secretary of State. Thanks to Jane Rands for serving in this position. Bill Myers of Mendocino County has stepped forward to take up these duties. Passes by consensus.
Goals and Strategy: Reports from Local and Regional Meetings
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): Reporting for his local in San Francisco. It’s of primary importance to support our locals and help them grow. Data access and management, identifying people who have skills, fundraising, voter registration – wonderful if the state party sent new Green voters a welcome letter, for instance. We need better links to all of our counties, help with local websites. Our recent prospective candidate for mayor has backed out. We need to help smaller locals. Actions and issues: health care, tax the rich, end the wars, green party mdse and voter guides.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): Santa Clara, San Mateo Counties had a nice but long session. The original idea was to develop a grassroots strategy coming out of the locals. An excellent exercise for our locals. Gloria Purcell adds: a laundry list is not going to be adequate, in San Mateo council we have only 4 members, and no other active people. What can we do to make it better for locals to be able to do more? We came up with some answers. What stands in our way, what do we need as a local to accomplish these aims? It all came down to people and money. There is no lack of ideas, only resources – volunteers and money.
Dana Silvernale (Humboldt): Modernize our website to become a more inspiring resource and educational tool. Links to other information and groups. In our county we have 3000 registered Greens, 1 – 2 dozen activists and only a small handful actively growing the Green Party. Building our political power through ranked-choice voting has become our #1 priority. We had a table at our local co-op in Arcata and had a fun demo on this topic. Movement to amend the constitution to revoke corporate personhood. Even the media is showing the destructive power of corporations, but people need to know.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): There is a strategic planning link on a Wiki Page, which welcomes all ideas. This is all to evolve a comprehensive strategic plan. On August 20-21, Ventura will host a strategic gathering for statewide Greens.
Michael Borenstein (El Dorado): 5 of our local counties met. We have actually some 32 counties in our regions. We decided that if we built 58 active counties in the state, we will have a robust state party. Thanks to Monterey and counties, who are here today and we haven’t seen for a while. IRV as a ballot initiative was proposed back in 1999-2000 and that might be a great organizing focus. How do we have a party led by our small groups, the real grassroots? And larger counties like Los Angeles could build numerous smaller locals within the county.
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): In our Sacramento local, Initiatives, such as single-payer health care, are good organizing features.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Send your local’s input to the note taker and to the shared web page: http://www.wiki.cagreens.org
GPUS Delegation: Procedure for recommending Presidential Primary Candidates.
Presenters: Michael Feinstein and Sanda Everette
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): We have been using the P&F party’s procedure in the past. The Sec’y of State is sent a letter asking that our candidates be submitted to the ballot. Let’s write it into the rules. (get document)
Clarifying Questions
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): 1.1 – 5.1 Decision making – 10 days prior wording – that doesn’t take into consideration the creation of the agenda packet and agenda timing. Status of our election code/bylaws. Can we simplify the process by …? 1.3.3c Candidates provided with copies of state and national platforms? (Saw 2 typos)
Jane Rands (Orange): As most recent Liaison to S.o.S.: merely a go-between, no decision making power 1.4 – 1 and 1.4 – 3 clarify your intention.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): this is a mixture of bylaws and procedures, need to separate them out. In 1-2.1 candidate must not be a registered member of another state or national party – our local discussed this and we wondered if this prohibits us from having a “decline to state” person.
Peggy Koteen (San Luis Obispo): Voting on actual individuals, or just to have a candidate? What percentage a decision making vote? Co-sponsor to have a dash as a noun and not a dash when used as a verb.
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): What does this passage mean? How do we ensure financial protection?
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): in 1-2.1, about party registration/membership – what about Independents? A special assembly for presidential primary considered?
Doug Barnett (Los Angeles): Can the GA draft people who don’t otherwise qualify?
Responses: Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles):
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): – timing and agenda creation – 10 days was to maximize candidates who hadn’t time to response to extra-early primaries (February). CCWG and Delegation to work closely and share information.
Jane Rands (Orange): Change word “decision” to “verification” in 1.4 – 3
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): - Can we give direction to bylaw committee to help us make the distinctions in language?
Peggy Koteen (San Luis Obispo), Barnett – end of sentence says “only people who have applied.” We cannot draft from the GA floor (?). At least 1/3 of delegates recommending the candidate to present a candidate on the floor. Then to be approved by a simple majority (50%+). Accepted the language change as friendly amendment.
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): - Confidentiality is not possible. All is posted publicly. Filing with FEC. Allowing Independent and Decline to State candidates is OK. Not a registrant with a competing political party. Willing to insert language to say this specifically. Special GA for presidential primary? Sometimes a GA meeting for this will have to happen, if a regular meeting has not been scheduled.
Concerns/Affirmations:
Michael Rubin (Alameda): 1. I have a concern about prohibiting registered candidates of other parties. Cindy Sheehan, for instance, should not be banned. (Peace/Freedom party). 2. Banning “favorite sons” or stand-in candidates I disagree with. (Ralph Nader having Peter Camejo as his stand-in). 3. The criterion of “running a reasonable campaign” is a very subjective, undefined standard. Drop it, or define that better.
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara): As CCWG coordinator in 2007, I had the difficult task of bringing candidates to the assembly without these guidelines. I strongly affirm the appropriateness of adopting such procedures. There are people out there beginning their candidacies, and they need to be told what they need to do to be approved. Clear and transparent publication of our adopted procedures as appendix D to the Bylaws.
Woody Hastings (Sonoma): Eligibility requirement. Include an affirmative statement that in a state where they can register Green, they do so.
Doug Barnett (Los Angeles): I am concerned about floor drafting of candidates.
Jane Rands (Orange): This is thorough and well written. I appreciate it. The eligibility requirements rule is a good compromise between different polarities. Specifically state that the Coordinating Committee makes the decision.
Jared Laiti (Sacramento): Possible amendment would be to specify Democrat or Republican parties. State or National level ballot-qualified party?
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Notification of candidacy intent should be directly to the CC and the CC will recommend candidates to the GA after checking them for qualification.
June Brashear (Sonoma): Concerns about a double-negative in language about eligibility. Affirmative language “registered Green or Independent or Decline to State” specifically.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): I don’t like long, complex procedures that eventually trip us up. This procedure is doing the work of the GPUS. They have a screening process already. I would like to allow more low-key candidates to have their campaigns. I have a problem with the Liaison to make a decision if two bodies (GPUS and CACC) have failed, to put the decision into the hands of one person.
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): I strongly affirm this proposal. My only problems would be with some details, wordsmithing, and thanks Mike for being willing to make those changes.
Peggy Koteen (San Luis Obispo): Affirming all the hard work. A concern 1.5-2 was not addressed in the languaging of the sentence about proportions necessary to present a candidate and approve them. Reverse to make the last sentence first.
Responses: Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): – in reverse order
Peggy Koteen (San Luis Obispo): -Reverse to make the last sentence first and tweak small language.
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): Candidates will still have to file their request.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): - Drop the reference to SOS liaison as decision maker – friendly amendment. FEC committee/financial information are the two main criteria of a credible campaign. The GA by a simple majority vote can put a candidate on the ballot if they have filed a letter of intent with us allows for flexibility.
Que Hee - CC is not a decision making committee. CCWG is the proper group.
Jared Laiti (Sacramento): In states without a Green Party ballot line, 1-2.1 does address the concern. If the GP exists in a particular state, then another party would be in competition. Candidates must register Green in their state, where one can.
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara): Can Bylaws Committee make the decision of where or how to publish these Procedures, also to publish on GPUS delegation home page.
Michael Rubin (Alameda): Delegation and GPUS consensed to prohibit stand-ins.
Jane Rands (Orange): Restate 1.2-1 into proactive, positive language will take some work and bring back to the floor later today.
Passes By Consensus.
Standing aside:
Michael Rubin (Alameda): This proposal makes us a less democratic party
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): : 2 concerns – my concern may have been misunderstood. A candidate still has to be eligible under 1-3, which I feel is very tight, but I’ll stand aside. GPUS’s job is being done for them by us. They should be doing this at
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): If …I believe my outstanding concern was addressed.
11:30 GPUS Delegation Election
The ballot has been slightly misprinted. We need to add a “NOC” (no other candidate) line. Rank the candidates by number. Alternates are rankedUnranked candidates count as a No vote. Please RANK EVERYONE unless you are actively opposed to someone’s serving.
Hand ballots back in after lunch, or before.
Barry H. will take your ballots.
Candidates stand and are identified/introduced. Not all candidates are present.
11:40 Introduction – Election for CC at-Large Seats
Presenter: Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara):
14 seats to be filled, with staggering terms. Some will have 2-year terms, some 1-year terms in order to start this “stagger.” To be conducted online, using an online voting program. Mail-in ballots are available for those who are unable or uncomfortable with an online ballot. Contact Gpca-cc@cagreens.org.
* 9 people originally submitted names, a couple of people have withdrawn. 3 candidates in the room currently.
* An announcement will go out to the County Contacts list saying that voting has opened.
We would like this process to work, and so will include some help resources.
Joe Feller (Solano), Tim Layton (Contra Costa), Sandra Everette (San Mateo).
Rich Stone ( ) rescinds current nomination.
Q&A:
Erica Martinson (Napa): What do you think of the system of regions and regional reps? I feel it’s another layer of bureaucracy in a grassroots democracy.
Joe: I am not clear on why we have regional reps. I tend to think more of 1 person/1 vote.There are arguments for and against.
Tim: There was a proposal at Cotati to have only at-large reps. 1 person/1 vote makes sense to me. There is a lot of division around this.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): there are good reasons for the regional structure and we’ve never really had the debate. My question for Joe: You were on the CC recently, with Paul Seeger. When you came to the first meeting, you disrupted the meeting and asked for criminal prosecution of one of the meeting, shouted obscenities and inflammatory emails.
Joe: I think in this party we should not be physically assaulting another. If it happens again, I will make an issue of it.
Tim: I have known Joe to be a reasonable person. He has done good work with us in Contra Costa county. I vote for cooler heads and fewer personality issues.
Mato Ska (San Francisco): What is the relationship between water as an issue in the party’s platform? Also concerned about the leadership at the county level and locals who function outside of the purview of their membership.
Joe: Certainly water will be a critical issue in the future. I don’t understand the second question and our time is short for this item.
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): We will have an internal election for co-chairs. Anyone running for a seat on the CC should be here right now, and many are not. I have a concern about this, but we do need people participating and I am impressed by the work of the people I see on this list. Concerning the divisiveness referred to – things are much better in the last few years. I do not tolerate shouting matches on or calls. If we are going to work well, we need to treat each other respectfully.
Lauren Sinott (Mendocino): I am a mayor on the Mendocino coast, recruited by some active and dynamic members. I would be delighted to serve.
Sandra Everette (San Mateo): Bios are available online. Most of our work is done online now, anyway. You can email any candidates, their addresses are with their bios. This is a long voting period – a whole month.
12:04 Update - GPUS item 1.2 a – d (Qualifications of candidates). M. Feinstein reads aloud from projected screen text.
12:09 GPCA Position item – Close California Nuclear Plants – passed by consensus
12:13 Greg Jan – Host committee. Lunch and Dinner sign-ups. Today’s lunch by Food Not Bombs, happy to accept your donations.
AFTERNOON SESSION
1:15 Announcements
1:30 Green 2012 Proposal, agreed in am session to change to DISCUSSION ONLY. Presenter: Marnie Glickman
Barry Hermanson introduces Marnie and Green 2012. Clarifies that after hearing Green 2012, we can consider how to structure the budget. We have paid her $1300 to date and she has raised $7,000.
Cost of $4100 for Marnie to continue her work over next 3 months. If the fundraising goes well we can consider hiring a person(s) to continue some of our work. We should try to encourage Proposals like this from other Greens.
1:35: Marnie starts the Green2012 Proposal with PowerPoint on screen.
(can be found online somewhere?)
2:15: Q & A
Jan Arnold (Alameda): Who are some GP state parties that have better websites?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): Rainbow Green Party, Maine Green Party.
Michael Borenstein (Eldorado): 1. How can hire people when the bylaws are written for a grassroots party, not for an executive board and hires. 2. We did not officially decide not to have a voter drive. There are some in the work plans. 3. How did this come forward as a proposal?
1. We have hired people before. 2. I feel we would have a more effective party if we can officially endorse a statewide
Anthony Vierya (San Bernadino): would love to see a Green Blimp in the air! Concerned about of language like GrassRoots – overuse. Feminism – needs updating for current time.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): Get involved in the Platform Committee.
David Cobb (Humboldt): thinks this is the nost exciting Proposal today and in a long time. Thinks we should vote on having a Registration Drive.
Rich Stone (San Francisco): Also a labor council delegate. I would like to facilitate a relationship between GPCA and labor. How can we retrieve labor from the back pocket of the Democratic Party?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): How can we build coalition? We must go beyond email, and be of service. We have to do it face to face and with consistency.
Woody Hastings (Sonoma): What’s the context for decision making, unifying progressive issues?
On the 20 new elected Greens?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): I don’t think anyone yet has fleshed out the details, we need to dig in and have this discussion. It is a goal, something make a priority, not concretely design the outcome for now.
Mike Feinstein: I understand bylaws to be about internal party decision making. Bylaws are not about staff. Staff is to carry out the decisions you made. Doesn’t have to be in the bylaws. As a fundraiser, other than this position, what are the things that will be funded? How does your fundraising strategy move us forward?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): I projected that we could raise appx $150K maximum in a year, as we are today. There are industry standards, and based on the success rates we have had. I have raised political money for the last 20 years, much more than $1M. All we currently fund is a direct mailing coordinator. Software is not in Tier 1 and it should be. There is no money allocated for a database. We need to agree on some goals, such as shutting down the Nuclear Plants.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): How to get the voter drive proposal passed? A few months ago, I suggested you take each module separately, instead of this big. You’ve been pushing your agenda instead of pulling for the buy-in of our mostly volunteer organization. This is not a question, it is feedback.
Michael Rubin (Alameda): The voter registration drive – how much of your proposal is necessary for a successful drive? You are suggesting we spend money that we don’t have yet.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): I agree that we shouldn’t spend money that we don’t have. It’s a chicken and egg question. In the income projections, I did consider cash flow. For donors and volunteers to invest in GP, we need a common unifying goal. This voter registration drive goal will do that for us.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): I have a comment/concern. Your goals and creativity are great. The concern is about roles: who does what, who gets paid and who doesn’t. When we’re talking about Executive positions – we need to change that language. What do you see as your role in this?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): My contract ends today. To keep the momentum building, I would like to be hired another 3 months in an interim position. I endorse that we conduct an open statewide search to fill this position.
Nancy Mancias (Marin): This is a fresh idea, and is the direction that grassroots organizations are going. Your Facebook and Twitter sign-ups will grow even more when we have a goal. How do you see training new leadership happening?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): I hear your questions as 1. would you raise new media goals? To which, absolutely. 2. As for training, we need to identify training opportunities by identifying candidates, officeholders and voters as to what they need help with.
Frank Lambert (Monterey): To say a few things – on labor issues – yes, the GP supports labor unions, but the CA labor federation is allied with the Dems, who don’t want to make waves with the anti-labor Republications. In Monterey county, every month, we put on a 1 week program. We focus on a different topic every time – from agriculture to labor, and we film these and air them on public access TV. We have been good at getting people elected – mostly Democrats, however. Educating the public – breaking the fear factor – how to educate the public about the duopoly?
We need to change our image, messaging to reflect the young voters who support us.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Let’s say the Green Party decides today to hire an interim director, would you be in the running? What would you do in the volunteer capacity? How would you change the proposed budget?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): Serving as co-chair on my county council. Fairfax is the only town with a Green party majority. We have framed these 2012 goals for the next election. Aim to elect 20 Greens to office by November, 2012. These would be local races. Statewide elections will be 2014. I have 50 copies of how I would propose to change the budget.
Michael Borenstein (El Dorado): Would you be amenable to extend this to 2014? In our existing structure, you would draw more help from the grassroots. Each hire means we need to see a year’s worth of salary in the bank first. From 2000 – 2004 we were able to accomplish these $ goals. Don’t we usually raise $7K a quarter as it is using mailings alone, or phone-banking the mailings alone?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): Donors like to give in many ways. When we cultivate relationships with our supporters, donors give many times. More than 100 people gave money to support this voter registration drive. Money came in online, through house parties, through phone contact. Direct mail is just one part.
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara): GROW can be the sponsor of a voter registration drive, we don’t need a special push from the plenary floor. CCWG sponsored your recent work, which I thank you for. Have you provided the info to Co-Cos (GROW) or CC.
Have you provided prospective donors info to County Councils, CC, Finance Cmt.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): The fastest way to have collected is in the CRM, but we don’t have. Its all stored on my hard drive and will send it out.
Dave Gessinger (Contra Costa): wants to see Registration Drive happen. Wants to get the info from Marnie of volunteers / doners to work on next few months.If we want to be successful, we have to advertsise which needs an Exec Position with that kind of knowledge. We also need a “Board”, that this person is answerable to, like the CC. As to Admin Person, should be found via a head-hunter, outside the Party in order to set unbiased criteria.
Kent Mesplay (San Diego): Am a presidential candidate. How can you help me as a candidate, without stepping on toes. We must build trust. Have learned from David Cobb we need so support local candidates. I think Marnie’s vision for Green2012 is wonderful and I’ll run with in regardless
Marnie Glickman (Marin): If and when we hire a staff person, needs to set-up a support network and system.
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): This Proposal is wonderful. But, doesn’t like Exec Dir or corporate model. Concerned that hasn’t seen info disseminated. Wants to see clear roles between CC and other groups
Marnie Glickman (Marin): Agrees
Adrienne Prince (Ventura): Thank you for being the person who kept their eye on the ball. Kendra and I have always agonized about the difficulty of doing activism while also paying bills. Paying a point person does help to get the work done. $40 is really a living wage, and a lot of us wish we had come forward and we respect the work you did and how you organized your information.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): This is about volunteers over the years and about you – not about me.
Lew Tremaine (Marin): We need to follow some of the directions Marnie is giving us. Paying someone to keep their eye on the ball is good. Being on Fairfax County Council has taught me that “staff” handles what Council directs them to do. They follow the needs and direction of their constituents.
Asking for Straw Poll:
Michael Borenstein (El Dorado): We have accounted for a voter drive in the Budget, this is about how to make it happen, not whether to make it happen.
CALL FOR AFFIRMATION FROM GA FOR REG DRIVE
Michael Rubin (Alameda): clarifying question what are we voting for – to hire Marnie?
Lew Tremaine (Marin): We are gauging support for a concerted voter drive, only.
STRONG AFFIRMATION FROM GA TO DO A REGISTRATION DRIVE AND HOPEFULLY REGISTER 100,000 NEW VOTERS
Approve 2011 – 2012 Budget
Presenters: Jeanne Rosenmeier, Barry Hermanson, Bert Heuer.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): Comparison against 2010-2011 budget. With April figures estimated at print time. My estimate was $32,000. We spent $33,000. The expenditure for the anti Prop 14 TV ad is not on this table. The good news is what we made and what we spent were in line.
Barry: Hermanson (San Francisco) I pledge to personally cover any shortfall. (regarding plenaries?)
Sanda Everette (San Mateo): GPUS just got an unexpected $20K donation. Committees and caucuses will get paid back first and we hope to pay the states back next.
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): I see an item for the plenaries?
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): When a local needs a loan to put on a plenary, we have that money for them, and they pay it back.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): I want it to go on the record that I am opposed to this being a loan. It should be an allocation.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): What about interim executive director?
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco):We are discussing last year’s budget.
Sanda Everette (San Mateo): There is an error, that Bert and I discussed.
Bert Heuer (Contra Costa): We will discuss it with next year’s budget.
Joe: Thank you Jeanne, for all of your work. Do we have several separate bank accounts?
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): One is a regular account for the state. One is for federal campaigns/candidates. We also have a savings account.
The state account has $22K in it. The federal has $14K and the savings account has $11K. There is an amount that the GPUS owes us but it’s not written here.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): The only budget for Platform was $300. The IT request was nixed from my request as was printing expenses.
Mike B: What do we keep in reserve, and where?
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): Someone once said we should have $10K in reserve, and that’s why we have a savings account. Do we want to decide on an amount for a “prudent reserve?”
Q: Who do we bank with?
A: Wells Fargo…but they’re not charging us anything.
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): At least it’s not Chase.
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): We’ll look into changing banks. There’s a big protest outside San Fran’s Wells
Fargo coming up…
Q: Who are the major donors?
(?)
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): Budget 2011-2012. Another version of the budget is also being circulated, one has been integrated as part of the Green 2012 plan. We need to find a base budget, but we also need to consider a more proactive increase. Bert took the time to create these tiers for different levels of activity. Tier 1 is about 10% more than the previous year. Marnie was asking for a contract for the next 3 months of $4100. Shall we renew that contract and see where it goes? If that fundraising effort is successful, what shall we do with the increased money and volunteers? The software is a cost. Our IT committee has done some good work over the years, but this would be an upgrade. GROW and IT should have discussions as to whether it is a good investment. Marnie has said that we can raise $150K. This Tier 3 is a cumulative budget of some $300K. This all needs to be a cooperative decision.
Bert: Each committee’s Work plans, Requested and actual costs, projected to next year’s figures. We created a 3-tiered budget. (1 – basic based on last year, 2 – dream scenario based on healthy growth, 3 – hallucinogenic based on very aggressive growth.)
Questions/comments on the structure of this chart?
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): I created our CCWG budget: Tier 1 was based on past. Tier 2 was based on paying a person for their work and breaking even. Tier 3 was based on promises that a fundraiser makes.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): Describe the definitions of Tiers 1 – 3.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco):Tier 1 is based on what we know for sure is coming in. Tier 2 and 3 were projections based on wild conjecture.
Greg Jan (Alameda): Fundraising income vs. fundraising expenses. Tier 2 is based on raising $124K with an expense of only $4500K. Tier 3 is based on $300K earnings while only spending $7K on fundraising.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Is Marnie in the Tier 2 budget?
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco):Yes, it accounted for a full-time staff person. Marnie or someone doing that work.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): My contract is up today.
Q: And the staff person is not accounted for in the Tier 1 budget?
A: Yes. Tier 1 is as we go as usual, plus 2 extra mailings that usually happen but didn’t happen last year. Tier 2 is with a paid fundraiser, as proposed by Marnie and with nominal success. Tier 3 is if fundraising is wildly successful and the fundraiser hired for the full year.
Bert: There has been discussion of a staff position, and should it be in Tier 1?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): I feel we should continue Marnie’s contract for 3 months for $4100. The software, we don’t have a total for.
Lew Tremaine (Marin): We have a proposal for the inclusion for something specific, to add to Tier 1. Are there any other proposals for Tier 1?
Mike F: I have never liked this 3 Tier type of budget. A proper budget is revisited quarterly if projections don’t work. Not having the voter database or the software means basing our income on last year’s numbers. We’d be better analyzing the results at the next plenary. We have a personnel policy and for things like website hosting, Cres’ media work and organizer work needs to be languaged as no-bid contracts for work.
Lew Tremaine (Marin): Do you have ideas for other Tier 1 structuring? Discuss.
Clarifying Questions:
Mike B: What group would Marnie’s $4100 go under? If money comes back in for Green Focus, Clearinghouse and GROW, can that money be added back into Tier 1 as a sustainable ongoing program?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): Yes. That would be the logical outcome.
Jane Rands (Orange): Can we clarify which line items would be applicable to Marnie’s work?
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco):$3K for an assistant treasurer goes to reporting chores. That came from CCWG.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): Are we proposing to pass a 3-tier budget, or are we choosing one of the scenarios?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): Tier 3 is difficult to consider, it’s so far above what we are accustomed to. We need a baseline. I hope we will consider much of what is in Tier 2. It is a reasonable expectation.
Sanda Everette (San Mateo): The national delegation has expenses in attending the GPUS national meeting. Right now, that money is in Tier 3. This money needs to be in Tier 1. I thought the $3000 was for our expenses. Now I learn that it is a loan made for pre-registration for travel. Please take it away as a loan. It’s an allocation that we really need.
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara): We need to consider ½ extra amount of funds raised before we kick the next respective Tiers into operation. There needs to be an immediate creation and adoption of a job description and the staff person be directly responsible to CC supervision.
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): I think that this is a very challenging idea and not reasonable to expect that the entire year’s amount plus 50% be raised before we consider hiring or extending the fundraiser coordinator.
Lew Tremaine (Marin): I think we need to re-frame what Tier 2 and Tier 3 represent. Would you consider that these are prioritizations of how money would be spent if extra money were raised?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): I have 3 items that I would add to Tier 1. $4600 for the CRM (contact relationship management software). There are several good options we could use for that amount. $5000 for database management software and $1080 for voter file software.
Sanda Everette (San Mateo): These are big numbers in Tier 1 from groups that I’ve never seen a work plan for $43K for Media, for Finance, for Grassroots Organizing.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): We need a clear flow of authority as to who manages which hired staff. Priorities should be things of basic infrastructure. There should be budget prioritization as follows:
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Requests certain items be carried from Tier 2 into Tier 1 for Platform committee.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): Have we passed clarifying questions and into detailed. What personnel policy are we referring to?
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles) Spring 2003 plenary approved a personnel policy.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): I am still unclear. Tier 1 means passing a budget that doesn’t utilize extra efforts or the fruits of Marnie’s work.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): Tier 1 is the budget “as is.”
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): That said, CCWG submitted a request for budget, which was taken down $3000. $6000 to support all of our candidates is too bare bones. In Tier 2, my figure was taken UP by $2K.
Conor Dixon (Alameda): The effect of the 3 columns is creating confusion, designed to manage potential conflict?
Peggy Koteen (San Luis Obispo): Having Tier 3 seems unnecessary, based on unreasonable assumptions. I am confused about where the figures were given in Tier 2 or 3 when we asked for them in Tier 1.
Cameron Spitzer (Santa Clara): I have been extracting walking and voting lists for years and have never spent a dime. I installed a wiki and it is free. Our county is experimenting with “CMS Made Simple,” which is free. I need a detailed explanation why we need a $4600 CMS. Why is voter file software worth so much money? I need to see much more detail about what we are buying.
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): In the 25 years that I ran a business, I sometimes misspent. No matter what software we use, we also need to spend time making it work for us. If a paid system is usable, maybe the savings in time is worth it. Open source (free) software would be great but how does it compare against what Marnie has been researching and working with?
Cameron Spitzer (Santa Clara): I’d like to see the research that was done.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): Maybe the free stuff is not good?
Marnie Glickman (Marin): The open source systems needed configuration and redesigning and the cost of migrating the content. Campaign/voter file software is the industry standard in California.
Cameron Spitzer (Santa Clara): I’m also concerned that this is a no-bid contract. I would like to see the qualifications of the holders these contracts.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): Which contracts? There are like 6 of them and Marnie’s isn’t the largest one.
Mike B: The 2-Tier system used to give guidance to the CC. Tier 3 is purely speculative.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco):It’s agreed that if you exceed income projections, you can recirculate the funds.
Lauren Sinott (Mendocino): Marnie’s Tier 1 model was roughly $10K more than existing Tier 1, that would help her move her plans forward.
Greg Jan (Alameda): Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but I think that if you combined Tier 1 and Tier 2 expenses and earnings between Tier 1 and 2, we can have an integrated set of figures for taking us beyond the next 3 months, to also recruit and/or hire the next fundraising person. If they are fundraising basically on track, then they are raising more than their salary and we won’t be going into the hole.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): We need more than just a fundraiser. The focus I developed entails mobilizing and organizing the registered Greens. We need volunteers, organizers, an entire vision.
Jane Rands (Orange): Exactly where are we in the discussion now?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): There are two competing visions for operations and budgeting now.
Michael Rubin (Alameda): We need to clarify what it is we are voting on. We need some proposals.
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara): Please state the proposal.
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): My proposal is that we do move forward with approving Tier 1 and funds reflecting Tier 2 so that Marnie’s work can keep us moving in the right direction.
Jan Arnold (Alameda): Are you proposing Tier 1 plus the recommended software plus 3 months continuation of Marnie’s contract?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): Yes, but I’d like a quick analysis of whether the free software could do the job.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): I don’t believe that Tier 2 or 3 are very helpful, as they stand now. As a friendly amendment, I’d like to modify slightly what Barry said. We agree to revisit and potentially amend the budget at the next plenary. We need to populate the finance committee, who will project and analyze this budget quarterly. Tier 2 and Tier 3 could be more than fantasy, if we evaluate as we go. We need to be explicit about the fact that we use no-bid contracts and make sure that basic infrastructure needs are met.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): I would like also to propose a friendly amendment. I see that we have a need to approve the Executive Director (fundraiser?) position beyond the next 3 months.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco):The Tier 1 budget is what is on the floor. We need to be more specific about the changes we want made.
10 minute break while presenters put together an integrated budget.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco) presents changes:
All revisions are made to Tier 1 budget.
GPUS national delegation: $3K in and out deleted. Added to Plenary Travel subsidies instead.
Finance: Add $15K (major donors) to income for a new total of $55K.
Add line item for contract fundraiser $4100 for 3-month extension. $6000 one-time expense for salary and expenses to create a position for a permanent fundraising coordinator. Up to $6000 a month for all expenses and salary for fundraising director for the remainder of fiscal year after that extension.
Software: Up to $11.4K provided it’s not available for free.
Marnie Glickman (Marin): My contract is up today. If you want to negotiate a new contract with me, I need to be part of the discussion. I am not interested in being just a fundraiser. This job description involved organizing and support as well.
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): This is a problematic, challenging process, a general concept of where we want to be going. I feel uncomfortable making these line item allocations, we could discuss it all night. Jeanne has put some figures out there.
Dana Silvernale (Humboldt): I think that the proposed budget is cut up into little pieces. I don’t want to see Marnie’s job get altered or cut. Hopefully she will consent to renewing the contract she has had, with the job description that she has described. I think we need to support her renewal, plus the software, in order to move forward.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): I am concerned that CCWG is not currently given enough. $6000 for all of our candidates is too meager. Can we bump that up please?
Laura (Facilitator): Straw poll of three possible scenarios (with resulting vote count):
1. Tier 1 with changes to help national delegation (8).
2. Ramped up fundraising scenario up to $6000 a month for the
remainder of the year (15).
3. Ramped up fundraising for 6 months to be reviewed at next
plenary (17).
None of the above (6).
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): A baseline that maintains the status quo is the bare minimum. Is there a figure that we are willing to invest beyond this amount?
June Brashear: Can we add $60K more to the incoming Major Donor line for a total of $75K?
Doug Barnett (Los Angeles): We don’t even need an overflow fund. Our people are our capital! We need to be able to reach them.
Dana Silvernale (Humboldt): Tier 1 will now extend Marnie’s contract plus software needs. At the end of 3 months, we will need a second tier to extend us till the next plenary?
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): not standing aside – there were competing baselines. I wanted to pay for basic infrastructure. Warner Bloomberg wanted to continue basic fundraising for working groups. We need to specify the no-bid contracts and I don’t think this is the way to definitely hire and keep the quality staff that we need.
Michael Borenstein (El Dorado): the need to restock funds into the projects that need them. I would stand aside if that could be augmented.
Lew Tremaine (Marin): This is a 6-month budget being proposed.
Sanda Everette (San Mateo):This doesn’t really clarify who would be filling this job for the next six months, or what their job description would be.
Lew Tremaine (Marin): We are just creating funding, not specifying exactly what is happening yet.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles): Direct the CC to put out a job search, following our policy.
Voting: Yes - 41 No - 4 Abstain – 6
Measure, as amended, passes.
END SATURDAY MINUTES
GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
BERKELEY, ALAMEDA COUNTY
SUNDAY MAY 1ST
BREAKFAST/REGISTRATION
CONFIRM FACILITATORS:
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara) Jane Rands/Orange: confirmed
Time Keeper: Laurie/San Mateo
Announcement from Host Committee:
Maxine: expanded recycling/compost please take note/use
AGENDA:
CCWG Breakout group
Additional Speaker for Prop 14
Agenda proceeds as published
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): proposes change to at large election re: new coordinating committee/online vote. The bulk of candidates did not show up to the Q& A meeting even though the info/message was sent out 2 weeks before. There were 2 requests to show up at the meeting and identify county and only 1 candidate responded with county or gave an RSVP: Sean (last name?). Making a quorum has been a problem. Should these candidates be considered legitimate? Are these people serious?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): We need more bodies on the coordinating committee, to communicate again that they do need to show up ie: “do you still wish to be involved”?
Sanda Everette (San Mateo): We need a tally on who was here.
Michael Morris (El Dorado): Shouldn’t make a quick decision. Lots of people break their backs to attend, they should be given one more chance to communicate.
Michael Rubin (Alameda): We have no right to exclude people at this point. There were no rules that required them to be here.
Warner Bloomberg (Santa Clara): This needs to be discussed later, lets proceed with the agenda items.
Announcement: Working Groups/Standing Committees/Seats Open:
Bylaw has 7 of 8 seats full
Finance has 7 of 8 seats full
Platform has 6 of 8 seats full
Clearinghouse has all seats open
Media is full
Michael Rubin (Alameda): An email will be sent out shortly to get seats filled by June.
PROP 14: REPORT BACK ON PROGRESS AND STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE/CCWG
Presentations:
Richard Winger/Ballot Access News: The Arizona Green Party is on the ballot. Greens need to work now on ballot access while the weather is good. Nevada is not on the ballot, New Mexico needs to get on ballot. We need to have a way for CA Greens to help Nevada Greens get on ballot.
Regarding the lawsuit against Prop 14: Asking for money on behalf of Mike Chamness. He asked for contributions from Libertarians in South Lake Tahoe and received $600. Regarding election law: Washington state was sued in 2003 and has since passed the “top two system” which violates the first amendment (freedom of association/to run an organization as seen fit and to decide who’s a member etc.) Discusses how Greens get onto the ballot. In blanket primaries each top vote getter advances to the primary election. The Supreme Court ruled out Blanket Primaries in WA and CA. The people/public wants party labels on the ballot. In March 2008 Clarence Thomas said “we don’t know enough about the top two system to throw it out” and sent it back to lower courts to determine if unconstitutional. Right now its in the ninth circuit.
First Presenter: Gautam Dutta Attorney working on Prop 14 lawsuit
Last June CA voters were hoodwinked, they “thought voting for Prop 14 was reform”…which it is NOT. Re: Prop 14 and Senate Bill 6: Prop 14 is the table and SB 6 is the legs, you cannot have one without the other. Re: write-ins, your vote doesn’t count. They didn’t get rid of write in voting, they got rid of the value of your vote. SB 6 (which is CA specific) is the nitty gritty/building blocks of Prop 14. Issues he is addressing in lawsuit: 1. Wants to cast a write- in ballot and have it counted 2. To have representatives from smaller parties explain on a ballot what they stand for. As it is, Independent is a catch all for all minor parties. SB6 says you can no longer say Independent, you must say “no party preference.” So SB 6 bans write-in votes from being counted. It forces people from small (not ballot qualified parties) from identifying their party. To summarize: SB6 eliminates the right to cast write in vote, and the right to state party affiliation. If the lawsuit prevails, it is not challenging the constitutionality of Prop 14, but targeting the 2 parts of SB 6 as follows:
1. Write- in votes not counting is due process violation.
2. The problem of candidates not being able to tell voters on ballot what they stand for ie. Party. (no party preference vs. independent.)
The lawsuit is active in 2 places: The State Court of Appeals, and as a Federal case in LA.
Mike Chamness is running as Coffee Party (counter to the Tea Party.)
We are doing quite well in the fight so far, but can use help, have spent less than $25,000 so far.
Second Presenter: Michael Rubin (Alameda)
Dan Segal is a civil rights attorney taking on Prop 14 on first amendment grounds, the strongest attack on Prop 14 is via first amendment. Also the Supreme Court decision on the WA case was decided on very narrow grounds.
There are two issues to be decided in this case: 1. The plaintiffs, and 2. The court of jurisdiction: federal vs. state.
There is also the question of money: Segal says the first round cost $15,ooo. Michael Rubin (Alameda) has pledged $5000 to this, other people need to pledge also.
The unintended consequences of Prop 14: it takes away one of the ways small parties continue to remain on ballot. And the 2% rule is thrown out the window. These issues will be addressed in the lawsuit.
QUESTIONS FOR PRESENTERS:
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): Can you give us a name and address to write the check to?
Send checks to:
Gautam Dutta Attorney at Law
39270 Paseo Padre Parkway #206
Fremont, CA 94538
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS:
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): Other things that the Green Party could be promoting: ranked choice voting, show that prop 14 is not working the way they said it would. 1. Crossover voting 2. Increased turnout in primary. Ask PPIC for exit polling – proving that prop 14 doesn’t work.
Linda Piera-Avila (Los Angeles): How full is the running of candidates in smaller parties in next few elections?
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Other ways of qualifying for the ballot affected by SB 6?
Joan Strasser (Alameda): Re: write-in votes, you have voted but not been counted. How can a non-qualifying candidate be on the ballot?
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): Re: SB6, what is sense of ninth circuit about the lawsuit being favorable or unfavorable? If you can prove it’s unconstitutional, what will the court/we do?
RESPONSE from Gautam Dutta:
Without any hearings, it did not go thru any committees. In fact if it had gone thru any elections committees, I’m willing to bet that the 2 provisions that we’re challenging now, may not have been there. So committees, sometimes they have their issues, but sometimes there is a process there, they do a good job, they sometimes can troubleshoot a lot of things. It was passed in the dead of the night, no one knew about it, and the voters never knew about it a year later when they were voting on Prop 14.
How a bill is passed actually matters. In fact the US supreme court has mentioned that if a law has been passed without any deliberation they are not going to be giving it as much, if any deference. There was a concurring opinion by Justice Breyer on that, who is still on the court, so that is quite important.
The case is not against Prop 14, but the pillars that hold up Prop 14. If the case wins, the legislature starts over and fixes the problems. The ball is in the legislature’s court. The bottom line is that Prop 14 will be put on hold till fixed, and it could be fixed rather quickly: the right to count votes that is the case.
In response to a point raised by Joan Strasser, how can the write-in not count? Because they are pulling a fast one, you have the right to vote for a write-in candidate. But SB6 says any vote cast for a write-in candidate shall not be counted. So basically the voters are invited to throw their votes away. Why should I care about the rights of a non-ballot qualifying party? It’s about the first amendment/free speech. No party preference means you stand for nothing, which is wrong and unconstitutional.
In response to Linda Piera-Avila: How does third party candidate help our case? The case of Michael Chamness proves that the law is hurting candidates; he is being forced to lie to constituents when stating “no party preference.”
In response to Jim Stauffer on ranked choice voting: its always good to get people thinking. Lawsuits do that, they focus attention on the issue.
And what is the track record of Prop 14: we’ll have to see about that…is it effective? Again we are not challenging Prop 14, but challenging 2 parts of it.
Richard Winger encourages everyone to run for office in 2012.
(response over)
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): We don’t’ have time to handle Jim’s election questions at this time. We are running 10 minutes behind, proposes to take 5 minutes off next platform and 5 minutes off next breakout session. All agree.
PROPOSAL: PLATFORM PLANK: PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES/PLATFORM
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): (goes over changes)
In Background and Purpose, last paragraph: all “members of” phrases deleted and replaced with “California’s people with disabilities.”
Also delete all “members of” on points 1, 2, 4
Point 5, retain proposed changes and delete “people with disability” in the first line.
Point 8 will be restored as such: delete “public sensitivity to” and replace with “public awareness of” and delete the last sentence.
Point 9 will not be deleted, but now read: “Support the development of policies designed to stop stereotyping of people with disabilities”.
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS:
Greg Jan (Alameda): On the second page point 5, taking out people with disabilities? How would that read?
Kent Mesplay (San Diego): On point 11, clarification on what inclusion in parentheses means?
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Ok, I’ll accept that.
Randy Hicks (Sacramento:) re point 11 proposed change: inclusion vs. independence?
Bert Heuer (Contra Costa): re: line 26/27, “it is the green party position that” change to “it is the Green Party decision that” (vs, demands that).
AFFIRMATIONS AND CONCERNS:
Michael Rubin (Alameda): Peoples right to institutional care should be included if that’s what they want and that’s not in there. People have a right to institutional care if that’s what’s determined to be in their best interest.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): Where it says “such people” change to “people with disabilities” as it feels very condescending
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): OK
Sanda Everette (San Mateo): We need to use inclusion vs. independence because that’s what the school system uses.
COMMENTS:
Peggy Koteen (San Luis Obispo): Likes updated version.
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): Should mention that there is savings living independently vs. nursing home. It’s freedom of choice. A savings of $ 1 billion to the state. Include the phrase: “money follows the person”.
CONSENSUS:
DELEGATE COUNT: 29 = Quorum
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): addresses concerns/supports changes:
Point 11 proposed change should be to have “independent and inclusion” and delete “to address” and just have “support the unique...”
Point 13 add “the right of institutionalized care as appropriate if the person desires it.”
Re: Randy Hicks’ Q: right after charter school in point 11 should “money follows the person” be added?
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): OK “money follows the person” in parentheses, after home schooling on 11.
We’re outside of time frame, are you willing to stand aside Randy…OK.
There is Consensus on this proposal.
PROPOSAL: INTRODUCE PLATFORM PLANK: CALIFORNIA TAX REFORM/PLATFORM
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): addresses prosed changes:
Under Background and Purpose, second paragraph: change “2011-2011” to “2010-2011.”
Point 3: add to end “inheritances, interest dividends and capital gains”
Point 5: delete “uniformly” in first sentence. In third to last line add (loan) after float fund. Add a new 5b “Repeal passage of Prop 13 that requires a 2/3 vote for any tax increases at state level and replace with majority vote.”
Point 6: after real donations add: “all donations direct and indirect to same cause.”
Point 9: after landlords insert “above an appropriately high profit level” In last sentence, change excepted to “exempted.”
Point 10: “California has no…”. should be in parentheses.
Point 11: change “to date” to “up to present.”
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS:
Jan Arnold (Alameda): Re: point 5, “adjustment of property tax every 10 years” what does that mean? Tax disparity issue is unclear, how to adjust?
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): leave it to people to implement, or delete it. On 5 add “commercial” after “adjustment of”.
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): Re: the issue of reassessing property tax, and the 1% campaign…can we add rewording?
Bob Marsh (Alameda): Re: point 5, it’s a bad idea to put in specific numbers, leave in the idea of regular adjustments, but no number, maybe say regularly or periodically…best not to nail things down to specific numbers.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Maybe we add “at least every 10 years”?
Bob Marsh (Alameda): Re: point 6: corporate lobbyists needs clarification.
Greg Jan (Alameda): Re: point 5 we need to add industrial to commercial.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Yes.
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): Point 9, profit or income or revenue: it should be revenue…above an appropriately high profit level.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): I’m inclined to delete #6
CONCERNS & AFFIRMATIONS:
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): generally affirms. Re: point 5, adjusted property tax should be removed. It’s a laundry list of things that people have thought about…but I’d like to see this plank passed and revisited. (has) philosophical issues with plank: looks too Democrat/Republican. Should include more Green issues ie. over-population and over-density via new tax structure. We should give thought to how we could do a tax structure that would address those things.
Caroline Yacoub (Santa Clara): Re: point 3, “people who live off unearned income” it’s not fair, making an unwarranted assumption about unearned income.
Tian Harter (Santa Clara): Re: point 8, add gas taxes to the list. Why get rid of super majority for higher taxes? Because I think the super majority requirement is what keeps the majority from exercising tyranny over the rest of us.
Sandra Everette (San Mateo): Re: point 9, “landlords”, generally we’re not talking about those who make “excessive” income…its not right wording. Landlords need incentive for rental property, why single out landlords?
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): Need to add verbiage…reinstate the top income tax bracket, increase the alcohol fee, sales tax based on intangible commodities. The big thing is to raise the tax bracket on to 3.5 million etc…(Randy will send wording).
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): We are stopping now and will reconvene after lunch, its time for Breakout groups. (photo taken of stack for reference later)
BREAKOUT GROUPS: CCWG, GREEN ISSUES, PLATFORM, MEDIA
LUNCH
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
If you have to leave early please check out at the registration table as this will affect any quorum issues.
Gloria Purcell (San Mateo): Nancy Boyle is deceased (a few months ago.)
Jeanne Rosenmeier (San Francisco): Re: issue of budget 6 month vs. annual. Passes out copies of 6 month budget.
James Ogle/Monterey (Independent): trying to help parties work together etc.
AGENDA/REPORTS: SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING/COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara) and Barry Hermanson (San Francisco):
There are three people being considered for the coordinating committee:
Dave Heller, Kate Tanaka and Jim Garrity.
Please confirm names on ballot.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): Re: next meeting: What is the time frame? 6 months? Fall; late September or October? We need a host, it’s hard to find, we need some counties to step up and host. Preferably Southern or Central CA.
Michael Feinstein (Los Angeles) will check with Long Beach Greens about possibly hosting next meeting.
PROPOSAL: PLATFORM PLANK: CALIFORNIA TAX REFORM/PLATFORM (stack questions on revisions continued)
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): (proposed revisions continued)
Under Background and Purpose: Change first sentence to “California now has an inherently unfair tax system.” They will put in a graph vs. just listing numbers. First 2011 switches to “2010.”
Point 3: Strike all and replace with: “All income earned and unearned shall be taxed equally in a graduated and progressive manner.”
Point 4, delete.
Point 5 should read “Periodically at least every 10 years.” Also retain “(loan)” after float fund.
Point 5b (newly added) “Repeal passage of Prop 13 that requires a 2/3 vote for any tax increases at state level and replace with majority vote.”
Point 6, strike and replace with “a graduated excise tax on fees paid to registered lobbyists.”
Point 9, delete “to landlords and to real estate speculators” and replace with “to real estate speculation.”
Point 10, “CA has no oil extraction tax” should be in parentheses.
Point 11, replace “to date” with “up to present”
STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATION:
Patricia Gallimore (Tulare): Appreciates the work, point 5 is good, but how to word? Wants to see commercial and industrial taxes etc. also include “must be assessed on every sale.” Adjust to: industrial and commercial property tax every ten years, add: “and also during all sales and transfers.”
Randy Hicks (Sacramento): Re: point 5, concerned on transfer vs. sales: how it affects tax rate. Point 3 needs to read “all income earned or unearned.” Point 10 add wording at end “elimination of offshore sales to avoid taxes.”
Greg Jan (Alameda): Re: Background and Purpose seventh line: people who earn less than $18,000… add “end up paying on average 11%.”
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): Clarifying the striking of point 4?
Warren: Yes.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): Has concern on that, supports tax credit under research and development…will stand aside.
Dana Silvernale (Humboldt): Re: point 6: graduated excise tax on fees paid to registered lobbyists…who pays tax, lobbyists or group that pays the lobbyists?
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Both pay the tax.
Warren: Are there any unresolved concerns on this plank? Is platform committee open to revision at a future meeting, is there anything unresolved at this time? As corrected amended and explained are there any outstanding concerns?
We have consensus on this matter.
BREAKOUT: CCWG, IT, GROW/CLEARING HOUSE, FINANCE
CLOSING ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Matt Leslie (Orange) Orange, Riverside and San Bernadino has seats open/need seats filled for the remainder of term.
Jim Stauffer (Santa Clara): IT Group: front page design contest, more info to come.
Kendra Gonzales (Ventura): Is stepping down from Campaigns and Candidates Working Group after two years. Greg Jan will serve as interim co/co till 2012. Will need replacement for him after that...a female?
Re: polling coordinator: 2 positions open.
Re: Prop 14 Strategy/planning August 20th in Ventura.
Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles): Tax Reform Plank passed. Disabled Plank wording revised. Congrats and thank you!
UPCOMING:
Changing and updating nuclear energy portion of platform, we need people.
Re: Ventura, implementing a new system of position papers, need suggestions…to create new platforms.
Looking for new platform co/co.
Michael Borenstein (El Dorado): Filled rep seat with Randy Hicks/Sac leaving one seat open. How to create a registration drive with no money?
Barry Hermanson (San Francisco): Finance Committee, had a good meeting, lots of interest in generating and using more resources for party. Will be at major decision point in July. Need to revisit budget questions in Fall. Need two more people for campaign support/finance committee.
Kent Mesplay (San Diego): Announces his Presidential candidacy for Green Party and thanks everyone for their support. Is now accepting donations. For more info: mesplay.com, mesplay.org.
CLOSING CEREMONY VIA HOST COMMITTEE:
Joan Strasser/Alameda: Reads Howard Zinn, excerpts from: “The Optimism of Uncertainty.”
We welcome all Californians who share the Green vision.
Join us in creating a new politics.
GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA
PO Box 485
San Francisco, CA 94104
(916) 448-3437