December 6-7, 2003
Fullerton, California

(My apologies to everyone whose name I have mangled and other thoughtless mistakes.  Please help me out -- if you have spoken at the plenary or been mentioned, please find the relevant discussion and give me any necessary corrections ASAP. -- Barrington Daltrey
P.S. -- I would like to note that although I am a fast typist, I am a terrible proofreader.  Please look carefully for mistakes.)

(Please Note that on "Decisions" I have not yet incorporated the notes taken by Chris Page.)

Decisions Made Procedural Points & Revisions
1.  San Diego Minutes Ratified. 1.  Hutchings Endorsement pulled from Consent Calendar.
2.  Sacramento Minutes reserved, Peggy Lewis to revise them. 2.  The Consensus Exercise is only an exercise, no decision, real or implied.
3.  Bylaws from prior General Assemblies (per Agenda) approved by consensus. 3.  Hutchings Endorsement issues resolved and returned to consent calendar.
4.  Hutchings Endorsement approved by consensus. 4.  Modified Endorsement Process brought to the floor for the Sunday Afternoon Session.
5  At-Large Election -- Chuck Reutter elected to position specified in Agenda Packet pursuant to IRV voting.
6  Consensus Exercise Notes to be attached as an adendum, for educational purposes only.  The exercise does not reflect a decision, real or implied.  Approved by a 80%+ vote.
7.  Bylaws Amendment providing for Endorsement Rules approved by consensus.

8.  Endorsement Procedure re ballot measures approved by consensus subject to friendly amendments.

9.  Endorsement Procedure re candidates did not pass.
10.  Modified Endorsement Process Requiring Polling of the Counties and Expiring March 1, 2003 approved by consensus.
11.  GPUS bylaws, except delegate selection process (paragraphs ____) approved by consensus.


1.  Emails from Kevin McKeown re Chula Vista (San Diego Minutes) (2 pages)
2.  Handout on Consensus-Seeking Process (6 pages)
3.  Mock Proposal (3 pages)
4. Addendum re Consensus Exercise

Names I need (plus lots more, this was an early effort):

Tim / Jim -- Timekeeper
Opening Announcements person -- Fullerton Campus Greens
Garrett -- of Fullerton Campus Greens
Regional Rep. from Santa Cruz
Don -- Santa Barbara, gave a question

Also:  Please clarify the positions, names, locations of the list below.

Opening Ceremony

Announcements by Fullerton Campus Greens (?0

Garrett (?)  -- "Chief motivator of the Campus Greens" .  Contact Garrett relative to plenary needs.

Peggy Lewis and Gerry Gras, facilitators for the morning events:

Barrington Daltrey - notetaker

Time Keeper - Tim / Jim

Vibes Keeper, Ginny Case

11 of 11 regions, 52 delegates registered.

Peggy -- there will be a change tomorrow on the agenda, today it is pretty much as we have it printed.

Introduction of officers:

Peggy Lewis / Michael Borenstein -- Co-Coordinators

Mike Wyman - treasurer
Jo Chamerblin -
Kevin McKeown
Alex Brideau
Matt Leslie
? Santa Cruz
Craig Peterson
Sharon Peterson
Chris Page
Chuck Reisinger
Jim Stauffer
David Schiedelower
Robyn Oegtinger, GROW

Gerry Gras -- Silicon Valley Regional Rep.

(Went fast trying to make up time).

Minutes from Sacramento and San Diego

Proposal to ratify minutes.

Jo Chamberlain - San Mateo County -- needs to correct where she was from in the prior minutes.

Kevin McKeown -- submitted two small written changes and assumes they will be incorporated. 

Peggy -- in Stuart's behalf, if they are not in there yet, they will be.

Kevin provide notetaker with the e-mails providing the changes.

Michael Wyman -- every other name and every other speaker was misspelled.  Assumes the ratification assumes correct spellings will be added into the minutes at some time.  Per Sacramento minutes, any improvements or any changes?  Originally not ratified because they were in a poor condition.

Peggy -- They have been upgraded, but not perfected.

Wyman -- suggests we ratify San Diego minutes and enter the minutes we have from Sacramento into the record, but don't ratify them because they are incomplete and insubstantial and should not be viewed in later years as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Ginny -- point of process, people can't be heard, can we require people to go up to the mic?

Jo Chamberlin, San Mateo County -- if we don't ratify the minutes, then whatever happened didn't happen.  I think we can go back and try to reconstruct them.  There is information that we can find and fill in, such as candidates for CC whose name did not even get into the minutes. 

Peggy -- proposal, separate and ratify San Diego. 


Proposal, as to Sacramento, let's fix them and ratify at the next plenary in the next Sacramento plenary coming up.

Jim Stauffer -- Santa Clara -- the Sacramento minutes are about as complete as they are ever going to be.

Jo Chamberlain -- No platform brought forward, don't know the budget that was ratified, don't have the proposals, etc.  The information is available.  I am suggestintg we go back and do some due diligence to correct the minutes with information we actually had.

Peggy takes the responsibility to update the Sacramento Minutes.

We will wait until March.

Proposal accepted, Peggy to update Sacramento minutes for the next plenary.

Moving on.

Consent Calendar.

1.  Tom Hutchings - Assembly Endorsement.  Mike Wyman is presenting.

Point of Order -- don't present on consent items.

Peggy - just short summary because people have not read the packets.

Ginny Case - that's not the point, shouldn't ask whether people have read the packets.

John Crockford-Fresno
Mitch Smith from San Mateo.

Concerns expressed and the item is pulled.

2.  Bylaws from previous General Assembly sessions.

No concerns -- they are accepted.

Peggy -- Next Consensus Seeking Exercise and Presidential Decision.

Note:  The Consensus Exercise was a mock exercise only.  Some people were "role playing" rather than expressing their true opinions.  Many felt the minutes should not reflect any of the Consensus Exercise discussion.

Per resolution of the plenary, the "minutes" or "notes" of the Consensus Exercise are attached as an adendum, for instructional purposes only.  There is no actual or implied consensus or endorsement of any position.

Will work on facilitation skills / consensus processes and then move on to the Presidential Campaign issues

Vote on the compromise minutes decision -- Specify in minutes that Consensus Exercise took place, but that no decision was intended or reached.  Place the notes from the exercise in an addendum that may be reviewed by people interested in understanding the Consensus Seeking Process.

1-9 yes
10 no
11-15 yes
16 abstain
17- 18 yes
19 abstain
20-25 yes
26 missing
27 yes
28 no
29 yes
30 absent
31-41 yes
42 abstain
43-48 yes
49 abstain
50-55 yes
56 no
57 yes
58 no
59 no

4 abstain, 5 no 2 absent.

Clearly passes.

Host committee announcements.

Lunch recess 12: 50 or so.

Afternoon session  starts 2:00 p.m.

Michael Borenstein, Sharon Peterson, facilitators.

Michael -- we are about a 1/2 hour behind.  Would like to simply start 1/2 hour late rather than give up any time.

Coby Skye:  Would prefer that proceedings are tightened up so those with evening commitments do not miss anything.

Michael Wyman and Craig Peterson co-cos of finance.

Wyman:  $90,000 in federal and state bank accounts.  Unexpected windfalls.  $5,000 from GPUS sharing, $5,000 brought in by mailer organized by our fundraiser Jane Packer? and a Green in Orange died and left us with a legacy of about $15,000. 

This raised some questions about how much we can accept, etc.  The pink sheet has a questionnaire that asks how you feel about the various types of donations we might receive as a party.  There are no legal limits at this time to donations to any political party in California.

The purpose of this is to get going toward the day where we have a policy.

Yellow sheet, cashflow statement of what has been spent so far this year.

San Francisco -- "lone voice" says that he does not know if they have received a packet. 

Michael says he will get a package to them.

Craig -- calls on GPCA professional fundraiser, Jane Packer. 

Jane -  Update on San Francisco -- a year ago I went to a fundraiser for Gavin Newsom.  I've been in Democratic politics for a long time.  She has believed up until a few months ago that Gavin Newsom would probably win.  People asking her two weeks ago and a month ago and she can honestly say that the next mayor of San Francisco is going to be Matt Gonzalez.  I've watched the Newsom campaign since it began and I no longer believe he is going to win.

I want to encourage the momentum and not let it stop with Matt.  I'm here today as a momentum gather.  Let's take that buzz statewide and elect people to local seats.  We can't do it without support.  The foundation of support comes from raising money and raising funds and getting that going.  Think of me as someone who is providing opportunity for you guys to grow. 

Turns mike over to Craig Peterson.

Craig:  At the end of the year in a lot of cultures there is a tradition of giving gifts of appreciation for things well done.  We are getting to the point where we can start  Supporting candidates. 

First nine people who become a donor to the various pending campaigns (Matt Gonzalez, etc.), to become or extend a sustainer program person.  Can give up to $250. 

Matt, campaign support fund, sustainer project are the three programs. 

Mike Wyman makes a pitch for people to become sustainers.

Schiedlower -- if every Green gave $5 per month, that would be a lot of money.  $300,000 per year would cause the operation to change dramatically. 

Jo Chamberlain -- on of the most important things to help a party grow is to have a foundation that we know will have funds coming in, so that we know we have a particular amount of funds coming in each month.  Jo and her partner Jonathan Lundell are sustainers to all three levels of the Green Party and give $100 per month.  It's important to make sure that all levels of your party have funds.  Unless we create a culture of giving for the Green Party we are not going to succeed because we are not going to build the party.  Look outward to the good we can do with this money and implement our platform around the world.

Craig wraps up.

Michael Wyman says "we will give you a total of what came in a little later in the day."

Sharon -- we have not appointed a timekeeper.  Robyn is appointed as a time keeper.

Jo Compton and Gabrielle Weeks both of LA will be the vibes watcher.

Michael -- Will be taking a couple of minutes out of WG time to allow people to stand up and announce they are running for office.

Ballots for at-large election are being handed out for the at large vote.

Tim -- I've been around since about 1965 in the Bay Area.  Discusses some past history, been in the party since 1991.  It's been a hard road for people who are progressive in this state.  I've got some time and some pocket change I can put into the organization, so I'm volunteering.

Chuck -- Been involved with my community for many years.  Was an independent in 1996 and came across CSPAN, Linda Martin on CSPAN, contacted her, she put him in touch with Nanette Patrini, who came down to conservative Sun City.  A lot of the people in Sun City are disabled, love animals and these people see the Green Party like a light in the darkness.  We are going back to the Dark Ages and the Green Party is the light and we need to everything we can to keep the light shining and that will be my goal as your at large rep. 

Michael Borenstein -- this will be a straight IRV election.  (Asks whether anyone doesn't know how IRV works).

Philby New (?)  -- wants to know what happens to the gender balance, there are two individuals, what will this do to the gender balance.

Sharon Peterson -- this is replacing a resigned person, there were only two people willing to run.  The vacancy is up for re-election at the spring plenary.

Michael -- we didn't want to have any vacancies, in the interest of democracy.

Michael -- please turn in the ballots to Craig Peterson and Forest Hill, tally committee. 

Jo Chamberlain, San Mateo -- to answer the question, the person who resigned is Ken Adams, so the outcome will not affect the current gender balance on the CC.  There are four at large.  Jo, Magali, Alex Brideau and this person will be the at-large reps., so there is gender balance.


Endorsement Proposals reported by Chris Page. 

Decision item notes: Endorsement Proposals

SA pm session

taken by Christopher Page


MW: presenting;

proposal #1:  Forrest Hill/MW  Proposal to amend bylaws 9-1 initiatives for referenda

basically responds to concern about absence of bylaws on this and that GA should be body deciding on it.

Makes GA power clear; initiative endorsements decided by GA; spend more time at plenaries doing endorsements


PE, HC:  is this the same procedure we used for Camejo endorsement  MW:  no this is a bylaws proposal.

GP, ElD:  I feel something's missing, what happens after we've made an endorsement?  Has there been anything about that?  MW:  Yes, the next two proposals address that.

JC, Fresno:  idea of during ? primary special election; when does endorsement take place and when it starts?  MW:  next two props.  This is simply the proposal to enable us to do Prop 2 and 3.


DB, HC:  Affirmation, exceptionally well written.

JoC, SMC:  What DB said.

Dick Morris, Riverside:  Chuck R. expressed fact that endorsement should not take place until after primary has already taken place.  MW:  WIll be for next proposals not this one.

DM, RC:  Polling for time sensitive matters only all others for plenaries, WIll Stand Aside.




Prop 2:  not opposition to polling but concern about how it's done, as to procedure.  Asked CQ's & C&A's addressed to which category.  Ballot measures; we can oppose it while it's circulating, includes recall elections, quorum issue (1/2 active GP orgs voting)


JH, Sonoma:  whether there's  a point that's too early in initiative process to poll?  What is too early to begin polling?  2nd question: facilitation section, appropriate to work via regional reps or faster to go directly to county councils.  para. d....

            MW:  too early to endorse or oppose before Atty Gen has certified it for ballot; once it's certified you can know what the language is otherwise you don't know.  This would be a follow-up procedure left to the CC.  I'm assuming the endorsement coord. would want to do this quickly as possible, reps are in there to facilitate

ML, OC:  Sec. E voting proc.  where consensus not reached... how is consensus reached during polling

            MW  unanimous poll would be conssenus

AT, Son:  what is active Green Party county org determined?

            MW:  in our bylaws, haven't read it recently; PL:  Active Green county org has bylaws, a county council, usually a treasurer, worked with regional rep or at large rep to ensure chosen in a democratic manner, registered div of elections & SoS

AT, Sion:  be at least a diff para. where consensus is not reached at state level to clarify

PE, HC: looks suspiciously like the Camejo process?  Where did that come from?  This is ballot measures. 

            MW:  these are set for ballot measures alone, but if GA directs CC to poll on some other issue, then they can do that. It can be a prototype for other polling proc.

KM, SDC:  Sec. E voting proc.  are we talking proportional rep?  Suggest in case that counties don't reach consensus, allocated proportional to the county votes

            MW:  county discretion.  can be block voting, proportional rep, etc.  You tell the CC how you're doing it.

KM, SD:  suggested county polls, using counties approved bylaw method

PF, SCruz:  item 2 refs candidates?  in an initiative prop.

            MW:  includes cands in recalls so there's always an initiative which then sets out candidates

CS, LA:  Active county org instead of county councils; councils of active counties more appropriate; FA that councils be the default, locals can have input but the councils are the default

            MW:  used a specific bylaw term referring to county councils. we need to talk to bylaws to change the terms used.


JE, FC:  based on experience went through with adding Peter Camejo to the ballot, concern about the discussion about the issue not going out, polling simultaneous to discussion and thus disjointed; can we come up with something more smoother, set up comment, discussion periods, msg board so more Greens can discuss this, then go to the actual voting period.  would lead to a more fully informed dec.

GP, ElDo:  needs to be done but sense it that it's incomplete; once we endorse something, it falls into an abyss of complete unknowing-ness.  I would like to see a process continued what happens after we endorse something; procedure for then it goes to media comm or state spokespeople, or then we sign on to SB whatever, to ensure out name is out there in pub.

JS, SClC:  wording seems unclear para 3(e) second sentence, 80% yes or no vote from all counties, just state 80% affirmative vote to approve proposal.  another one is 3(f)  CC will report polling results at next GA, shouldn't they report to county councils immediately?  MW:  accept this as FA.

RO, AlaC: glad to see we're asking counties

DS, AlaC:  should be timeframes for the polling, within a week of being asked, council will respond, etc. otherwise we ; endorsement coordinator assuming there's come a time, this person becomes a powerful human and we'll need some check and balances oversight, within 2 days of reaching a decision the work will be reviewed by y, etc.

GW, LA:  similar to David's; when it's too few folks accidents happen; county locals get chance to comment not just easy to reach folks

KMK, LA:  affirmation of codifying an endorsement proc.; we're there with this; speak to concern of 17 locals, many ways to theoretically poll but some default method should be suggested in the bylaws, that the county council is responsible for the poll.  Submitted this ti MW earlier, but it's here on the floor.  Also more timely process on poll; need time to do this properly.

PE, HC: bylaws 9.1 procedure, puts pressure on counties to get informed; think this is totally the wrong direction.  It's building on a false premise of polling counties, scrapping this and forming a standing permanent delegates in session, fundamentally informed as an obligation, have a reasonable discussion; in Camejo poll confusion reigned, 54 out of 100 isn't consensus process, this takes us in another direction.  We need to move in some way to get the GA, this body, to be the decision body, the bylaw 9-1 is a constitutional problem, we'll use it for all sorts of strange things in the future.

ML, OC:  same concern re: my CQ earlier; determining the nature of the poll; second line of E because this is a straight vote and there's no consensus process, we hope that consensus process is used on state level  MW:   "in cases where statewide unanimity is not reached" FA accepted.

MW:  addressing concerns; thanks to all concerns, CC has been discussing the discussion boards ideas too, in terms of GP's comments on follow-through; at that point we can coordinate resources to work fro defeat or passage of ballot; bigger question beyond scope of proposal.  This is the beginning of the influence outcome of election process.  Under voting procedure is the proposal is the language on the ballot; trying to leave the debate clean and up to the locals; time frames has polling period in consultation with the CC based on experience.  Election cycle allows scheduling.  CHecks and balances on EC isn't clear yet but it's the duty of the CC is nonpartisan and impartial in admin of their duties.  reporting polls online yes.  permanent standing GA is beyond scope but we need to do something while we work on that larger picture, this is interim in the meantime.


test for consensus

JE, FC:  it would be helpful to have in proposal that there will be a discreet discussion period followed by a discreet voting period; allow time for discussion to germinate; depending on nature of situation discreet periods will be established.

MW:  refer us to bottom of p. 9 once authorized, to top of 10 polling period which discuss

            JE:  that there will be a fixed discussion period, followed by

MW:  I think we can do that

KMK, LA:  we supported this with FA of a default, not addressed  submitted by Denise Robb a week or so ago, default of county council that is responsible for effecting the poll within the county to provide for accountability.

MW:  don't have it, is there someone from LA

PE:  the entire polling process, my FA in interim bet. plenaries [PE had a long piece of language];

POP:  PE not a delegate.  so he can't raise and URC

KMK, LA:  [read DR email language re: default]  MW:  Accepted as FA

MW:  addressed JE's language need for period.

Consensus on Part 2


Part 3:


Re: candidates, moving to prob. areas, divides up partisan offices of state and non-p of BOE and [see proposal]; proposal before was to give CC endorsement power, this proposal comes back with divying up the labor and responsibility; GA does all major partisan candidates statewide and fed.; CC for local districts.  reason:  admin problem due to success as party.  2 yrs ago 3 AD candidates, this year 13 AD candidates.  50 pp of bio materials to review.  potential is to have double this in future 173 candidates, how to go through all those bios and matls, administrative problem.  CCWG expressed a preference to have CC take responsibility with CCWG on these candidacies, but totally open to involving the GA in the process to the max extent the GA feels appropriate.  resistant to totally excluding the CC from the process due to admin.


Refs about when endorsements can be done, when they are opposed by another GP cand in a primary, etc.


FH:  without a structure in place, CCWG makes mistakes, helps vols to get a structure in place, please consider this; it's about being fair to candidates and their staffs, to really help push our candidates in fair way poss.



PF, SCrzC:  second page near top "uncontested"  first line; is the CC going to commit to the deadline was yesterday and the plenary is today, will there be an accommodation now or are they going to delay the plenary for 2 mos. to accommodate

 MW:  don't understand


PF:  this plenary is 1st one after deadline, in 2 yrs will the plenary be scheduled off enough to accommodate this.   MW:  once this is past, yes, plenary comm will have to take this into acct. 


JH, Sonoma:  sec 2-1 orgs in electoral districts; letters from anybody who's a registered Green or county councils...   MW:  Locals are not individuals


Pat Gray SMC:  proc. all statewide cands, but board includes fed cand.  where are US Rep cands?  MW  Sec 3-2.


Sam SMith, 3-1, repeated on 3-2;  . . .     MW:  doesn't exclude any ; we're not wedded to the lang. wasn't meant to exclude other comms but to tie CCWG in timely fashion.  SS:  is CCWG a gatekeeper.  MW: no.  4/5s no. and not 80%  MW:  last time enormous discussion; went with highest threshold compromise.  SS:  4/5 MW:  80% FA accpt  SS:  is there a diff process for contested primary races  MW:  We'll wait for voters to decide


Larry Mullen, Fresno:  3-1  US House of Rep has been omitted?  3-2 US Senate is not included?  Uncontested primaries, Green should be endorsed.  pre-primary endorsement in uncontested primaries helps get candidates going and get press.  MW: there is provision for it if there's an uncontested primary.


LM, FC:  What would be in the questionnaire  MW:  developed by CCWG and posted on our website


MR, CCC:  3-1 when it's brought before GA, the endorsements are put on consent calendar, how is it presented to GA?  MW:  I don't know; the agenda comm, etc. may have to decide whether it's consent item.  3-2, when CCWG presents endorsements to CC is that not brought before GA?  MW:  no wording to do that.  we'd consider an FA any proposal to bring that to GA for final confirmation.  Concern that the endorsement wold be binding once it's given not upon confirmation by the GA.  MR:  how does CC go about doing the recommendations, same polling proc. of second proposal?  MW:  most of the polling is done on CCWG via the questionnaire, will change over time.


DM, Rvrsd:  our council discussed and opposed to proposal in present form; glad to hear CC backing off all the endorsements, we feel the endorsement should come from GA body; CCWG doorway, as they're not elected members just self-appointed.  PRe-primary endorsements, what is purpose of that.


MW:  post-filing date pre-primary; to get resources to candidate before the primary; trying to get help to candidates in time


CC, AlaC:  2-1, onus is on a harried candidate to get a letter from local groups.  is it the intention to ... what if an area didn't have a county council, this is an obstacle?    FH:  large districts, some of the eval. by CCWG to take that into account.  If there's dysfunctionality in the district.    MW:  how about saying, "a recorded endorsement" so minutes can substitute for letters


Tom Lash, OC:  endorsement letters?  More than one?  MW:  it's inclusive, a single letter per county.  FH:  voting proc. KMK, LA raised in DR email, we can leave it to the counties... important. we want to know about the counties support of the candidate here.  FA to clarify this more.


MB [facilitator]  need to buy time:  15 mins. off next item




CS, LA:  have concern about 20 people endorsing candidates; CC shouldn't be excluded but they shouldn't make the call, the excuses about ever increasing lists of candidates doesn't take into account decentralization at least one local should be involved.  as we get more cands we get more Greens involved, we need a verification process; registered Green or not, more than one Green running or not, no need to have all info in packet but they can be online, like we have now.  Easy to get a consent cal to list all cands but do not think CC should do the endorsement.


GC, LA:  echo CS issues raised; CCWG process has been working on this, but I have concerns that all endorsements should be coming to GA.  We don't plan to run for office, slippery slope to min. the influence of GA.


KMK, LA:  violates Green principles of decentralization that GA should decide, it should be regional role of CC  is admin; LA deciding on cands for HC?  Let's trust each other that our regional endorsement means something.


Ann M. SDC:  when no time constraints, GA time constraints, another way, perhaps the polling proc. for initiatives used.


TH, SLO:  affirmation for proposal; difficult to run full-time for office, punches it home when you get GPCA endorsement, getting blessing of state body eliminates the question locally of why not


MO, SDC:  affirmation is need for endorsement process that involves all counties, regional endorsement from region, CCWG's role is not to make an endorsement it's to collect info locals have and cands have and verify it, then send it on, GA makes approval not CCWG; share SDC concerns


Mitch Smith San Mat:  3-1, 3-2 could add lang. [couldn't make out]; if it's not intent to make endorsements to make (c)  GPC will not make endorsements in pre-primary races.


Sabrina Aller, OC:  A cand will go 2-3 mos will go without endorsement due to plenary scheduling


Victor Antonios, OC:  we drafted endorsement process here; best filter is local, would like wording to fall back to locals, that's the protection, supports what KMK, LA said letting locals decide


JE, FC:  2-1  concern getting saying county or locals, which one; what is balance cand have to achieve if not unanimity; CC shouldn't be involved in process, go to GA.


JC, FC:  inequity of timing in endorsement of cands not apparent now, but will for increasing contested races, equity of endorsements needed; suggest that everyone wait until after primaries before a state endorsement


GA, Rvrsd:  endorsement support for locals, can we assume endorsements only granted if majority of local support by area; GA should make endorsement not CCWG; counties affected should make endorsement; what is purpose of pre-primary endorsements?


MB:  can we buy 15 mins from SC/WG Session#1


MW/FH:  addressing concerns: 

most concerns

re:  decentralization:  main thing to be concerned with re: polling counties, do they want to be polled on counties about cands outside the district?  Are they going to be burdened of this?  CCWG respects issues within the districts involved, so question is which body is best to administer this.  No easy resolution to this now; endorsements of CC be confirmed by GA, hope to address these concerns?  elections under 3-2 are not local elections; always involve partisan and 2-3 counties, 3-1 are all GA decided and are all statewide elections that affect us all.  I like the idea of consent calendar before GA to help FA accepted.

By way of FA, GPCA will not endorse a contested primary

GA power vs. CC power URC's? 4


MW:  restated the proposal with 2-1 written confirmation form locals to CCWG

2-3 CCWG shall recommend campaign endorsements, upon recom, the GA

4/5th to 80%

4-3 endorsements of CC will go to GA for confirmation

GPCA will not endorse in contested primaries.



GC, LA:  no SA; CC should not be making endorsements all to GA

LG, SB:  lang, added re: contested primaries dangerous precedent

SHane, LA:  does the proposal say clearly enough re: county councils

MB:  there are URC's re: FA potentials

CS, LA:  urge presenters reconsider, polling only issue left is whether CC endorses or not, better planning for GA's a month after close of filing deadlines,

MW:  addition to

CS:  CC should make recommendation not an endorsement; the diff isn't worth CC making the decision.

JE, FC:  concern about para 2-1 re: multiple counties in campaign district, are they required to get unanimous support, what's the threshold?  MW:  left vague because overlapping districts and wanted to leave it to the discretion of the endorsing body.  more discussion I couldn't catch.

POP:  MB: 

Riverside:  wont SA if CC makes endorsements

MO, SD:  ratification at plenary, would it be endorsement be good when CC recommends or when GA confirms, felt if ..... should still get endorsement.


MB:  presenters will now have options




Endorsement by CC would be acted on at that point, if ratification by GA, then CC isn't endorsing.


MW:  question for no-SA's, would people be willing to SA if we put a sunset clause into the proposal Dec 31, 2004, guarantee we will come back with a better procedure but in 2004 we have something in place.  It can be a pilot to be changed with experience knowledge in January 2005. 

2 no SA's remain.

Go for a vote: 

POP:  sunset clause added or not?

MW:  will be put into the proposal   [battery running low--Barrington will pick up]

Roll call vote [see the roll call vote sheet facilitators filled out]

76.92%   40 Y 12 N  9 Abs.

Not Passed


Continued notetaking by Daltrey (from here to end)

(Vote on Candidate Endorsement process as amended.  (I was distracted at the beginning of the vote.  The votes recorded below are correct, but incomplete.  I did not catch the votes by the missing delegate nos.)

y=yes / n=no / a=abstain  numbers represent assigned delegate numbers




77% -- Process fails.

Wyman:  We will bring as many candidates before the next GA as possible to seek endorsements for them.


Robyn Oetinger -- GROW working group, making some announcements.  Stand up and be counted voter registration drive.  Results of the competition.

County which increased by highest percentage was Shasta County.  Peggy Lewis accepts the award on their behalf since they couldn't be here.

Dee Brady -- some analysis -- increased by 400% or so.  Los Angeles -- most total number of additional Greens.

Tim Smith of Sonoma County registered the highest number of Greens, 209 Greens.  Total.  Accepted by ___________________.  Tim asked that his statement be read.  Thanks to Dee Brady and the campaign for recognizing the registration efforts. (Couldn't type it all .. perhaps a copy can be provided.)  We must do the tedious "nuts and bolts" and engage people face to face.  Has registered 2500 people, 60%+ Green, in front of Ralphs, Raleys and other middle American stores and places. 

Please support a statewide initiative to raise the minimum wage.  It's an issue that has worked for Matt Gonzalez' campaign.

Robyn lists some other people who worked hard on the voter registration, but who couldn't be here.

Michael Borenstein -- out of time, can we move the GPUS Delegation rules to an open time tomorrow vacated by the ad hoc committee report.

Adjourn to working groups and standing committees now.  Will have to be only one hour long.  Regional caucuses will have 1/2 hour from 6:00 to 6:30p.m.

Sharon Peterson -- announcement -- doesn't have the numbers, Chuck Reutter wins at large.

Thanks to Tim Fitzgerald for running, it took two rounds and it is a close election. 

The GPUS delegation is meeting from 6:30 -8:00 and anyone can attend.

Michael Borenstein calls the candidates forward.  Andrean Prinz running in the ___ district for state assembly.  John Crawford, running for 29th Assembly, Fresno and Central Valley.  Tom Lash, Huntington Beach, 46th Congressional District, Larry Mellon from Fresno, 19th Congressional District, it's a Republican against a Green.  Pat Driscoll, Sacramento, 5th Congressional District, Gary Wertz from San Diego County, ___ Congressional District, Pat Gray from San Mateo, contested primary against another Green and then against Tom Lantos.  Warner Bloomberg for Assembly District 23.  Laurence Brockwood, 53rd in San Diego.

Magali -- write down some questions for the candidates for tomorrow's candidates forum and turn the questions into Magali or she will put a box on the table somewhere.

Robyn Oetinger -- Newcomers Workshop, will be Gabriellino room as soon as they other standing committee/working session ends, same time as regional caucuses.

Recessed for WG/SC meetings, regional caucuses, Newcomers Workshop, Dinner and Camejo speech (including attendance by a number of Cal State Fullerton students).

December 7 9:05 a.m.

Jo Chamberlain
Matt Leslie facilitators
Daltrey - Notetaker
Ginny Case, Timekeeper
Pat Gray vibes and _________

Announcements -- Peggy is looking for people willing to be facilitators at the next plenary.

Decision platform plank -- Sexual Orientation -- this will be a discussion item only.
Candidate Forum -- 9:45 - 10:45, must be on time.
Standing Committee/WG -- at 10:45

Joe Compton, Los Angeles -- presenter is not present -- Sexual Orientation

David Schiedelower, co-chair of the platform committee.  When we work on a plank for a platform, sometimes we are very uncomfortable with the amount of input we are getting, so we are not comfortable with bringing it to the plenary for a decision.  So the only way to build consensus is to circulate to the counties and to bring it up for discussion in the plenaries if there are a lot of contentious issues.  Sometimes, we try a vote multiple times.  That is inefficient.  What we are saying this time is that we are not ready to bring it up for a vote.  Joe is going to present information and then we will have something that has gone through a process for getting a lot of input from a lot of people. 

Joe Compton, from LGBT caucus from LA,  LGBTIQ is a work in progress for about two years.  Has been brought in one form before the plenary? 

Peggy -- no, some people thought it came up in Sacramento.  But that was the AIDS/HIV plank.  This is the first time this plank has been exposed.

Joe:  Lavender Greens provide a statement in support.  [Notetaker cannot type fast enough to include it.  Please provide a copy of the written statement for the minutes.]  Essentially, we need the Green Party to back up its statement that is the party supporting LGBT persons.

Open for Questions

Matt (moderating): 

Jeff Eisinger from Fresno County, I'm from a farm community and perhaps we are not sophisticated as the rest of you, but we need some definitions of some of the terms.  Lowering age of consent, what is the justification or whether it is a good idea?  Does it apply to this subject matter?  Is it perhaps more an issue of personal responsibility?  But I'm unclear how this relates to this plank.

??? San Deigo County.  Item #5, we need to make clear that the prohibition on marriage is against same sex marriage.  Youth issues, etc. #6, there is an ongoing problem of non-conforming young people being incarcerated in mental hospitals.  One way of combating this would be to remove from the psychiatric handbook the diagnosis of "gender identity disorder."  Number 13 -- has our party take a stand advocating surgery and hormones to resolve gender non-conformity, this reinforces stereotypes.  Similar in thinking to people like Jenkins in the race thinking.  Think it is important that we not take that position.  Problem with supporting the right to define their gender unless that is qualified.  Some people have insisted on the right to go into the few spaces that are limited to women.  Women are entitled to have women only space and free from male interference.

Larry Mullen, Fresno County, sent an e-mail concerning the language and received no reply.  Number 11 -- question about the terminolgy.  Question #10 has been addressed.  Question Number 11, particularly the language of persons of comparable age.

Gloria Purcell, El Dorado County, comment on the structure.  We used to have planks like this, our whole platform consisted of pages like this, a laundry list.  One of the results is the platform summary booklet we have put out.  We should have the opening statement that is more general but puts our position forward, but curtail or eliminate the laundry list.  I don't think we should put this out in the face of the general public.  For instance, this will offend people in the Christian Right.  My cautious position is not because I disagree with this, but it is tactical.  Similarly, we debated and did not include a marijuana plank early on, because we did not want to come out of the gate as the "hemp party."  There is no point in leaping out and biting the Christian Right's nose.

Kevin -- we are supporting this plank and not concerned about the Christian Right.  We have issues as to lines 29 page 14, unisex bathrooms -- we would suggest "single occupancy unisex bathrooms."  "At least annual screening."  "All government jobs" rather than military.  Line 43, we have a serious concern about the lower of consent, we understand the law is applied unequally but don't feel this is the way to fix it.

??? from Orange, I support the lower of age of consent because I am 16, but I would like to see it in a different plank.

??? - Santa Clara County.  We share the concern about the lower of the consent issue, we share the tactical concerns, we agree with Kevin re unisex bathrooms. 

Leann Jordon Sacramento -- Please consider the economic problems poor children would have if the age were lowered, they would not be able to get funding for lawyers if they should be molested.

Dick Morris, Riverside,  multi-partner marriages, we want clarification, establishing registry for

Adiran Prinz, I'm glad for the laundry list, it needs to be out on the table.

Lerner Goudy, San Bernardino -- we need to make sure people get the services they need at any age.

Joe Compton -- has taken notes back Shane Cuehee and the platform committee and the responses will be sent back to the Counties.


Jo Chamberlain -- announces room assignments for the working groups, etc.  Then a break to rearrange the room for the Presidential Candidate Forum.

Candidate Forum -- Lorna Salzman, Kent Messplay, Peter Camejo David Cobb.

Jo Chamberlain -- It is an honor to have these four people here today to speak to us and to help guide us in our green way.  I'm not goign to spend time on introductions, I'm going to describe the process and then turn it over to the candidates.  5 minutes for each candidate to introduce themselves, 30 minutes for question and answers 2 minutes to close.

David Cobb.  Five minutes is a long time to lay out why I want to earn the right to run.  I am the lawyer for the national party.  I ran for attorney general in Texas in 1998, there were 26 people running for Green Party by the end of the campaign.  I know how to run a successful campaign.  In 2000 we had to collect 38,000 signatures just to get on the ballot.  In 75 days we collect 76,100 in the most impressive ballot access drive second only to California.  All volunteer effort, just like you did.  We can overcome every hurdle that is put before us as Greens.  I am committed to growing the Green Party.  The only reason to run for President is to increase Green Party membership, advance our message, reach out to those progressive Democrats who are still in the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party is where progressive politics goes to die.  I worked on Jesse Jackson's campaign, Jerry Brown, etc.  I have goals and strategies.  I come from and of the Green Party.  I was at the founding convention in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma.  George Bush is a big problem.  The problem is the corporate capitalist state that is creating an unjust world.  We have to be able to navigate 2004 in such a way that we grow the party.  And that we understand that there is a huge "anybody but Bush" segment out there.  I am articulating what I believe to be the best strategy to grow our infrastructure and our membership and prepare to grow in 2005, 2006, 2007.  We cannot take the White House in 2004, but we can do it in 2012.  But let's be smart.

Kent Messplay.  We have several well qualified candidates up here.  It's my plan to be the candidate for the Green Party nationwide.  I appreciate you taking the time to hear me out.  I believe it is the wrong approach to just grow the Green Party.  I think we need the zeal to believe we can run and win before 2012.  I don't want to wait.  Our planet can't wait.  We have to be active, we have to be bold.  What I intend to do also is to help grow the Green Party.  I intend to bring to the forefront issues we haven't addressed very much.  Reach out more to native America.  We have a long standing problem with relationships, not separation of Church and State but a problem of culture.  Native Americans have traditionally respected different types of relationships.  I have a mixed background.  I believe the main problem that we have is that we have inadequate separation of powers at various level of government.  There's no separation of business and politics.  Our elected officials are not elected to solve our problems, but to help their buddies, and that's the problem.

I appreciate David talking about the labor movement.  I'm a member of SEIU.  I work as an air quality inspector for the San Diego Air Quality District.  There is a lot more we can do within the free enterprise system.  I want to talk about true cost pricing, looking at renewable energy.  I want the energy bill to die in January.  "" or

Lorna Salzman:  Thank you for letting me be here.  Thank you to Chuck, Barrington and Sola for helping me be here.  I helped found the New York Green Party and active with that movement.  Ran for Congress last fall for the Green Party in Long Island.  The person who made it possible for me to become an active was David Brower, an inspiration to 10s of thousands of people, he put his confidence in me in 1975 by hiring me to work with Friends of the Earth.  He called me the "Bella Abzug of the environmental movment."  The forces we are trying to oust in this political system are waging a war on the earth.  There is an intersection of ecology and social justice.  Ecology is the most important social movement of our time.  Often there are discussion in the movement whether we should be more or less environmental. Global warming -- if we don't check and reverse it, the results will undermine everything we are attempting in the areas of social justice.  If we don't move to renewable energy we will see infectious disease, displacement of people, desertification, social chaos.  The corporate sectors will respond with authoritarian and totalitarian measures.  There will be severe social repression. 

This is the connection to social justice.  Our efforts here are short term, but we have to look at the global context.  The Green Party has not yet articulated our position in this.  We should see the leaders, warriors for saving the planet.  We need more than the 10 key values.  We need to articulate a central mission and understand that efforts to save the planet will bring the social change we need in all aspects of life.  We are not just ideologs, but acting with a specific purpose of saving the earth.

We should not be intimidated.  Environmentalists are feared by corporatists because we are the biggest threat to globalism that exists.

We should recognize that environmentalism is the basis for developing a new model.

Peter Camejo:   The choice before us is going to be controversial in the green party and it will be normal and healthy.  There are several alternatives.  My opinion is that "any but Bush" helps George Bush.  Everyone is going to end up supporting people who agree with "what they are doing," but want to do it differently.  The voice has to be out there arguing against this.  We can't be afraid of declining because we are telling the truth.  We must be fearless against these forces.  The same political force is trying to silence us that is promoting the Patriot Act and everything we are fighting against.

Nader had a great power and sacrificed that for this party and ran against the Democratic Party.  The greatest contribution of his life, they attack him for.  He urged people to vote for the Green Party.  He is under vicious attack.  We have to stand behind him, we must not turn our back on him, that is a capitulation to the attack.  Huffington used the term "you don't want to be the Nader" in speaking to Bustamante in the debates.

We need to run women.  Both for President and for Governor.  If Nader doesn't run we have three excellent candidates here.  Anyone who agrees with the 10 keys is welcome to run.  We will build a party with a culture of respect for people who differ.

Jo -- Questioning portion of the forum:

60 seconds to respond to each question.  We have about 30 minutes. 

What is your view how the Green Party should run a presidental campaign.  Sabrina Allert's question. 

Kent:  I appreciate Dave Cobb's position on this.  I am of the opinion that we need an all out run.  I am of the belief that really we can.  Especially before the primaries we don't need to plan so far ahead.  I am going to Rhode Island next week, they are collecting signatures to put us on the ballot.  I am going to run as hard as I can in as many states as I can. 

Lorna: If I had the money and committee I would run as hard as I can.  Perhaps this will happen.  But generally I believe in agressive candidacy in all the states.

Peter:  It is insulting to the voters to tell them that a voice should be silenced.  The voters can make the decision who to vote for.  Why should we deny voters their right to vote for someone they want to .  That is what the request not to run in certain states is.  We fearlessly go out and present our platform. 

David:  Strategy is first and foremost is to talk Peter Camejo into actually running for president of the US so I can support him.  That's how sincere I am.  I've said it privately and publicly.  My strategy is not that I am capitulating.  I am articulating the strategy that I personally believe will best build the party.

What is your plan for making sure that George Bush is not re-elected?

Lorna:  That's not my major plan.  My plan is to stop Bushism in all its guises.  I consider 2004 to be merely a step in a different direction.  Our strategies must look well beyond 2004.  I want to see us running for Congress.  I think we should focus on three or for Congressional races.

Camejo:  The way to weaken George Bush -- he's just a symbol.  Electing somebody else might actually be worse for us than re-electing Bush.

David -- we are not "the movement," the Green Party is the electoral arm of the movement.  We have to focus our resources on building the party.

Kent -- I agree that we need to run in congressional races and build from the bottom up.  I would like to stop Bush but he is only a symptom of the problem.  One of the best ways is to run and run hard.  When Greens run it may actually in an argumentative sort of way help the Democratic party.  How horrible it would be if Greens don't show up to vote. 

Matt -- What is your position on the "safe state's strategy."

Peter -- Candidates think we have covered this question and should take another one.

Matt -- How are you going to address problems, issues and concerns of people of color in your campaign. 

Peter -- we have never run a European American.  We have run an Arab American.  As I tour the state I discover people all over the state are registered Green.  In tv studios I would discover by accident -- African Americans and Latinos would tell me they are now registered Green.  The key is our platform.  Our stance is so clear that it is against racism.

David -- I grew up working class and in poverty, without a flush toilet in my house.  I understand oppression.  Classism is real, corporate capitalism sucks and it exploits and oppresses people.  I know that oppression of minorities is real, systemic and oppressive.  We do it through our platform and I am extraordinarily proud of our party.  In Texas, I was the only white male on our ticket and I'm proud that I recruited that ticket.

Kent -- the problem isn't -- it shouldn't matter with Matt Gonzalez, whether he is white, male, etc.  Our platform is for diversity.  My campaign manager thought it would be great for the party to run a diverse primary.

Lorna -- I'm dedicated to political decentralization of government institutions and returning power to communities is the ultimate key to empowering everyone to become full-fledged participants, in addition to focusing on the their special community needs. 

Matt -- How would you get the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and address the issue of re-dressing the damage we have caused.

David -- the Green Party is the only party that admits that the US foreign policy is about empire building.  We need reparations and an apology from the president of the United States for brutalizing the rest of the world.  Phased out withdrawal of troops.

Kent -- Several reasons why we're in Iraq in the first place.  It's marginally about democracy, about oil, oil, oil -- why aren't we hearing it more? Because the media doesn't want us to hear this.  Our problems are tied together.  I would support our troops by bringing them home as quickly as possible and transfer the government to the Iraqi people but not worry too much about the fine details.

Lorna -- What is happening in Iraq is happening with the support of our allies.  We need to bring pressure on the foreign countries and work with the green parties in the EU and try to develop a unanimous front and have them put pressure on their governments to stop being the client states to the US.

Camejo -- The difficulty is explaining why we differ with the policy.  Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we oppose Saddam Hussein.  We want to bring the troops home.  We have to be clear and unambiguous that we support the soverign rights of other nations and respect for the rule of law is the only way we can achieve peace in the world.

Matt -- How can we address global warming.

Kent -- Global warming is real and we need to talk about it, but not to the extent we shock people.  I am interest in the game of "survival."   Across the spectrum except with the powers that be, we know that worldwide we have to worry about global climate change and global warming.

Lorna -- Imposing carbon taxes on fossil fuels.  I believe in shock treatment.  This would instantaneously bring our gasoline prices to those of Europe and would reduce consumption and importation.  We need to remove the subsidies and go to full cost pricing of all goods.  That is the most vital first step we can take.  If we don't do that we have dismal future.  See for my fact sheet.

Peter -- We have put a focus that we were not a single issue party.  We have to focus now harder on the issues of the environment.  We need to make clear to everyone that this is the central issue of our species and that is to end killing our planet.  We need to act on a crisis basis, such as if we were about to be hit by a meteor.  The greatest issue that faces us is global warming and not terrorism.

David -- real practical solutions exist for global warming and every problem facing us right now.  If we the people controlled the government, we could implement the solutions.  So, we need to grow the party and maintain our knowledge of solutions.  We will need to demonstrate we can govern practically with real solutions. 

Jo -- Thank you for your responses to questions.  We will now go to two minute concluding remarks.

Kent -- I know that I have a difference of opinion with some in terms of strategy, we should not act as though we can't win.  Our main constituency is those who are would be "non-voters."  We need to treat this as more or less a revolution.

Lorna -- We have obstacles, a press that is hostile or ignores us.  We have an educational system that doesn't educate our students on ecology or the state of the world.  We have to overcome our image and mission as a party.  Voters are out there waiting for us to articulate that mission.  There are people who will vote by the environment.  Those people are not yet in the Green Party.  If we find the courage to put ecology as a social justice movement in to the platform, we will recruit a massive constituency to the party and diversify the party itself.  There are more natural allies out there and we need to articulate the vision.

Peter -- I am going to speak out in the media on a whole series of issues between now and March 2.  Part of the loyalty to the Green Party is we should be careful about our terminolgy and how we speak.  We must respect the unifying vision.  We have responsibility on tv, etc. to talk in a language they can understand.  The media is always trying to find something to alienate the masses of people.  We must use words that are understandable to other people.  It is an art to communicate with them.

I will work at the convention to get the party to run actively in every state.  We want people to feel welcome, that they can be part of the party, that there is not hidden agenda and that we are democratic internally.  It is important to use favorite person campaigns to get many, many people running to show the diversity and strength of the Green Party.  We should do that with our slate of candidates.  My purpose will not be to force what the party wants to do, I will respect the party.

David -- my grandfather is baptist preacher, I like to stand in front of the pulpit.  I am the only one who has said I am going to run whether run whether Ralph Nader chooses to run or not.  My heroes are Atticus Finch and Ralph Nader.  But we need to run someone who is not Nader.  The entire fabric of what we consider a just party was created by third parties.  We have to confront Bushism itself.  We are getting better, stronger with every election process. 

Jo -- Thank you on behalf of the Green Party of California.  We are extremely proud of you.  Thank you for dedicating your time for the next few months to the Green Party. 

Standing ovation for candidates.

Jo -- we have additional questions for the candidates and we will forward them to CCWG.

[For tape --]

Recess for SC/WG meetings

Break for Lunch

Resume 1:40 p.m.

Sharon Peterson, Magali co facilitators

Barrington note taker

Timekeepers _____

vibes --- Kristen,  & ?

Michael Wyman presents an amended endorsement procedure proposal.  Wyman:  The motivation was the deep concern that we have many many candidates who are leaving this convention with no endorsement.  We wanted an endorsement process before the next state plenary.  They have come up with a proposal and that is what we are presenting.

The basic points we are presenting -- uncontested races only, in Green Party partisan, House of Representatives, State Senate and State Assembly.  Procedure -- 1. local support from Green Party organizations.  2. The follow up endorsement by the state organizations by polling, this will determine the endorsement.  The proposal will sunset March 1, which is the day before the March plenary and brought back for futher consideration.  "Consensus polling."  Candidates with local endorsements will be presented to all of the organizations in the state, see if there are any concerns.  If there are, CCWG can try to address the concerns.  If concerns remain, the proposal will be bumped over to the next plenary.

1-3 is the first change.  Instead of ratified by GPCA, ratified by consensus polling.

1-4  If counties for any reason do not endorse a candidate, the CC and CCWG will make good faith efforts to continue the endorsement process without ....

CCWG shall recommend campaign endorsements and submit them to the GP General Assembly.

3-2  The CC will conduct polling, the proposal will be that the person be endorsed and whether there are any concerns.

3-5 - Sunset March 1 and bring back in March plenary.

Clarifying question -- what is a "local endorsement." 

Wyman -- we did not go into specific variations of the endorsement process, we would defer to the county as to whichever way the process was doing. 

Dick Morris, Riverside -- changes should be incorporated and brought back at a future plenary.  We could endorse these candidates and bring it back later. 

Supposedly you are here to represent your locals, so to comeback with endorsements your people have never heard of would violate the bylaws.


Ginny Case -- voting for the proposal and hopes that you really support this. 

Rick Lockfort, Santa Cruz, concern and affirmation.  Congressional candidate, so it affects him.  Question of local control should be addressed now.  Local endorsement should mean both the general assembly and the county council, and that if there is some inability to obtain that, then proceed with an explanation of the reason their endorsement could not be obtain.  Affirms that the procedure to obtain first endorsement of local and then get state endorsement.

David Scheidelower, affirmation, I hope that our endorsement means as much as we are making of it.  Friendly amendment of 3.2 was as to consensus polling.  CC & CCWG will conduct a consensus polling in a fair and impartial way. 

Coby Skye -- in favor of an endorsement process.  Thinks people who want the endorsement should come to the General Assembly to get the endorsement.

Peggy asks whether there are any unresolved concerns.  Sees none.

We've got consensus.

GPUS Delegation

Ginny Case, asks people to stand up who are involved in any way in the national committees.  It includes almost everyone in one way or another at the national level. 

Nominating convention - June 24 to June 27.  Will need 127 people at Milwaukee, WI.  This a need for people to participate at the national level, on a committee on a caucus, as a delegate, as an alternate.  Recruiting candidates for the national convention.  First will be approving the platform and we all have a vested interested in passing it.  The second reason is to select our Presidential Candidate.

Kevin McKeown -- Looking forward to going to Milwaukee.  Pages 21 and 22 of the logistics package.  Proposed bylaws by which the GPUS delegation will operate.  Vertical connection is good throughout the party.  We are the only party that really exists globally. 
We began with the Association of State Green Parties.  In 2000 we were not yet a national party.  It was not until a meeting in Santa Barbara in 2001 that we became recognized as a full political party.  The bylaws have been worked on for years, we have been operating under provisional bylaws.  We are asking that you allow us to represent you against these bylaws.  We are not yielding any authority to the state party by participating in the Green Party in the United States.  We need to show what leadership will come in the national Green Party. 

Nanette -- I'm one of the co-chairs of the national delegation.  We are divided in terms of gender and ethnicity.  We operate without distinction between the delegates and alternates.  They have an internal voting page, to do a mock vote and try to reach consensus and then vote the way that will best represent our opinions. 

Sharon -- clarifying questions?

Robyn Oetinger -- what is the weekly time commitment as delegates or alternates. 

Kevin - current issue is just the bylaws.

Paul Ensminger, Mendocino County, -- GPCA delegates are appointed by the delegations, what is the difference between subject to confirmation and confirmation by the general assembly.  Why 3 terms for term limits.

Kevin - term limits are not something the Green Party has delved into before.  However, there is nothing typical about term limits.  I don't support term limits necessarily.

Jo Chamberlain -- reason for two year terms and three terms.  The reason is that a person could not be on the steering committee, because there is a time for GPUS to get to know you, and then there are two year terms.  So, delegates would have to serve for six yeras or would never be able to get into the senior positions at the national level.  I don't personally support term limits.

Jeff Eisinger -- 11-1.3a, They are expected to attended GPUS coordinating council physical meetings.  Why no requirement to attend phone meetings, if they exist.

Nanette -- they are expected to attend both.  It's not an absolute requirement, but it is expected to attend.

Kevin -- it's an important requirement that the individuals be willing and available to travel and attend the physical meetings.

Alex Brideaux -- Is it "Coordinating Council or Coordinating Committee."

Linda- Santa Cruz -- what happens if the delegate is not available?

Nanette -- there is a pool of delegates, so someone else steps up and attends.

Sharon -- close stack.

Louis, Santa Cruz County -- "Serving the GPA General Assembly"  That is a heading.

Mike, Contra Costa County -- why is there a three term limit. 

Kevin -- there is no national term limit.

Magali Offerman, why delegates are recommending the committees and not an election.

Kevin -- the work at the national level is extraordinarily difficult. So, it takes a while to learn how to bring the California consensus seeking process into that system.  We need to bring people who have been active at the state level to move into the state delegation.

Mike Wyman -- the delegates are most familiar with how the national party works and are in a much better position to say who would or would not work well on a committee.

Sharon -- affirmations and concerns

Ray, Santa Clara, now that you have made it clear that the alternates are in a pool, then it's unclear as to the order of replacement, which creates a free-for-all.

Nanette -- we try to re-create the existing balance of the delegation and use seniority.

Kevin -- it's important to us to be able to have an alternate who is ready to vote at any given time, as votes come up regularly.

Jeff Eisinger, Fresno, paragraph 11-2.1.  Delegates recommending to the GPCA who then new delegates are going to be.  I understand that you think you know who are capable of doing it.  But there is no check and balance to see whether people are being rejected for reasons that are inappropriate.  There is no procedure for the General Assembly to be informed of who is being rejected.

Kevin -- we are really very transparent about how delegates are chosen.  Are teleconferences have minutes and the minutes are posted.  So, there is full transparency.

Magali -- fine for the delegates to make the recommendation.  However, we feel there should be an election on the floor instead of the CC appointing and having those delegates become delegates right away.  It's fine that minutes are accessible.  However, it would be better to have an announcement at the plenary, so that we know who were candidates and why they were not recommended.

Kevin -- we do that.  At the end of this plenary we will be addressing the decision that have been made.  We do not want to put so much personal hurt on someone to announce from the podium why they were not selected for the delegate position.  We would invite you to come up with a friendly amendment and might consider that.

???? ____ "good standing" is not defined.  "Shown a commitment" what does that mean.  "Delegates should serve the GPCA general assembly" not defined.

Nanette -- the intent of should serve means that who we are beholden to and who we are representing.  "Shown commitment," I don't know how we would define that more or if we should.  "Good standing," is probably somewhere else in the GPCA bylaws.

Point of process -- there is an invitation of more discussion on the point of how we could further define "shown commitment."

Kevin -- I think most of us know what it means to show commitment. Those who do the work and those who don't. 

Gabrielle Weeks, LA County, would like to remind this group of delegates that you need to be open to new people.  It's easy to give authority to our friends.  But you need to open it up to some new people who can help do the work.

Coby Skye - LA County, recommendations should be able to come from any Green.  Thinks the GA should be the ones to choose the delegates and not the coordinating committee.  I'm hearing that it should be the "people who know better" -- that is elitism.  We should be training people and showing them how to do things.  That is the only thing that will grow this party.  We can't have the same small group of people making all the decisions.

Nanette -- the decision to bring these bylaws forward was not unanimous and we are willing to re-write this section.

Kevin -- we did not say those words from up here.  The delegate is not working as "you're our buddy, come on in," we are needing more people.

Paul Ensminger -- we should nominate the delegates at large and have recommendations and the GA would have the appointment power and it would be absolute.

Mike Ritter Contra Costa County, concerned about term limits, doesn't think GP has generally backed term limits and don't think people should be punished for having done a good job. We should have mechanisms for bringing in new people all the time.  Offer as friendly amendment that the three term limit wording be removed.

David Schiedelower, Alameda County, Oakland, I acknowledge what Kevin said, I've never seen anyone breaking down the door to get put on this thing.  But I am concerned that "we don't have to tell people why we say no because we don't want to hurt their feelings."  If we create a situation where you can say no to someone and don't have to tell anyone, that is not transparent.

Kevin -- I didn't say the reasons were not transparent, they are available in the minutes.  I was just hesitant to put this before the GA.

David -- so the information is in the minutes and is public?

Kevin -- yes.

Magali -- Wants to do a friendly amendment.

Kevin -- we want to take a test.

Don Eichelberger, San Francisco, concerned that meetings are in person and that a lot of people can't afford to do that.

Nanette -- yes, we have to meet annually and we have in our budget travel stipends.  However, we do most of the work on line and telephonically.

Kevin -- we want a straw poll to see whether we have identified the concerns. 

Sharon -- show of hands?

Kevin -- two sections deal with the selection method of delegates and term limits.

Sharon -- that looks really nice.  (referring to all the hands in the air).  Calls for no's , there are only a few.

Kevin -- our sense is that we have been focused in appropriately.

Kevin -- we would like to test for consensus on the rest of the proposal.

Magali -- San Diego wants an election at the general assembly.  To reach consensus -- delegate does not become a full delegate until the general assembly affirms.  If there was an option to wait until the General Assembly affirms, then that person becomes an alternate.

Kevin -- appreciate the attention that has been given to this.  We would like to bring sections 11-2.1 and 11-2.3 back at the next plenary and test for consensus on the remainder of the bylaws.

Sharon -- are there unresolved concerns.

Magali -- friendly amendment -- what are you going to do between now and then.  Otherwise, how are you supposed to get delegates?  Approve the whole thing now and bring back in March.

??? -- concern is that if we adopt these now, then becomes the status quo.  Friendly amendment to that friendly amendment as to what is adopted now that for those two items only, they have to go to a vote for review and adopted by a straight majority.

Kevin -- doesn't want a 51% decision.

Point of Process -- David Schiedelower -- how can the presenters carve out part of the proposal?

Michael Wyman -- the presenters have the choice to modify or withdraw the proposal along with other responses.

Coby Skye -- why can't we bring this back in March?

Kevin -- to best represent this general assembly we would like to get as much consensus on as much of the bylaws as we can. 

Coby Skye -- concerns are the friendly amendments he has offered before.

Paul Ensminger -- Magali made a friendly amendment after my friendly amendment.  Are we going to carry this over to the next time.  However, if we are going to gerrymander these things in.

Sharon -- test for consensus.  Are there any unresolved concerns to the proposal as written.

One unresolved concern, willing to stand aside.

So consensus as proposed with the withdrawal of the two provisions.

Room assignments for the working groups.

Recess for working groups.  Due back at 4:20
Revised to 4:00, 4:00 -4:20 "end of business"
4:20-4:30 closing ceremony
4:30-5:00 CoCos meet


Finance Committee -- Craig Peterson, co-co, discussed some upcoming events, budget committee fully formed, still open to receiving budget requests, have approved some bylaw amendments.  Gabrielle Weeks is a new member of the budget committee.  Treasurer's office -- your treasurer's packet has a pink sheet with a questionnaire, please complete it before you leave or send it to us later.

Peggy Lewis -- platform co-co, met, formed some new teams, forestry practices, toxic waste, health care caucus.  Campaigns and Candidates, thank you for passing endorsements and letting us endorse candidates, don't remember what else we did.

Gerry Gras -- electoral reform.  Working more on the election code.  Working on IRV.  Working on Clean Money campaign, but it's a long story.  Jean Rosenmeir re-elected to be co-coordinator.

Robyn Oetinger -- discussed diversity outreach and think we will be able to move forward, talked about convergence of GROW and Green Issues and bringing issues to counties to Sabrina Allert of Orange County is going to be a co-co to step in and replace one of Stuart or Robyn and still need a male from Northern California.

Don Eichenberger, Green Issues, needs a co-co, we are looking for gender and geographic balance, contact me at  Forming two working groups, one for media for networking with exchanging media for use on shows, etc.  Working on universal health care, the Sheila Kuhn assembly bill.  We are also looking at working with GROW in issues campaigns, and setting up feasibility studies that will help us figure out what it would take bring an idea to fruition.  Looking for liaisons to other groups that are focused in a Green direction so we can work in coalitions and b;uild with that kind of outreach.

Jim Stauffer, IT Group, talked about county contact list for making official contacts, we're going to look into whether dealing directly with county councils might be a better plan than dealing with single county contacts.  Discussing using online discussion groups.  Kevin is going to try to set up something in LA and see if that can be used throughout the state.  Paid staff, we talked about perhaps hiring on a contract basis some high skilled IT folks to help out with some projects.  In IT packets, there is a list of some jobs with certain skills needed, you may wish to volunteer.

Paul Franklin, Santa Cruz.  Communications -- focused on Matt Gonzalez, we need to be prepared for the media contacting us and asking us how we feel about the election.  We're not going to be divisive.  Forthcoming announcement about Barbara Boxer supporting IRV, So you may want to review that.  We talked about restructuring the Communications group, which has been IT, media, clearinghouse.

Fred Hosea, Alameda, International Protocol group, Louie LaFortuna official liaison from CC.  Sara Amir and I will be cochairing that group.  We will be trying to use or some other site to reduce teleconferencing expense.  We are looking at revising the definition of the committee, so that we can advise GPUS delegation on recommendation for policy action at the international level.  We are thinking of translating the 10 key values to to 10 key languages. 

Looking at possible of hosting an event in LA for the woman in Iran that won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Green Passport proposal issued in conjunction with a world counsel of indigenous peoples.  Perhaps a Green Passport visa card that would bring some income to promote 10 key values around the world.

Alex Brideaux from Bylaws Standing Committee, methods for bringing back the Rules and Procedures proposal, touched upon methods to disseminate bylaws changes and discussed our listserve and use of the listserve.

Michael Wyman -- that is all of our working groups except for Campaigns & Candidates

Corrected -- Peggy gave one.  GPUS delegation had a wonderful meeting last night.

Ginny Case -- I am one of the delegates, but not one of the co-coordinators.  Mostly we formed a recruitment committee for recruiting for the national party and we worked on the bylaws presentation that was presented today before the plenary.

Michael Wyman -- any affirmations, new officers being appointed.

Ginny Case -- affirm Nanette Pratini as a full delegate and Ron ___ as an alternate delegate??? [I didn't get this right.]

Michael Wyman -- now we need more people from Southern California.

Sharon Peterson -- time for closing ceremony.

Stauffer -- point of process, what about the next plenary?

Don Eichelberger, I'm told the next plenary will be in San Francisco in March.

Peggy -- we can confirm that, even though the San Francisco people are not here.

Michael Wyman -- is there a closing ceremony?

Gordon Johnson -- we haven't thought of anything.

Michael Wyman -- we have just had the closing ceremony by mutual agreement.


Addendum #1
Notes relating to "Consensus Exercise"

Note:  These notes have been maintained only for "instructional purposes" so Greens may review the "Consensus Seeking Process".  The question asked was structured as a "mock exercise" and included "role playing."  There is no express or implied consensus and these notes are not to be construed as an expression of GPCA position or opinion concerning the upcoming 2004 Presidential Election/Race.

Presenters:  Jo Chamberlain, Alex Brideux.

Alex -- handout has an excerpt from the bylaws concerning the consensus seeking process.

Voting is less democratic, because minority concerns are not guaranteed to be heard. 

Jo Chamberlin -- the proposal is owned by the presenter.  This is "consensus seeking" and not "consensus" as done by Quakers and other consensus decision based organizations.

The fallback when we can't agree is the voting percentage.

The primary point is to trust the process but we really do find our way to the end and almost everyone is happy with the outcome.

We have a lot of new people and the purpose of this program is to bring everyone in the room together so we are all doing this the same way.  And, that you can take it back to your counties.  If you need assistance in your local groups, we can provide people to come to your meetings and assist in explaining and carrying out the consensus seeking process.

Alex & Jo -- walk through of the process handout -- see attachment. 

Offer to field questions.  Note that there is additional information on the website, see the links.

Don  ___ from Santa Barbara County.

Why do you determine the quorum after the presentation is made?  Isn't it important for people to hear the presentation?

Alex -- Purpose is to establish quorum close to the point in time where the decision is made, since some people may have left the room or whatever.

Jo -- We are given a form that gives the Quorum Count.  Eg., in this instance, 11 counties here, 8 necessary.  56 delegates, 45 necessary for quorum.

At any meeting you need to establish quorum before making any binding decisions for your group.

Alex -- We use the cards to determine whether the necessary number of people are in the room and we are presently using a quorum count method.

For instance -- new note right now indicating we have 57 delegates registered, 46 or less, no decision can be made.

Don -- a couple of points glossed over -- picking facilitators, notetaker, vibes, timekeeper.

Jo -- goes over these points.  Notetaker records the official decisions, make certain your name and county can be heard when you make a statement.  Timekeeper, we try to stay on a timely pace because you can't "make up time."  But sometimes when necessary, we "buy time" from another proposal/presentation.  Vibes, sometimes have two, for gender purposes.  Purpose is to point out when the discussion is getting pointed.  Anyone can call vibes, though, at any time.  Important not to abuse the power of calling "vibes," but nevertheless it is important for everyone in the entire group to make certain we remain respectful.

Ginny Case -- hypothetical.  If I come up and make a statement, then go back to my seat, then sit out when I have a concern, can I come back up when we get to "unresolved concerns" since I haven't given the original concern during the concern period?

Alex -- theoretically, you cannot do so, but in practice it is often done, it would be in the discretion of the facilitation team.

Peggy -- I'm closing the stack.  [Kevin is standing.]  Okay, after Kevin, I'm closing the stack.

Kevin -- to be fair to the group as a whole.  Normally something that is not a bylaw or a policy can be passed with a 2/3rds vote.  However, if there is objection to the 2/3rds vote, but if anyone wants it to go to an 80% threshold. 

Is this something we should resolve in our bylaws?  Or should any person be able to throw it to 80% at their request.

Alex -- I think there is some discretion left up to the facilitators and to those who might be raising the issue.

Jim Stauffer, Santa Clara -- the original intent of the two thresholds and the intent of having someone be able to say we should have an 80% vote, is that the person claiming it is a policy decision should be able to defend the argument.  If someone wants to raise the concern it has to be defended, they can't just do it arbitrarily.

Peggy -- Now move into the presentation of the Presidential Polling part of the exercise.  Jo will be doing that presentation.

Jo -- I have put forward a proposal (being passed around now) and we will treat it as a presentation, and then we will split up and discuss it, then come back and try to reah consensus as a full group.

Demonstration:  Jo gives a "Mock Proposal" presentation, pursuant to a handout -- see Attachment ___

Nanette Pratini, Riverside, GPUS delegation leader -- raises some additional points concerning the "safe states" issues.

Peggy -- next part, we are going to separate in about five small groups.  Robyn Oetinger will divide you up into those groups and then Peggy will tell people where to go.

Sets up 5 groups.

Jo / Barrington
Michael Borenstein / Nanette

And I missed the rest.

Back to the full group.

Jim Stauffer, Nanette Pratini and Robyn Oetinger to facilitate the full group returning to the main room.

Mike Wyman,  ?

Coby Skye, reporting from Group 2 -- had a list of issues.  Didn't achieve consensus, two stand asides, one unresolved concern, more than 80% one unresolved concern.  Just a symbolic placeholder.

Jeff Eisinger, Fresno, unresolved concern was with regard to the threat to our country by four more years of the Bush Administration, importance of Country over Party.  Concern remains unresolved. 

Group 3 ??? (running for state assembly).  Important to know which candidate it is.  On the other hand, we need someone representing the Green point of view.  Perhaps the question was too narrow and perhaps we could have had more modifying terms.  Went to a vote.  Had a 75% approval.  (Issue - stand asides don't count.).

Group 4 -- ?? running for Congress, similar concerns, and also a concern that _______.  We did reach consensus.  Concern -- need to here the benefits to the nation that outweighed the negatives of running a candidates.

Group 5 -- Consensus not called for and not voted on.  Presenters decided to take it back for reconsideration and re-writing. (Didn't give name.

Gabrielle Weeks, LA County -- didn't reach consensus on the question, couldn't even agree on the question to ask and modified.  Some thought it was too narrow or shallow because it didn't address strategy, but had one person who felt we shouldn't get into strategy.

Outstanding concerns -- beating the Bush Administration should be the party priority, we may not survive another four years.  (2) Modifying the question would -- we would run a presidential candidate, fully supported in a race to win and tactical considerations in states that needed to gain ballot status and push IRV. 

Changed question to do we want a "real race to win" and push IRV.  Discussed tactical states that are not ballot qualified.  Possibly not being a spoiler in states that already have it.  The vote was five for the actual question, 10 in favor of modified question, one none of the above and one abstension.

Point of process.  Jim Huasman , unresolved concern but stepped aside, should have been stated.  His concern is that putting energy into a Presidential Candidate that we will certainly lose takes away from local races we might win takes away energy and harms the party.

?  San Diego, Modified proposal was that the Green Party run and fully support to win a Presidential Candidate and push IRV.  No tactical considerations stated.

Five minutes until lunch.

Nanette -- let's address the unresolved concerns.

Vanje -- the caterer is late, so we have some additional time before lunch.

Nanette calls for people to speak to unresolved concerns.

John Corn(?), Santa Barbara County -- concerns is that a serious party has to have a serious analysis of the country and the world and find a way to defeat George Bush.

? San Diego County -- We need to run a serious candidate to build the party and should not run a strategic campaign.

Stauffer -- please don't raise the same concerns that are already raised.  Consider whether you need to raise a new concern.

Kevin McKeown -- wishes to respond to Hausman's concerns.  This doesn't drain energy from local offices.  A presidential race energizes the locals.  I'm the Mayor Pro-Tem of Santa Monica.

Dee Brady -- concern?

Jeff Eisinger -- Jo said that the GPUS has already decided that a candidate will be run, so why are we doing this exercise -- and can they explain why that decision was made and what feedback was solicited from the state in coming to that decision.  Feels that a majority of the groups did not reach consensus.

Serena - Orange County, doesn't think strategy should be an issue.

Matt Leslie, Orange County, offers friendly amendment that CCWG establish some sort of range to estimate what we will spend on a national campaign and stick to that, within the total campaign, so that we won't have resources "drained."

Gloria Purcell, El Dorado County, has run three times for various offices, in every case where there were more candidates other than herself really helped to organize the local campaigns, helped bring in more money for local campaigns, absolutely not the case that it drains local energy.

Shane Kuehe from Los Angeles, has to be an explicit strategy and an articulated response to the spoiler issues.  Wanted to know if in fact the Green Party has been working on it and will put out a response to it.

Coby Skye.  Vote your hopes not your fears.  If the majority once again elect a madman to their president, we have failed to educate them.  Right now we are only asking whether to run or not.  Perhaps we should take a straw poll to see how many think a safe states strategy should be done.

David Schiedelower, two concerns.  One that we present a binary choice, vote up or vote down.  Wants "to win" in the proposal.  In the proposal the background talks about tactics not strategy.  If people believe we should run to win, then we would only run tactically and that would not include California.

Chris Collins -- we have to deal with our electoral system as it exists today.  I think we should run a presidential candidate and simultaneously work to change the electoral system.

Point of process -- Anita Van Tompkins, Sonoma County.  Distress as a point of process.  Understood that this was an exercise to learn the process.  I now find that the reports are being written up and we are taking minutes on who the proposals were presented.

Nanette says this is still just an exercise.  Hopes that we did not give the wrong impression.

Presenter will now address some concerns, including the point of process. 

Jo -- I elicited "passion" and you all did perfectly.  All of you were passionate, most were willing to share your opinions with us, open to continue discussion.  Most of us were ready to move on to strategy. 

This is not a binding decision or process and we are still processing.

We are at stage two, I have listed your concerns and I am now ready to discuss and resolve all of your concerns.  Within my power.  Let's see how we can do.

Resounding and heartfelt shared concern that GWB is not a good president and that we have consensus that we do not like GWB as our president and we don't want him now or in the future.

In the future we will have the power to affect that.

Second concern, perhaps the question was too general.  It begs the question, it was a simple question. You want to say "under what terms and how" are we going to run.  This was done somewhat on purpose so that you would have something to take away and that you could really mull over.  One of the hardest things that we had to come up with was a question that we could work with.

In the interest of getting it passed, I will take a friendly amendment of "we will run contingent upon strategy and tactics."

Energy away from local races -- I used to feel that way, but I have now experienced that the more Greens running, the better the turnout the more the party grows.

Addressed in the primary race, already decided to run a candidate.  We have placed four names on the ballot in California.  If we didn't want to run a candidate, we shouldn't have placed people on the ballot.  By putting names on the ballot, we have said that we want Greens to vote on these candidates and send delegates to Milwaukee.  We could still put more candidates on the ballot until.

Kent Messplay is here, one of our candidates. Lorna Salzman.  David Cobb.  Peter Camejo is not here, but will be joining us and will be here by tonight's program.

The decision to run a candidate was a non-binding forum.  We will be sending 127 delegates to Milwaukee.  Last time we mandated how they were to vote.  We don't know what the vote will be coming out of the primary.  Some reason to believe that it will be proportional to the amount of the vote.  There will be a total of 600 delegates in Milwaukee.  We will have to train our delegates to negotiate with all the delegates to determine which candidate or "no candidate" to run next June. 

Timekeeper - five minutes over.

Nanette (checking with the lunch setup) we have 10 minutes left.

Jo - wrap up.  We're going to vote March 2 on a presidential candidate.  In mid-March we will commence discussion of how we should vote our delegates.  We will also talk about a platform for the national delegates.  The plenary floor is going to need to direct our delegates about how they are supposed to vote in Milwaukee.

We have an opportunity as the Green Party to make it clear to the people of the United States that we are here to stay.  After all, we picked the last president and if you're not careful we will pick the next president.  (humor).

Nanette - test for consensus.

No unresolved concerns, assuming we have quorum, (but we didn't check for consensus). 

Stauffer -- We weren't expecting consensus -

Jim Eisinger -- I was in a conversation and didn't hear the call for concerns.  And is this a mock process or a "real process?"

Stauffer -- this is a mock procedure.  We were going to go through the closing options.

???? Linda from Santa Cruz -- when you said that the Presidential Candidate would carry numbers of delegates, can you explain "carry?"

Jo -- as soon as the food is here we have five more minutes for announcements and the like.

As to carrying the delegates, because we are political party that supports proportional representation, then if we have 127 delegates and we take them to Milwaukee, we are discussing that each candidate would get the same percentage of the delegates as their percentage of the vote that was received.

In the first round in Milwaukee, one of the proposals is that all of the candidates running across the country (and there are more than are running here) -- our delegates would vote their candidate as their "first choice" on an IRV ballot.  The first round might be conclusive or not conclusive.  You could put "run no candidate" as your first choice, which would mean that no candidate would be run.

In the March and June plenaries we will have much clearer idea of where we are going.

David Shiedlower -- if this is a mock process are we going to not have it reflected in the minutes.  Because otherwise it would seem as though we really actually reached the decision.

Stauffer:  Point of process clarified -- this has only been an exercise and has not been a decision of the plenary in any respect.

Stauffer:  Describes the ambiguities of the primary / delegate system

Ginny Case, Los Angeles -- point of process asks that title of the exercise be reflected in the minutes and nothing else.

David Shiedlower -- if it doesn't count it shouldn't be in the minutes.

Stauffer -- if there is a concern to keep it out of the minutes because it might be misunderstood, we can keep it out.

Straw poll, large number of people want it out of the minutes, more want it in the minutes.

Stauffer -- if we have a clear statement that this was only an exercise, does that address your concerns.

??? -- you have violated our trust by treating this as an exercise and so it means nothing.

Robyn Oetinger -- It doesn't mean "nothing," the expression and opinions are valid and will enter into our thinking as more information becomes available and we work toward a real decision at future plenaries.

Gerry Gras -- Concerns about Tom Hutchins have been resolved, so at this time he is endorsed.

Tom Hutchinson -- This means a lot, the other parties don't endorse their candidates.

Peggy -- about the minutes -- this information is most useful for CCWG -- propose that we pull it from the minutes and save the concerns for the CCWG so that they can use the concerns, etc.

Point of process -- the group just indicated that they would prefer to keep it in the minutes. 

Peggy -- looked 60/40 not 80/20, so it seems we need to do something.

Kevin -- It seems to me that we were doing an exercise.  To take these minutes out of the minutes and give them to CCWG translates them into a statement, which it wasn't.  But it's important to leave it in the minutes so that Greens across the country can see how we struggle to reach consensus.

???? --- I don't want it in the minutes because I "roll played" and I don't want to see that in the minutes.  I also don't understand the point of process on the different issues. Don't understand what happened on the Hutchins endorsement, don't understand where the decision was made and how it was done.

All of the persons who had concerned expressed them to the presenters, so it doesn't need to come back as a decision item tomorrow. 

David Schiedelower -- we should not suppress the results of conversation.  He was suggesting that the idea that we reached consensus should not be in the minutes.  We should not even put in a "decision" that we reached consensus even as a mock exercise.  We should not suppress any ideas, but we should not present any "decisions" that could be misinterepreted. 

Coby Skye -- minutes are there to record what actually happened.  What happened here is that there was confusion about what was happening here.  So, the minutes should plainly say there was a discussion and no decision was made.  We should acknowledge that some people were role playing, but we should not throw out the work we did.

Linda -- Agree with Kevin, and agree that we should have a record of what we said, but we should not hide things.  Anything we can do to help people catch on to what we are doing and not trying to hide anything.

Robyn -- this really meant to be a learning exercise, but we wanted a topic that people really cared about.

???? -- there is a concern about how this material is going to be used, and the fact that some people actually role played is important.  We worked hard on this exercise, let's just say it is extremely important that we know that this was an exercise and some people did some role playing and that the results should be taken with a grain of salt, is that acceptable.

Peggy -- I have a new and different proposal.  Let's keep all of the discussion until where we "blitzkrieged" the decision.  We will say there was no decision reached.

Ginny Case -- I don't want the discussion listed in the minutes.

Kevin McKeown -- Mention in the main minutes that we did an exercise, attach the exercise as an attachment, so the main minutes reflect the exercise, but keep the exercise as a separate document from the plenary minutes.  Friendly amendment.

Vanje Obershlake, Orange County, I like to think that even in an exercise that my vote counts, I would like to keep the transparency of the whole process -- that we reached a consensus but the results were non-binding. 

Peggy -- put it in as an addendum, put everything and that it is a non-binding discussion and there is no decision.

Ginny Case -- once again, doesn't want it in anywhere, will not stand aside.

Peggy goes to a roll call vote -- "and folks, this is still consensus training. You thought that question was simple."