December 6-7, 2003
DRAFT!!! PLEASE MAKE CORRECTIONS AND
RETURN TO DALTREY
(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.)
Note that on "Decisions" I have not yet incorporated the notes taken by
Points & Revisions
|1. San Diego Minutes Ratified.
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
Endorsement issues resolved and returned to consent calendar.
Endorsement approved by consensus.
Endorsement Process brought to the floor for the Sunday Afternoon
|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
real or implied. Approved by a
|7. Bylaws Amendment
providing for Endorsement Rules approved
Procedure re ballot measures approved
by consensus subject to friendly amendments.
Procedure re candidates did not pass.
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.
Emails from Kevin
McKeown re Chula Vista (San Diego Minutes) (2 pages)
Consensus-Seeking Process (6 pages)
Proposal (3 pages)
|4. Addendum re
|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
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 -
? Santa Cruz
Robyn Oegtinger, GROW
Gerry Gras -- Silicon Valley Regional Rep.
(Went fast trying to make up time).
Minutes from Sacramento and
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
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.
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.
Mitch Smith from San Mateo.
Concerns expressed and the item is
2. Bylaws from previous General
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
17- 18 yes
4 abstain, 5 no 2 absent.
Host committee announcements.
Lunch recess 12: 50 or so.
Afternoon session starts 2:00
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
The purpose of this is to get going toward the day where we have a
Yellow sheet, cashflow statement of what has been spent so far this
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
item notes: Endorsement Proposals
by Christopher Page
#1: Forrest Hill/MW Proposal
to amend bylaws 9-1 initiatives for
responds to concern about absence of bylaws on this and that GA should
deciding on it.
GA power clear; initiative endorsements decided by GA; spend more time
plenaries doing endorsements
HC: is this the same procedure we used
for Camejo endorsement MW:
no this is a bylaws proposal.
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
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.
HC: Affirmation, exceptionally well
SMC: What DB said.
Morris, Riverside: Chuck R. expressed
fact that endorsement should not take place until after primary has
taken place. MW: WIll
be for next proposals not this one.
RC: Polling for time sensitive matters
only all others for plenaries, WIll Stand Aside.
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
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
directly to county councils. para.
too early to endorse or oppose before Atty Gen has certified it
ballot; once it's certified you can know what the language is otherwise
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
there to facilitate
OC: Sec. E voting proc.
where consensus not reached... how is
consensus reached during polling
unanimous poll would be conssenus
Son: what is active Green Party county
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
democratic manner, registered div of elections & SoS
Sion: be at least a diff para. where
consensus is not reached at state level to clarify
HC: looks suspiciously like the Camejo process? Where
did that come from?
This is ballot measures.
these are set for ballot measures alone, but if GA directs CC to
some other issue, then they can do that. It can be a prototype for
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
county discretion. can be block
voting, proportional rep, etc. You tell
the CC how you're doing it.
SD: suggested county polls, using
counties approved bylaw method
SCruz: item 2 refs candidates? in an initiative prop.
includes cands in recalls so there's always an initiative which
sets out candidates
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
used a specific bylaw term referring to county councils. we need
to bylaws to change the terms used.
FC: based on experience went through
with adding Peter Camejo to the ballot, concern about the discussion
issue not going out, polling simultaneous to discussion and thus
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
voting period. would lead to a more
fully informed dec.
ElDo: needs to be done but sense it
that it's incomplete; once we endorse something, it falls into an abyss
complete unknowing-ness. I would like
to see a process continued what happens after we endorse something;
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.
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
immediately? MW: accept
this as FA.
AlaC: glad to see we're asking counties
AlaC: should be timeframes for the
polling, within a week of being asked, council will respond, etc.
; endorsement coordinator assuming there's come a time, this person
powerful human and we'll need some check and balances oversight, within
of reaching a decision the work will be reviewed by y, etc.
LA: similar to David's; when it's too
few folks accidents happen; county locals get chance to comment not
to reach folks
LA: affirmation of codifying an
endorsement proc.; we're there with this; speak to concern of 17
ways to theoretically poll but some default method should be suggested
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.
HC: bylaws 9.1 procedure, puts pressure on counties to get informed;
is totally the wrong direction. It's
building on a false premise of polling counties, scrapping this and
standing permanent delegates in session, fundamentally informed as an
obligation, have a reasonable discussion; in Camejo poll confusion
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
we'll use it for all sorts of strange things in the future.
OC: same concern re: my CQ earlier;
determining the nature of the poll; second line of E because this is a
vote and there's no consensus process, we hope that consensus process
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
comments on follow-through; at that point we can coordinate resources
fro defeat or passage of ballot; bigger question beyond scope of
proposal. This is the beginning of the
outcome of election process. Under
voting procedure is the proposal is the language on the ballot; trying
the debate clean and up to the locals; time frames has polling period
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
we work on that larger picture, this is interim in the meantime.
FC: it would be helpful to have in
proposal that there will be a discreet discussion period followed by a
voting period; allow time for discussion to germinate; depending on
situation discreet periods will be established.
MW: refer us to bottom of p. 9 once authorized,
to top of 10 polling period which discuss
that there will be a fixed discussion period, followed by
MW: I think we can do that
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
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
LA: [read DR email language re:
default] MW: Accepted
MW: addressed JE's language need for period.
on Part 2
candidates, moving to prob. areas, divides up partisan offices of state
non-p of BOE and [see proposal]; proposal before was to give CC
power, this proposal comes back with divying up the labor and
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
administrative problem. CCWG expressed
a preference to have CC take responsibility with CCWG on these
totally open to involving the GA in the process to the max extent the
appropriate. resistant to totally
excluding the CC from the process due to admin.
about when endorsements can be done, when they are opposed by another
in a primary, etc.
FH: without a structure in place, CCWG makes
mistakes, helps vols to get a structure in place, please consider this;
about being fair to candidates and their staffs, to really help push
candidates in fair way poss.
SCrzC: second page near top
"uncontested" first line; is
the CC going to commit to the deadline was yesterday and the plenary is
will there be an accommodation now or are they going to delay the
plenary for 2
mos. to accommodate
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
Sonoma: sec 2-1 orgs in electoral
districts; letters from anybody who's a registered Green or county
Locals are not individuals
Gray SMC: proc. all statewide cands,
but board includes fed cand. where are
US Rep cands? MW Sec
SMith, 3-1, repeated on 3-2; . . . MW:
doesn't exclude any ; we're not wedded to the lang. wasn't meant
exclude other comms but to tie CCWG in timely fashion.
is CCWG a gatekeeper. MW:
no. 4/5s no. and not 80%
last time enormous discussion; went with highest threshold
compromise. SS: 4/5
80% FA accpt SS:
is there a diff process for contested
primary races MW: We'll
wait for voters to decide
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
FC: What would be in the questionnaire MW:
developed by CCWG and posted on our website
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
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
confirmation by the GA. MR:
how does CC go about doing the
recommendations, same polling proc. of second proposal?
most of the polling is done on CCWG via the questionnaire, will
Rvrsd: our council discussed and opposed
to proposal in present form; glad to hear CC backing off all the
we feel the endorsement should come from GA body; CCWG doorway, as
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
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
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
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
support of the candidate here. FA to
clarify this more.
[facilitator] need to buy time: 15 mins. off next item
LA: have concern about 20 people
endorsing candidates; CC shouldn't be excluded but they shouldn't make
call, the excuses about ever increasing lists of candidates doesn't
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
one Green running or not, no need to have all info in packet but they
online, like we have now. Easy to get a
consent cal to list all cands but do not think CC should do the
LA: echo CS issues raised; CCWG process
has been working on this, but I have concerns that all endorsements
coming to GA. We don't plan to run for
office, slippery slope to min. the influence of GA.
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.
M. SDC: when no time constraints, GA
time constraints, another way, perhaps the polling proc. for
SLO: affirmation for proposal;
difficult to run full-time for office, punches it home when you get
endorsement, getting blessing of state body eliminates the question
SDC: affirmation is need for
endorsement process that involves all counties, regional endorsement
region, CCWG's role is not to make an endorsement it's to collect info
have and cands have and verify it, then send it on, GA makes approval
share SDC concerns
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
Aller, OC: A cand will go 2-3 mos will
go without endorsement due to plenary scheduling
Antonios, OC: we drafted endorsement
process here; best filter is local, would like wording to fall back to
that's the protection, supports what KMK, LA said letting locals decide
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
process, go to GA.
FC: inequity of timing in endorsement
of cands not apparent now, but will for increasing contested races,
endorsements needed; suggest that everyone wait until after primaries
Rvrsd: endorsement support for locals,
can we assume endorsements only granted if majority of local support by
GA should make endorsement not CCWG; counties affected should make
what is purpose of pre-primary endorsements?
MB: can we buy 15 mins from SC/WG Session#1
MW/FH: addressing 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
statewide elections that affect us all.
I like the idea of consent calendar before GA to help FA
way of FA, GPCA will not endorse a contested primary
power vs. CC power URC's? 4
MW: restated the proposal with 2-1 written
confirmation form locals to CCWG
CCWG shall recommend campaign endorsements, upon recom, the GA
endorsements of CC will go to GA for confirmation
will not endorse in contested primaries.
LA: no SA; CC should not be making
endorsements all to GA
SB: lang, added re: contested primaries
LA: does the proposal say clearly
enough re: county councils
MB: there are URC's re: FA potentials
LA: urge presenters reconsider, polling
only issue left is whether CC endorses or not, better planning for GA's
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.
FC: concern about para 2-1 re: multiple
counties in campaign district, are they required to get unanimous
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.
Riverside: wont SA if CC makes endorsements
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
by CC would be acted on at that point, if ratification by GA, then CC
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.
no SA's remain.
for a vote:
POP: sunset clause added or not?
MW: will be put into the proposal
[battery running low--Barrington will pick
call vote [see the roll call vote sheet facilitators filled out]
76.92% 40 Y 12 N
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
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
County which increased by highest percentage was Shasta County.
Peggy Lewis accepts the award on their behalf since they couldn't be
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 -- Lorna Salzman, Kent Messplay, Peter Camejo David
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. "PresidentKent.org" KentMessplay@presidency.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
LornaSalzman.com 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
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
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 -- Janus@cwo.com]
Recess for SC/WG meetings
Break for Lunch
Resume 1:40 p.m.
Sharon Peterson, Magali co facilitators
Barrington note taker
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
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
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
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
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
Peggy asks whether there are any unresolved concerns. Sees none.
We've got consensus.
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
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
Sharon -- clarifying questions?
Robyn Oetinger -- what is the weekly time commitment as delegates or
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
Kevin - term limits are not something the Green Party has delved into
before. However, there is nothing typical about term
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
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
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
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
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
Kevin -- we want a straw poll to see whether we have identified the
Sharon -- show of hands?
Kevin -- two sections deal with the selection method of delegates and
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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,
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 villagegreens.com 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
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
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
Peggy -- we can confirm that, even though the San Francisco people are
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
Chamberlain, Alex Brideux.
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.
Alex -- handout has an excerpt from the bylaws concerning the consensus
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
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
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
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
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
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
? 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 /
Ginny Case, Los Angeles -- point of process, asks that title of the
exercise be reflected in the minutes and nothing else.
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
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
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
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
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
Peggy goes to a roll call vote -- "and folks, this is still consensus
training. You thought that
question was simple."