July 27, 2004

Minutes of July 27, 2004 SCC meeting--Ferrucci for Congress office, 7:15-9:30pm

Attending:
1. Central Connecticut chapter: Vic Lancia, Vincent Maruffi, Jason Arnold (not voting), Dmitri D'Alessandro (not voting)
2. Fairfield chapter: Ed Friend
3. Hartford chapter: Mike DeRosa, Ed DuBrule, Elizabeth Horton Sheff
4. New Haven chapter: David Eliscu (facilitator), Ralph Ferrucci, Charlie Pillsbury
5. New London chapter: Andy Derr, Chris Nelson
6. Northeast chapter: Jean deSmet
7. Northwest chapter: Tom Sevigny; Bob Eaton; Elizabeth Brancato (not voting for Northwest chapter; voting for Women's Caucus)
8. Shoreline chapter: Lindsay Mathews, David Adams
9. Tolland chapter: Sue Chipman
10. Western chapter: Justine McCabe, Rachel Goodkind

All of the above were voting representatives, except as noted above.

These minutes report the approval of the Hamden chapter as a new chapter (see below). Aaron Gustafson and Kelly McCarthy were present at tonight's meeting from that chapter.

A. PRELIMINARIES The proposed agenda was accepted by consensus, with the addition of two agenda items of Ed DuBrule's (see "proposals"--Hope Out Loud peace festival; tabling opportunity), a proposal by David Eliscu relating to the 14th Amendment, and discussion requested by Vincent about a letter which advocated that progressives support Cobb in safe states and Kerry in swing states. The June 2004 SCC minutes were accepted by consensus.

B. REPORTS

1. Treasurer's report (Bob Eaton)

"In the second quarter of this year we took in $685 and spent $2,900. In other words we ran a deficit of -$2,215. The biggest expenses were $1,250 in left over annual internal elections printing and postage expenses, $980 for the state office in Hartford and $415 for liability insurance.

"In the past month we took in $235 and spent $344. $300 of that was for the state office in Hartford.

"Currently we have $265 in available funds and bills due totaling $782. $415 for liability insurance and $367 for the state office in Hartford. This adds up to $517 that we owe and can't pay right now.

"I completed the 2nd quarter state filing on July 12th. Currently if you look at the filing on the Connecticut Secretary of State's Office website the filing shows our balance for the end of June being over $8,000.and if you look at the filing from April it shows a balance of over $10,000. These balances are wrong. I don't know why this is. I'm waiting to hear back from the Secretary of State's Office. I do have a copy I saved of both of these filings in case anyone wants to see what they looked like when I filed them.

"Please consider being involved in the Fundraising and Budget Committees.

"For more information on the CT Green Party Finances you can call me at 860 379-0632, email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or look at this webpage: http://www.kirajoy.com/CTGP/CTGP_Treasurer.html"

2. Fundraising Committee report (Mike DeRosa)--Mike and Vic Lancia have done fundraising calls to individual Greens, which have resulted in $300 in pledged money with $75 so far received. The committee plans also to help organize fundraising events and help with cleaning up lists of Greens useful for fundraising letter(s). Mike reported that 40% or more of names he tried to call recently while fundraising had invalid phone numbers (people had changed addresses). Mike noted that in the past, with well-maintained lists, fundraising letters had brought in $7,000 to $15,000 per year. To work with this committee, please contact Mike or Vic. Tom, Mazin Qumsiyeh, and others worked on a fundraiser to be held on July 30, featuring Pat LaMarche (David Cobb's vice-presidential running mate) and Bill C. Davis (Broadway playwright and future Green Party candidate). A fundraiser will be held the evening of September 11 at the Sherman Playhouse--it's a musical featuring the folk songs of Woody Guthrie ("This Land is Your Land"). Help with publicity is needed. See www.geocities.com/~shermanplayers/index.html.

3. Budget Committee report--budget proposal to be discussed under New Business, below

4. Elections Committee (with input from chapters as to candidates they're running). Ed Friend reported that Remy Chevalier is unable to run as a candidate in Fairfield County (his house is a few feet over the line from the district he planned to run from). Mike said that the Party must file a list of candidates with the Secretary of State's office in early September--candidates should be sure that the Executive Committee is aware of their names (and office being run for).

5. Communications Committee. Dmitri said that a couple of years ago, when the official Green Party listserves were under malicious attack, he had created a discussion listserve (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.). He may now talk to Cameron about setting up new listserves--a replacement for the original official discussion listserve, and a listserve for the posting of news articles.

6. Diversity Committee--no report. David Eliscu and Bob Eaton noted that there is a national Green Party Diversity Committee.

7. Women's Caucus--Elizabeth Brancato noted that the Caucus plans to meet in August or September.

8. Bylaws, Rules, Policies, and Procedures Committee. This committee passed out, for discussion by chapters, a draft bylaws section (see Appendix 5--"4-2 State Central Committee"). Tom said that at this point the goal was not approval by chapters, but rather input from chapters. [Secretary's note: at last month's SCC meeting this committee passed out another draft bylaws section, again for discussion by chapters (see Appendix 6--"4-1 Chapters").]

9. Executive Committee. Elizabeth Horton Sheff expressed concern over postings on listserves which are inappropriate. She said that she and the Executive Committee are looking into the idea of establishing a fundraising (grant-writing), non-profit arm of the CT Green Party; this arm would do community work. She said that raising funds is essential for accomplishing even basic tasks like mailings.

10. Chapter reports.

(a) New Haven chapter--Charlie reported that the Eld Street office has been vacated; the New Haven chapter no longer has an office. Calvin Nicholson, candidate for New Haven registrar of voters, has been endorsed by the New Haven chapter and is still collecting signatures. A New Haven chapter meeting will be held July 28 to decide whether New Haven Greens endorse a candidacy by Joyce Chen (currently New Haven City Councilperson) for state representative.

(b) New London chapter--working on the charter revision issue (issues involve strong mayor, method of representation). Will have a cable TV show starting in October.

(c) Northeast chapter (Jean)--working on DNC2RNC march (a march of protesters from the Boston Democratic National Convention to the New York City Republican National Convention).

(d) Central Connecticut chapter (Vincent)--working on the Ralph Ferrucci for Congress campaign. Some chapter members, as individuals, are working on the campaign of a Republican (that candidate has Green values).

(e) Shoreline chapter--Colin Bennett campaign for state senate. A student intern is working on the campaign.

(f) Hartford chapter (Mike)--trying to recruit candidates. Redecorating office--artwork on walls. Having fundraising movie night(s), music-and-poetry night(s). One of the fundraising movie nights is showing the movie "The Truth Behind the Iraq War".

(g) Tolland chapter (Sue)--hoping to re-start cable TV program. Participated in Hartford peace demonstration.

(h) Northwest chapter (Tom)--Bill C. Davis, a playwright, planning a run for Congress in 2006. Co-hosted Eyes Wide Open exhibit (anti-Iraq war). Working on Woody Guthrie fundraiser (see Fundraising Committee report above).

(i) Western chapter (Justine)--tabling at Village Fair Days July 30-31.

11. Report of US Green Party representatives (Tom). Nationally as of early August Greens are running approximately 450 candidates (second highest total ever). In Maine twenty one Greens are running for state senate or state representative. In Colorado a Green is running for Congress, faces no incumbent, and is polling 30%. Pat LaMarche will be in New England in late September/early October, staying in homeless shelters.

12. VOTER (Mike)--the June SCC approved Mike's joining a national Party ballot-access working group. Mike found that such a committee did not yet exist, but he wants to start one; contact Mike if interested.

13. Report from Boston Social Forum (David Eliscu)--thousands attended; hundreds of workshops (example: working with kids on gang violence issues). Spinning off events such as Million Worker March and Global Women's Strike--we should be involved in such events; David has info. Except for a table of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party, Greens lacked visibility at the Forum.

C. PROPOSALS

1a. Adoption by SCC of amended conflict resolution process. As required by the original conflict resolution process document (adopted by the April 2003 SCC meeting), a document proposing revised processes had been prepared based on one year's experience with the process. Copies of the new document were available at tonight's meeting and had been distributed within the Party earlier. The new document consists of two parts: 1. the proposed revised procedures (the adoption of these revised procedures was to be considered tonight) (Appendix 1 of these minutes); 2. appendices which contain information on the functioning, procedures, and philosophy of the conflict resolution process (Appendix 2 of these minutes). Appendix 2 of these minutes is for informational purposes only; it was not considered for adoption by tonight's SCC meeting.

The new document contains the sentence : "A person making an appeal has 90 days from the effective date of the RC’s [Resolution Committee's] decision to obtain the approval of two chapters." At the June SCC meeting Ed DuBrule had stated that based on this time period Amy Vas Nunes would probably not be able to appeal the decision her Resolution Committee had reached; Ed had proposed changing this sentence to "... has 90 days from the date at which the SCC adopts the revised conflict resolution document ..." Tonight Ed and Charlie said that it would be better to put Ed's idea in a separate sentence, rather than revising the original sentence. Ed's amendment was thus altered to have the document read as follows: "A person making an appeal has 90 days from the effective date of the RC’s decision to obtain the approval of two chapters. However, any person whose case resulted in an RC decision in the period between the adoption of the conflict resolution process by the April 2003 SCC meeting and the adoption of the revised conflict resolution process by the July 2004 SCC meeting has 90 days from the date of the adoption of the revised process to obtain the approval of two chapters."

Charlie pointed out some additional sentences added to the new document. (All the additions he mentioned are within the section "Expanded Process Committee".) These added sentences are:

(i) "When a party’s personal representative disputes facts found by the EPC, these disagreements shall be noted in the EPC's final report. In addition, any party's personal representative shall have the right to have her/his version of the facts included in or appended to the report that the EPC gives to the Resolution Committee."

(ii) "Relevant facts include historical facts necessary to contextualize the complaint."

(iii) "The RC will meet with the person complained against to communicate its concerns and explain the corrective actions (if any) it has determined to impose on the basis of an EPC report. The person complained against has the option of inviting her/his representative on the EPC to join them at such a meeting. This face-to-face meeting would make possible a range of negotiated remedies."

Charlie also pointed out that the new document contains the following as actions that a Resolution Committee may take, replacing the former words "Written warning/Formal censure/Suspension/Expulsion":

(1) No action, in effect, dismissing the complaint

(2) Oral Warning, including any Negotiated Remedy, including referral to Mediation (summarized in writing by the RC after meeting with the person complained against)

(3) Intermediate Actions, including, but not limited to, Censure, Probation, Suspension from specified party activities

(4) Suspension or Expulsion from the Party.

Charlie pointed out that a person making an appeal has to convince at least two chapters, other than his/her own chapter, to petition the SCC to place the appeal on its agenda. A representative of the Process Committee and of the person's Resolution Committee attend the chapter meetings at which the issue is discussed; this, among other functions, serves to educate the chapters about the conflict resolution process. David Adams said that education is an important function of the conflict resolution process; Lynah had contributed greatly to an appreciation of this concept. (See Appendix 5 of the new conflict resolution document, "Educational Functions of the Conflict Resolution Process".)

The SCC by consensus adopted the revised conflict resolution document, including the addition of the new sentence proposed by Ed.

1b. Selection of a new Process Committee. The revised conflict resolution document, just adopted, states (in the section "Resolution Process structure"): "The Process Committee (PC) consists of three people from different chapters who were nominated and elected by the SCC immediately after the SCC approved the Resolution Process. [The three people nominated and elected unanimously were David Adams, Rachel Goodkind and Lynah Linwood] These three people will serve until the SCC has reviewed, ratified or amended the Resolution Process .... Upon ratification or amendment of the Process, three people will be elected immediately to serve for one year, two years and three years, respectively."

Ed DuBrule asked Charlie what the word "immediately" meant in the last sentence above, and Charlie said that the new Process Committee should be selected tonight. Charlie asked if there were nominations for the Process Committee. No one offered nominations. It was stated by someone that Lynah (a member of the current Process Committee) has been having health problems. It was asked what the time commitment would be. David said that a complaint could involve hundred(s) of e-mails and several meetings. Rachel and David Adams said that they would be willing to continue to serve but that they would welcome new blood on the Committee. Charlie said that he would be willing to serve on the Process Committee. Charlie said that persons selected tonight could decide by drawing straws which of them would serve 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years.

The SCC tonight by consensus selected the following to serve on the new Process Committee: Rachel Goodkind, David Adams, and Charlie Pillsbury. The SCC thanked Lynah for her work over the past months on the Process Committee.

2. Authorization of David Eliscu and Charlie Pillsbury to serve on the national Dispute Resolution Committee--authorized tonight by consensus. During the brief discussion of this agenda item, it was mentioned that the Connecticut conflict resolution process is being considered for adoption by other Green Parties.

3. Proposal on financial policy (Northwest, Western, Fairfield and New London chapters.) (Appendix 3). Tom presented the proposal, which deals with financial policies of the CT Green Party. Ed DuBrule and others contributed to the discussion; when Ed contributed to the discussion he referred to ideas and wording changes discussed at the 7/11/04 Executive Committee meeting and noted in the minutes of that meeting.

In Appendix 3 of these minutes, words or sentences deleted from the proposal by tonight's SCC meeting are in bold and in brackets [], with the notation "[deleted]; words or sentences added to the proposal by tonight's SCC meeting are in underlined italics, with the notation "[added]"

In section 1, "Income", the following sentence appears: "No contributions will be accepted from political action committees (PACs) without the express authorization of the State Central Committee." Ed wondered if there would be harm in a Green political campaign accepting PAC money from an organization such as the Sierra Club or a union. Ed proposed the following alternate wording: "No contributions will be accepted from political action committees (PACs) whose ideology and/or practices are adverse to the 10 Key Values of the Connecticut Green Party."

Aaron wondered who would decide which PACs have acceptable ideologies and practices. If money were accepted from a PAC, but objections or questions were raised about the acceptance of this money, would the SCC discuss the situation and possibly mandate return of the money to the PAC? Jean wondered if only money from PACs of organizations allied with the CT Green Party should be accepted.

Discussion continued. Would this proposal affect Greens' political campaigns? The law says that checks received must be deposited within a certain number of days--but objectionable money could be returned even if the check had been deposited. Because of Green values, should all PAC donations be forbidden? Tom said that Connecticut Green campaigns might decide to donate unspent PAC money to the CT Green Party, and our fiscal policy should not prevent this.

Elizabeth Brancato proposed the following wording: "Receipt of money from political action committees (PACs) is subject to review by the SCC, based on the Ten Key Values of the Connecticut Green Party. The SCC may direct that money received from a particular PAC by the CT Green Party must be returned to that PAC." This wording was accepted by consensus.

Another part of the proposal (in section 1 "Income") reads as follows. Loans: "To cover emergencies, sudden expenses, or seed funds for special projects, amounts of $2000 or less may be borrowed, with the express authorization of the State Central Committee". Ed suggested that the words "by the Connecticut Green Party" should be added, so that this sentence would read: "To cover emergencies, sudden expenses, or seed funds for special projects, amounts of $2000 or less may be borrowed by the Connecticut Green Party, with the express authorization of the State Central Committee." This suggestion was accepted by consensus.

Another part of the proposal (in section 4. "Appropriations and Reimbursements") reads as follows: "Authorization of expenditures in the budget does not authorize Green Party committees, employees, chapters, or other representatives to actually spend these funds without specific and separate written permission of the treasurer or steering committee." Ed (again referring to Executive Committee minutes) proposed that the term "steering committee' in this sentence be replaced by "Executive Committee". Ed said that in his experience Connecticut Greens have used the term "steering committee" to refer to both the Executive Committee and the SCC. This suggestion was accepted by consensus.

Another part of the proposal (in section 5, "Auditing") reads as follows: "The Green Party shall hire a certified accountant to audit its books at the end of every fiscal year." Ed raised the issue of the Party possibly not having funds to hire a certified accountant. Possibly, he said, a Connecticut Green who works in the accounting field might volunteer his/her services. He proposed the following wording: "The Green Party shall seek to secure the services of a certified accountant to audit its books at the end of every fiscal year."

Ed Friend said that in his union, three members go over the books each year with the treasurer. Elizabeth Brancato said that the Women's Caucus had discussed whether chapters could rotate the duty of examining the books; perhaps the Women's Caucus could also take a turn doing this.

By consensus the change in wording suggested by Ed DuBrule was accepted. By consensus the proposal on financial policy, as modified above, was accepted by the SCC.

4. Proposal that the CTGP endorse, and contribute $50 towards, the Hope Out Loud Peace Festival. Ed DuBrule, as Secretary, received a letter inviting the Green Party to endorse the third annual Hope Out Loud Peace Festival, to be held September 12 in Hartford's Bushnell Park. It is a project of the American Friends Service Committee and the Connecticut Coalition for Peace and Justice. The letter suggested a $50 contribution for endorsers (or what endorsers could afford); Ed offered a personal donation of $50 to the Party for this purpose. Ed's proposals were accepted by consensus.

5. Proposal to co-sponsor a press release on constitutional remedies for disenfranchised voters. David Eliscu briefly described the press release, which would come from the national Party. The presenters of the proposal to publish a press release are the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force and the Green Party of the United States Black Caucus. The press release will call for the enforcement of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Article 2. This article was originally intended to safeguard the electoral rights of former slaves. It mandates reduction of representation in the US Congress when a class of citizens is disenfranchised. A modern-day application could be abuses of presidential elections (such as the events in Florida in the 2000 presidential race). In addition, possibly the article could be a tool in proportional voting (the losers in a winner-take-all voting system could perhaps be considered a disenfranchised population). By consensus the SCC agreed to co-sponsor this press release.

6. Endorsement of "No Room for Poverty" conference. Elizabeth Horton Sheff announced a September 4 conference in Washington DC, by Community Action Agencies. By consensus the SCC endorsed this conference.

D. NEW BUSINESS

1. Budget proposal (from Budget Committee; modified at 7/11/04 Executive Committee meeting) (Appendix 4). Bob suggested that the budget be brought to chapters for discussion. He pointed out that the financial policy, which the SCC approved tonight, lays out a process by which a budget is drawn up, approved, and revised. Jean and Bob pointed out that information on past spending by the CT Green Party is available at a website Bob set up (www.kirajoy.com/CTGP/CTGP_Treasurer.html). Bob said that Chris Reilly has asked to be reimbursed $3,540.82 that he had spent in the past for office rent, postage/printing/envelopes for fundraising mailing(s), and for a domain name. Of the $3,540.82, $2,650 was for rent for the office.

It was agreed that chapters would discuss the budget.

2. Approval of Hamden chapter. Aaron Gustafson and Kelly McCarthy reported that the Hamden chapter has had at least three meetings with at least five Green Party members at each meeting. The Hamden chapter was approved by the SCC.

E. DISCUSSION. An open letter has appeared (for example, 7/23/04 on the discussion listserve This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.), signed by Medea Benjamin, John Eder, Elizabeth Horton Sheff, and others, which advocates that progressives support Cobb in safe states and Kerry in swing states. Vincent objected to the ideas in this letter; he said that the Green Party gets nothing from the Democrats in return for supporting them; that the Democratic Party has gone along with Bush's policies; that Greens are "falling on our swords" by doing this. Democrats have acted against Greens who wish to run for office.

Elizabeth Horton Sheff replied that the aim is to get Bush out of office; four more years of Bush would be very destructive. Nader or Cobb have no chance of winning the presidency.

Mike asked if there were objections from anyone at the SCC meeting to marchers in the DNC2RNC march (see "announcements", below) using the office in Hartford--no one objected.

F. ANNOUNCEMENTS

(1) David Agosta announced that he will be filing a complaint with the Election Enforcement Commission of the CT Secretary of State's office against the CT Green Party. (David was not listed as an attendee of this meeting above; he was working in the office where this meeting was held during the meeting.) David stated that many Connecticut Greens have not been given the right to vote during CT Green Party candidate selection processes--this will be the subject of his complaint.

(2) Jean deSmet announced that there is a table available for Greens at the Willimantic Third Thursday Street Festival.

(3) David Eliscu announced that there will be vigils on the New Haven Green during Hiroshima/Nagasaki Days (August 6 and 9th).

(4) Winsted also has a Hiroshima/Nagasaki vigil.

(5) David Eliscu announced that the New Haven chapter will be working to organize events in conjunction with the DNC2RNC marchers (protesters travelling from the Democratic National Convention to the Republican National Convention) and a similar march (Stonewalk) which carries a large stone commemorating civilian casualties in war.

(6) Rachel announced that copies of a movie about the 9/11 events are available.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1 Conflict Resolution Process, revised after 1 year's experience.

{Attachment to e-mail to Ed DuBrule and others sent 5/24/04; discussed at May 2004 and June 2004 SCC meetings; adopted with by the July 2004 SCC meeting with the addition of the sentence, included below, beginning "However, any person whose case resulted in an RC decision in the period ..." within the section Appeal Process.}

{The Appendices below are for informational purposes only; they were not part of the document approved by the July 2004 SCC meeting.}

[NOTE: explanatory notes between brackets and in italics were not approved by the SCC and are not part of the Resolution Process, but reflect comments made at the April 2003 SCC meeting when the Resolution Process was adopted; recommended additions are in bold print; recommended deletions are in bold print between brackets.]

RESOLUTION PROCESS STRUCTURE. The Resolution Process is a two-step process involving a standing (elected) Process Committee and ad hoc Resolution Committees appointed to dispose of each complaint. The Resolution Process functions are in order of importance: 1) fact-finding, 2) education, 3) mediation and reconciliation, and 4) corrective action.

The Process Committee (PC) [prosecutor/grand jury function] consists of three people from different chapters who were nominated and elected by the SCC immediately after the SCC approved the Resolution Process. [The three people nominated and elected unanimously were David Adams, Rachel Goodkind and Lynah Linwood] These three people will serve until the SCC has reviewed, ratified or amended the Resolution Process, as described in the final paragraph below, in approximately one year. Upon ratification or amendment of the Process, three people will be elected immediately to serve for one year, two years and three years, respectively. After these initial terms, PC members will be elected to serve three-year terms, and no person may serve on the PC for more than six years under any circumstances. In nominating people to serve on the PC, the SCC will consider the Party’s respect for diversity. At no time may all three members of the PC be of the same gender. [Key Values 7 & 8]

The Resolution Committee (RC) [judge/jury function] consists of one representative from three different chapters whose members do not include any of the complainants or anyone named in the complaint. [Key Value 5] The SCC will select three neutral chapters to form the RC, and then these chapters will select one representative each to serve on the RC. The chapter representative to the RC may not be a person who served on the Expanded PC that reviewed this particular matter. RC members’ terms will expire when their work is done. There is no limit to the number of RCs, upon which a person may serve. At no time, however, may all three members of an RC be of the same gender. See APPENDIX 3: PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING MEMBERS OF A RESOLUTION COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION PROCESS. The Resolution Process begins with a written complaint submitted to the Process Committee. Complaints are limited to conduct that took place within 6 months of the complaint’s submission date or conduct that took place earlier, but was only just discovered within 6 months of the complaint’s submission date.

Based on the written complaint itself and without making any further inquiry, the PC will (1) determine whether the complaint involves ethical, personal, and/or political issues and (2) make a preliminary determination in writing about whether and how to proceed. In the interests of openness and transparency, the PC shall make available copies of (1) the original complaint and (2) the PC’s preliminary determination to any member of the State Green Party requesting in writing such copies.

If the PC decides not to proceed with the complaint, it may either dismiss the complaint or dismiss it with prejudice. A complaint may be dismissed with prejudice, if the PC concludes that the complainant filed her or his complaint in retaliation against a person who had filed a complaint within the previous six months against the complainant. If a person has more than one complaint dismissed with prejudice, that person's actions will be referred to the Resolution Committee described below for appropriate sanctions. If the complaint, on its face, raises any actionable ethical, personal, or political issues, all issues identified by the PC shall be handled in the following three ways.

1. Political Issues. Any political issue raised by the complaint shall be resolved through existing party processes. If appropriate, the PC may recommend to the SCC Executive Committee that a political issue be placed on the agenda of the next SCC meeting.

2. Personal Issues. Any personal issue raised by the complaint shall be referred to the relevant parties for resolution through (1) direct communication, (2) a facilitated meeting, or (3) a formal mediation. The involved parties must submit a jointly signed written statement to the SCC that they have resolved any personal issues between them before they will be allowed to speak at future SCC meetings. Until the involved parties submit this signed statement, or have made good faith efforts to resolve their personal issues in two or more of the three ways numbered above, the parties may attend SCC meetings, but will not be allowed to speak at SCC meetings until they submit a jointly signed written statement that they have made good faith efforts to resolve their personal issues.

3. Ethical Issues. Section IV of the State Party Bylaws, entitled "Ethical Standards" states: All members shall comport themselves in ways that reflect the Party’s Purpose and Principles at all times, and shall make particular note of actions such as the following unacceptable modes of conduct:

Making commitments or position statements that conflict with Party or Chapter policies, principles, or ethical codes.

The advocacy or practice of racial, sexual, ethnic, or religious discrimination.

Betrayal of trust in matters affecting Party or Public welfare.

Indulgence in or use of any form of violence.

Irresponsible advocacy such as that based upon misrepresentation or gross ignorance of pertinent facts.

Expanded Process Committee (EPC). If the complaint raises any ethical issue under Section IV of the State Party Bylaws, the PC shall engage in a fact-finding process. Before the PC begins this process, the complainant and any person named in the complaint shall have the right [seven days] to name a personal representative to serve on the PC during the fact-finding process. [Key Value 1] The new committee composed of the original PC members and the newly added personal representatives shall be referred to as the Expanded Process Committee (EPC). [The EPC shall have no fewer than 5 or more than 7 members.] The EPC will have complete discretion regarding how to determine the facts relevant to the complaint. Relevant facts include historical facts necessary to contextualize the complaint. The EPC may ask parties to submit written factual statements or other documentation of facts, or engage in interviews. Within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, the EPC shall submit the complaint and a written statement of facts to the Resolution Committee. Both the PC and the EPC may only act on the basis of decisions approved by a supermajority (60% or more) of its members. When a party’s personal representative disputes facts found by the EPC, these disagreements shall be noted in the EPC's final report. In addition, any party's personal representative shall have the right to have her/his version of the facts included in or appended to the report that the EPC gives to the Resolution Committee.

Within 30 days after its formation, the Resolution Committee (RC) will meet and take appropriate action, [including the imposition of appropriate sanctions,] based only on the facts found and outlined in writing by the Expanded PC. In determining what actions are appropriate [appropriate sanctions], the RC may consider, among other things, the gravity, willfulness and frequency of the ethical violations. The RC will meet with the person complained against to communicate its concerns and explain the corrective actions (if any) it has determined to impose on the basis of an EPC report. The person complained against has the option of inviting her/his representative on the EPC to join them at such a meeting. This face-to-face meeting would make possible a range of negotiated remedies.

Appropriate actions [sanctions] by the RC may include, but are not limited to, the following levels of response [actions], depending on the nature and the number of the ethical violation(s):

[Written warning-Formal censure-Suspension-Expulsion]

(1) No action, in effect, dismissing the complaint

(2) Oral Warning, including any Negotiated Remedy, including referral to Mediation (summarized in writing by the RC after meeting with the person complained against)

(3) Intermediate Actions, including, but not limited to, Censure, Probation, Suspension from specified party activities

(4) Suspension or Expulsion from the Party

Any actions taken by the RC must be approved by all three RC members and transcribed in a written statement dated and signed by all RC members after their meeting with the person complained against. Any actions approved by the RC shall take effect immediately [upon their signing the action statement and its distribution to the affected parties].

Full Disclosure. In the interests of openness and transparency, after the RC has signed the action statement, the PC shall make available copies of (1) the original complaint, (2) the Expanded PC’s fact-finding statement, and (3) the RC’s action statement to any member of the State Green Party requesting in writing such copies. [RC members are not required to maintain confidentiality]

Appeal Process. The person complained against may appeal to the SCC any action(s) taken by the RC. To appeal an RC’s decision to the SCC, the person complained against must convince at least two chapters (other than his/her own) - at meetings at which both a PC and an RC member are present – to petition the SCC to place the appeal on its agenda. Chapters may decline a person’s request to present his/her case for appeal. If, however, a chapter agrees to hear a person’s request, it shall be the PC’s obligation to ensure that a member of the PC and the RC attend the chapter meeting. A person making an appeal has 90 days from the effective date of the RC’s decision to obtain the approval of two chapters. However, any person whose case resulted in an RC decision in the period between the adoption of the conflict resolution process by the April 2003 SCC meeting and the adoption of the revised conflict resolution process by the July 2004 SCC meeting has 90 days from the date of the adoption of the revised process (90 days from 7/27/04) to obtain the approval of two chapters. [Secretary's note: the addition of the preceding sentence is discussed in the minutes of the meeting, above.]

The SCC shall consider at its next regularly scheduled meeting any appeal requested to be put on its agenda by two or more chapters. The SCC then may decide to (1) affirm the RC's action statement, (2) refer the case back to the same RC for further deliberation and revision of its own action statement, or (3) empanel a new RC to review the EPC's report on the case and produce a new action statement. The findings of the EPC are not subject to appeal, but new facts not included in the EPC report may be considered by the old or new RC when reconsidering the case and determining appropriate action(s).

After three months, but before six months, from the date of the action statement, the EPC will meet to (1) review compliance with the RC’s action statement, (2) engage in additional fact-finding, if necessary, and (3) submit any additional facts to the RC for further action, if necessary.

Appendix 2 Appendices of revised conflict resolution document.

APPENDIX 1: BACKGROUND. The Resolution Process document states that one year after the SCC approves the Resolution Process (April 2003 SCC meeting), the SCC shall ask the Conflict Resolution Committee "to review how the Resolution Process has worked, recommend any revisions and report back to the SCC. The SCC then shall either ratify the existing process or approve a revised Resolution Process." In September 2003, the SCC adopted a Northeast chapter proposal, which reads as follows: "That the original '(Conflict Resolution) Process Committee' be reconvened and charged with developing a set of processes and procedures for processing complaints which include, among other things, appeal processes, due process protections, and an intelligible step by step process to be followed at each step of the conflict resolution process". At that meeting, the SCC also asked the Conflict Resolution Committee to reconvene well in advance of April 2004, in order to present its report and recommendations at the April 2004 SCC meeting.

The Conflict Resolution Committee members are David Adams, David Eliscu, Ralph Ferrucci, Steve Krevisky, Lynah Linwood, Charlie Pillsbury, and Michael Westerfield. The Committee met on Sat. Jan. 24, Sun. Feb 22, and Sun. March 28. The Committee identified the following areas of review, the results of which have been incorporated below. Committee Convener and Scribe Charlie Pillsbury also presented a draft report with recommendations at the April 2004 SCC meeting and revised the report and its recommendations based on input received at that meeting.

Overview. How the SCC Resolution Process worked (or did not work) and whether procedures followed were consistent with Green values.

Description. A set of step-by-step instructions for how to use and understand the SCC Resolution Process.

Priorities. The Conflict Resolution Committee thinks that the Resolution Process functions are in order of importance: 1) fact-finding, 2) education, 3) mediation and reconciliation, and 4) corrective action. In this review, the Committee tried to amplify and be more specific about the conflict resolution process’ educational function.

Ground Rules. How to encourage respect for and adherence to the State Party Meeting Ground Rules adopted in the fall 2002.

Safety. The committee discussed the connection between the Resolution Process and these Ground Rules. As the Ground Rules call for a process that resolves conflicts safely and constructively, the committee agreed to explore what "safety" means in this context.

Guidelines. Concern about the severity of the sanctions imposed on a Green Party member by the Resolution Committee and the need for more explicit guidelines for Resolution Committee actions.

Appeal Process. An appropriate appeal process for decisions made by a Resolution Committee.

Due Process. Additional due process protections to promote fairness without making the Resolution Process too cumbersome or complex.

APPENDIX 2: OVERVIEW OF THE FIRST YEAR

Process Committee. During the past year, the PC carried out the task that they had been assigned and, in our opinion, remained true to the mandate given them by the SCC and to Green Party values. In the course of their work, the PC came to see the need to add an educational component, including the development of a conflict resolution “user” manual and outreach to individual chapters about the issues arising in the various cases. For details of their recommendations, please see Appendices 4 (User Manual) and 5 (Educational Functions). In the cases that were heard, both sides of a complaint were encouraged to represent their points of view through hand picked advocates, or representatives. No one was at any time censored or told they could not present a point of view relevant to the purpose of the PC. In dealing with both complaints, a great deal of material, over 200 e-mails, for example, was amassed, evaluated, and checked for accuracy. All parties had the opportunity to challenge any and all of the facts presented. This lent credibility to the final reports on the factual information sent to both Resolution Committees. The PC made every effort to be cognizant of the mission with which it was charged. The PC was aware that, in the implementation of a new process, there would be room for improvement and/or revision. In fact, suggestions to improve procedures received serious consideration, and, if not possible to implement at the time, were recommended for future utilization. It should be emphasized that this process is ongoing, and that the PC continues in its attempts to improve its procedures.

Resolution Committee. We are concerned, however, about the severity of the sanction (two year suspension from the SGP) imposed on a Green Party member by the first Resolution Committee and think there is a need for a procedure to appeal decisions made by Resolution Committees. As the complaint against this party member involved statements made in one e-mail, the sanction/punishment, in our opinion, did not fit the "crime"/ethical violation. This RC seems to have taken into consideration a history of conduct, of which this disputed e-mail was just one example. Nevertheless, as the complaint did not involve this history, the corrective action imposed by the RC only should have addressed the conduct complained about. We think, therefore, that this Green Party member should be allowed to avail herself of the new appeal procedure we have recommended be added to the Resolution Process below.

Summary. At the core of the two complaints filed against party members during the first year is the issue of “free speech”. The issue in the first complaint is whether the content of an e-mail involved the exercise of "free speech" or "irresponsible advocacy such as that based upon misrepresentation or gross ignorance of pertinent facts"; the issue in the second complaint is whether comments made to the complainant involved the exercise of "free speech" or a "form of violence". Some party members have been critical of the Resolution Process, claiming that it infringes on “free speech”. In our opinion, this criticism is misplaced. If any infringement of free speech is occurring, it is as a result of the Ethical Standards codified in the State Party Bylaws. If this continues to be a concern, then the SCC should amend the Bylaws.

The Resolution Process is important for two reasons: first, to function (instead of dys-function) the Party needs a way to determine whether internal conflicts are personal, political, or “ethical”. This is the role of the Process Committee (prosecutor/grand jury function). Second, if the PC determines that an internal conflict is “ethical” (that is to say, there is probable cause to think that the State Party Bylaws’ Ethical Standards were violated), then to function (instead of dys-function) the Party needs a way to determine whether the conduct involved in an “ethical” conflict actually does violate the State Party By-Laws’ Ethical Standards, and, if so, then what corrective action should be taken. This is the role of the Resolution Committee (judge/jury function).

******************************************************************************************

APPENDIX 3: PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING MEMBERS OF A RESOLUTION COMMITTEE (RC)

The SCC developed the following procedure during the past year.

(a) The names of the all chapters except those whose members are parties to the complaint are placed in a hat.

(b) One at a time, all the papers in the hat are selected and the order in which the chapters are drawn is recorded. The first three chapters drawn will each select a member of the RC, if they are able and willing to do so. If one or more of the first three chapters drawn are unable to (or unwilling to) select a member of the RC, later-drawn chapters (in order of draw) will select a member of the RC.

(c) If a representative from a chapter drawn is not present at this SCC meeting, the Executive Committee will contact that chapter to see if that chapter is able and willing to select a member of the RC. Such a chapter will be allowed a maximum of 3 days from the date on which an Executive Committee member sends the query to reply as to whether it anticipates that it is able and willing to select a member of the RC. If no reply is received within three days, the chapter queried loses its right/responsibility to select an RC member and the Executive Committee will query the next chapter drawn.

(d) As the RC cannot consist of three persons of the same gender, the third chapter that agrees to appoint a member to the RC will select a representative and an alternate representative (the alternate representative being of the opposite gender from the representative). The third chapter's alternate representative will serve in place of the representative if the gender balance requirement demands this substitution. (If the third chapter becomes aware of the genders of representatives selected previously by the two other chapters, it need only select one representative of the required gender.)

(e) The chapter representative to the RC may not be a person who is serving on the Expanded PC handling the complaint in question.

(f) The Executive Committee assumes that chapters will want to select representatives at chapter meetings, although the conflict resolution document is silent on this point. The deadline for the formation of the Resolution Committee is therefore the date at which the last of the three chapters, which agrees to select a representative, has a chapter meeting (if selection of the representative is done at a chapter meeting).

********************************************************************************************

APPENDIX 4: USER MANUAL

On the basis of the experiences of the first year of operation, the Process Committee (PC) and the Conflict Resolution Committee propose the following procedures. Many of these procedures are already specified in the above resolution adopted on April 29, 2003 by the State Central Committee (SCC), and amended by the SCC on April 27, 2004. Other procedures were adopted by the PC in the course of its work and are indicated in italics.

A. Initial decision about complaint.

This procedure is spelled out clearly in the resolution. The PC decides first if the complaint should be considered or dismissed. If the PC decides to consider the complaint, the PC then decides whether the complaint involves political, personal and/or ethical issues. If political, the PC will recommend that any political issue be put on the agenda of the SCC at its next meeting. If personal, the PC will recommend that the parties engage in direct communication, a facilitated meeting or a formal mediation. If ethical, the PC will engage in a fact-finding process, which is described in Part B of this User Manual.

B. Fact-finding in case of an ethical complaint.

1. The first step is to obtain a personal representative of each party to the complaint. They are then asked to serve along with the members of the PC on an Expanded Process Committee (EPC) for the case in question.

2. A second immediate step is to inform the State Executive Committee that the complaint involves probable ethical violations, that an EPC has been formed, and that the SCC should establish a Resolution Committee (RC) to receive its report (see Appendix 2 for procedure adopted by SCC to form an RC).

3. The EPC then goes to work. The resolution states, "The Expanded PC will have complete discretion regarding how to determine the facts relevant to the complaint." The following are some steps taken by the first two EPCs convened in 2003, although future EPCs may wish to do things differently.

a. We found it important to have at least two face-to-face meetings of the EPC, one to establish the procedures of fact-finding and a second to review and amend a draft report. This is important because we find that it is best to follow a modified consensus procedure, which can only be done in a face-to-face meeting. While it is true that the original resolution states that an EPC's decision-making is by a supermajority of 60%, we found it best not to engage in voting until the consensus procedure has been carried as far as possible.

b. In practice, it has been possible to obtain consensus on the fact-finding procedure to be followed. However, with regard to the report, after extensive discussion it usually occurs that the representative of at least one party to the complaint is not satisfied. Hence, in our experience, it is important to list all sources of disagreement in the final version, appending full documents when relevant.

c. In our experience, most of the fact-finding work that goes on between the two meetings can be carried out by e-mail. E-mails are routinely copied to all members of the EPC or sent by mail to members that do not have e-mail access. In a few cases when there were problems with e-mail communication, we have used certified mail instead.

d. In addition to the fact-finding, we tried to include in the final report an educational section designed to stimulate a debate among all Green Party members on important issues arising out of the complaint. This comes from our thinking that the issues in each complaint transcend the personalities involved and are potential issues for all members of the Party.

e. Although we agree with the April 29 resolution that reports should be completed within 60 days, we have not found it possible to accomplish. In the future we recommend that the EPC try harder to impose deadlines along with its fact-finding requests.

4. The RC then considers the EPC's report. As only one RC has been constituted, there is not much experience on which to base recommendations for RC procedures.

5. Between 3 and 6 months after the action statement by the RC in a case, the EPC must meet again to determine compliance. The task is spelled out in the April 29 resolution, but we don't have any experience with it yet.

********************************************************************************************

APPENDIX 5: EDUCATIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS

Based on our experience, each complaint raises general issues of proper conduct and procedure for Green Party members. We think that if we use these for education of Party members we may be able to manage more effectively future conflicts. In general, we think that conflict management is preferable to conflict resolution after the fact. With this in mind, we make the following additional recommendations.

1. Expanded Process Committee (EPC) reports and Resolution Committee (RC) action statements should include an education section, in which relevant issues are raised and recommended for discussion by Green Party members. Usually it takes some time and discussion to arrive at solutions to these issues, including drawing lines between what is permissible and what is not.

For example, in our first case, the EPC stated, "In this case, we hope that the Resolution Committee can educate Connecticut Green Party members where the boundaries lie so that the Party can protect and encourage freedom of speech and political debate, on the one hand, and avoid 'irresponsible advocacy based on misrepresentation or gross ignorance of pertinent facts' on the other hand."

The RC, in the first case, added: "A fundamental part of being Green is practicing peaceful, respectful and cooperative solutions to problems. We promote and require respectful conduct and communications by and between members of the GPC. We must strive to demonstrate conduct that is a credit to the GPC and/or our position, including behaving publicly in a manner consistent with the GPC purposes, principles and policies. We must also strive to act at all times honestly, in good faith and in a manner which will enhance the image of and be in the best interest of the GPC, and we do not publicly misrepresent the stated purposes, positions, values or policies of the GPC. It is imperative that we communicate responsibly and collaboratively taking all reasonable steps to ensure that we cause no harm to any person, place or thing. Communication by email is unique and often requires interpretation by the reader of the tone and meaning of a message. To avoid misrepresentation, it is suggested that a member: 1) be as clear and concise as possible; 2) send the message to only the appropriate people; 3) send no superfluous or ill-thought-out material and no messages which are harmful, dishonest or use language that demeans others; 4) consider the kind of role model they are by sending a certain message."

In its compliance review of the first case, the EPC made this recommendation: "The Party needs to find a way to recognize and draw lines between the necessary and positive attempts to organize party groups, chapters, etc. around legitimate debate on important issues and the negative, potentially destructive attempts to fragment the party into competing groups and paralyze it from action on the basis of personal disputes or misrepresentation of issues. In fact, experience within peace and civil rights movements of the 60's showed that factionalism can be extremely destructive to organizations like the Green Party."

2. When completed, any EPC report and RC action statement should be forwarded to all chapters for discussion on the educational component.

3. The Process Committee should prepare an annual report that sums up all of the educational components of the EPC reports and RC action statements during that year. This report would include recommendations as well as examples of good and bad practices. This annual report not only should be forwarded to all chapters for discussion, but also should be put on the agenda of a future SCC meeting at which time inputs from chapter discussions can be considered.

4. Chapters should periodically invite representatives from the Process and/or Conflict Resolution Committees to their chapter meeting to discuss what we have learned through our experience. Written reports are necessary, but not sufficient for effective education; they need to be supplemented by face-to-face dialogue. This dialogue would be a two-way educational process: not only would the chapters learn more about the process, but also the representative would take back to the Process Committee and Conflict Resolution Committee the needs and suggestions of the chapters to improve the process.

5. The new Appeal Process is structured to be educational. An RC member must attend a chapter meeting to explain the RC's thinking and rationale for whatever corrective action the RC has taken. The PC member would be there to represent the permanent, standing conflict resolution process, rather than the particular case being argued about. This would add another dimension to the appeal process and provide a much more powerful educational component. In practice, we think the PC member will remain neutral, be there to explain the process and represent the long-term interests of the Party.

5. Annual reports, along with other inputs and debates such as those from chapter meetings, should be accumulated into a manual or notebook that would contribute to the education of Green Party members. For example, we can imagine in a year or two that each SCC meeting would start with not only adoption of the ground rules, but also consideration of one of the sections from this developing manual.

6. Further development of the Ground Rules should be a priority for the State Party during the coming year. The Party has not yet institutionalized the Ground Rules for SCC meetings that were developed at the end of 2002. The Conflict Resolution Committee offers its services to the SCC, if they wish it to continue working on this.

The Ground Rules state that we must create a safe process for dispute resolution. Considering the above, it is important that we constantly ask ourselves if our process is a safe one. For example, there is no provision for anyone to take responsibility that our ground rules are followed during a meeting, or any provision for complaints about repeated infractions of the Ground Rules. It should also be noted that protocols for other safety violations, such as those involving immediate or potential physical harm to any group or individual, be an issue for future concern

We think this needs more discussion among all members, both at the state level and the chapter level. To be a member of an organization does not mean we agree with every one of its tenets. But if, as an organization, we have endorsed certain policies, we should not malign those upholding those policies as factionalists, extremists or those pursuing their own agendas, expressing scorn and contempt for them. Finally, we need to think a little more about respect. Many of the people who have been vilified and maligned have long-standing and substantial credentials in various fields of endeavor. These accomplishments should be given their just due.

7. SAFETY. Safety is both an issue in the Process Committee proceedings and with the Ground Rules adopted by the SGP in the fall of 2002. The Ground Rules call for a process that resolves conflicts safely and constructively. The complaints under consideration by the Process Committee also involve issues of safety. Safety is jeopardized not only in cases of physical violence, but also in emotional and/or psychological assaults, which go beyond disagreement with a point of view and become a form of abuse. Green values do not sanction any actions that gratuitously subject others to violence, in any of its forms. While keeping dialogue open at all times, differences can be reconciled, or accepted as differences, without the use of ill will, hatred, invective, and insult, all of which create an atmosphere of insecurity and feelings of peril and endangerment. Safety is also at risk when processes and procedures are hidden or unclear. For this reason we need to encourage transparency and predictability in our processes and procedures.

APPENDIX 6: Ground Rules for SCC Meetings

Tier One:

1. We agree to treat each other with civility and respect.

2. We have an agreed-upon process for safely and constructively resolving conflicts between and among our members and regarding our group process.

3. We commit to openness and transparency in all proceedings.

Tier Two:

4. Speak for and about yourself.

5. Decisions are clearly stated and communicated to our members. Such communication includes the duration and plan for implementation of any decisions.

6. We encourage each other to provide as many options and alternatives as possible before making a final decision.

7. We agree to share available airtime equitably. We will allow each person to speak, making time for all to be heard.

8. We will say at least one positive thing about each other’s ideas before criticizing.

9. We commit to a balance of process and task.

10. We welcome all viewpoints.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 3. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

PRESENTER: Northwest, Western, Fairfield and New London Chapters.

CONTACT: Tom Sevigny - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

SUBJECT: The need for fiscal management

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Based on the analysis by the state party treasurer, it has become obvious that the state Green Party is in a fiscal crisis. The state is unable to raise enough money to cover its fixed expenditures every month; is unable to purchase items for outreach; and has allowed questionable fiscal practices to occur without the full knowledge of the State Central Committee.

PROPOSAL: In order to correct the above problems, the above chapters propose that the state party: 1) Implement and adhere to a fiscal policy (see below); 2) implement and adhere to a fundraising plan; and 3) create and adhere to a budget that reflects the priorities of the state party as decided by the State Central Committee.

TIME LINE: To be implemented immediately upon passage of this proposal

REFERENCES: Our treasurer's analysis can be viewed at the following URL: http://www.kirajoy.com/CTGP/Treasurer/CTGP_Budget_2004.pdf

RESOURCES: This proposal will require the formation of a fundraising committee.

GREEN PARTY OF CT FISCAL POLICY

These fiscal policies are intended to make possible a higher level of Green political activity, while safeguarding the independence of the Green Party of CT and the accountability of its political and fiscal officers.

1. INCOME

Individuals: Contributions from individuals will be accepted, to a limit of $5,000 per year per contributor. Contributions in excess of this amount must be returned. The names of all individual contributors will be public. Contributions are not tax-deductible.

Organizations: [No contributions will be accepted from political action committees (PACs) without the express authorization of the State Central Committee.] [Preceding sentence deleted.] Receipt of money from political action committees (PACs) is subject to review by the SCC, based on the Ten Key Values of the Connecticut Green Party. The SCC may direct that money received from a particular PAC by the CT Green Party must be returned to that PAC. [Preceding two sentences added.] Grants or contributions from foundations or other non-profit organizations will be accepted, to a limit of $2000 per year per grantor. No contributions will be accepted from for-profit corporations.

Merchandising: Green Party merchandising projects (T-shirts, bumper stickers, supplies, etc.) may be authorized by the State Central Committee. Any such merchandising must be consistent with the Green Party's purposes, in design, materials, production, marketing, and distribution.

Loans: To cover emergencies, sudden expenses, or seed funds for special projects, amounts of $2000 or less may be borrowed by the Connecticut Green Party [words added], with the express authorization of the State Central Committee. Any such loan agreement must be signed by the Treasurer and at least one other member of the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Green Party.

2. EXPENDITURES

Expenditures from the Green Party's general funds may be made by the Treasurer, only when such expenditures have been authorized by the State Central Committee or in the Green Party's interim, annual, or revised annual budget. The Executive Committee is authorized to approve minor expenditures not included in the budget for administrative or emergency matters without prior approval of the State Central Committee up to a limit of $200. The State Central Committee must be informed of such expenditures within one week.

All expenditures will be recorded according to accepted banking and accounting practices, and a report of all expenditures, including payees and amounts, will be available for member review. The Treasurer will include categorized expenditures and income figures in a monthly report to the State Central Committee. All expenditures must be made by check, each of which shall be signed by the treasurer.

3. FISCAL MANAGEMENT

Annual budget: The Executive Committee will propose an annual budget to the State Central Committee by June 1st of every year. The State Central Committee will then vote to approve or reject the proposed budget at the monthly state meeting or on line. The Green Party's fiscal year will be July 1 – June 30. The annual budget will incorporate anticipated expenses and income from all sources. Once approved, the annual budget will limit the purposes and amounts of the Green Party's allowable expenditures, and no expenditures may be made which are not authorized in that budget. Appropriate mid-year revisions to the annual budget may be proposed by the Executive Committee at any time, but require approval by the full State Central Committee. The Green Party's budget will be a public document. A minimum balance of $300 shall be maintained in the Party’s account. The balance may go below $300 if the expenditures are for fundraising expenses.

4. APPROPRIATIONS AND REIMBURSEMENTS

Authorization of expenditures in the budget does not authorize Green Party committees, employees, chapters, or other representatives to actually spend these funds without specific and separate written permission of the treasurer or [steering committee] Executive Committee [term "steering committee" replaced by "Executive Committee"]. A budget is a projection of desired expenditures and does not guarantee that funds will be available.

In order to guarantee reimbursement of expenditure by any committee, employee or other representative, such person must have written permission to spend funds as authorized by the budget. The treasurer may choose to authorize, and any individual may choose to make an expenditure, based on oral permission, but this does not constitute a binding debt on the Green Party.

In order to avoid confusion regarding reimbursements, simplify green party reporting and assure a proper fiscal practice, committees, employees and representatives of the Green Party should make every effort to plan ahead and have expenses paid directly by the Green Party to avoid the need for reimbursements.

5. AUDITING

The Green Party shall [hire] [word deleted] seek to secure the services of [words added] a certified accountant to audit its books at the end of every fiscal year.

6. AMENDMENTS TO THESE FISCAL POLICIES

Amendments to these policies may be proposed by any member of the State Central Committee at any time, according to the same rules used to adopt or amend any other procedure of the Green Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 4 Budget proposal [e-mail from Bob Eaton 7/12/04, monthly amount column omitted]

item#
item
annual amount
comments (added by Secretary)

--------Expenses---------

Exp1
State office in Hartford rent
$1,200
$100 per month from CT Green Party (decrease from current $250 per month; Hartford chapter pays rest)

Exp2
State office in Hartford utilities
$1,200
$100 per month from CT Green Party (this would approximately cover the entire utility bills)

Exp3
Fundraising events
$1,000
Expenses to hold fundraisers

Exp4
Fundraising mailings
$3,000
Postage etc.

Exp5
Money for candidates
600

Exp6
Insurance
830
Liability insurance. New Haven chapter closing its office.

Exp7
Printed handouts
750
Literature (brochures, flyers)

Exp8
Internal elections/annual meeting
$1,500
Postage, printing

Exp9
Buttons/bumper stickers
500

Exp10
Other expenses
400
Domain name registration, etc.

Exp11
Reimbursement to Chris Reilly
900

Spending by Chris for office rent, postage/printing/envelopes for September 2003 fundraising mailing, and CTGP website domain name. This is partial re-payment; balance to be repaid in future budget years.

-------Expenses total---------

11,880

-------Revenues---------------

Rev1
Monthly Friends contributions
$2,400 per year
People who donate monthly to the CT Green Party

Rev2
Telephone solicitations for contributions
$2,400

Rev3
Fundraising from mailings
$4,000

Rev4
Four events
$2,400
Four fundraising events

Rev5
Ad Hoc contributions
$1,200
Examples: contributions by visitors to website, contributions included in annual elections mailing

-------Revenues total----------

12,400

Balance
520

Revenues exceed expenses by $520

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 5 Proposed bylaws changes, to be discussed by chapters, from BRPP committee (bylaws, rules, policies and procedures) [From e-mail received from Tom 7/26/04]

4-2 STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

4-2-A. The State Central Committee (SCC) shall be the final decision making body of the Green Party of Connecticut, and shall consist of democratically elected representatives from each affiliated local chapter.

4-2-B. Local chapters of the CTGP shall be represented at State Central Committee meetings accordingly : up to 99 registered Greens, the chapter is entitled to 2 voting representatives; from 100 to 499 registered Greens, the chapter is entitled to 3 voting representatives; above 500 registered Greens, the chapter is entitled to 4 voting representatives. Voter lists from an appropriate authority (either a town clerk or the Secretary of State) will be the final source in determining the count of a chapter's membership. If these are not obtainable the chapter shall be entitled to two voting representatives.

4-2-C. Caucuses for under-represented groups shall be entitled to one voting representative on the State Central Committee. Under-represented groups are defined as any grouping of Greens that has historically failed to gain adequate access to power in society at-large (i.e., women, African-Americans, youth, etc.). An individual attending an SCC meeting may cast multiple votes--one vote as a chapter representative and one as a caucus representative.

4-2-D. Representatives to the State Central Committee are responsible for disseminating information to their respective local chapters. They are also responsible for following the mandates of the local chapters they represent.

4-2-E. The modified consensus process will be used at State Central Committee meetings. In the event consensus cannot be reached, a vote will be taken with a simple majority being needed for passage of the proposal. Changes to the bylaws need a 66% majority for passage.

4-2-F. Quorum shall be required for votes taken at the State Central Committee meeting. Quorum shall be defined as representation (by at least one voting representative) of at least two-thirds of all active CTGP chapters, excepting Campus Green chapters and inactive chapters.

4-2-G. Chapters shall elect their representatives to the SCC once a year. Representatives shall be eligible for re-election.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 6 Proposed bylaws changes, to be discussed by chapters, from BRPP committee (bylaws, rules, policies and procedures) [From e-mail received from Tom 6/22/04]

4-1. CHAPTERS

4-1-A. A local chapter shall consist of Green Party members from towns and municipalities within a contiguous geographic region. No chapter shall be larger than a County and none smaller than a single town with the exception of Campus Green organizations.

4-1-B. A local chapter may petition for affiliation with the State Central Committee upon having at least three meetings with five or more Green Party members in attendance at each of the three meetings.

4-1-C. A chapter may be declared inactive by a majority vote of the State Central Committee (SCC) if it has not met within the past three months. A chapter will automatically be declared inactive if it has not sent chapter representatives to the State Central Committee meeting for three months in a row. Inactive status will begin as of the third meeting.

4-1-D. The State Central Committee may vote to revoke a chapter's affiliation with the CTGP if that chapter has not met within the past 6 months.

4-1-E. An inactive chapter will be declared active again if it hold two consecutive monthly meetings monthly meetings with at least five members present and sends representatives to two successive state meetings.

4-1-F. Chapters that have had their affiliation revoked must re-petition the State Central Committee for affiliation once the requirements detailed in 4.1.B are met.

TPL_BEEZ2_ADDITIONAL_INFORMATION