June 29, 2004

Minutes of 6/29/04 SCC meeting — “Arrawani Hotel”, Middletown, 7:20-10pm

Attending:

  1. Tolland chapter: Tim McKee
  2. Central Connecticut chapter: Vic Lancia
  3. Hartford chapter: Mike DeRosa, Rob Pandolfo, Ed DuBrule
  4. New London chapter: Andy Derr
  5. Western chapter: John Battista, Justine McCabe
  6. Northwest chapter: Tom Sevigny (facilitator); Bob Eaton (timekeeper); Elizabeth Brancato (not voting for Northwest chapter; voting for Women’s Caucus)
  7. Fairfield chapter: Ed Friend
  8. New Haven chapter: David Eliscu, Ralph Ferrucci

All the above were voting reps. No representative was present from the Northeast, Shoreline, Southeast or West Hartford chapters.

A decision on representation to the national Party was reached. See “Report of US Green Party representatives” below.

A decision on the matter of reaching quorum. Several recent SCC meetings failed to reach quorum and therefore were not able to make official decisions. It was felt at these meetings that a representative from 9 chapters needed to be present for quorum to be achieved.

Tonight we examined the following section of the bylaws, notably the phrase I’ve put in italics.

  1. Regional Chapter Membership Any group of five or more individual members, resident in a cohesive geographical or political area, may form a Regional chapter provided that the group appoints an official who will inform the Party on a continuing basis of Chapter membership, meeting place and schedule, minutes of meetings and other significant Chapter activities, and shall in a timely manner transmit to the Chapter members significant communications from the State Party and shall commit to compliance with all other requirements established by the Party for the conduct of Chapters. The chapter shall also provide regular representation at Party Conventions and State Central Committee Meetings, and timely response (positive or negative) to Party requests for action and information.

Tonight we decided that neither the Southeast chapter nor the West Hartford chapter has complied with the bylaws provision of providing “regular representation at Party Conventions and State Central Committee Meetings”. (Furthermore, it was stated by one attendee that the Southeast chapter has not met in a year.) We thus decided that the number of chapters is 10 (rather than 12), and that the current bylaws requirement for three quarters of the chapters to be present was met tonight (3/4 of 10 is 7.5 chapters, would could be rounded to 7 or 8 chapters—representatives of 8 chapters were present tonight). We thus decided that tonight’s meeting had a quorum.

The quorum issue was again addressed twice in tonight’s meeting: (1) during the report from the Bylaws, Rules, Policies, and Procedures Committee; (2) when a proposal to change the bylaws’ quorum requirement was considered. See below in these minutes.

  1. PRELIMINARIES

    The groundrules for meetings (developed at meetings in November 2002) were adopted to apply to this meeting by consensus. Mike proposed that committee reports and other reports precede proposals. By consensus this agenda order was adopted; these minutes show the rearranged order. The March SCC minutes were accepted by consensus. (No quorum was reached at the April and May meetings and no minutes therefore need to be approved.)

  2. TREASURER’S REPORT

    “First I want to mention that I normally have a conflict on the same night as the monthly SCC meetings so I am unable to attend most of them. This is why I have had someone else read my statements in the past. I should also be able to attend the July SCC meeting. You can always contact me by email or phone.

    “I had to over step my bounds as treasurer last month. The SCC has approved spending money on a liability insurance policy that covers both the Hartford and New Haven offices. We did not have enough money to pay for that policy. My decision was between dropping the policy altogether or paying for a policy that only covers the Hartford office. In addition to covering the Hartford office this policy covers meetings we have at other places and reduces the expense of covering other events. So I decided (in consultation with others) to pay for the Hartford Office policy. I wrote a check for $415 for half the cost of the policy. We still owe another payment of $415 that is due soon.

    “We have just under $400 in the Connecticut Green Party bank account so obviously I don’t have the money right now to make the second insurance payment. We also have a $300 obligation for the Hartford Office and there will be some other minor expenses. I anticipate that we will receive at least $100 from regular donations and hopefully another $300 in one time contributions.

    “With some luck we will get through July, but I’m not sure what will happen in August. Please take a look at the proposed fiscal policy and budget ideas and think about 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 green at spazmo dot com or look at this webpage: http://www.kirajoy.com/CTGP/CTGP_Treasurer.html”

    Relevant to the second paragraph of the above Treasurer’s report, it should be noted that the decision to cover, with insurance, the Hartford office, but not the New Haven office, was made for two reasons: (1) the New Haven office appears to be closing due to a change in the terms of the rental agreement with the New Haven chapter—a drastic increase in rent; (2) the cost of an insurance policy covering the CTGP’s general liability needs and the Hartford office (but not a New Haven office) is $830 per year; the cost of an insurance policy covering our general liability needs and an office in the current geographic district as the present Eld St. New Haven office would have been $1700 per year; the cost of an insurance policy covering our general liability needs and both offices would have been $2300 per year. (These prices represent about a 40% increase in premium prices over what we paid last year.)

    It was reported by member(s) of the Executive Committee at tonight’s meeting that liability insurance cannot be purchased unless the organization (the CTGP) has property (such as rental of an office). Tom Sevigny said that his insurance agent had told him the same thing; or that if there were no office we would need to pay $200 to $300 per event for insurance.

    An attendee wondered whether the Ralph Ferrucci-for-Congress campaign office could be added to the policy. There was discussion as to whether Green events are automatically covered by our insurance or whether a rider ($50) needs to be bought for each event. Is there a distinction between “meetings” and “other events”? Does the serving of alcohol at such events influence this? An attendee said that in the past chapters used to contact Karin Norton (of the Tolland chapter) when they planned events. Justine said that she was told about a year ago that the CTGP insurance policy doesn’t cover events.

    The reference in the above Treasurer’s report to “hopefully another $300 in one time contributions” refers to the recent work of the fundraising committee (see report of fundraising committee, below in these minutes).

  3. CONNECTICUT GREEN PARTY COMMITTEE REPORTS

    1. Fundraising Committee report

      Mike reported that he and others on the fundraising committee have called potential donors and raised $300 in pledges. For a major fundraising event planned at the Sherman Playhouse, see report of Northwest and Western chapters, below in these minutes.

      Tom discussed ideas (deriving in part from conversations at the Milwaukee convention) for bringing Medea Benjamin, Jason West, and/or Matt Gonzalez to Connecticut for fundraisers and candidate support. Jason West (a Green who has married same-sex couples) could perhaps come to the Connecticut Gay Pride event in Hartford in September. Other attendees tonight contributed ideas for including fundraiser receptions/cocktail parties (at a private home and/or in the Hartford office) when prominent Greens visit Connecticut.

    2. Budget Committee report

      Two meetings of the Budget committee have resulted in a draft budget, which has been posted at http://www.kirajoy.com/CTGP/Treasurer/Budget_B.html; you can also download it as an Excel file or a pdf file from http://www.kirajoy.com/CTGP/CTGP_Treasurer.html. This budget will be brought by the Budget Committee to the Executive Committee at the next meeting of the Executive Committee.

    3. Elections Committee (with input from chapters as to candidates they’re running)

      Some of the Green Party candidates who we expect to run next November were mentioned. Candidates associated with the Fairfield chapter are David Albano (state senate), John Amarilios (state senate), Clausel Berrouet (Inspector of Elections, i.e. registrar of voters), Nancy Burton (state rep), Remy Chevalier (state senate), and Matt Hoegemann (board of education). (Nancy Burton as a lawyer fought issues related to the Millstone Nuclear Power plants.) Ralph Ferrucci has set up an office in Middletown for his run for Congress from the Second Congressional District.

      Mike and Tom said we need volunteers for the party designation committee—approximately 25 people—they sign off on candidates once these candidates are approved by chapters. Document(s) for candidates must be submitted to the CT Secretary of State’s office, with at least 2 co-chairs signing. This must be done by a deadline in early September. There is no need to wait until early September; the party designation committee can submit paperwork on candidates one by one as they are approved by chapters—in fact this would probably be the best plan for us. At least one person of the approximately 25 people must come from each candidate’s district. A sheet was passed around asking for volunteers to be on this committee, as a start.

      By consensus, the SCC endorsed Ralph Ferrucci’s campaign, per his request. Ralph said that because Charlie Pillsbury had run previously for Congress in the district, Ralph didn’t need to collect signatures.

    4. Communications Committee

      Tom said that Aaron (the Party’s webmaster for the CTGP website) is working on setting up a system in which chapters can enter their membership lists into a central database. Communication would be two-way (if a state mailing yielded an address change, it could be communicated to the chapters).

    5. Diversity Committee—no recent meetings.

    6. Women’s Caucus. Met May 27—much discussion (for example, CTGP budget), no decisions.

    7. Bylaws, Rules, Policies, and Procedures Committee (BRPP committee)

      Tom asked that attendees at tonight’s meeting bring a section of proposed bylaws changes to their chapters for comments/approval. This text is in Appendix 1 of these minutes. [Note from the secretary: I published this text on the CTGP announcements listserve 7/6/04, so that chapters could consider it if they met before these minutes were published.]

      Mike asked who is on the BRPP committee. Tom said that the following are members: himself, David Agosta, Trish Dayan, Glenn Mirmina, and Ed DuBrule. Ed said that he had contributed language and ideas (on inactive chapters) to the text in Appendix 1. Andy and Mike said they would like to join this committee. Mike asked if the committee had met in the course of coming up with this text. Tom said all the work has been done by e-mails. Mike said that he feels that work as important as bylaws changes needs to involve in-person committee meetings, whose time/place are announced.

    8. Executive Committee

      Met in June and published minutes of their meeting on the announcements listserve. Ed said he was working on getting a compact disk containing Connecticut registered voters from the Secretary of State’s office. It would cost $300. Mike suggested exploring obtaining this information via a Freedom of Information Act request, saying that the only charge would be a per-page duplicating cost (perhaps 25 cents per page).

    9. Other committee(s) of the CT Green Party
  4. OTHER REPORTS

    1. Chapter reports

      1. Northwest and Western chapters—planning a fundraising night at the Sherman Playhouse (tribute to folksinger Woody Guthrie ["This Land is Your Land"]). Will need help publicizing this event—contact Tom Sevigny or Bob Eaton. It could raise $1500 to $2200 for the CT Green Party. [Note from the secretary: since the June SCC meeting, the date for this fundraiser has been established as 9/11/04.] Candidate(s) or potential candidate(s) may be able to speak at this event.
      2. Middletown chapter—member(s) are working on the Ferrucci campaign
      3. Fairfield chapter—working on campaigns (see Elections Committee, above)
      4. New London chapter—concerned about charter revision. No candidates.
      5. Hartford chapter—had keep-the-office-open fundraiser attended by 25 people (music by folksinger and poetry by George Michael Evica). Another similar fundraiser will probably be held soon. Mike said that the office may be shared with artists, so that the rent can be split.

        May run candidate for state senate (since Mike ran previously, no need to gather petition signatures). May run candidate for registrar of voters.

        Established a 2-person PAC (political action committee). This PAC was simple to set up and is simple to run. It can collect up to $10,000.

        Elizabeth Horton Sheff will join others in speaking at a peace march/demonstration at Pope Park/Bushnell Park June 30.

      6. Western chapter—will be at Village Fair Days the last weekend of July (Friday July 30 and Saturday July 31). (Busiest times are Friday evening and all day Saturday.) Will have a booth. Candidates and members of other chapters should also come; the Western chapter encourages many Greens to participate in this effort. Candidates could collect signatures, and the crowd could be leafletted. Tens of thousands of people attend, from all over Connecticut (and also from New York).
    2. Report from Milwaukee presidential nominating convention

      Ten people from CT went to this convention. They included (incomplete list): Tom Sevigny, Justine McCabe, John Battista, David Eliscu, Tim McKee, Rob Pandolfo, and Mazin Qumsiyeh.

      The first vote did not nominate anyone—the threshold needed to win on this round (385 votes) was not reached. The first vote results were (in descending order by number of votes received): Cobb—308 votes; Camejo—119 votes; Nader 117.5 votes; no nominee—74.5 votes; Salzman—40 votes; none of the above—35.5 votes; other candidates and uncommitted—a long list of vote counts (contact the Secretary if you’d like the figures) [from an e-mail received 6/30/04].

      Then candidates who had said they wouldn’t accept the nomination were removed, and a second vote was held. This vote led to the nomination of David Cobb. The threshold needed to win on this round was 384 votes. The complete results for this second vote were: Cobb—408 votes; no nominee—308 votes; Kent Mesplay—43 votes; JoAnn Beemon—8 votes; 4 abstains (the abstains did not count in the votes cast or in the threshold).

      Connecticut had 15 votes (including 5 proxy votes). The CT delegation’s vote on the second round was 8—no endorsement; 7—Cobb.

      The convention also passed a new national platform. The Connecticut delegation attended, and participated in, a wide variety of activities at the convention. These included Israeli issues, energy issues, how European Greens got into power, health care issues, political campaigning workshops, discussions with international Greens, and conflict resolution work involving one Green caucus. There were discussions at the convention (involving a man named Asa Gordon) about a section of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (passed during Reconstruction) which deals with politically compensating disenfranchised voters (perhaps “victims” of a winner-take-all” voting system).

      This year 400 Greens will be running for office across the US (versus slightly over 500 candidates two or three years ago.) Maine has instituted campaign finance reform (including public funding of campaigns) and 23 Greens will be running for state rep/state senate in Maine.

    3. Report of US Green Party representatives

      It was pointed out that in the March 2004 internal elections Tom Sevigny and Steve Krevisky were elected as our US Green Party reps, with Tim McKee as our alternate. It was reported tonight that Steve has gone to Europe for six weeks. There is a question as to whether Steve will be participating in the national Party listserves during this time. There is a question as to how active Steve has been in this role. Tonight we agreed by consensus that Tim should serve as our US Green Party representative until Steve gets back.

      Tom said that a new national steering committee has been elected, with some truly “new” people.

      Tom said that the national Party has a ballot-access working group. This group wants to do work such as perhaps filing lawsuits to make it easier for “third parties” to get on the ballots in “difficult” states. Mike wants to join this working group, and tonight we decided by consensus that the SCC approves Mike’s doing this.

      Tom passed out copies of the national Party’s candidate recruitment manual.

    4. VOTER. Mike will post to listerve(s) an article about Senator Dodd’s role in the CT legislature’s rejection of the paper-trail bill. Mike pointed out that Dodd is up for re-election. The Libertarians are running a candidate against him.
  5. PROPOSALS

    1. Proposal on SCC quorum bylaws revision (Appendix 2) (New London chapter)—2/3 of chapters rather than 3/4 of chapters. As a bylaws revision proposal, this was sent by the March SCC meeting to chapters. Chapters will report back tonight.

      Andy Derr asked that the proposal be clarified by changing the words “Attendance by at least one representative of at least two thirds or more of all Chapters...” to “Attendance by at least one representative of two thirds or more of all Chapters...” (that is, removing the words “at least”).

      This bylaws change was accepted by consensus at tonight’s SCC meeting. This means that we have changed our bylaws. [Note from the Secretary: although the Shoreline chapter was not represented at tonight’s meeting, Lindsay Mathews of that chapter informed me that Shoreline had voted in favor of this proposal.]

    2. Conflict resolution committees report, including presentation of one-year evaluation of the procedure by the Conflict Resolution Committee (a.k.a. Ad Hoc Process Committee) (document to be distributed at the meeting).

      From the conflict resolution document approved by the April 2003 SCC meeting:

      One year after the SCC approves the Resolution Process, the SCC shall ask the Ad Hoc Process 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.

      Tonight David Eliscu represented the Ad Hoc Process Committee. One major change in the revised Resolution Process document is the addition of an appeals process. The relevant paragraphs are pasted here:

      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.
      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).

      Tonight Ed reminded the SCC meeting that an action had been taken by a Resolution Committee in the case of John Battista vs. Amy Vas Nunes. (Amy was suspended from participation in state-level Party activities for two years.) Ed proposed an amendment which would add a sentence after the last sentence of the first paragraph above. This added sentence would state that Amy would be allowed 90 days to obtain the approval of two chapters (for a petition as detailed in the first paragraph above) from the date at which the SCC approved the revised Resolution Process.

      Concern was expressed that this would amount to changing the process retrospectively. It was also asked whether at the September 2003 SCC meeting, at which revising the conflict resolution process was discussed and at which Michael Westerfield (among others) had spoken, it had been agreed that there would be no appeals (or no appeals of cases decided during the first year). Ed and Mike said that they did not remember this having been decided at this meeting. [Secretary’s note: the relevant portion of the minutes of the September 2003 SCC meeting are provided as Appendix 3 of these minutes.]

      There was discussion of possible legal implications of adopting Ed’s amendment (or not adopting it), should the CTGP be sued as a result of the Battista-vs.-Vas Nunes complaint. Mike said that adopting Ed’s amendment might influence the healing of the CT Green Party, wounded by the conflicts of the past. Mike said that he felt the CTGP needed a Bill of Rights.

      It was decided that the Ad Hoc Process Committee would consider the issue of adding Ed’s amendment, and/or the issue would be discussed at a future SCC meeting when other member(s) of the Ad Hoc Process Committee (such as David Adams, Charlie Pillsbury, or Lynah Linwood) could be present.

    3. Proposal on Executive Committee endorsement of events (Executive Committee) (Appendix 4).

      Elizabeth presented the proposal. Justine asked why the Executive Committee had endorsed a proposal on the Boston Social Forum and the DNC2RNC march but had not endorsed a proposal for endorsement of a petition (to be presented to Congress) of the Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. [Secretary’s note: These three items appeared on the May 2004 SCC agenda, but the May SCC meeting did not have a quorum. Discussions among Executive Committee members after the May SCC meeting led to endorsement of the Boston Social Forum (to be held in the Boston area in July) and of the DNC2RNC march (a march of activists from the Democratic National Convention to the Republican National Convention), but the Executive Committee did not endorse the Israeli occupation petition.] Justine said that the Israeli occupation petition was consistent with past CT Green Party and national Green Party statements on the Israeli occupation. She said that the CT Green Party could have joined a large group of endorsers of this petition.

      Members of the Executive Committee tonight said that the Executive Committee had discussed—in the period after the May SCC meeting—concerns about whether the Executive Committee could properly make endorsements of any item, or whether it was proper that only the SCC make endorsements.

      Discussion continued at tonight’s meeting. It was pointed out that the national Party has an extensive platform, but that inadequate work has been done on a Connecticut Green Party platform.

      Justine proposed amending the proposal (Appendix 1) to incorporate the idea that in deciding on endorsements, the Executive Committee could draw guidance from the 10 Key Values and the national Party’s platform.

      Ed proposed the that the wording in the proposal (Appendix 1) be changed from “... endorse and/or agree to co-sponsor events or activities ...” to “... endorse and/or agree to co-sponsor events, activities, proposals, or petitions ...” He referred to the hypothetical case of a petition directed toward a legislative body.

      Consensus was reached on approving the proposal with Justine’s and Ed’s amendments. [Note from the secretary: discussion here was fast-moving ; the 10pm deadline for the end of the meeting was fast approaching. Exact wording of an amendment with Justine’s ideas was not read into the record. I will add the following sentence to the proposal: “(4) The Executive Committee should draw guidance from the 10 Key Values and the national Green Party platform."]

    4. Proposal on Executive Committee authorization to appropriate funds (Executive Committee) (Appendix 5)

      This proposal was passed by consensus.

    5. Authorization of David Eliscu and Charlie Pillsbury to serve on the national Dispute Resolution Committee.

      This agenda item was not reached, for lack of time.

    6. Proposal on financial policy (Northwest, Western, Fairfield and New London chapters.)

      This agenda item was not reached, for lack of time.

Appendix 1. Text of proposed bylaws section, from BRPP committee(bylaws, rules, policies and procedures committee)

ARTICLE IV STRUCTURE

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 consectutive monthly meetings monthly meetings with at least five members present and sends representatives to two successive state meetings.

4.1.F. Chapter’s 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.

Appendix 2. Proposal on bylaws change—quorum of SCC meeting

Green Party Meeting Proposal Form

PRESENTER (committee, chapter(s) or group of individuals): New London chapter
CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email): Andy Derr, 16 Cliff Street, New London, CT 06320, 860-437-8826, amderr at mail dot ctol dot net
SUBJECT (10 words or less): Changing the by-laws regarding quorum at State Central Committee meetings.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee): We are requesting this change in the bylaws because the SCC has been unable to get a quorum four of the last five meetings and has, therefore, been unable to meet. Many people travel long distances to get to the meetings only to find that we don’t have a quorum and cannot vote. During the winter icy road conditions can keep chapter representatives from attending. Changing to a two thirds quorum will ensure that the party can function efficiently on a monthly basis. Compared to many other organizations, a quorum of three quarters seems too high.

PROPOSAL (200 words or less): The current bylaws regarding quorums for the State Central Committee read as follows:

  1. Party Structure & Functions

    Attendance by at least one representative of three quarters or more of all Chapters shall be required for formal consideration of any significant motion or proposal, and a majority vote of the representatives present shall be required for approval.

We propose changing this bylaw to read:

Attendance by AT LEAST ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF at least two thirds or more of all Chapters shall be required for formal consideration of any significant motion or proposal, and a majority vote of the representatives present shall be required for approval. [Secretary’s note—the words in CAPITALS were added via an amendment at the March 2003 SCC meeting.]

Appendix 3. Excerpt from minutes of September 2003 SCC meeting—referred to above under Proposals (b) (revised conflict resolution document).

  1. Northeast chapter proposal—reconvening Conflict Resolution Committee. At the March 2003 SCC meeting a Conflict Resolution Committee was formed consisting of Charlie Pillsbury, Ralph Ferrucci, Michael Westerfield, Steve Krevisky, Lynah Linwood, and Penny Teal. This committee wrote a document (which these minutes will refer to as “the conflict resolution document") which proposed a conflict resolution process for the Connecticut Green Party. This document was adopted by the April 2003 SCC meeting. This document sets up three types of committees: a standing Process Committee, Expanded Process Committees (formed and dissolved as complaints are processed), and Resolution Committees (formed and dissolved as complaints are processed). The Process Committee consists of David Adams, Rachel Goodkind, and Lynah Linwood.

    Tonight the SCC dealt with a proposal from the Northeast chapter (Appendix 3). The SCC meeting agenda referred to it as a proposal to reconvene the Process Committee, but it is more accurately termed a proposal to reconvene the Conflict Resolution Committee (Charlie Pillsbury et al).

    Michael Westerfield explained that questions had come up as the conflict resolution process dealt with its first complaint, the complaint filed by John Battista against Amy Vas Nunes. It was the coming to light of these questions that motivated the presentation of the Northeast chapter’s proposal. Further questions could arise as the first complaint is dealt with further, or as subsequent complaints are dealt with.

    The “proposal” section of the Northeast chapter proposal reads as follows: “That the original ’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". Michael said tonight that he expected that the Conflict Resolution Committee would work with the current Process Committee when the Conflict Resolution Committee reconvened. Michael said further that the Conflict Resolution Committee could choose to keep the conflict resolution document, but this document would be clarified and amended.

    The conflict resolution committee document states that one year after the SCC approves the Resolution Process, 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.” Since the conflict resolution document was accepted by the April 2003 SCC meeting, the SCC would ask the committee to begin its work in April 2004. Tonight David Adams said that the committee would need a number of months to prepare its report and proposed an amendment to the Northeast chapter’s proposal which was accepted by Michael Westerfield: The Conflict Resolution Committee shall reconvene well in advance of April 2004; its report shall be presented to the April 2004 SCC meeting.

    A second amendment was proposed tonight; it was accepted by Michael Westerfield: the processing of the Battista-versus-Vas Nunes complaint, and of other complaints processed before the reconvened committee reported, will not be altered by the reconvening.

    The facilitator asked if there were any blocking concerns to the adoption of the Northeast chapter proposal, with the above two amendments. One Green stated that she had a blocking concern.

    A third amendment was then proposed; it was accepted by Michael Westerfield: Nothing in the Northeast chapter’s proposal (as amended) precludes the reconvened Conflict Resolution Committee from establishing a review process and proposing that cases dealt with prior to the adoption of its report could be reviewed retroactively.

    The facilitator asked if the proposal, with its three amendments, could be accepted by consensus. The Green who had had a blocking concern stated that she would stand aside, that is, not prevent the SCC from adopting the process by consensus. The Northeast chapter proposal, with its three amendments, was accepted by consensus by the SCC.

Appendix 4. Proposal on Executive Committee endorsement of events

Green Party Meeting Proposal Form

PRESENTER (committee, chapter(s) or group of individuals): Executive Committee
CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email): Elizabeth M. Brancato, 19 Smith Street, Torrington, CT 06790, embrancato at netzero dot com
SUBJECT (10 words or less): Executive Committee endorsement of events.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee): The opportunity to endorse and/or co-sponsor events sometimes occurs close to the time of the event. When this happens there is not enough time to write a proposal and submit it to the Chapters, then to vote on it at an SCC meeting. We must not miss an opportunity to ally with other groups because we are unable to move quickly enough, when it is in our interest to do so. The Executive Committee has in the past exercised this function, but has not received official SCC approval to do so.

PROPOSAL (200 words or less): We propose:

  1. that the Executive Committee, by majority vote, be authorized to endorse and/or agree to co-sponsor events or activities, when there is not time to submit the request to the full SCC;
  2. in such a situation the event shall be said to be “endorsed (or co-sponsored) by the Connecticut Green Party”;
  3. in such a situation the endorsement or co-sponsorship shall be put on the announcements listserve within 48 hours of the Executive Committee decision.

Appendix 5. Proposal on Executive Committee authorization to appropriate funds

Green Party Meeting Proposal Form

PRESENTER (committee, chapter(s) or group of individuals): Executive Committee
CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email): Elizabeth M. Brancato, 19 Smith Street, Torrington, CT 06790, embrancato at netzero dot com
SUBJECT (10 words or less): Executive Committee authorization to appropriate funds.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee): In conjunction with the proposal to allow the Executive Committee to endorse events and activities when there isn’t time for the approval of the full SCC, we request that the SCC grant us the ability to appropriate sums up to $50 where there isn’t time to put the expenditure to the full SCC. We also foresee the possibility of other expenditures having to be made between SCC meetings, either because of a time issue, or because it was overlooked at the SCC meeting.

PROPOSAL (200 words or less): We propose that the Executive Committee, by majority vote, be authorized to spend up to $50.00 when there is not time to submit the request to the full SCC. Such expenditures will be reported to the SCC at its next meeting, and time will be allowed in the agenda for full discussion of any EC-approved expenditures.

TPL_BEEZ2_ADDITIONAL_INFORMATION