Minutes of 9/30/03 SCC meeting--Fisk Hall Room 302, Wesleyan University, 7-9:15pm
1. Introductions/identify chapter reps, recruit stacker and timekeeper. (“NV” means non-voting; "V" means voting) [Secretary's note: I came late to the meeting. I received a list of attendees from another Green. "Voting" or "Nonvoting" status is based on last months' minutes.]
(1) Central Connecticut chapter: Vic Lancia(V), Steve Krevisky
(2) Hartford chapter: Ed DuBrule (NV) (part of meeting), Barbara Barry DeRosa(V), Mike DeRosa(V), Chris Reilly(V), Lynah Linwood
(3) North Central chapter: Jeff Schaefer(V)
(4) Northeast chapter: Amy Vas Nunes(V), Michael Westerfield
(5) Northwest chapter: Tom Sevigny(V), Judy Herkimer(V but not voting tonight because facilitating), Kim Herkimer(V), Bob Eaton
(6) Shoreline chapter: David Adams(V), Lindsay Mathews(V)
(7) Southeast chapter: Penny Teal(V)
(8) Tolland chapter: Tim McKee(V), Sue Chipman (V)
(9) Western chapter: Justine McCabe(V), John Battista(V)
(10) West Hartford chapter: Ana Lachelier
Also: Adam from Hebron(NV), Lindsay from Middletown(NV), and Jessica(NV).
No attendees were present from the New Haven, Fairfield or New London chapters. Judy facilitated; Vic served as timekeeper; Tom Sevigny served as stacker (a “stacker” keeps track of who will speak next). The above list indicates 25 attendees, of whom 15 were voting at this meeting, 5 nonvoting, with 5 of voting status unknown to the secretary.
The dissolution of the North Central chapter is reported below ("Reports" section, subsection "Chapter and campaign reports").
2. Adopt groundrules. The groundrules for meetings (developed at meetings in November 2002) were adopted to apply to this meeting by consensus.
3. Approval of tonight’s proposed agenda/additions and deletions. The agenda was approved by consensus. Three brief additional agenda item appear at the end of these minutes--report from the conflict resolution committees, presidential election committee report, and Women's Caucus report.
4. Comments/approval of August SCC minutes. Justine said that she wished to discuss, at the next Executive Committee meeting, the accuracy of the last two sentences in the following excerpt from the minutes of the August meeting: "Justine spoke about the appropriateness of outreach to the Arab and Muslim-American communities. She is working on a brochure. She told of an e-mail she had received from a group from the Arab and Muslim-American communities which read 'Although many of us in the peace movement are registered Democrats, we hope to galvanize citizens of [conscience] to throw their support behind the Green party.' Another attendee at tonight's meeting wondered if outreach to the Jewish community would also be appropriate. She also wondered if it is appropriate to write brochures aimed at one particular group."
The minutes were approved by consensus.
5. Treasurer's report. Bruce Crowder was not at the meeting but he submitted a report:
CTGP Financial Status
Bruce Crowder, Treasurer
Sept. 29, 2003
Money on hand
Current Balance $3,193
Owed to chapters -$2,996
Theoretical Balance $197
New Haven $598
New London $109
North East $119
North West $1,821
West Hartford $132
North Central $26
All Chapters $2,996
Chris Reilly reported that he, Vic Lancia, Ed Savage, and Ed DuBrule had sent out the first 1000 of the annual fundraising letters. A mailing bureau (mailing service) was not used. Ed Savage did the computer work (list-merging and label-printing). The letters were mailed to all members (as defined in the bylaws) of the Fairfield chapter, and names were used from the West Hartford and Hartford chapters. First-class postage (37 cents) was used; this gives some address correction information from the post office. There are no concrete plans at present for mailing further letters, although this will be done eventually.
6. Special guest David Cobb. David Cobb would like to be nominated as the presidential candidate of the Green Party for the 2004 elections (Appendix 1). Tim McKee videotaped this part of the meeting.
7. Guest slot. If a guest comes to the meeting (such as the union representative who came to speak about the Immigrant Workers' Freedom Ride in August), the guest will speak here. There was no guest for this agenda item.
1. Approval of aligning with (affiliating with) Veterans for Peace and War Resisters' League; Love Makes a Family form (Appendix 2). By consensus the Connecticut Green Party affiliated with Veterans for Peace (Connecticut chapter) and War Resisters' League (Connecticut chapter). [Secretary's note: for the meaning of the term "affiliation" in this context, see the minutes of the April 2003 SCC meeting and the proposed agenda included in the minutes of the July 2003 SCC meeting.]
Ed DuBrule referred meeting attendees to Appendix 2 of the proposed agenda (included in these minutes). He passed out a form ("Love Makes a Family Supporting Organization Sign-Up Sheet"), taken from the Love Makes a Family Connecticut chapter website a few months ago (www.lmfct.org/supporting.htm). The form says, in part, "we agree with the following goals: Protection of our 2000 legislative victories: Coparent Adoption Bill ... and Domestic Partnership Coverage for State Employees; Defeating any Connecticut 'defense of marriage bills' ...; Passage of legislation providing legal recognition of ... same-gender couples."
Ed reminded attendees that the Connecticut Green Party had already affiliated with Love Makes a Family at the May 2003 SCC meeting. He said that he had very nearly sent a filled-in form to Love Makes a Family, as requested by a Green Party member who does work with Love Makes a Family. However a question was raised at an Executive Committee meeting as to whether the SCC should be asked whether we want to check "yes" (or "no") to the following:
"In addition to the goals above, our organization would also like to be listed as a supporter of the national petition known as "The Marriage Resolution", which states: 'Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and committment of civil marriage. Yes___ No____."
Ed stated that one Green has explained the above choice as "The other question of where to sign on the form is basically a choice between same-sex Civil Unions (as in Vermont) or full-fledged marriage rights (which Ontario, and by default the rest of Canada, has just granted) Civil Union is good, marriage is better. Civil Union grants all the legal rights of marriage, but is a separate-but-equal status" [e-mail received 6/21/03]
Attendees expressed a desire for more information and clarification of the issues raised. One attendee thought that Love Makes a Family was lobbying for civil union. It was agreed that Ed would seek more information on these issues and make a presentation at a future SCC meeting. It was also agreed that the form would be taken to the chapters for discussion.
2. 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.
3. (5 minutes) Proposal on Executive Committee meetings (Northeast chapter) (Appendix 4). At least three attendees objected to the inclusion in the proposal of the statements in the "background and purpose" section. One of these attendees pointed out that if the proposal was passed these statements would be entered into the SCC meeting minutes. The idea was raised that the proposal could be considered at a future SCC meeting after changes had been made to the "background and purpose" section. Nine attendees indicated they had blocking concerns to adoption of the proposal as written. The time period allocated to the proposal had expired; by vote we decided not to devote further time tonight to the proposal (yes devote more time--1 vote; no--14; abstain--1).
4. (15 minutes) Action Plan for Connecticut Green Party developed by the Executive Committee (Appendix 5 below). Tom presented the Action Plan. He spoke of the important role of committees in the Plan and of the need for active committees. Mike said that he really likes the Action Plan; he said that the first three sections of the plan (1. Fundraising, 2. Media, 3. Elections) were perhaps the most important parts of the Plan and attention should be focused on these areas immediately. Penny said that she, too, strongly supports the Plan but believes that chapters should be involved in discussing it.
As proposed in the Plan, "...each member of the Executive Committee could assume responsibility as a liaison to these committees". Thus individual members of the Executive Committee might be assigned responsibility for the active functioning of committees included in one section of the Plan (for example, one co-chair might focus on section 1, fundraising). The idea was raised that chapters might focus on defined parts of the Plan (for example, one chapter might focus on section 1, fundraising). Such a division of labor might be easier than organizing committees. Tom said this idea was consistent with the Plan.
Concerns or questions were expressed about the following sentence in the Plan: "Committees must have the freedom to meet when they want to by whatever means they want to (i.e. in-person, teleconference, e-mail)." Would such ideas allow sufficient open-ness to committee proceedings? Would minutes of conferences calls be appropriate or required? If each committee were required to give a monthly report, would that sole requirement ensure a sufficient degree of open-ness and accountability?
One attendee said that the SCC had already adopted rules about committees--when they meet, whether they must keep minutes.
The facilitator tested for consensus on adoption of the proposal. Two attendees indicated that they had blocking concerns about the open-ness issues; they also indicated that they believed that the Action Plan should be discussed by the chapters.
It was agreed that the Action Plan should be discussed by the chapters; it will be considered again by the October SCC meeting.
1. Chapter and campaign reports--1 minute per chapter (2 minutes rather than 1 minute if the chapter has candidate[s])
North Central chapter Jeff reported that the chapter had decided to discontinue its existence (dissolve). Former chapter members, if they want to continue working with the Green Party, may come to Hartford chapter meetings. The chapter also decided to absolve the state level Party of any money which might be owed to the chapter.
Northwest chapter Smart Growth conference October 11
Hartford chapter fundraiser for Elizabeth Horton Sheff campaign September 29, more planned (Hartford City Council)
Tolland chapter Earl Leighton campaign; cable access show in Vernon, starting cable access show in Manchester
Shoreline chapter Colin Bennet campaign (Westbrook board of education); working on membership/mailing list for fundraising letter; Lindsay has brochures on why Greens didn't spoil the 2000 presidential election
Northeast chapter Candidates Jean deSmet (selectman, Windham), Amy Vas Nunes (board of ed, Windham), Michael Westerfield (board of finance, Windham), also Juan Perez (registered Green running on Working Families Party line for selectman, Willimantic)
Western chapter Brooks Kelly campaign (board of ed, New Milford); speaker Rahul Mahajan at University of Hartford October 1; Justine spoke as part of human rights abroad panel at UConn's Dodd Center October 7; John Battista working as part of Presidential Elections Committee--had meeting September 15, presidential elections forum October 27 at Hartford office 7-9pm (see also report of Presidential Elections Committee below)
Southeast chapter Continues work on anti-Patriot Act ordinance; these efforts will be part of a film now being made by a New York filmmaker
Central Connecticut chapter working on re-energizing the chapter
2. (5 minutes) Election Committee report. Ed DuBrule stated that additional member(s) of this committee would be welcome
3. (7 minutes) US Green Party Representatives' Report/Foreign Policy Initiative. No report/discussion, for lack of time
4. (5 minutes) Diversity Committee report. Bob Eaton reported. Rob Pandolfo tabled at a health fair, passed out diversity committee brochures and collected names of interested people; please inform the committee of tabling opportunities; working on speaker(s); next meeting October 20 6:30pm Hartford office
5 (10 minutes) Tim McKee report
--Play "Graves" Friday October 17 7:30 pm Black Box Theater Hartford (CTGP co-sponsor) plus discussion afterwards
--campaign video from Cambridge MA how-to-run-a-campaign workshops--3 hours--available to any Green to copy
--presidential election forum October 27 Hartford office 7-9pm
--David Cobb visit events (late September) publicity--also trying to get Courant to publish more of our events
6 Conflict resolution committees report [added to agenda]. David Adams reported that the Expanded Process committee has completed work on a complaint and submitted this report to the Resolution Committee for this complaint.
7 Presidential elections committee report [added to agenda] The committee is working on a document titled "What Should the Connecticut Green Party do in the 2004 Presidential Election?", which will be distributed to the chapters for feedback. (See also report of Western chapter above.)
8 Women's Caucus report [added to agenda]. Met and formulated a proposed agenda for the caucus; establishing a listserve; welcome new members; will elect a voting representative to the SCC at their next meeting.
Proposed agenda for 9/30/03 SCC meeting
1. (5 minutes) Introductions/identify chapter reps, recruit stacker and timekeeper.
2. (2 minutes) Adopt groundrules.
3. (5 minutes) Approval of tonight’s proposed agenda/additions and deletions.
4. (5 minutes) Comments/approval of August SCC minutes.
5. (5 minutes) Treasurer's report.
6. (20 minutes) Special guest David Cobb (20 minutes)--see Appendix 1 about David Cobb. Additionally, David Cobb will return after the SCC meeting to speak with SCC attendees further and answer questions.
7. (5 minutes) Guest slot. If a guest comes to the meeting (such as the union representative who came to speak about the Immigrant Workers' Freedom Ride in August), the guest will speak here.
1. (3 minutes) Approval of aligning with (affiliating with) Veterans for Peace and War Resisters' League; Love Makes a Family form (Appendix 2)
2. (15 minutes) Northeast chapter proposal--reconvening of Process Committee (see Appendix 3)
3. (5 minutes) Executive Committee meetings (Appendix 4)
4. (15 minutes) Action Plan for Connecticut Green Party developed by the Executive Committee (Appendix 5 below)
1. Chapter and campaign reports--1 minute per chapter (2 minutes rather than 1 minute if the chapter has candidate[s])
2. (5 minutes) Election Committee report
3. (7 minutes) US Green Party Representatives' Report/Foreign Policy Initiative
4. (5 minutes) Diversity Committee report
5 (10 minutes) Tim McKee report
6 Conflict resolution committees report [added to agenda]
7 Presidential elections committee report [added to agenda]
8 Women's Caucus report [added to agenda]
Appendix 1--About David Cobb (received from John Battista 8/29/03)
Appendix 2--Love Makes a Family Form--this form will be brought to the meeting. It is at www.lmfct.org/supporting.htm.
Note from the secretary (Ed DuBrule):
The Green Party has already affiliated with Love Makes a Family. The secretary very nearly sent in the form ("Love Makes a Family Supporting Organization Sign-Up Sheet"), as requested by a Green Party member who does work with Love Makes a Family. The form says, in part, "we agree with the following goals: Protection of our 2000 legislative victories: Coparent Adoption Bill ... and Domestic Partnership Coverage for State Employees; Defeating any Connecticut 'defense of marriage bills' ...; Passage of legislation providing legal recognition of ... same-gender couples"
However a question was raised (I think at an Executive Committee meeting) as to whether the SCC should be asked whether we want to check "yes" (or "no") to the following: "In addition to the goals above, our organization would also like to be listed as a supporter of the national petition known as "The Marriage Resolution", which states: 'Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and committment of civil marriage. Yes___ No____."
One Green has explained the above choice as "The other question of where to sign on the form is basically a choice between same-sex Civil Unions (as in Vermont) or full-fledged marriage rights (which Ontario, and by default the rest of Canada, has just granted) Civil Union is good, marriage is better. Civil Union grants all the legal rights of marriage, but is a separate-but-equal status" [e-mail received 6/21/03]
Appendix 3--Northeast chapter proposal--reconvening of Process Committee
Green Party Meeting Proposal Form
PRESENTER (committee, chapter(s) or group of individuals):
Michael Westerfield for the Northeast Chapter
CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email):
SUBJECT (10 words or less): Re-evaluating the Process Committee complaint process
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee):
The Process Committee was established to resolve complaints filed by Green Party members against other members of the Green Party. An original committee was convened to create the process then this committee disolved and a permanent Process Committee was created. The original committee created broad outlines for procedure, but left out some vital considerations. For example, there is no appeal process, no limits set on “consequences”, no clear set of procedures to be followed in fact finding. The original Process Committee needs to be reconvened to clarify the issues that have arisen while processing the first complaint.
PROPOSAL (200 words or less): 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.
Appendix 4--Northeast chapter proposal on Executive Committee Meetings Green Party Meeting Proposal Form
PRESENTER (committee, chapter(s) or group of individuals): Northeast Chapter, Jean DeSmet, Amy Vas Nunes
CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email): Amy Vas Nunes 15 Henery Place North Windham Ct 06256
SUBJECT (10 words or less): Steering committee meetings to be open same time and date monthly
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee): This is to encourage more CTGP members to attend and input Steering committee meetings and to observe officer behaviors, Also to get agenda out one week before SCC meetings, For previous term of co-chairs such meetings were closed to CTGP members ARE NOW OPEN UNDER DEMOCRATIC OPENESS AND TRANSPARENCY. One month there was no Steering meeting and 3 NEGP concencious items were purposely removed by Tom, Another month the agenda was late and Steering met the night before SCC. Jean DeSmet states she has sat on her union and Co-op boards and they all manage to meet the same time and day monthly. Futhermore officers have argued including profanity by Tom at such meeting and Tom and Justine have regularly obstructed holding them.These meetings need to be open for members to see these behaviors in light of future elections.
PROPOSAL (200 words or less):
(a) Steering Committee meetings be open to all CTGP members
(b) There be an open comment period allowed at the end of the meetings
(c) The meetings will be held at the same time and on the same day monthly
(d) The meetings will be held at least one week before SCC meetings
(e) The agenda for the SCC meeting will be put together and discussed at these meetings
(f) Adequate notice of at least one week will be posted of the meetings on the "ctgp WEB PAGE ANNOUNCEMENT PAGE AND RISEUP LISTSERVE
Appendix 5--Action Plan for the Connecticut Green Party written by the Executive Committee [version received from Tom Sevigny 9/22/03]
GREEN PARTY OF CT 2003/04
A.QUARTERLY RE-SOLICITATION LETTERS
B.2 NADER EVENTS A YEAR
C.4 GENERAL SPEAKER EVENTS A YEAR
D.INCREASE MONTHLY SUSTAINER INTAKE TO $500 A MONTH
OVERALL GOAL: RAISE $25,000 A YEAR
A.AT LEAST 2 PRESS RELEASES A MONTH
B.UTILIZE COLLEGE/ALTERNATIVE RADIO
C.SCHEDULE MEETINGS WITH EDITORIAL BOARDS
D.GET OP/ED AND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TEAM FORMED
A.DEVELOP CAMPAIGN SCHOOLS
B.RESOURCE GUIDE FOR CANDIDATES
C.SEEK AND DEVELOP NEW CANDIDATES
D.STRATEGIZE ON WHICH OFFICES TO RUN FOR
A.DIVERSITY COMMITTEE/ FORMATION OF CAUCUSES
B.DEVELOPMENT OF PAMPHLETS
C.STATE WIDE ACTION ON SPECIFIC ISSUES (I.E. PATRIOT ACT)
5. INTERNAL STRUCTURE
A. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BYLAWS
B. DEVELOPMENT OF RULES AND PROCEDURES
C. FOR MEETINGS
D. DEVELOPMENT OF BUDGET/FISCAL POLICY
E. DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
6. DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY POSITIONS
WITH THESE GOALS IN MIND, THE STATE PARTY MUST BECOME MUCH MORE COMMITTEE BASED. COMMITTEES MUST HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MEET WHEN THEY WANT TO BY WHATEVER MEANS THEY WANT TO (I.E, IN-PERSON, TELECONFERENCE, E-MAIL). THIS WILL ALLOW MONTHLY STATE MEETINGS TO BE MORE REPORT ORIENTED AND PROPOSALS TO BE MORE FOCUSED ON ACCOMPLISHING THE ABOVE.
TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT THE WORK AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THESE COMMITTEES, AND TO STRENGTHEN THE CONTACT BETWEEN THE STATE PARTY AND THE CHAPTERS, EACH MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE COULD ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY AS A LIAISON TO THESE COMMITTEES.
IF APPROVED, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS AND GOALS BY EACH COMMITTEE ALONG WITH TIMELINES TO COMPLETE THEM.