Minutes of April 29, 2003 SCC meeting--Fisk Hall, Wesleyan University, 7-9pm
1. Attendees (“NV” means non-voting--at one point early in the meeting nonvoting attendees were asked to identify themselves; a few people came in later and were not given the opportunity to so identify themselves)
(1) Central Connecticut chapter: Vic Lancia, Vincent Maruffi; Tim McKee (NV); Steve Krevisky, Susan Oehl
(2) Hartford chapter: Ed DuBrule (NV); Mike DeRosa; Barbara Barry; Lynah Linwood
(3) New Haven chapter: Peter Ellner; Charlie Pillsbury; Bruce Crowder
(4) North Central chapter: Jeff Schaefer
(5) Northeast chapter: Michael Westerfield; Jean de Smet
(6) Tolland chapter: Michael Burns; Karin Norton (part of meeting)
(7) Western chapter: Justine McCabe, John Battista; Andy Ziegler; Rachel Goodkind
(8) West Hartford: Ana Lachelier
(9) Shoreline chapter (new chapter, authorized as chapter at tonight's meeting [see these minutes]): Lindsay Mathews, Veronica Wardwell (NV), David Adams (NV)
Stan Heller (part of meeting)
No representatives were present from the Fairfield, Northwest, Southeast, or New London chapters. Andy served as timekeeper; Vic served as stacker (a “stacker” keeps track of who will speak next). Jeff Schaefer of the North Central chapter facilitated.
2. Adopt groundrules. The Ground Rules (developed by Connecticut Greens in meetings last November) for conduct of the meeting were adopted by consensus.
3. Comments/approval of March SCC minutes. The minutes were approved by consensus.
4. Treasurer's report. The balance in the Connecticut Green Party checking account is $1,793. Chapter balances were read aloud.
It was agreed by consensus that the proposed agenda (with its suggested time limits) would be followed.
5. Approval of Shoreline chapter. The Shoreline chapter has had 3 meetings. There was discussion about what towns would be part of the Shoreline chapter. A representative from the New Haven chapter said that he supports the formation of the Shoreline chapter but would like to discuss “losing” towns from the New Haven chapter with members of the New Haven chapter. Vic will send Lindsay names of Greens that live in towns (such as Clinton) that formerly were probably part of the Central Connecticut chapter but that might now be best considered part of the Shoreline chapter.
Someone proposed that we vote on approval of the Shoreline chapter tonight without specifying tonight what towns comprise the Shoreline chapter. The Shoreline chapter, with this understanding, was approved (yes approve formation of official new chapter--16; no--zero; abstain--zero).
6. OLD BUSINESS.
(a) Creation of an "internal issues committee" to examine the Party's position on various issues such as "definition of membership", chapter representation to the SCC, term limits, etc., with the aim of promoting full and open discussion of each issue and consensus thereon (Northeast chapter).
The Northeast chapter distributed copies of a document which reads: “Proposal for the creation of an internal issues committee. It is hereby proposed to create a standing Internal Issues Committee within the Connecticut Green Party. The purpose of this committee would be as follows.
1. To identify organizational issues which have proved divisive to the Party in the past or prove to be in the future. Example of such issues are requirements for party membership, representation of chapters to the state Central Committee, Term Limits for officers, etc.
2. To determine an order in which these issues should be considered.
3. To collect the various positions on these issues from the General Membership.
4. To establish an electronic polling system for the general membership, initially to be used for non-binding opinion polls on the various issues.
5. To prepare a proposal, or series of alternate proposals, for consideration of the SCC and the Chapters based on the results of the above procedures within 3 months of a particular issue being taken up by the committee.
6. It is further proposed that this committee consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of five “core members” approved by the State Central Committee. These core members shall ensure that items 1 through 5 are adhered to. There shall be open membership beyond the core members for any Green Party member in good standing. The Chair of the committee shall rotate on a per meeting basis among the core members on a schedule decided upon by that group.“
Michael Westerfield noted that the Internal Issues Committee would not make decisions on the issues (such as requirements for Party membership or term limits) which it took under consideration. He further noted that this committee would take up issues one at a time. The work of the committee could lay the foundation for changing the bylaws. (This is an entirely different approach from constructing document[s] called “Proposed Bylaws” and putting the entire document[s] to a vote of the SCC.)
Mike DeRosa noted that he (Mike) and the person who maintains the Party's website, www.ctgreens.org, have already done some work on the establishing of an electronic polling system (point 4 above).
The SCC voted to form the Internal Issues Committee (Yes form the committee--17; No--zero; Abstain--1).
(b) Proposal for SCC agenda planning. Tom Sevigny and some members of the Northwest chapter have written a document proposing a process for coming up with a proposed agenda for SCC meetings. Much of the material was derived from the California and New Mexico Green Parties' websites. This document was distributed at tonight's meeting (and it had been distributed previously to the chapters by the secretary.) The secretary gave tonight, verbally, an extremely brief and incomplete presentation of the proposal. This document is attached (or appended to) these minutes. Some of the provisions of the proposal include:
(1) Agenda items may be submitted by committees, chapters, or five or more individual Greens.
(2) Proposals (agenda items that require a decision to be made) must be submitted to the Executive (“Steering”) Committee no later than one week before the SCC meeting.
(3) Proposals (agenda items that require a decision to be made) must be submitted using the Proposal Form, which is included in the attachment/appendix.
(4) Additions or deletions to the agenda put together by the Executive Committee can be proposed at the beginning of the SCC meeting.
(5) Proposals, reports, and old business will have priority over discussion items and new business.
The SCC voted to accept the agenda-setting process proposed in the document (Yes accept the process--14; no--zero; abstain--4).
(c) Authorization of representatives (such as Amy Vas Nunes) to national committees (such as Platform Committee). (Process of doing so?) The question discussed was: how is it decided who represents Connecticut on national Green Party committees? Is it by vote of the SCC? Vote of the Executive Committee? Or what?
Someone asked if the new Internal Issues Committee should deal with this issue. It was pointed out, however, that this committee has not been fully formed yet; furthermore, this committee might not choose to deal with this issue right away.
Karin said she believes that Connecticut can have up to three people on national committees. Someone raised the question of whether there is (or should be) a limit to the number of national committees one person is allowed to serve on. Someone asked how many national committees there are that Connecticut could be represented on--someone answered that the figure may be ten committees.
A proposal was made that the process which Connecticut appoints representatives to national committees should be authorization by the SCC. This proposal was voted on and accepted (Yes the process should be authorization by the SCC--16; no--zero; abstain--1). (The person who abstained had mentioned that she felt that chapters needed to discuss this issue, rather than it being brought to a vote tonight.)
(d) Authorization of Amy Vas Nunes to national Platform Committee. Ed stated that it was his understanding (based on an e-mail he had received from Amy) that Amy had been on the Platform Committee. Someone asked if we should put out an announcement of open position(s) representing Connecticut on the national Platform Committee. The SCC voted to authorize (appoint) Amy Vas Nunes as a Connecticut representative to the national Platform Committee (yes authorize her--6; no--5; abstain--7). The secretary noted aloud the large number of abstentions in this vote. He stated that it was his understanding that Amy had been appointed to the national Platform Committee and no one objected to this statement.
(e) Report from the Conflict Resolution Committee formed at the March 2003 SCC meeting. Charlie Pillsbury, a member of the committee, gave a report and answered questions. He passed out a document (“2003 GP Resolution Process--Draft 4/29/03”). An earlier draft of this document had been distributed to the chapters by the secretary and posted on the ”riseup“ listserve and the new announcements listserve.
As the document explains, complaints are submitted in written form to a Process Committee. One of the functions of the Process Committee is to determine whether a complaint involves ethical, personal, and/or political issues. It is noted in the document that the bylaws contain a section titled “Ethical Standards”, and contain a list of “unacceptable modes of conduct”. (This section of the bylaws is reproduced in the committee's document.) Charlie reported that Connecticut Green Party members have commented that the bylaws may not be clear (easily interpreted) or sufficiently detailed with respect to questions of ethics and “unacceptable modes of conduct”. An attendee at tonight's meeting asked whether specific examples of unacceptable modes of conduct were needed. Another attendee asked whether the committee needed to be provided with guidelines as to how to interpret the Ethical Standards section of the bylaws.
The SCC voted to accept the Resolution Process as proposed in the document passed out at tonight's meeting (yes accept document--13; no--1; abstain--4). (The person who voted “no” had stated that she felt that more time was needed for thought and discussion about the document, including more time for discussion in the chapters.)
Attached (or appended) to these minutes is a document titled “Resolution Process, as approved”. Charlie sent the secretary this document on May 1, 2003 with the notation “This is the final version of the Resolution Process approved by the SCC on 4/29/03 for use by the newly elected Process Committee [see paragraphs below in these minutes] and by the Secretary when he distributes the April minutes.” The document “Resolution Process, as approved” contains the following notation: “[NOTE: explanatory notes between brackets and in italics were not approved by the SCC, but reflect comments made at the SCC meeting when the Resolution Process was approved.]” Thus, for example, the document “Resolution Process, as approved”, contains the following sentence pertaining to the “unacceptable modes of conduct” listed in the bylaws: “[what these standards mean is left to the PC, Expanded PC, or RC to determine]” This sentence did not appear in the document (“2003 GP Resolution Process--Draft 4/29/03”) passed out at the 4/29/03 SCC meeting.
The document “Resolution Process, as approved” states that “The Process (Triage) Committee ... consists of three people from different chapters who will be nominated and elected by the SCC immediately after the SCC has approved the Resolution Process. Thus tonight's meeting turned its attention to electing these people. The following people were appointed to the committee by consensus: David Adams (Shoreline chapter), Rachel Goodkind (Western chapter), and Lynah Linwood (Hartford chapter).
(f) US Green Party representatives' report: As neither representative (Tom Sevigny, Penny Teal) was present, this item was not taken up.
(g) Discussion of national platform: Karin reported that now would be the time to participate to suggest changes to the national platform. She passed out copies of a booklet titled “Summary of the U.S. Green Party Platform” which can be used for tabling; it can be reproduced by Xerox copying. Karin has resigned from the national platform committee but remains a contact person.
(h) Uniting for Peace Initiative on Iraq. (How can Connecticut help get the United Nations involved in Iraq by working with Greens globally and with other groups?) Justine passed out a one-page document dated 4/24/03; excerpts from it follow in the subsequent paragraphs of these minutes.
“Deploring the current invasion and occupation of Iraq ... we call upon the Security Council to ensure that the United Nations plays the central role in restoring peace and security in Iraq. If the permanent members of the Security Council are unable to reach unanimity on these actions, then we call on all Member States of the United Nations to immediately convene an Emergency Meeting of the General Assembly, under the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 377 (V), Uniting for Peace, to act on these matters: deployment of an International Peacekeeping Force in Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations ... withdrawal of the occupying forces ... coordination, by the United Nations of the response to the humanitarian disaster in Iraq...
“...people of Iraq can establish their own representative and participatory government, free of the influence of the invading powers ....
“...full reparation by the invading powers to the Iraqi people for damages caused ... removal of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, and un-detonated munitions....
“To declare that the preventive use of military force is contrary to international law ...
“To prohibit the invading powers from ... establish[ing] military bases in Iraq; to ensure that the invading powers and their corporations are prevented from entering into any contracts for the rebuilding of infrastructure, development or sale of Iraqi resources, particularly including oil ...
“... the Middle East should be established as a zone of peace ... including the right to self-determination ...”
(i) Discussion of “Should the Green Party run a presidential candidate in 2004?” (Northeast chapter) One attendee wondered whether the Green Party should not run a presidential candidate in 2004--it is vital to defeat George Bush; perhaps Greens should work to support the Democratic nominee. Tim McKee is Connecticut chair for the draft Nader committee; Tim feels strongly that we need a Green Party presidential candidate. One attendee stated that the national Green Party is already holding conversations with potential presidential candidates. It was suggested that Michael Westerfield and Tim McKee could organize a forum which could discuss the pro's and con's of running a presidential candidate.
(j) Reports from other committees
--“Designating a group as a formal Allied Organization must be approved by a majority of the voting reps of the State Central Committee.
--“What does it mean to be an Allied Organization?
**1 minute report on their activities ... required at every monthly SCC meeting
**Permission from majority of co-chairs needed for state sponsorship of their event when requested.
**Outreach Committee will contact this org to see if they want to be regularly notified of CT GP events.
**Allied orgs are invited to table at state GP events and speakers
**Contact information listed on our website.“
The committee had called previously for suggestions of organizations that the Connecticut Green Party should be allied with. The second handout contains information (name of organization, contact information, and statement of purpose of organization) on 12 organizations:
(1) Toxics Action Network (www.toxicsaction.org)
(2) Al-Awda (Palestinian Right of Return Coalition) (www.al-awda.org)
(3) Connecticut Coalition for Universal Healthcare (http://cthealth.server101.com)
(4) Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (www.cclu.org)
(5) Democracy Works (www.democracyworksct.org)
(6) National Organization for Women, CT Chapter (www.now.org)
(8) CT Against Gun Violence/Connecticut Collaborative for Education Against Gun Violence (www.cceagv.org)
(9) People's Action for Clean Energy (www.pace-cleanenergy.org)
The second handout includes the following statement from Michael Burns: “Please review [this list of organizations] .... At a future meeting we will be deciding to accept or reject these organizations. ... Hopefully we will add to this list over time. I made an effort to include only CT based organizations on this list. As this is a proposal for who the State Green Party is allying with, the committee figured it made sense to require that allied organizations be at least state-wide as well. Of course, nothing precludes any chapters or chapter members from working with any local, state, national, or international organizations ....”
This list of organizations should be brought to chapters. The outreach committee would welcome new members.
(3) State platform committee: Michael Burns reported. He passed out a handout, which gives a working outline of the state platform document they will be drafting. This document will be useful to pass out when Greens are running for office in Connecticut. The outline includes sections on economic justice (such as living wage), education (such as property tax reform), the environment, foreign policy, violence and crime, health, human and civil rights, community (such as urban sprawl), and political reform (such as election reform). The platform committee (Peter, Amy, Michael, and Jeff) would welcome new members.
(4) Fundraising: Mike DeRosa reported on the work to make T-shirts, which should be highly profitable. He needs seed money for this project, and several attendees offered donations of seed money.
(5) V.OT.E.R. (Voter Opportunity Through Election Reform): V.O.T.E.R. is a coalition which includes the Connecticut Green Party and other organizations (such as the Working Families Party and the Libertarian Party). Mike DeRosa reported and passed out a handout: “... For details go to our website www.voterct.org. One of our ballot access bills made it out of committee. HR 6087 will allow minor parties to get ballot access status in three ways:
--By District: the old law remains the same. You need 1% of the vote in an election to get on the ballot automatically in the next election cycle.
--By Registration: You can get permanent ballot access for all offices if you registered 1% of all voters who are registered with a party in CT in your minor party.
--By Governor's office: You can get permanent ballot access for all offices if you get 2% of the votes for governor of CT at a regular election.
“Please call your local rep and senator and tell them to support HR 6087 in its present form. VOTER will be meeting with the Sec. of State's office next week to discuss this bill and raise other issues: Computer Based voting and fraud, Registrar of Voters for minor parties, Access to voter polling districts for minor parties (CT law requires 3 candidates on the ballot to gain access to checkers and runners). Future focus: IRV, proportional representation, campaign finance reform, etc.“ VOTER may sue (on 14th amendment grounds).
Mike asked if VOTER should get into campaign finance reform. There were no objections raised by SCC attendees to this proposal. One attendee noted that the city of New Haven is working on public financing of municipal elections.
(6) P.O.W.E.R. (People Opposed to Wasteful Energy Rip-offs): Mike DeRosa passed out a handout which states: “We have had two meetings in New Haven and have attended and testified before Energy committee. At present the legislature is going to pass a restructured restructuring bill which will extend the ”standard offer“ for two more years. This effectively gives complete control of our ”energy market“ to Energy Select (a subsidiary of NU) and it gives them the ability to raise the rates of electricity (probably somewhere between 20%-30%). NU was given billions of dollars for the loss of a monopoly which they now completely control. We have a market place with only one competitor: NU. POWER will be addressing this situation in the future.”
The other agenda items (New Business) were not reached due to lack of time.
Proposed agenda--April 29 , 2003 SCC meeting--Fisk Hall room 413, Wesleyan University, 7-9pm
(Note that this room is on the fourth floor of Fisk Hall, not the third floor where we usually have meetings.)
Part II of the attached document, on setting the agenda for SCC meetings, is associated with item 6(b) of this proposed agenda.
All items are to be discussed for 5 minutes unless otherwise noted after the item number.
Facilitator: Jeff Schaefer (North Central chapter)
1. Introductions/identify chapter reps, recruit stacker and timekeeper.
2. Adopt groundrules.
3. Comments/approval of March SCC minutes.
4. Treasurer's report.
5. Approval of Shoreline chapter.
6. OLD BUSINESS
(a) Creation of an "internal issues committee" to examine the Party's position on various issues such as "definition of membership", chapter representation to the SCC, term limits, etc., with the aim of promoting full and open discussion of each issue and consensus thereon (Northeast chapter) (Handout).
(b) Proposal for SCC agenda planning (Tom Sevigny and some members of the Northwest chapter) (Handout).
(c) Authorization of representatives (such as Amy Vas Nunes) to national committees (such as Platform Committee). (Process of doing so?)
(d) Authorization of Amy Vas Nunes to national platform committee.
(e) (15 minutes) Report from Conflict Resolution Committee formed at March 2003 SCC meeting. --if committee's proposal accepted tonight, elect 3 members of the Process committee tonight
(f) US Green Party's Representatives' report
(g) Discussion of national platform (Karin Norton)
(h) (10 minutes) Uniting for Peace Iniative on Iraq. (How can Connecticut help get the United Nations involved in Iraq by working with Greens globally and with other groups?) (Justine McCabe)
(i) Discussion of "Should the Green Party run a presidential candidate in 2004?" (Northeast chapter)
(j) Reports from other committees/committee-in-formation (regardless of whether they've met)
(1) (2 minutes) media (Michael Burns; also Lynah L. wants to speak on media issues)
(2) (2 minutes) outreach--including discussion of coalition work with Connecticut Fund for the Environment (their proposals for preserving public reservoirs) (Michael Burns, Ed Savage)
(3) (2 minutes) state platform expansion/drug policy document (Michael Burns)
(4) (2 minutes) fundraising--including T-shirt (etc.) sales (Mike DeRosa)
(5) (2 minutes) V.O.T.E.R.
(6) (2 minutes) P.O.W.E.R.
7. NEW BUSINESS.
(a) Inclusiveness (outreach to non-Caucasians and addressing the issues of non-Caucasians)
(b) Discussion of Executive Committee Meetings (Northeast chapter)
(c) Speakers/events Committee (Andy Ziegler and Michael Burns)--have speakers every other month to raise money and Connecticut Green Party visibility.
(d) Communication within the Connecticut Green Party (Michael Burns and Ed DuBrule) (See "announcement" at the end of this proposed agenda about the clipboard)
(e) Foreign Policy Discussion Initiative (Justine McCabe, International Committee member)
(f) Running a candidate for Senate against Joe Lieberman (Ana Lachelier)
(g) Getting the national and Connecticut Green Parties to focus on issues such as health care, unemployment, etc. (rather than dealing with internal conflicts) (Ana Lachelier)
(h) Chapter reports (i) Brief announcements
Adjourn promptly at 9pm.
GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR STATE MEETINGS
SETTING THE AGENDA
The agenda for the state meeting will be put together by the Steering Committee. There are three kinds of agenda items: Proposals, Reports, and General Discussion, which may be submitted by committees, chapters or 5 or more individual greens. Proposals, reports and any old business will have priority over general discussion items and any new business.
Proposals are agenda items that require a decision to be made. The proposal must be submitted to the Steering Committee no later than 1 week before the next state meeting. Proposals must be submitted using the proper proposal form (see attached). Proposals not properly submitted will not be added to the agenda.
Reports are agenda items that require a representative from a committee or chapter to notify the State Central Committee of various activities, problems, or opportunities. If time permits, discussion of the report is allowed.
Discussions are agenda items that allow for the free flow of ideas on a specific issue and requires no decision to be made.
SUBMITTAL OF AGENDA ITEMS
Items for the agenda must be submitted to the Steering Committee 1 week before the next state meeting. At that time the agenda is closed and no other items can be added or deleted. The agenda put together by the Steering Committee will be approved by the group as a whole at the beginning of the meeting. At that time, any deletions or additions to the agenda can be proposed. Any changes to the agenda, including changing the amount of time for an item, must also be approved by the majority of the group.
[Proposal Form on next page}
Green Party Meeting Proposal Form
PRESENTER (committee, chapter(s) or group of individuals):
CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email):
SUBJECT (10 words or less):
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee):
PROPOSAL (200 words or less):
Resolution Process, as approved
Prepared by Charlie Pillsbury, Ad Hoc Process Committee Clerk
[NOTE: explanatory notes between brackets and in italics were not approved by the SCC, but reflect comments made at the SCC meeting when the Resolution Process was approved]
BACKGROUND. On 3/25/03, the State Central Committee (SCC) voted to form "a committee to look at the processes by which the Connecticut Green Party deals with conflicts of many kinds within the Party, including conflicts which result in the filing of an ethics complaint. Specifically, this committee should propose, or discuss, multiple processes to resolve conflicts within the Connecticut Green Party, including procedures to deal with ethics complaints which have been made." The SCC directed this ad hoc process committee to report back to the SCC at its April 29 meeting.
The Ad Hoc Process Committee members are Ralph Ferrucci, Steve Krevisky, Lynah Linwood, Charlie Pillsbury, Penny Teal and Michael Westerfield. The Committee met on Thurs., April 3, and Mon., April 21. We also want to thank John Battista, Justine McCabe and Amy Vas Nunes for their input.
The committee began its discussion by reviewing the 10 Key Values. Among the pertinent statements in the 10 Key Values, which the committee found to be helpful and inspiring, are:
8. Respect for Diversity. …We believe the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies….
7. Gender Equity and Cooperation. We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting which respect differences of opinion and gender....We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
5. Decentralization. ...Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
1. Grassroots Democracy. Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives....
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.
The Process (Triage) Committee (PC) [grand jury/prosecutor function] consists of three people from different chapters who will be nominated and elected by the SCC immediately after the SCC has 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]
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. [PC members are not required to maintain confidentiality]
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 [definition left to discretion of PC] raised by the complaint shall be resolved through existing party processes [for example, SCC meetings, committee meetings, chapter meetings, annual meetings]. 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. [what these standards mean is left to the PC, Expanded PC, or RC to determine]
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 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 PC. (jury function – the role of the Expanded PC is to determine what happened: who, what, when, where, why; not to decide whether a bylaws violation occurred – the latter will be determined by the RC based on the facts found and reported by the Expanded PC]
The Expanded PC shall have no fewer than 5 nor more than 7 members. The Expanded PC will have complete discretion regarding how to determine the facts relevant to the complaint. The Expanded PC 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 Expanded PC shall submit the complaint and a written statement of facts to the Resolution Committee. Both the PC and the Expanded PC may only act on the basis of decisions approved by a supermajority (60% or more) of its members. [as consensus is not required in determining what happened, the personal representatives will not be able to block an Expanded PC determination]
The Resolution (Sanctions) Committee (RC) [judge function] will consist 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.
Within 30 days after its formation, the RC will meet and take appropriate action, including the imposition of appropriate sanctions, based only on the facts found by the Expanded PC. Appropriate sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
In determining appropriate sanctions, the RC may consider, among other things, the gravity, willfulness and frequency [the meaning of these terms is left to the common sense of the RC members] of the ethical violations. [the committee rejected more specific “sentencing” guidelines, preferring to leave the nature of the sanction to the RC to craft to fit the crime, trying to avoid the disastrous results of “mandatory minimum sentences”] 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. Any actions approved by the RC shall take effect immediately upon their signing the action statement and its distribution to the affected parties.
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]
After three months, but before six months, from the date of the action statement, the Expanded PC 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.
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.