Minutes--2/24/04 SCC meeting, Fisk Hall, Wesleyan University, 7:20-10pm

1. Tolland chapter: Sue Chipman; Tim McKee (facilitator)
2. Northeast chapter: Jean deSmet, Ken Humphrey
3. Central Connecticut chapter: Vic Lancia
4. Hartford chapter: Barbara Barry DeRosa, Mike DeRosa, Rob Pandolfo, Ed DuBrule, Chris Reilly, Albert Marceau
5. Shoreline chapter: Lindsay Mathews, David Adams
6. New London chapter: Andy Derr
7. Western chapter: Justine McCabe, Rachel Goodkind
8. Northwest chapter: Elizabeth Brancato (voting for the Women's Caucus; not voting for the Northwest chapter), Tom Sevigny, Kim Herkimer, Judy Herkimer
9. Fairfield chapter: Ed Friend

The list above indicates 21 attendees, all voting.
No representatives were present from the New Haven, Southeast, or West Hartford chapters.
A quorum was not reached until 7:20pm.



(i). Comments/approval of September SCC minutes. (The October and November meetings lacked a quorum; the "December" meeting was held January 6 and again lacked a quorum; two attempts at holding SCC meetings since then got snowed out.) The September minutes were approved by consensus.

(ii). Treasurer's report. A treasurer was not present. Jean deSmet (who has been working on the internal elections) reported that she believes the state Party's checking account is in the red (negative) by approximately $200.


1. Love makes a family (Appendix 2). (NOTE: there is no Appendix 1.) By consensus it was agreed that the secretary should send in the form in Appendix 2 to Love Makes a Family with an indication on the form that the Connecticut Green Party supports the Marriage Resolution. (Sending in this form means that the Connecticut Green Party joins the Love Makes a Family Coalition.)

2. Action Plan (Appendix 3).

a. Hartford chapter amendment to action plan (Appendix 4).

Tom Sevigny noted that the Action Plan outlines a series of committees for the CT Green Party. Tom noted that David Bedell has set up listserves for several existing committees. Tom said that committees would be given tasks by the SCC and would come to the SCC for approval of their decisions.

Ed DuBrule said that the Hartford chapter amendment in part amends the sentence within the Action Plan which says "Committees must have the freedom to meet when they want to by whatever means they want to (i.e. in-person, teleconference, e-mail). [Secretary's note: in retrospect, after re-reading the amendment, I question the accuracy of my statement here.] Attendees wondered whether any rule that forced committees to meet in person would hinder or even prevent the functioning of committees when committee members might live scattered around Connecticut. Lindsay said that she belonged to a labor union where committee members lived far from each other and she had experienced this problem; she said further that observers rarely or never came to this union's committee meetings, again because of the geographic distances involved. The Northwest chapter wondered whether the Hartford chapter amendment needed to be seen as a bylaws-change issue.

The Hartford chapter amendment calls for permitting observers at committee meetings. Would observers frequently want to join a committee after the committee had come through a difficult history of decisions reached by negotiation and compromise? This could force committees to constantly re-visit their past decisions; this could disrupt the effective functioning of committees.

Committees ultimately don't make decisions; only the SCC does this (one Green stated). According to the Action Plan the co-chairs could have oversight over committees--a "checks and balances" aspect. And there are other checks and balances (this Green stated). Another attendee said that she did not see any checks and balances on committees, however.

Concerns were expressed as to the appropriateness of observers at committees formed to resolve disputes within the Connecticut Green Party (Process Committee, Expanded Process Committees, Resolution Committees). One Green who has served on conflict resolution committee(s) stated that she felt that observers would compromise the Process Committee's performance of its job. Another Green suggested that the Hartford chapter amendment be rewritten to exclude the Process Committee. Another Green who has served on conflict resolution committee(s) stated that he felt that observers would also be problematic at Expanded Process Committees' and Resolution Committees' meetings, as well as at Process Committee meetings. He drew a comparison to juries in the Western justice system, which meet without observers.

One attendee spoke of committees possibly being able to go into an "executive session" (closed to observers) when sensitive issues were discussed.

Would e-mail exchanges would constitute a "meeting" in the terminology of the Hartford chapter amendment? Committees may use e-mails to formulate documents and then meet in person to approve those documents. Might a rule be made that committees must use David Bedell's listserves to carry out their e-mail conversations?

A Hartford chapter Green spoke in favor of the provisions of the Hartford chapter amendment. He said that national committees allow observers to read committee e-mails (such as co-chairs can read such e-mails). He stated that observers would not have the right to speak nor to vote at a meeting. He pointed out that the Hartford chapter amendment requires that minutes (or a summary) be kept of committee meetings; he stated that these could be brief. He feels that the institutions of observers and minutes could motivate Greens to join these committees. He said that while juries do not permit observers, the trials themselves are open.

He further stated that the Hartford chapter has a blocking concern to the passage of the Action Plan without the Hartford chapter amendment. He said that the Hartford City Council, and every organization that he had been a member of, followed the procedures contained in the Hartford chapter amendment.

David Adams reported that the Shoreline chapter had voted against the Hartford chapter amendment.

A discussion occurred of how these differences of opinions might be dealt with--try to reach consensus? vote? With reference to the modified consensus process adopted several months ago by the SCC, the Hartford chapter (which proposed the Hartford chapter amendment) was asked what they wanted to do, and members present from the Hartford chapter asked for a vote on the Hartford chapter amendment at this time. The SCC voted to accept the Hartford chapter amendment (yes, accept the amendment--11 votes; no--8 votes; one abstention, by Tim, who facilitated the meeting).

It was proposed that the Action Plan, as amended, be voted on (or that consensus be tested for). Elizabeth Brancato (who voted at this meeting as a representative of the Women's Caucus) said that she felt she faced a dilemma--the Women's Caucus had asked her to vote against the Hartford chapter amendment, but in favor of the Action Plan; it wasn't clear to her what she should do if a vote were to be held on an Action Plan amended by the Hartford chapter amendment. Lindsay said that the Shoreline chapter similarly had not favored passage of the Hartford chapter amendment but had favored passage of the original Action Plan.

Tim (the facilitator), with reference to the modified consensus process adopted by the SCC, asked if there were blocking concerns to acceptance by consensus of the Action Plan as amended by the Hartford chapter amendment. Several Greens indicated that they had blocking concerns.

The Action Plan is a proposal from the Executive Committee. The following members of the Executive Committee were present at tonight's meeting: Justine, Tom, Mike, and Ed. Justine proposed that the Action Plan be withdrawn to be reworded. Mike said that he did not want to withdraw the Action Plan; he wanted it adopted at tonight's meeting; he feels that this plan for getting Connecticut Green Party committees formed and functioning should happen sooner rather than later. Tom said that he could discuss with Greens who have worked on conflict resolution committees (of whom David Adams and Rachel Goodkind were present at tonight's meeting) their concerns about the effect of observers on conflict resolution committee meetings, reword the Action Plan to incorporate changes made in response to these concerns, and send the reworded Action Plan out to the chapters. Mike said that a vote could be held on excluding the Process Committee from the Action Plan. Jean said that the Process Committee isn't mentioned in the Action Plan. Ed said he favored withdrawing the Action Plan (not considering it further at this meeting of the SCC). Jean pointed out that the internal elections will be March 13--the old Executive Committee will have been replaced by a new internal elections committee; who would present the revised Action Plan?

3. Proposal to hire commissioned fundraiser (Appendices 5 and 6). There were no questions or concerns on the proposal. By consensus the proposal (Appendix 5) was adopted.

4. Proposal to change bylaws - quorum reduction (Appendices 7 and 8) (REVISED--now calls for A SIMPLE MAJORITY of chapters). Lindsay summarized the proposal. Two Greens from the Hartford chapter expressed the concern that a simple majority (greater than 50%) was too low a threshold for a quorum, and this was a blocking concern. They stated that the current threshold (75% of chapters in attendance) was a good figure, and that a 2/3 figure (66% of chapters in attendance) would also be a good figure. A Green from the Northwest chapter said the same thing: 3/4 or 2/3 good, but simple majority too low. Another Green from the Northwest chapter wondered if our problems in reaching a quorum might be a temporary problem; changing the bylaws is a step not to be taken lightly. A Green from the Northeast chapter spoke of making it easier for chapter reps by the SCC meeting quarterly rather than monthly (or in other possible ways).

The facilitator asked if there were blocking concerns to consensus; the answer came back yes. The Shoreline chapter asked for a vote. The proposal was voted down (no, don't initiate the bylaws revision process--12 votes; yes in favor of simple majority quorum--7 votes; abstained--1 abstention, by the facilitator).

5. Formation of resolution committee (Appendix 9).

(a) selection process. Should the Resolution Committee be formed by the procedure given in Appendix 9? A representative from the Northwest chapter expressed a non-blocking concern about the change in selection process, pointing out that internal elections will be held soon, electing a new Executive Committee. [Secretary's note: This representative apparently referred to the following sentences in Appendix 9: "... in the Battista/Vas Nunes complaint, if a representative from chapter “x” was not present at the SCC meeting when its name was drawn from the hat, that chapter thereby lost its right/responsibility to select a Resolution Committee representative (rather than the Executive Committee contacting that chapter). At the 10/20/03 Executive Committee meeting, it was decided that ... the Executive Committee [would] contact an absent chapter whose name was drawn from the hat. ..."]

By consensus it was decided to follow the procedure given in Appendix 9 to select the Resolution Committee.

(b) selection of chapters. The order in which the chapters were drawn from the hat (see Appendix 9) at tonight's meeting was: 1. Fairfield chapter; 2. Shoreline chapter; 3. Hartford chapter; 4. Southeast chapter; 5. New Haven chapter; 6. West Hartford chapter; 7. Central Connecticut chapter; 8. New London chapter; 9. Tolland chapter; 10. Western chapter. (As explained in Appendix 9, the Northeast and Northwest chapter were not in the hat.) When representatives present tonight were asked whether it was likely that their chapter could select a member of the Resolution Committee, the answers were as follows: 1. Fairfield chapter--unknown; the representative will consult with his chapter. 2. Shoreline--yes. 3. Hartford--yes. 4. Southeast--no representative present. 5. New Haven--no representative present. 6. West Hartford--no representative present. 7. Central Connecticut--no (the chapter hasn't met in several months). 8. New London--yes. 9. Tolland--yes. 10. Western--yes.


It was now 9 pm but it was decided by consensus to continue the meeting.

1. Conflict resolution committee report. David Adams reported.

(A) The mandated one-year review of the conflict resolution process is due at the April SCC meeting, per decision of the September SCC meeting. Two meetings of the Ad-Hoc Process Committee have been held, and a draft document is being written.

(B) The Expanded Process Committee in the Vas Nunes-versus-Sevigny complaint will be meeting next Sunday (3/29/04); a draft document has been written.

(C) The conflict resolution document contains the following paragraph: "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." The Expanded PC of the Battista-vs.-Vas Nunes complaint is now writing a document in compliance with this paragraph.

2. Discussion of nominations for appointments to national committees.

a. Diversity Committee.

b. Platform Committee.

c. Coordinated Campaign Committee.

David Eliscu has expressed interest in being appointed as a voting rep to the Diversity Committee. Justine McCabe has expressed in interest in being appointed to the Platform Committee, and Tom Sevigny to the Coordinated Campaign Committee. One attendee said the proper procedure would be to send this issue to the chapters, collect nominations, and vote at the March SCC meeting. Another attendee agreed, saying that this would prevent anyone from having an unfair advantage in being selected. Another Green stated that at a previous SCC meeting the existence of national committee openings had been well-publicized, and no one had expressed interest except David, Justine, and Tom. Therefore, a vote would be proper tonight. In the past SCC meetings had voted on appointing people without waiting a month. Mike said he had a blocking concern to doing this--we need to follow a democratic process.

Mike said that he felt that candidates for these offices should take on a committment to report back on what the committee has done. David proposed that this issue be the first agenda item at the March SCC meeting. Jean said that she has heard from one person who asked for information on the Coordinated Campaign Committee. Ed said that he shared Mike's concerns about a democratic process, but perhaps we could appoint David, Justine, and Tom on a one-month basis, with the clear understanding that they could replaced at the March SCC meeting; this would permit them to do one month's worth of work, at least, on these committees.

By consensus the SCC agreed that the nominations would be dealt with as the first item of business at the March SCC meeting.

3. Presidential Elections Committee. Justine reported that the Presidential Elections Committee (which includes her and John Battista) are planning to have presentations by candidates for the Green Party presidential nomination (or by representatives of these candidates) at the March 13 annual meeting. This part of the annual meeting may be open to the press and to the public.

4. Internal Elections Committee. Jean deSmet reported. The ballots were mailed last Wednesday. As was done last year, people may vote either by mail or at the annual meeting, which will be on March 13.

5. Communication Committee. Judy Herkimer reported. The committee seeks additional members. Especially welcome on the committee would be people with computer skills involving working with listserves and websites. The committee hopes to set up a "one-stop shopping" website portion of www.ctgreens.org at which visitors could access all the listserves of all the Connecticut Green Party committees and get information about the Women's Caucus (etc.)

The This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. listserve is not at this point an official Connecticut Green Party-run listserve; it is owned by Dmitri and now moderated by Judy. The committee anticipates that eventually the SCC will make it an official CTGP listserve.

6. Endorsement request for speaking tour (Globalization and the Honduran Struggle) (see handout to be passed out at this meeting). The handout is appended to these minutes as Appendix 10. Ed summarized the handout. By consensus the SCC endorsed the speaking tour.

7. GPUS report. Tom reported.

(a) The national Green Party presidential nomination convention will take place in Milwaukee June 23-28. You can register to attend online (www.gp.org). The registration fee is less for those who early-register. Connecticut is entitled to 15 delegates. The following people had expressed interest in going (or expressed interest in going at this meeting): Justine McCabe, John Battista, Brooks Kelly, David Eliscu, Tim McKee, Tim's wife, Mike DeRosa, Barbara Barry DeRosa. If more than 15 people want to go a method of determining which will be Connecticut's official delegates must be implemented.

(b) The Campus Greens just got a $100,000 donation. They're having a campaign school one week before the June Milwaukee convention; after this school the students will fan out across the country to work on various Green Party campaigns. The campaigns hosting the volunteer will be expected to provide housing but no additional compensation. There is a form to fill out if your campaign wishes to apply for one of these volunteers.

(c) Lynne Serpe has agreed to conduct a one-day campaign school in Connecticut in April or May. Lynne is a long-time Green Party activist who now lives in New York City; she is David Cobb's campaign manager.

(d) National is working on a proposal to send a questionnaire to as many Greens across the country as possible. The questionnaire asks what you need from national (for an example, an organizer sent to your area?) The national budget will be determined in part according to the results of this questionnaire.

(e) The Coordinated Campaign Committee has a subcommittee on ballot access which, for example, can help with lawsuits brought in states with restrictive laws on collecting signatures (etc.) for achieving ballot access.

8. Developing a plan (and/or a Green Party Committee) to address issues in the Connecticut legislature, including issues relating to V.O.T.E.R.'s election law reform work. Mike DeRosa reported on the work of VOTER, which is a coalition which includes the CT Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and other groups.

(a) A meeting was held with CT Representative Larson--could he sign on to the Holt bill in the federal Congress (HR 2239), which requires paper records for all votes cast on electronic voting machines. Rep. Shays has signed on (the only Representative from CT to do so).

(b) VOTER met with state senator DeFronzo of the Government Administration and Elections Committee concerning bills of concern to VOTER (see below); he was supportive.

(c) VOTER will be testifying before a public hearing of the CT legislature on bills of concern to VOTER; will be bringing computer voting expert Rebecca Mercuri to testify.

(d) Bill 388 requires a paper copy of votes cast when electronic voting machines are used. Bill 123 gives a minor political party permanent ballot access status for all offices in CT if they: (A) register 1% of voters who have registered in a party in CT AND/OR (B) get 2%, but less than 20%, of the votes cast for Governor in any election. Bill 123 has a good chance of passing the CT legislature. Mike urged that we contact our representatives. Mike also described other bills being worked on by VOTER, including bills that regulate the campaign spending and matching funds received by political parties. For current information on these matters, contact Mike at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. (Or contact Ed DuBrule and I'll forward any recent e-mails in my inbox about these matters to you.)

9. Chapter reports.

(a) Fairfield chapter--Ed Friend reported. Working on a Bill of Rights defense campaign. Thirty to forty people attended a meeting about this. Towns are to pass resolutions against the Patriot Act

(b) Western chapter--Rachel Goodkind reported. Showing a video on the events of September 11. Rachel has extra copies of the video; it costs less than $20. She has a flier that you can insert your local information into. [Secretary's note: per Rachel, information on the book, video, and dvd can be found at Eric Hufschmid's website, EricHufschmid.net or http://erichufschmid.net.]

10. Other reports/announcements.

(a) Diversity Committee--tentative meeting (per Rob Pandolfo) scheduled Tuesday March 16 6:30pm at Hartford office.

(b) Tom Sevigny is trying to bring Matt Gonzalez or Peter Camejo to Connecticut. Matt Gonzalez almost won the mayorship of San Francisco as a Green. Peter Camejo ran for governor of California as a Green

(c) Love Makes a Family rally--Tom reported that 800 to 1000 people attended a rally sponsored (co-sponsored?) by Love Makes a Family, an organization that the SCC allied itself with last year. The CTGP was represented. There will be "defense of marriage" acts introduced into the CT legislature this session (these define "marriage" as only between a man and a woman).

(d) Women's Caucus--Elizabeth Brancato reported. Held a candidate appreciation party at the Hartford office; are running a slate for co-chairs (David Eliscu, Lindsay Mathews, and Elizabeth Brancato)


Appendix 1--[deleted--dealt with SCC endorsing an event that has occurred, the US Labor Against War Event held at CCSU, February 4.]


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]

I checked the www.lmfct.org/supporting.htm website 1/1/04. The Green Party of Connecticut is listed as a supporting organization; the same form still appears.


Appendix 3 Action Plan for the Connecticut Green Party written by the Executive Committee [version received from Tom Sevigny 9/22/03]









A. Domestic

B. International





Appendix 4: Hartford chapter amendment to Action Plan
Green Party Meeting Proposal Form
Presenter (committee, chapter, or 5 or more Greens): Hartford chapter
Contact: Ed DuBrule 860-523-4016 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject (10 words or less): requirements for Connecticut Green Party Committees

Background and Purpose (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons, and/or justification to the State Central Committee): at the September 2003 SCC meeting there was discussion of the issue of open-ness and minute-taking as these concepts apply to Connecticut Green Party Committees and the proposed Action Plan. Our proposal is intended to ensure a degree of open-ness (as opposed to secrecy) in Connecticut Green Party Committees and to ensure that minutes (or a summary) of each committee meeting are kept.

Proposal (200 words or less):

1. Advance Notification of Committee Meetings:

Committee meetings, including conference calls, should be announced at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting via the CTGP announcements listserve and the CTGP website

2. Committee Meeting Minutes

Committees will keep minutes or a summary of each committee meeting. The minutes or summary will be made available for review at the request of any CTGP member.

3. Observers

Committee meetings will be open to all CTGP members.


Appendix 5 Proposal to hire commissioned fundraiser/event organizer(s).

Presenter Executive Committee

Proposal(In ten words or less) Create commissioned fundraiser/event organizer position(s)

Background and Purpose (in 100 words or less) At the August 2003 SCC meeting, Tim McKee was hired as a fundraiser/field organizer. He was hired under the terms of a plan which stated (among other provisions) that unless he raised $500 in a month he would not be paid for that month. Tim McKee did excellent work but has now resigned from the position for personal reasons. Tim did not earn any money from the position.

At the 10/20/03 Executive Committee meeting it was decided to redefine the position to eliminate the $500 threshold--it will now be a simple 10% commission.

Goals are (1) increasing Party income; (2) education, public visibility, and Party-building (if the fundraising is done by arranging events, such as bringing speakers to Connecticut)

Proposal: (200 words or less) Hire fundraiser/event organizer(s) for six months. A 10% commission shall be paid on funds (net profits after expenses) raised for the Connecticut Green Party by the person(s) exclusively through his/her individual efforts (through means such as phoning potential donors or organizing events). When funds are raised by organizing an event in conjunction with a chapter, the profit from the event shall be divided between the Connecticut Green Party and the chapter on a 50/50 basis, and only the profit amount going to the state shall be used in computing the 10% commission.

The position will be a contract worker ("1099") (independent contractor). It will therefore not be benefitted (health benefits or other). At 6 months from the date of hire by the SCC, the Executive Committee (reporting to the SCC) and the person(s) hired will renegotiate compensation and terms of employment. At any time, the person(s) may be fired for cause at an SCC meeting with a majority vote.

The Executive Committee will establish a period of approximately three weeks in which resumes are accepted. The Executive Committee will interview candidate(s) of its choosing and shall make hiring recommendation(s) to the SCC.

A person hired shall write a brief proposed job description within two weeks of the date on which the SCC hires him/her and submit this proposed job description to the Executive Committee for review and possible revision. The Executive Committee and the person hired shall use the proposed job description as the basis for a finalized job description. (This process could allow different job descriptions to apply to different hired persons. One person might wish to focus on phoning potential donors; another person might wish to exclusively plan events; etc.) Fundraising under the above-described terms (with payment of commission) shall begin only after the finalized job description is approved by the Executive Committee.

A person hired shall submit a report every two weeks to the Executive Committee summarizing his/her work for the prior two weeks, and shall periodically submit a report of amounts owed to the person hired. The report of amounts owed shall include detailed, clear records of monies raised and any expenses incurred. The treasurer of the Connecticut Green Party shall pay commissions owed and expenses owed in full within 2 weeks of the time the hired person submits a report of amounts owed unless the Executive Committee decides that the submitted report contains a possible error, in which case the matter shall be resolved by the Executive Committee no later than one month after the report of amounts owed was submitted. Expenses may include long-distance telephone call charges; the Executive Committee may request a record of such calls.

[See also Appendix 6]


Appendix 6--hiring announcement for commissioned fundraiser [received from Tom Sevigny 11/17/03]

The Green Party of Connecticut is seeking a part time fundraiser to further the efforts of the party.

Job description
The fundraiser will be hired by the State Central Committee as an independent contractor and supervised by the Executive Committee. People of color, women, LGBT, youth, and working class people encouraged to apply.

While the specific role and duties of the position will vary, the following is a partial listing of what the Fundraiser will likely be asked to perform:
1. Create fundraising plan for the party.
2. Oversee the fundraising committee.
3. Organize fundraising events/mailings.
4. Work with the treasurer to maintain fundraising database.

The successful candidate will have:
1. Ability to work independently as well as cooperatively in a team;
2. Ability to be highly organized and mutli-task.
3. Excellent verbal and written communication skills;
4. Knowledge of basic computer technology and programs, including word processing, spreadsheets, databases, email and internet tools.
5. Basic knowledge of how to organize events.

Length of Contract and Hours
The contract will be renewed yearly. The position will be part time and some weekend and evening hours will be required. .

The fundraiser will be compensated from a percentage of the money raised by the party on a monthly basis. Exact percentage of compensation will be based on experience.

To Apply or Ask Questions
Please send resume to the CT Green Party secretary, Ed Dubrule, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. For further information please contact Ed at 860-523-4016.


Appendix 7 Proposal (REVISED--"SIMPLE MAJORITY") for change in quorum at State Central Committee Meetings

PRESENTER: Shoreline Chapter (approved at meeting of chapter on Jan 8, 2004)

Contact: Lindsay Mathews, 256 Shore Drive, Branford, CT 06405, LWMathews@aolcom

Subject: To make a change in by-laws regarding percent required to constitute a quorum.

Background and Purpose: The current by-laws regarding percent of chapter reps required for a quorum read as follows:

III. 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 would like to change this by-law to read:

Attendance by representatives of at least a simple majority 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.

The reason for requesting this change is that we have been unable to get a quorum at the October, November or December meetings and have, therefore, been unable to vote on issues on the agenda. Sometimes, it means that we need reps from just one or two more chapters to make a quorum, but we haven't had that. Compared to many other organizations, three quarters seems too high.

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 summer there are often problems with vacation schedules and during the winter with icy road conditions. It seems as though the three/quarters quorum requirement is too high, and even two/thirds would not have been adequate in some cases. Changing to a simple majority of chapters for a quorum will ensure that the party can continue functioning on a monthly basis.

[See also Appendix 8]


Appendix 8 Fact sheet with proposal to change quorum

Bylaws Change Fact Sheet

Who is making the proposal?
The Shoreline Chapter. The current bylaws say, “Any chapter may, provided two thirds of its full membership concur, propose to the State Central Committee amendments or changes to the Party Bylaws.”

What happens next?
According to the bylaws, “The SCC shall refer the proposal to all active Chapters for review or recommendations.” It does NOT say a vote must be taken at the SCC.

The proposal goes to the chapters. Then, “Each chapter may, by a 2/3 majority of its full membership, recommend rejection, SCC approval, or submittal of the proposal to the next following Party Convention”. If 2/3 of the Chapters recommend approval, the SCC may enact the change or refer it for Convention action.

What bylaws change is being proposed?
The proposal presented by the Shoreline Chapter is to change the quorum requirement for State Central Committee meetings from 3/4 to A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF ALL CHAPTERS. See attached.

What is the reason for the change?
The reason for the change is to ensure that the SCC can conduct business on a regular basis.

Don’t we usually have a quorum anyway?
No. We have not had a quorum for the past two meetings. And, in February 2003, the meeting was held up for 30 minutes waiting for more people to arrive so that we might have a quorum.

How serious is the quorum issue in regard to our growth as a party?
It is very serious. During the year 2003 we were unable to vote or conduct business for almost 1/4 of the year! As a result, some members have come to feel that SCC meetings are a waste of time. This creates a vicious circle that makes it more unlikely they will come to a meeting. Some members must travel between 50 and 70 miles round trip to attend the SCC meetings. They should not have to travel travel all that way for nothing.


Appendix 9 Formation of a Resolution Committee. The Process Committee (David Adams, Lynah Linwood, and Rachel Goodkind) has decided that a complaint filed by Amy Vas Nunes against Tom Sevigny will be processed.

Three chapters must be selected by the SCC. These chapters cannot be the Northwest chapter nor the Northeast chapter (Tom Sevigny is from the Northwest chapter and Amy Vas Nunes is from the Northeast chapter). The three selected chapters then choose one representative apiece to the three-member Resolution Committee, which makes a decision as to sanctions, if any, against Tom Sevigny.

At its 10/20/03 meeting, the Executive Committee proposed that the following procedure be used to select these three chapters:

(a) The names of the 10 chapters (i.e. all 12 chapters except the Northwest chapter and the Northeast chapter) are placed in a hat. (These names are therefore: Central, Fairfield, Hartford, New Haven, New London, Shoreline, Southeast, Tolland, Western, and West Hartford.)

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

(c) If a representative from a chapter drawn is not present at this SCC meeting, the Executive Committee will contact that chapter to see if that chapter is able and willing to select a member of the Resolution Committee. [Decision made at 11/16/03 Executive Committee: such a chapter will be allowed a maximum of 3 days from the date on which an Executive Committee member sends the query to reply as to whether it anticipates that it is able and willing to select a member of the Resolution Committee. If no reply is received within three days, the chapter queried loses its right/responsibility to select a Resolution Committee member and the Executive Committee will query the next chapter drawn.]

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

(e) The chapter representative to the RC may not be a person who is serving on the Expanded Process Committee handling the Vas Nunes-vs.-Sevigny complaint. (Expanded PC members for the Vas Nunes/Sevigny complaint are Lynah Linwood, David Adams, Rachel Goodkind, Tom McNally--Amy's representative, and Bob Eaton--Tom's representative.)

(f) The Executive Committee assumes that chapters will want to select representatives at chapter meetings, although the conflict resolution document is silent on this point. The deadline for the formation of the Resolution Committee was sixty days from the 9/9/03 filing of the complaint by Amy Vas Nunes, i.e. approximately 11/9/03. It is proposed by the Executive Committee that this deadline be extended to the date at which the last of the three chapters which agrees to select a representative has a chapter meeting (if selection of the representative is done at a chapter meeting).

[Note from the secretary: this suggested procedure differs in two ways from the procedure used to select a Resolution Committee for the Battista-vs-Vas Nunes complaint: (1) in the Battista/Vas Nunes complaint, the Hartford chapter was not placed in the hat (because Lynah Linwood is from the Hartford chapter and sits on the Process Committee) and the Shoreline chapter was not placed in the hat (because David Adams is from the Shoreline chapter and sits on the Process committee). However, on further consideration it is felt that the Hartford chapter and Shoreline chapter should not be further excluded from possible participation in Resolution Committees. (2) in the Battista/Vas Nunes complaint, if a representative from chapter “x” was not present at the SCC meeting when its name was drawn from the hat, that chapter thereby lost its right/responsibility to select a Resolution Committee representative (rather than the Executive Committee contacting that chapter). At the 10/20/03 Executive Committee meeting, it was decided that since the November elections would occur shortly after the October SCC meeting, many chapters might not send a representative to the October SCC meeting, so that it would make more sense for the Executive Committee to contact an absent chapter whose name was drawn from the hat. At the 11/16/03 Executive Committee meeting it was decided that the concept of the Executive Committee contacting an absent chapter would still make sense at the November SCC meeting, since often at SCC meetings all twelve chapters are not represented.]


Appendix 10. Honduras speaking tour (with agenda item C6).

----- Original Message -----
From:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent:Monday, February 09, 2004 11:36 PM
Subject:Speaking Tour: Globalization and the Honduran Struggle

Hi Justine,
Chris Gauvreau recommended that I contact you about this speaking tour that I'm organizing, and she said that your group might possibly want to sponser the event or that you might know of people who would. If you have any suggestions, that'd be great! Thanks!
For when we all have voice, speaking truth to power. Namaste, Kath Golub.

Rights Action Speaking Tour
The Honduran struggle against privitization, mega-dams, deforestation and harmful mining, in the context of the unjust global economic order.

WHEN: March 21 - April 3, 2004
WHERE: New England / New York
WHO: Gilberto Flores, a community development activist from Honduras, and Kath Golub, a Connecticut-based activist who recently collaborated with Rights Action in Guatemala and Honduras.

Contact Kath Golub, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., 860-349-6925

GILBERTO and KATH will speak about the Honduras's political situation in the past and present, in the context of globalization and the unjust global order, and about community based efforts of Hondurans to fight for and defend their right to healthy, sustainable community development. They will also speak about how North Americans can work on and support struggles for global justice.

GILBERTO FLORES is a community activist from the municipality of Gualaco, Olancho, Honduras. He is a member of CEPAVEG, a community-based organization in Gualaco and La Venta, which was created to oppose the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Babilonia river in the region.

The dam, being built with international funding (from the Central American Development Bank of Economic Integration) falls within the buffer zone of the Sierra de Agalta national park and will have disastrous consequences on both the park`s biodiversity and local community well-being. The construction process has been plagued with legal irregularities and repression.

Gilberto is also a member of the Environmentalist Movement of Olancho (MAO), which fights against issues such as deforestation, repression and impunity. As a result of his activism, Gilberto, along with many others, has been harassed and intimidated by local authorities and other individuals suspected to be linked to the logging industry.

Gilberto's name was circulated on a death list which included an activist assassinated in 2001. Carlos Flores, cousin of Gilberto and also an opponent of the dam, was gunned down outside his home by the Dam construction company`s security guards in June 2001.

KATH GOLUB is a student activist from Connecticut who recently spent Three months with Rights Action in Guatemala and Honduras. She has been researching biosphere and water management projects in the eastern Guatemalan biosphere Sierra de las Minas and has traveled throughout Honduras speaking with organizers about their struggles against the impacts of neoliberalism. While her organizing and studies concentrate on the effects of US foreign policy and corporate-driven globalization, she is specifically interested in exposing the connections between dam construction, privatization, and exploitation of natural resources in Latin America, and US policy and the Northern culture of consumption.

THIS EDUCATIONAL SPEAKING TOUR is being co-hosted by Rights Action [www.rightsaction.org] and the Central CT State University Progressive Students Alliance.


[If you have serious disagreements with the accuracy of anything written in these minutes, please contact the secretary, Ed DuBrule, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 860-523-4016. If your e-mail or letter is titled "I remember things happened differently" or "I remember that this also occurred", I will treat your e-mail or letter (or a summary of it) as an addendum to these minutes. Addenda are "published" to the same places (such as the announcements listserve) to which I "published" the original minutes; addenda are also included with hard copies of minutes given out at an SCC meeting. Such e-mails or letters must be received within 6 weeks of the date of "publication" of the minutes to be considered addenda.]