State Membership Meeting Minutes - Green Party of Michigan

Green Party of Michigan: Home Other GPMI State Meetings

Green Party of Michigan State Membership Meeting Minutes

Green Party of Michigan o State Membership Meeting 5/18-19/2002 o Minutes

Download rich text version if desired: [105K RTF]

Saturday 5/18

Welcome by Alan Kaufman

Introductions by members

Approval of Agenda
Discussion of Agenda Changes
==============================================================
Agenda (from packet)

Saturday
8:00 Breakfast
8:30 Registration
9:15 Welcoming remarks
9:30 Final approval of agenda
10:00 Water presentation and discussion, breakouts

Featured will be a report about the Perrier situation, a (written) report from Joanne Beemon, Charlevoix County Drain Commissioner, and participation by Prof. Marty Kaufman, chair of the Earth Sciences Department at UM Flint Breakouts could include discussion of "water" issues for inclusion in upcoming election campaigns, evaluation and discussion of how working on issue campaigns affects Greens (and vice versa)

11:30 Miscellaneous (anticipated brief) resolutions
12:00 Lunch; SCC meeting begins

1:15 Officer Reports, CCC report (Juscha), general announcements, start of Nominations for State Officers

2:00 "Peace" a report on April 20, the role of Michigan Greens, and discussion of our work in the immediate future. Breakouts to follow. Discussion will be led by Jim Moreno and Susan Fawcett, who participated in the April 20th protest march in Washington, D.C.

3:00 Beginning of Strategic Planning discussion - Pete Schermerhorn - the 2, 5 & 20-year view.

3: 30 Diversity. Facilitated by Amy Mondloch from Wisconsin Greens
5: 00 Resolutions and Bylaws
6: 15 Dinner, continuation of SCC meeting
7: 30 Election of officers
8:00 Greens Elections workshop (Ziarno, Abel, Morgan, etc.)
9:00 Rally to liberate Ingrid Betancourt
Drum circle or other events to follow

Sunday
8:30 Breakfast
9:30 Reports from break-out sessions
10:30 Working session on elections, including issues, committees, candidate recruitment
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Closing, including any unfinished business and a review of the meeting with an eye to submitting an evaluation of the "new" SMM meeting process to the SCC.
3:00 Final departure
=============================================================

Joanne Beemon's statement about water usage read by Alan Kaufman. (Joanne was unable to attend.)

Megan Burke, CMU Greens, talks about anti-Perrier/Ice Mountain demonstration that Mt. Pleasant Greens have been involved in.(handout)
Fundraiser bike ride-CMU Greens need help putting together this bike ride. Hoping to have rallies at points along the coast.

Marty Kaufman - Head of Dep't of Earth Sciences at UMFlint speaking about water management

History of water use, water's role in the ecosystem
What we perceive to be water management and who controls water resources
Engineers have controlled water resource development. Army corp. of engineers
"Engineers and water go hand in hand with economic growth."
The iron triangle-undemocratic-view water as a separate entity and not as a part of the land, air and other ecospheres and biota. The public doesn't have the opportunity to address it because it's viewed as a specialized area of knowledge. Half the contribution of our streams comes from ground water.

Web resources:
www.geocities.com/sweetwateralliance
www.sweetwater.org

Suggestion that the SCC could issue a press release, draft language to support the efforts of the Sweetwater committee. Joe suggests Adrianna, Dawn suggests John La Pietra. We agree that the SCC is empowered to draft such a resolution and issue a press release. (JALP will follow up.)

Megan suggests 3 things individuals can do to help:

1. In your own area, on May 25 hold some sort of regional demonstration. Hand out pamphlets, etc (Pamphets available on website)

2. Contact if you want to do a rally on the west MI coast.
3. Boycott packet for stores is also on the website. Take it to businesses.

Marty Kaufman asks: Why do people buy bottled water? People buy bottled water because they have lost faith in the water treatment system at a time when the safety of the water sources are being questioned.

========/========

Discussion of Resolutions

Regional Community Policing (p. 3 of proposals) Carl Davidson

Proposal to send the resolution to the SCC; that the SCC will appoint someone to research the quotes, etc. If we find that he did make these statements about the Greens, writing a letter to the professor explaining why he is wrong. Rewrite this proposal and issue a press release condemning the state and local government in collecting this type of information about legal entities. Consensus

None of the Above (NOTA) resolution (p. 3-4 of proposals) Pete Ponzetti
Non-binding none of the above, meaning that a new election would not be held if none of the above got the most votes, and the candidate with the largest number of yes votes would win. The binding option would disqualify all the candidates. Discussion about this includes the idea that it would be better to say it is binding because it is a stronger message. Paul F and Ken Y say that this should not be a priority as far as electoral reform (change 'compel' to 'dissuade').
Dawn's proposal on this resolution is that it be sent to the SCC to be researched in terms of the costs of a binding none of the above, arguments against it and how to rebut them. Adrianna volunteered to do this, because Paul objected saying that we don't have anyone to do it.

LUNCH/SCC Meeting

Ben Manski, one of the co-chairs of the national Green Party, from Madison, WI.
The Crisis we are facing. Both the Green and the Red are becoming dead. Red for human nature, the color of blood, and Green the color of wild nature, of things that arise by their own will.

It's been 78 years since a progressive party has gone as far as the
Green party has. If we don't succeed, if the labor doesn't succeed, no one will.
=======/======
Officers' Reports

Treasurer's Report- Marc Reichardt
We have $1287.61, debt is approx. $6330, we have an offer of $5000. Please sign up to become a sustaining member on the website.

Committee Manager/Chair-Paul Emery
Will not run again. Suggests that there must be an active chair.

Record Keeper -Adrianna Buonarroti Will run for reelection

Clearinghouse Coordinator-Lynn Meadows- will run for reelection
Discussion of adding Membership Secretary. Dawn proposes that we approve the position ad hoc and then the Clearinghouse Coordinator and the Membership Secretary work together to divide up the work and draft specific language for the bylaw, including whether each would be Officers to the state party. working with SCC and bylaws committees. Consensus..

Lynn estimates that we have 50 new members since the last SMM.

Locals Liaison- Ken Young-will not run again.
New enrollments-Downriver reorganizing
Peace project based in Greenhouse
Montcalm
Bay City
(one more-ask Ken-NB awaiting Ken's response)
South Central-Branch and Calhoun (maybe Kalamazoo)

Q: When is a local considered active.
A: Locals are counted as active if they meet at least once a month.

Meeting Manager-Doug Campbell (not running for re-election)
August 3-4 Convention in Lansing
Weekend after the election in Kent County (Nov 7?)

Campus Greens report-Juscha Robinson (with guest, Susan Fawcett)
Nationwide organizer for Campus Greens
3 affiliated chapters and many unaffiliated chapters in Michigan, 135 nationally

Co-chair of coordinated campaign committee, CCC, new committee
Designed to co-ordinate campaign resources nationwide, working with Mike Feinburg, and Dean Feinstein and others.
Two projects: direct contacts with each state to keep track of each state's candidates and elected officials.
National Convention: July 20-21 in Philadelphia
Campaign school. Media skills, how to be a campaign manager, etc. Will be reelected in July at the convention

Presidential Exploratory Committee- pres candidate in 2004

National rep.- she is running for reelection

(During Juscha's report, Joe D.'s cell phone rings. Juscha asks him to take it outside. He reacts loudly to her. People in the group shout him down. Juscha waives it off. Joe makes a comment under his breath as Juscha starts speaking again.)

National Rep-David Spitzley
Working on getting Pres. exploratory committee into bylaws
(ask David to send specific language for this portion of the minutes-awaiting David's response-NB, wating for David's response, 6/12/02)
=========/=======
10 minute Break.
(During this break, Joe approaches Juscha to ask for an apology. Juscha is clearly intimidated and near tears. Marc intervenes to ask him to stop hassling her. They get into a loud argument in which Marc tells Joe D. that if he doesn't stop being disruptive, he will call the police and have him removed. David and Paul intervene to calm them down. Joe D. tells David that when Marc said that he would remove him from the meeting, it constituted assault and that he is going to call the police.)

Meeting resumes.
[JALP takes over temporarily for Adrianna.]

reconvene 3:32 -

Report re: April 20 demonstration (Jim Moreno & Susan Fawcett)
Details are all in AWOG
Susan: struck most by the fact that everyone went there to protest the same thing - Israeli occupation of Palestine
-but atmosphere different in places where Greens were organized - more positive presentation of protest
-that makes our movement more appealing to the public
Jim: traveling a lot lately
-glad/happy/proud to go to DC and see 100,000 patriotic Americans who disagreed with administration re: war
-saw video of 1,000 CMU folks involved in 1,000,000-person rally vs. Vietnam War
-got training on what to do in a rally/protest march
-what struck him about contrast between '70s and today was how diverse this crowd was - many older people, etc.
-impressed by Student Greens' ease of organization/communication, how they cared about each other . . .
-also impressed by DC Greens, POCLAD, et al - so many different groups, but we could all get together on something
-friend (naturalized from S Africa) starting a CMU Institute for 3rd-World[?] Ways of Knowing . . .
-passed around various things - including 1972 underground newspaper
he's also on Pine River Superfund Task Force, went to talk to them re: Green Party & Perrier (& recruit candidates)
-need to do more to find out / reveal administration's role (in letting war happen, in pollution, etc.)
Qs:
How did you find the police presence in DC?
Susan: There were a lot of police, but all the police I met were helpful.
Jim: Police weren't so bad; good speeches from ________, Amy Goodman, Detroit Auxiliary Bishop Gumbleton.
-New Black Panthers called for new intifada against America.
Juscha agrees; best atmosphere I've ever seen at a protest - and I think police were clued in on this.
Their figures say $5 million was spent on security for April 20 (makes you wonder what the real figures were).
Rick Stahlhut wonders whether the police really meant it, or just wanted to avoid having the world see violence done
to peaceful peace protesters against war in Afghanistan.
Amy Mondloch saw much more police presence the next day, when young people in black were in the area.
Paul Felton also heard good things - and heard Anita Rios speak on it . . .
She noted we need to have a visible Green Party presence.
Ditto if US expands the war to Iraq - Greens liable to stand out again, even more.
Mentions forum with Gumbleton on "Alternatives to Bipartisan Warmongering".
Susan: Juscha made state banners - we had a good presence; started out concentrated, wound up spread thru crowd.
Marc: David McReynolds said Greens were biggest/most visible group at the rally.
Craig H. offered to present a few words etc. re: peace in Mideast (visited Jenin):
Peace activists from both sides made a big impression on him - but. . . .
Israelis definitely doing more than just going after terrorists; aren't succeeding in intimidating the young folks, either.
Palestinians in Jenin aren't all terrorists - he's up here just to get the word out.
On the other side, Israelis are afraid; consider 9/11, cut it down proportionally, but ramp up by number of incidents.
Last thing he did there was peace demonstration in middle of street in Tel Aviv:
More recently, one about 10 times as big as
NOTE: NPR reporter spent a week or so with a family there . . .
Figured only possible justification is leading to negotiated settlement.
Q: any Greens there? (Me'eretz is closest party to Greens in Israel)
Alan reports Ellis Boal in Middle East with lawyers' committee looking into war crimes in Jenin:
Big, brave peace movement in Israel - including many officers who refuse to serve in the occupation.

Alan just came back in from observing as police officers question Marc & Joe D (who accused Marc of assaulting him).
He asked whether we discussed political linkage - "how working on issue campaigns affects Greens (and vice versa)"
He thinks strategically we can't be satisfied with the coverage Greens got out of the effort we've put in on peace.
============/============
diversity workshop deferred for quick review of Joe D situation (he's left and Marc is still here)
Amy facilitates discussion
Joe D yelled at Juscha during break after cell-phone incident; Marc stepped in when that got loud, David stepped in to separate things
JoeD called cops, complained Marc had assaulted him - said he'd press charges if prosecutor filed them; later left
police heard both stories, eventually smiled and said if Joe D comes back to call them back

Elliott ___(?), Doug note Joe D episodic
Alan was worried that Joe D & this incident would ruin the meeting; Juscha assured him it hadn't
Carolyn said Joe D was trying hard to do good today (she knows from being kicked out of work for an atheist)
Kurt W: world isn't perfect, neither are we - suggests sending back offensive e-mail saying "offensive, re-send"
if everyone did, he'd be discouraged (several demurrers)
Ray: let's get back to a meeting

now back to our regularly-scheduled workshop: diversity
Amy Mondlcoh- Diversity Workshop

Amy congratulates us all for getting through this
in a weird way, that incident makes this workshop easier
it takes courage to have such an open discussion
today, our main topic is racism (though many definitions can be applicable/useful for other areas of diversity . . . and un-)
story of WI sesquicentennial - Red Cliff reservation, walk (150 years = 7 generations), & white male casino-hater
some of goals of workshop - do we agree? (yes, we do):
think about, share experiences with racism
get a better understanding of racism, white privilege, institutionalized racism
how GPMI can become a more diverse group
guidelines for conversation
confidential - some may share information they wouldn't want known broadly
showing each other respect - all questions & ideas are valid
speak from our own experience - use "I" statements, what we know ourselves, not broad generalities
she encourages folks to take some risks (especially those who haven't talked much) - get our feelings out
basic assumptions:
we've all absorbed considerable misinformation on what it means to be a person of color, what society's about, etc.
very important to distinguish between guilt and responsibility - and to get out of guilt stage into responsibility stage
(Kevin H asks if it's okay not to feel particularly guilty)
dismantling "isms" is a lifelong journey
racism, sexism, heterosexism, & other forms of oppression damage us all
individuals/organizations can and do change
all "isms" are connected
we can't dismantle "isms" in a society that exploits people for private profit
while individuals can inspire change, organizations & communities make change happen
4-page handout:
Grassroots Leadership - Barriers and Bridges - Principles
Racism Defined [Exchange Project of the Peace Development Fund]
Three Expressions of Racism [Peace Development Fund]
The Four Faces of Racism [adapted from Joan Olsson, Cultural Bridges]
statements read by four people (sources unidentified):
extended discussion of how they relate to our views/experiences of racism, privilege, etc. - some highlights:
Rick Stahlhut - it does seem logical for a woman to have a better understanding of what women go through than I do
Amy's answer: where someone has experience, respect that, yes - but. . . .
does mention of "well-educated" indicate a bias against not-here likely-to-be-less-educated darker-skinned people?
Candace notes her story involved 2 educated black persons, Amy couldn't know that when she asked the question
Amy tells Kevin H racism, sexism, etc. intrinsic to you - you can't change it;
that makes them different from ageism (you grow out of it), "anti-protester-ism" (your choice)
Paul Felton disagrees with "white privilege"; just less disadvantage/oppression (Amy'll stick with that phrase now)
Jim Moreno: can't meet needs unless you meet people, talk to them, find out what they're like (what they want/need)
being a city councilor has changed his relationship with the police - where in the cop cars he rides, for example
to the handout, briefly - Amy didn't go over everything, but drew attention to a few things:
definitions (page 2): oppression = power + prejudice
leads to individual/cultural/institutional racism (page 3)
some discussion of what is "white music" or "black music"
isn't our culture corporate-dominated? (Amy agrees, but who primarily benefits from corporatization? whites)
. . . and isn't it interesting that, when we get to discussing cultural racism, we're all saying "oh, that's okay!"?
Art says leaving corporatism off the list of isms means missing at least half of the problem
Elliott disputes the part of the definition saying only white people can be racist
(& she's going to leave us in that spot to grapple with it)
Alan disputes how Amy's posing the question; leads to self-defeating action, undermines the basis of unity:
disagrees with Kevin - racism DOES exist in this country - but we need to unite to fight it
is there a basis of class exploitation? do Greens have a basis for speaking on that, addressing/solving it?
various disagreements with underlying assumptions and/or wording of definitions:
isn't it possible for individuals of oppressed groups to have power in individual situations, and thus to be racist?
Bob(?) Cronz(?): we've spent 1/2 hour on semantics & sociology of what is racism; let's get doing something about it
Juscha: we're perceived as just another well-meaning group, no buy-in for blacks/etc.
need to think how we can be seen being Green working on these issues
Ray mentions Sterling Johnson (running for 4th District Congressional seat)
============/========
DINNER

After dinner - group pictures in front of the fireplace and under (well, mostly under) the banner.
============/=====
Officer elections:
Chair - Marc suggested, but he's already treasurer & can't be both
what is a chair?
another ad-hoc change? add chair to treasurer, leave committee manager separate? (Ken Young would take that)
Dawn would reluctantly accept chair (without committee manager) if she can write job description (ad-hoc again)
Lou Novak says not best to do too much change; David S. says we're trying to recognize/formalize a de facto role
Ray says chair not figurehead (cf. Paul Emery on "Off the Record")
Carolyn Dulai agrees, especially in election year
Juscha notes we could have more than one contact person; several reply
Ken Mathenia wonders if we need a committee manager anymore
David Spitzley reviews committee manager's job/role - suggests letting SCC define the role of the chair
Ray disagrees, compares with Democrats & Republicans
Alan dismayed - Rusty Hills media player/owner; Mark Brewer connected lawyer; both sophisticated
this person/position is going to be our public face - so we need to consider/design carefully
it'd be a very significant departure for us - change in our culture - to have a principal spokesperson
Ken Young suggests it would fit better with our culture to have co-chairs
Craig Harvey reviews history of how "/Chair" got added on to "Committee Manager"
he suggests re-tack it onto "Treasurer" instead . . .
Dawn agrees - no consensus on making changes, hard to do so here . . . and Marc's doing the work now
Alan worried about burning out someone who's both chair and treasurer, also possible institutional conflicts
Juscha suggests floating "/Chair" going to whoever's most appropriate, most wanted
Carolyn says we need separate people in separate positions
Elliott asks isn't this a temporary thing?
David summarizes: we agree (1) can't decide permanently now; (2) old chair just left; (3) need a chair now . . .
Carolyn offers friendly amendment that we will define chair & committee manager by next SMM
Linda Myatt says stick with whatever we do through November SMM at least
Treasurer/Chair: consensus on Marc Reichardt
with SCC to bring a cleaned-up/finalized proposal at/by the November SMM
Alan K has non-blocking concern (= standing aside)
Committee Manager: consensus on Ken Young
Record Keeper/Secretary: consensus on Adrianna Buonarroti
Clearinghouse Co-ordinator & Membership Secretary (cf. previous action on splitting, finalizing by August SMM):
Clearinghouse Co-ordinator: Craig Harvey, Michael Nowak nominated; both decline. Elliott Smith volunteers.
Membership Secretary: consensus on Lynn Meadows.
Meeting Manager: consensus on Dawn Wolfe.
Locals Liaison: John La Pietra nominated; Kevin Henehan willing to do the work but not be on SCC, so he's "staff".
Consensus on the team.
National Representatives:
consensus on current slate - Carolyn Dulai, Marc Reichardt, Juscha Robinson, David Spitzley;
Roger McClary, DawnWolfe as alternates.
Elections Co-ordinator: consensus on Peter Schermerhorn (accepted by phone).

Back to by-laws . . . we'll take a whack at resolving the expulsion issue.
Mike Nowak not on SCC, defers to Dawn to review the background/history.
As a third party, we'll attract all sorts of people who just want a podium for their views, even if they aren't ours.
Mike Nowak's objections:
No clear definition of why to be expelled. (This is his main objection.)
Too blunt an instrument. (Suspend, don't expel.)
Dawn, Marc note checking with lawyers, finding that stating reasons (10KV) opens up lawsuits/court interpretation.
Elliott proposes friendly amendment to write new/replacing suspension by-law so that it could lead to expulsion:
Mike accepts.
Lots of discussion, many speakers.
Art: technical legal reasons for not writing 10KV/etc. into by-laws, but not possible to actually expel otherwise.
Christie: 10KV was put in, why wasn't it taken out?
Straw poll taken on new proposal:

Add "We believe that _________ has engaged in behavior inimical to the aims of the GPMI, which may include but is not limited to violations of the 10 Key Values or the By-Laws, or persistent disruption of party activities."

Just about consensus; discussion winding up.
Carolyn noted again Joe D was trying hard; suggests requiring petitioners to say how they tried to help "expellee".

Three non-blocking concerns (Art & Linda Myatt, Matt Abel) but consensus otherwise.

Adjourn for the day - 9:45.

Sunday 5/19

Women's Caucus meets over breakfast
Discussion of Diversity workshop, similar to the one we had on racism yesterday, to be facilitated by Amy Mondlock, if she agrees.
========/========
Discussion of Resolutions

Reducing the Deficit Resolution John La Pietra (handout)
Without the extra "that"
What is the current pay? When was the last time they got a pay raise? (The raise was approx. 40%.)
Point: Legislators vote themselves raises and not other state employees.
David: State employees get regular raises. Legislators only get raises if they vote raises for themselves.
Point: Parity with other people.
John withdraws the proposal to the SCC, agreeing to look into the history of legislative pay raises.
=============/=======

Set dates for the next year's meetings.
August 3-4 (convention) Lansing area
November 9-10
February 8-9
May 17-18

Doug suggests that we, as a general rule, hold our convention the weekend before the primary and the November meeting the weekend after the election. There is no agreement on this!
===/=============

Caucuses
Art says that we should not have any caucuses in conflict with the convention.

Bylaws change that s in the packet calls for allowing caucusing at the convention. Our bylaws don't allow it but state election law does allow it.Consensus.

Art proposes that we have one person on vote. Whoever attends the convention will be a delegate with a vote
Eric brings up the fact that if everyone has a vote, a large group from another party could take over the party.
John tries to combine his proposal (packet) with Art's. Unable to come to conclusion so referred to SCC. John, Kevin and others will work on it and then bring it before the SCC. This should be done in time to use it for the conventions. (John can you confirm the details here?)

Discussion about elections: (Alan makes introductory remarks)

How do we select a lt gov candidate?
How long do we have after the convention to submit the appropriate par

Should we run a gubernatorial candidate?

The law does require that there does have to be at least one candidate for statewide office in order to retain ballot status.

Candidates give two-minute talks
Elliott Smith, Art Myatt, Jerry Kaufman, Eric Borregard, ____, Harlen ____, Doug Campbell

LUNCH

Marilyn Morgan-last candidate to speak.

Ingrid Betancourt: (rally postponed last night due to fatigue and time constraints) Alan gives a talk about Ingrid Betancourt, the Green candidate for President of Colombia who was abducted by the FARC in February and asks that we do something to support her by or on May 26th, Colombian national election day.

Closing circle

******ATTACHMENTS********

PROPOSAL PACKET (handed out at meeting)

The Green Party of Michigan
Activism, Growth, Elections

Dryden, Michigan May 18-19, 2002

Saturday
8:00 Breakfast
8:30 Registration
9:15 Welcoming remarks
9:30 Final approval of agenda
10:00 Water presentation and discussion, breakouts
Featured will be a report about the Perrier situation, a (written) report from Joanne Beemon, Charlevoix County Drain Commissioner, and participation by Prof. Marty Kaufman, chair of the Earth Sciences Department at UM Flint Breakouts could include discussion of "water" issues for inclusion in upcoming election campaigns, evaluation and discussion of how working on issue campaigns affects Greens (and vice versa)
11:30 Miscellaneous (anticipated brief) resolutions
12:00 Lunch; SCC meeting begins
1:15 Officer Reports, CCC report (Juscha), general announcements, start of Nominations for State Officers
2:00 ÒPeaceÓ a report on April 20, the role of Michigan Greens, and discussion of our work in the immediate future. Breakouts to follow. Discussion will be led by Jim Moreno and Susan Fawcett, who participated in the April 20th protest march in Washington, D.C.
3:00 Beginning of Strategic Planning discussion - Pete Schermerhorn - the 2, 5 & 20-year view.
3: 30 Diversity. Facilitated by Amy Mondloch from Wisconsin Greens
5: 00 Resolutions and Bylaws
6: 15 Dinner, continuation of SCC meeting
7: 30 Election of officers
8:00 Greens Elections workshop (Ziarno, Abel, Morgan, etc.)
9:00 Rally to liberate Ingrid Betancourt
Drum circle or other events to follow

Sunday
8:30 Breakfast
9:30 Reports from break-out sessions
10:30 Working session on elections, including issues, committees, candidate recruitment
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Closing, including any unfinished business and a review of the meeting with an eye to submitting an evaluation of the "new" SMM meeting process to the SCC.
3:00 Final departure

Table of Contents

Resolutions
3 Regional Community Policing Institutes
3 NOTA

Discussion Points
5 Paul Felton

Administrative Proposals
6 Date and place of 2002 Nominating Convention
6 Distribution of Amber Waves of Green newsletter
6 GPMI Internal Campaign Finance Reform
6 Update of the GPMI tri-fold flyer

Platform Proposals
7 Revised Reproductive Rights plank
8 Public Campaign Funding
8 Electoral Reforms, et cetera
11 Welfare/Workfare

Activism Proposals
12 Crashing the Primary Election

Bylaws proposals
13 Member Expulsion
15 Proposal to remove the current expulsion bylaw and replace it with a suspension bylaw
16 Allocation of Delegates to State Conventions
18 Alternate method of Delegate Allocation
19 Caucuses may coincide with State Conventions
RESOLUTION: Regional Community Policing Institutes
Carl Davidson, Marshall

WHEREAS: The U.S. Justice department has established 28 Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPI) to monitor Òenemies in our own backyardÓ through network links to all municipal surveillance units, announced in February, 2002 by Director of Homeland Security Thomas Ridge, and

WHEREAS: The training curriculum designed and written by Professor David L. Carter of the Michigan State University Department of Criminal Justice identifies the ÒGreen MovementÓ as a prime national security threat Òaimed at political and social reform with explicit attempts to develop environment-friendly policy, law, and behaviorÓ noting that ÒWe have a virtual buffet of political extremism out here.Ó [presumably Michigan]

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED: That the Green Party of Michigan petition the President, Board of Trustees, and chair of the MSU Department of Criminal Justice to convene forthwith a conference to ascertain the position of MSU on environmental reform, the funding and oversight of the activity of Professor David L. Carter, and full disclosure of all pertinent documents under Freedom-of-Information Act provisions relevant to the RCPI from the university and governmental agencies in Michigan

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Green Party of Michigan and other groups subject to RCPI activity outlined in Professor CarterÕs curricula be apprised of data collected by police agencies in Michigan and the intended use of such data and potential disruption of law-abiding groups under scrutiny in the data collection process.

AuthorÕs note:
Those who stall or block this agenda item need to be counseled as to its absolute importance. ÒThe right to freely assemble and petitionÓ is fundamental and at stake for Michigan Greens.

RESOLUTION: None of the Above
"Pete Ponzetti, III" <ponzy_pp@yahoo.com>

NOTA (None-of-the-Above) Resolution--

-Whereas government should secure the consent of the governed;

-Whereas all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent;

-Whereas voters should be allowed to withhold their consent when voting in races with candidates, and ballot initiatives, referendums and questions;

-Whereas voters are, at times, presented with such choices on the ballot that none of the listed candidates for office are personally acceptable, nor are ballot referendum, initiative and question choices, and voters, meanwhile, are unable to withhold their consent in voting and still have their withholding vote "count"/be recorded for something;

Therefore, to insure the legitimate consent of voters, by enabling them to withhold their consent to an election to office of a candidate, or to an outright passage/failure of a ballot referendum, initiative or question:

We, the Green Party of Michigan (GPMI) hereby pass this NOTA resolution, in order to compel our elected Michigan state legislators to enact a NOTA voting option on all (general, primary, and special) election ballots, based on the example of Michigan House Bill No. 4794 (1995) which reads as follows:

Michigan NOTA Bill, 1995

HOUSE BILL NO. 4794

May 9, 1995, Introduced by Reps. Kaza, Jamian, Whyman, Goschka, Weeks and Jaye and referred to the Committee on Local Government.

A bill to amend Act No . 116 of the Public Acts of 1954, entitled as amended "Michigan election law, as amended, being sections 168.1 to 168.992 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, by adding section 40.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Section 1, Act No. 116 of the Public Act of 1954, as amended, being sections 168.1 to 168.992 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, is amended by adding section 40 to read as follows:

SEC. 40. (1) AN OFFICIAL PRIMARY, GENERAL, OR SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THIS ACT, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, SHALL PROVIDE A SPACE AFTER THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR EACH OFFICE BEING VOTED ON IN THAT ELECTION AND AFTER THE "YES" OR "NO" CHOICES FOR EACH BALLOT QUESTION BEING VOTED ON IN THAT ELECTION, FOR THE VOTER TO CHOOSE "NOTA". THE STATE DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS SHALL APPROVE A MODEL BALLOT FORM TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF BALLOTS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS SECTION.

(2) ALL NOTA VOTES SHALL BE CANVASSED AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE MANNER PROVIDED FOR ALL OTHER VOTES CAST IN AN ELECTION PURSUANT TO THIS ACT. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF NOTA VOTES CAST FOR ANY CANDIDATE OR BALLOT QUESTION, THE CANDIDATE OR THE YES OR NO CHOICE WITH THE MOST VOTES PREVAILS IN THAT ELECTION AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT.

(3) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, NOTA MEANS "NONE OF THE ABOVE."

DISCUSSION POINTS: Paul Felton

1) I support the membership expulsion proposal.
2) I support August 3-4, even though I personally have a conflict with the 4th (I expect to be able to attend for 1 day). If we looked for a date that nobody has a conflict with we'd never meet.
3) I suggest we put an agenda item on the Dryden SMM which would be a general discussion of election strategy, to bat around a number of aspects of the subject. In some cases we might reach consensus and take action; other aspects would be just to stimulate discussion.
Some of the things I thought we could discuss are:
a) What do we hope to achieve in the upcoming elections?
b) How will we measure success (winning/ getting a good percentage? getting our position on the issues better known? recruitment or new members??, etc.
c) Is it critical to run in as many races as possible or is there a point to running in fewer races and concentrating resources to have a big impact in those races (obviously, no decision would be made on this issue until the Convention...)
d) Are there some measures the State Party can take to help our candidates (as a group) have a bigger impact: e.g., periodic GP statements on some of the issues, literature about the GP and our values that also lists all the GP candidates, bringing a big-name speaker to Michigan for some sort of rally that also features GP candidates, etc.
e) What do people think about the issue of being a "spoiler" (do we want to avoid running if we might swing a race to a Repub or do we not care? Does it make a difference if Bonior is running?) Again, this item would not be for a vote/consensus but we might as well start having a discussion and hearing what everyone thinks.
f) other people might have ideas to add to this list -- i'm just suggesting a general brainstorming session, sharing of ideas, without necessarily focusing on the wording of a resolution. What do people think?

ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSAL: Date and place of 2002 Nominating Convention
Douglas Campbell, Ferndale

The Green Party of Michigan shall hold its 2002 Nominating Convention on August 3-4 in or near Lansing.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSAL: Distribution of Amber Waves of Green newsletter
Douglas Campbell, Ferndale

The Green Party of Michigan shall allocate the necessary resources to mail paper copies of the quarterly newsletter, Amber Waves of Green, to all current members, recently-lapsed members, people who have expressed interest in the GPMI, media outlets, and other opportunities for publicity; and to publish it on the GPMI website in Portable Document Format.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSAL: GPMI Internal Campaign Finance Reform
Roger McClary <politicog@yahoo.com>

Resolved:
It is the policy of the Green Party of Michigan that the Green Party of Michigan [Finance] Committee is prohibited from making contributions to a candidate committee before that candidate has been officially nominated at a state convention or county caucus, unless the amount and reason for the contribution has been previously presented to and confirmed by either the State Central Committee or a State Membership Meeting.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSAL: Update of the GPMI tri-fold flyer
Douglas Campbell, Ferndale

The Green Party of Michigan shall allocate the necessary resources to add a line requesting the memberÕs county of residence to the tri-fold flyer, to publish it on the GPMI website in Portable Document Format, and to immediately and forever cease and desist from making de facto endorsements of the Microsoft Corporation and its proprietary data formats.

PLATFORM PROPOSAL: Revised Reproductive Rights plank
Pete Ponzetti, 3rd*, Flint

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Women shoulder the burden of pregnancy. The choice to carry to term or terminate a pregnancy is theirs. More generally, all individuals must have the right to choose whether or not to reproduce.

Greens propose:

The right of women to accept or refuse an abortion for themselves. The availability of abortion services. The legal right to an abortion is irrelevant otherwise. The identification of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" whose mission is to have unwanted pregnancies carried to full term via delay and disinformation, and mandatory disclosure such as, "This facility does not provide abortion services or referrals." The inclusion of abortion, tubal ligation, vasectomy and contraceptives in all medical insurance policies. The distribution of contraceptives through public schools, public and private health clinics, armed forces medical facilities and other venues.

I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING (minor) CHANGES TO THE ABOVE PLANK:

The choice to carry or terminate a pregnancy is that of the woman. More generally, all individuals must have the right to choose whether or not to reproduce.

Greens propose:

The right of women to accept or refuse an abortion for themselves. The availability of abortion services. The legal right to an abortion is irrelevant otherwise. The identification of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" whose mission is to have unwanted pregnancies carried to full term via delay and disinformation, and mandatory disclosure such as, "This facility does not provide abortion services or referrals." The inclusion of all forms of abortion, tubal ligation, vasectomy and contraceptives in all medical insurance policies. The distribution of contraceptives through public schools, public and private health clinics, armed forces medical facilities and other venues.

To summarize, I call for:
1) The ENTIRE ELIMINATION of the first sentence of the original plank, on the grounds that it is: a) overly subjective and generalizing, as it makes the party's collective view on the entire duration of a woman's pregnancy (and all pregnancies for that matter) seem like one continuous "burden," b) the first sentence of plank is also unnecessary, as it doesn't actually reflect on the GPMI's collective stance on specific abortion/reproductive rights (for example: Abortion should remain legal during all three trimesters, or abortion should remain legal during the first two trimesters only, etc.) that follow in the rest of the plank, and c) The first original plank sentence could potentially open the GPMI up to out-of-context scrutiny by conservative-slanted media outlets, and pro-life political candidates, campaigns and parties (for example: "The Green Party are fascistic because they think pregnancies are complete burdens and instead of giving birth woman should just have abortions.")
2) REVISE THE SECOND PLANK SENTENCE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:

Original sentence: "The choice to carry to term or terminate a pregnancy is theirs." New sentence: "The choice to carry or terminate a pregnancy is that of the woman."

-This should be done to complement the elimination of the original first sentence and allowing the new sentence to become, with specific clarity ("...is that of the WOMAN.") the plank's new FIRST sentence.

PLATFORM PROPOSAL: Public Campaign Funding
Ray Ziarno, Lansing <razar@voyager.net>

In order to restore and protect public trust and confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the Michigan Legislature, government officials, and the judiciary:

1. Michigan should establish/adopt a system of full public funding of statewide electoral campaigns, and

2. Limits should be established for contributions to state political action committees and state political parties.

3. Persons and organizations doing business with the State of Michigan, or approved to do so, should be barred from making direct contributions to state candidates/candidate campaign committees within certain time limits.

PLATFORM PROPOSAL: Electoral Reforms, et cetera
"Pete Ponzetti, III" <ponzy_pp@yahoo.com>

To the platform committee (possibly for proposals for the spring SQM, in Dryden):

The following electoral reforms (as supported by myself and SOS candidate-hopeful Ray Ziarno, amongst other MiGreens), not mentioned--but should be considered for immediate inclusion--in the "electoral reform" section of the GPMI party platform:

*Binding or symbolic NOTA (None of the above) voting option on Michigan ballots for candidate races, ballot initiatives and ballot referendums--like Nevada has had since 1975. (See 1995 Mich. House Bill. No. 4794 also and www.nota.org)

EXAMPLE OF NOTA:

[ ] Candidate A [ ] Candidate B [ ] None of the Above (NOTA)

*24-hour voting or Sat. voting

*Instant Run-off voting (IRV) (http://www.instantrunoff.com/)

*Same-day voter registration option

*Voting-by-mail option (like in Oregon)

*Uniform voting system for all Mich. precincts (optical-scan or hand-count preferably)

*Unrestricted absentee ballot requests

*Allow eligible college/university students to vote at home OR at school where registered.

*Immediate restoration of convicted felons voting rights, when they have "paid their debt to society."

*Eliminate the requirement of write-in candidates to register as "candidates" prior to Election Day.

*Expanded state voter registration drives to the 18-25 demographic, in high school, colleges and universities.

*****

Part I: Grassroots Democracy

A community simply does not work without the active involvement of its citizens. People must see that small-scale community economics *can* work; that the idea of workers owning (cooperatives) or holding a large share in (economic democracy) of locally owned businesses is workable; that citizens can peacefully apply the principles of democracy by both voting and participating in their own political space.

1. Community Organizing & Political Participation

Greens support citizen involvement at all levels of the decision-making process; participation in political life requires fair campaigns, wide ranging debate, and choices that have meaning.

We support the right to non-violent direct action that supports social justice, democracy, peace, and sustainable interaction with our environment.

2. Political/Electoral Reform

The two major parties cynically jockey to look as if they care about "good government," when, in fact, they restrict ballot access to third-parties and independent candidates through a labyrinth of restrictive election laws, and bluntly reject meaningful public debate and election reform.

The Green Party, in association with those citizen groups and political campaigns calling for real reform, accountability, and responsibility in government proposes a COMPREHENSIVE POLITICAL REFORM AGENDA in Michigan.

a. Ballot Access

We need to broaden voter participation and BALLOT ACCESS, urging UNIVERSAL VOTER REGISTRATION, including ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION, voting by mail as allowed in certain other states, and an ELECTION DAY HOLIDAY for all federal elections. We believe that a binding "None of the Above" option on the ballot should also be considered.

b. Proportional Representation & Preferential Voting

We demand choices in our political system. Over two thirds of Americans support the formation of an alternative third-party.

The US is one of only a handful of democracies in the world that still predominantly use a winner-take-all electoral system, which only reinforces the entrenched two-party monopoly. We must work to change this at the local and state level. We recognize individual empowerment, full citizen participation, and PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION as the foundation of effective democracy.

c. Campaign Finance Reform

We propose comprehensive CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, including caps on spending and contributions, at the national and state level, and use of public funding to remove undue influence in political campaigns.

State rules for public disclosure of political "gifts" and contributions need to be strengthened to limit corporate influence of our elections through their political action committees.

Providing free television and mail under reasonable conditions for every qualified statewide, congressional, presidential candidate, and party can move the political process toward increased participation.

3. Media Access and Ownership (e.g., Low Power Community Radio)

Over the years, media control has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, along with an increased corporate desire to censor the news by simply not reporting on it.

Greens call for:

Drastically increasing access to the public airwaves, including the legalizing of low-power community radio Increasing the public interest obligations of broadcasters Taxing broadcast advertising Free air time for political debate including third parties Reinstitution of broadcast media ownership limits Fining strike-breaking papers who do not comply with court orders

4. Corporate Injustice/Accountability

Corporations affect every aspect of life: determining who will receive jobs and how they will earn their living, deciding the direction of technological development, choosing the content of social discourse through control of the mass media, and judging the degree of environmental damage that should be sustained in maintaining productivity. Private power is thus exercised over many of society's most crucial decisions concerning the use of our resources.

In a democratic society it is proper that the public maintain the right to define the role exercised by private power. The Michigan Green Party supports efforts to expand the role of public oversight of corporate activities: stockholder empowerment, increased input in the governance of public utilities, citizens' involvement with the activities of regulatory agencies.

a. Workplace Democracy/Labor Organization

The American experiment has been based on democracy. Yet, we see no effort to practice democracy in the everyday workplace. Democracy, though far from perfect, is the most legitimate and effective form of government. We call for it to be implemented in as many companies as possible.

In the absence of true workplace democracy, we call for increased worker participation in the decision-making process. We defend the right of workers to voluntarily join unions and bargain collectively. We call for companies to pay a living wage. We insist that workers be given safe, comfortable working conditions.

b. Management/Labor Relations

We support efforts to expand economic and workplace democracy as a means to protect employees, consumers, and surrounding communities.

We support employee stock ownership plans (ESOP's) and other forms of employee ownership.

There should be no compromise of basic worker rights. For workplace democracy to be effective, workers must have freedom of speech and the right to associate with groups and unions of their choice. We call for more democracy in the unions, and more accountability from the union leadership.

We endorse legal rights to organize and join unions with democratically elected leadership. We call for penalties against companies for firing or disciplining workers engaged in union-forming activities, and against companies that refuse to negotiate in good faith with the democratically elected union representatives.

We support the right to strike without being permanently replaced.

PLATFORM PROPOSAL: Welfare/Workfare
Art Myatt, Pleasant Ridge

Part II: Social Justice, Section 5. Welfare/Workfare Issues

currently reads:

The welfare of the people is the main concern of the state. While this association is usually figurative, there is a small population for which it is literal. It is the state's job to provide a minimal level of survival while helping them either in returning to a productive lifestyle, if possible, or providing for an ongoing income, if that is not feasible. Workfare burdens marginal members of society with additional responsibilities when they are already having trouble meeting the demands of life. From an economic perspective, the state should realize that it is "investing in" a potentially productive member of society; its payoff will come later in the increased tax revenues from a returned-to-productivity worker. Refusing to provide income Ôbecause" a person can't function is ultimately counter-productive.

My proposal is to change it to:

The welfare of the people should be the main concern of the state. Our state has become cold-hearted and mean-spirited, to judge by the programs dealing directly with the welfare of the people. Workfare burdens its recipients with additional difficulties when they may be already having troubles enough. Unemployment checks are meager, temporary, and conditional.

Greens propose to replace welfare payments and unemployment payments and social security payments and government pensions entirely with a single program of a guaranteed annual income for every citizen, without giving money to those who do not need it. That is, the payments are to be made on a sliding scale, with those who have no other income getting 100% of the amount set by the legislature as minimally adequate. Those making privately as much as the designated amount would get a 50% layout from the government; those already making twice as much would get no payment.

Further, Greens propose to deal with unemployment by making job-sharing an option guaranteed to all employees, and by limiting the hours of work allowed to less than 40 per week, if necessary.

These measures, properly implemented, should guarantee that everyone who wants a job will have one; that nobody is forced to work at a job they hate, so long as they can accept a lifestyle of consuming only the necessities; and will promote in a practical fashion the Green ideal of "stepping lightly on the Earth." Individuals who still insist on being wealthy will still have the opportunity.

ACTIVISM PROPOSAL: Crashing the Primary Election
Eric Borregard, West Oakland Watersheds Greens

This proposal is designed to challenge the part of the Michigan Election Code that defines the Green Party as a minor political party and the Democratic and Republican Parties as major parties (Michigan Campaign Finance Act 338 and Election Code Act 116). Our contention is that the use of major/minor party designations is unconstitutional. That if major party is defined as just two parties based an arbitrary percentage of the vote, than why not three or five major parties. Further, since the majority of the Michigan electorate actually votes for multiple parties, are not all political parties "Minor Parties"? The Proposal contends the use of this system in Michigan acts as a dividing line to discriminate and disadvantage the Green and other third parties in getting out the vote. The proposal also contends these Acts denied our party members and potential Green Party voters their basic constitutional rights of equal access under the law. Not to protest would allow the Democratic and Republican Party a clear advantage by having an exclusive publicly paid for pageant for their candidates. This primary process automatically separates at critical time a third party's campaign form the public's mind and reference into the choice of only two major parties. By "crashing the primary" we may be able to counter this process. The initial plan of action is laid out in three parts, based on the least costly and most effective and finally most beneficial to our party.

1. Conduct a local-by-local protest with a more or less a standardize message. The message would display pronominally the name Green Party our support for democracy and protest our exclusion from the primary. The signs, would all come from individual protesters.

2. File a Writ against the Michigan Secretary of State in District Court challenging the provision of Acts 338 and 116 that define major and minor party status.

3. Issue a statewide press release detailing our intentions to go to court and to conduct an organized statewide protest. The protest would be conducted in concert with as many election reform groups as possible, placing signs and people at as many local precincts as we can on the primary election day of August 6th 2002.

BYLAW CHANGE: Member Expulsion
Numerous authors and sponsors
Passed by a 6/7 supermajority in the State Central Committee on or about April 30;
brought to the Statewide Membership Meeting to be affirmed or revoked.

-------------------- Add the following to Article II:

Section 2: Removal of members

A) Initiating Membership Revocation

i. Members may submit a Petition for Removal to the SCC. A removal petition summarizing the allegations against the member facing removal and justifying a removal action shall be signed by ten members in good standing representing at least two locals. A petition for removal should begin with the language, "We move to exercise our right of association and disassociate and expel _____ for any and all of the following reasons:"

ii. Signatures on petitions shall be dated within six months of the submission date.

iii. The timetable for scheduling and beginning the discussion of the petition shall begin upon receipt of a physical petition. E-mail may be used to expedite and facilitate the proceedings but is not a suitable substitute for a physical document.

B) Distribution and Notification

i. The Secretary/Record Keeper shall ensure that a copy of the petition, including any amendments, and notification of the dates of the removal discussion and vote are sent to each party to the petition at least 15 days before the removal discussion is scheduled to begin. The copy sent to the member facing removal shall be sent via certified mail, personal service, or other method which provides confirmation of receipt.

ii. The Secretary/Record Keeper shall send notice of the outcome of the proceedings to the member facing removal within 2 days after a decision is reached.

C) Preparation for Discussion of petition

i. The SCC shall schedule a discussion and vote on the removal between 15 and 30 days after receiving the petition.

ii. Prior to beginning the removal discussion, the SCC shall make any necessary inquiries of the members submitting the petition to clarify the petition. The results of these inquiries shall be forwarded to the entire SCC.

iii. The results of these inquiries shall be kept as part of the GPMI's permanent records and a copy shall be sent to the member facing removal.

iv. All parties to the petition, the member facing removal and the complainants, shall receive access to the SCC e-mail list for the duration of the discussion of the petition upon individual request. Requests may be made to any SCC member, who shall transmit them to the SCC.

D) Discussion of petition

During the SCC discussion of the petition,

i. The SCC shall give the member facing removal an opportunity to make a written response via the SCC e-mail list, which may include statements from other members.

ii. The SCC will then have 10 days from the beginning of the removal discussion to discuss and vote on the motion.

iii. Once discussion is complete, but prior to the final vote, an SCC member may propose limiting action on the petition to a suspension of the subject's membership for six months.

E) Resolution of petition

Once the discussion is complete:

i. If a proposal to limit action on the petition to suspension is passed, the SCC shall vote on the question "Shall the GPMI suspend _________ for a period of six months?"

ii. If there is no proposal to limit action on the petition to suspension, or if such a proposal is offered and defeated, the SCC shall vote on the question "Shall the GPMI disassociate from _________ by revocation of his/her membership?" An affirmative vote is a vote to remove, with a 3/4 supermajority needed to pass the motion and effect the removal.

iii. SCC members who are parties to a removal petition may vote.

iv. Prepaid membership dues shall be refunded in full after a vote to revoke membership.

v. Half of prepaid membership dues shall be refunded after a vote to suspend membership.

F) Effects of Suspension and Expulsion

i. An individual whose membership has been revoked is no longer a member of the GPMI. Individuals conducting GPMI or GPMI local events open to the general public may bar the former member from participating.

ii. An individual who has had their membership suspended is still a member of the GPMI, but may not participate in any event or activity restricted to members in good standing and may not cast votes as a GPMI member. They shall not be barred from GPMI events and activities open to the general public.

G) Normalization of Membership Status

i. Former members whose membership has been revoked may apply for membership one year after revocation.

ii. Suspended members shall have all privileges of membership reinstated after six months.

H) Appeal

i. An individual may appeal to an SMM to reverse suspension or the revocation of their membership, according to the following procedure:

ii. The appeal must be made within 6 months of the SCC's decision to revoke membership.

iii. The appellant must notify the Meeting Manager of the intent to appeal no less than three weeks before the SMM.

iv. The appeal must be made in person and accompanied by a petition signed by 10 members representing at least two locals requesting reversal of the membership revocation or suspension.

v. The SMM must allocate at least 15 minutes for discussion of the appeal, and the appeal must be resolved before election of Officers and discussion of Bylaws, Platform, or other proposals.

vi. A decision by an SMM to reverse an expulsion or suspension shall be effective immediately.

BYLAW CHANGE: Replace the current expulsion bylaw with a suspension bylaw.
Mike Nowak, Ann Arbor

-- Whereas the member expulsion bylaw recently passed by the State Central Committee violates the key values of Social Justice and Respect for Diversity by allowing party members to be expelled for any reason a majority of SCC members choose, and

-- Whereas the Green Party of Michigan is a public political party open to all residents of Michigan, regardless of temperament, and not a social club whose members are selected by the club itself,

I propose the following:

-- The current bylaw regarding Expulsion of Members shall be revoked immediately and any member expelled under that bylaw be immediately reinstated.

-- The State Central Committee shall direct the Bylaw Committee to draft a new bylaw, allowing members to have specific rights suspended if a majority of the SCC members finds and documents that the member is consistently violating one or more of the Ten Keys Values of the party. Rights that can be suspended could include voting rights at State Membership Meetings, attending Party meetings, posting on party e-mail lists, or monitoring party e-mail lists. Such rights can be revoked for a maximum of 6 months.

BYLAW CHANGE: Allocation of Delegates to State Conventions
John Anthony La Pietra, Marshall <jalp@internet1.net>

Add a new Subsection B to Article VI, Section 1 of the GPMI By-Laws:

B) Selection of delegates to state conventions: ==============================================
1) Each duly authorized county caucus is empowered to choose a number of delegates to the state convention equal to the sum of the following two elements:

* Each county caucus may choose one delegate for every ten (10) GPMI members in good standing, as of the date sixty (60) days before the state convention, who live in the county covered by the caucus. Any fractions are to be rounded up, to ensure that all counties have at least one delegate under this clause.

* The county caucus in the county with the lowest total number of votes for the party's principal candidate in the most recent past November general election shall be entitled to one state convention delegate based on that voting support. Other caucuses in other counties may choose a number of delegates in proportion to their higher principal-candidate vote count (rounded off to the nearest whole number, with halves rounded up).

2) All state-convention delegates and alternates must be members in good standing of GPMI, and of their locals if applicable. Selection by an authorized county caucus as a state-convention delegate or alternate is evidence that, in the caucus's view, the person selected has sufficient interest in Green Party values and activities to qualify for voting rights at the state convention. The Meeting Manager may not override that evidence and deny voting rights without presenting countering evidence to a credentials committee with representatives from at least three locals, and receiving either consensus or a 2/3 vote from that committee to deny voting rights. The credentials committee's decisions may be appealed to the full convention.

3) A county caucus may choose any number of alternates who may serve if one or more of its selected delegates cannot serve. After a county caucus selects its delegates (and alternates, if any), the chair and secretary of the caucus shall send the Meeting Manager a full list of all people selected. The Meeting Manager will verify the GPMI memberships of those people, and contact the caucus chair and secretary about any questions. NOTE: The caucus chair and secretary shall also send the Meeting Manager a report of any and all candidates nominated by the caucus, so that a full statewide report can be made at the state convention.

4) For the purposes of allocating delegates to the state convention, members of cross-jurisdictional GPMI locals (such as Labor Greens or Campus Greens) shall be counted with their counties of residence.

5) For the purposes of allocating delegates to the state convention, both by membership and by voting support, all counties for which no caucus is held shall be lumped together and treated as one "at-large" county. GPMI members in good standing who are eligible to vote at SMMs may apply to the Meeting Manager for one of the "at-large" delegate positions. If there are no more applications from verified "at-large" GPMI members than there are delegate positions for those members as of thirty (30) days before the convention, all those applying shall be delegates; the Meeting Manager will so notify all applicants. If there are more applications than delegate seats, the Meeting Manager will so notify all applicants and ask them to consult with each other to identify enough applicants who are willing to withdraw or serve as alternates instead. Applicants shall communicate such willingness to the Meeting Manager. At the start of the convention, the Meeting Manager will report on the status of the at-large delegation, and request confirmation by the rest of the convention.

[=========] * [=========] * [=========] * [=========]

ALTERNATIVE IDEAS: ----------------- i) Let everyone attend and participate -- but only give each county so many votes. If County X has 10 seats for delegates, but 20 people come, each one qualifies for half a vote. (More math involved . . . but I'll be there . . . and so will my computer, in case anyone worries about built-in error in MY microchip.) I think Marc suggested something of this sort at one time. This might also simplify the at-large process. Maybe all the SMM-eligible at-larges who show up could participate under this kind of fractional voting. (Or we could go with some form of the idea Ken Young suggested and Roger McClary seconded -- letting the at-largers caucus at the convention.)

ii) Don't let the Meeting Manager override a caucus's faith in its delegates and alternates at all -- that would make 2) a good bit shorter, and avoid the need to create another committee, albeit a temporary one. I might be talked into this without too much difficulty, I think . . . though I also think checking membership is probably still wise.

iii) It might be stretching the law to give Labor Greens, Campus Greens, etc. delegates -- but then the big parties have superdelegates who are not selected on any basis of pure geographical or voting balance that I can detect. If we do this, though, we'd better have our reasoning well-organized . . . and we'd better be sure to eliminate members "registered" to such cross-border locals from their counties' membership counts. Note that non-geographical locals could not really have any part in allocation of delegates by voting counts. This is a disadvantage for them . . . but a reasonable one, I think, all things considered -- since, again, the delegates we're choosing are going to be picking candidates for geographical areas. (I'd suggest offering Campus Greens a special role in selecting U-board candidates if I could think of a corresponding special role to offer Labor Greens -- I believe some states have Labor Commissioners, perhaps even elected ones, but not here.)

REASONINGS & RATIONALIZATIONS: ----------------------------- * I set 60 days ahead of time as the membership-count date because that's the soonest people could have the caucuses . . . if we're worried about it, we could specify that membership applications must be in (or must be postmarked/in to PayPal/etc.) by that date. Of course, authorization to hold a caucus must be received well before then, so there shouldn't be any trouble on that end. If you want to use the same deadline for the "at-large" delegate applications, I could maybe go along with that . . . though I think at-largers are enough less organized that it might be reasonable to give them some more time to find out what's going on and decide to participate. Still, we might need some time to process any overflow of applicants. And remember what Subsection 4 of MCL 168.686a said:

/=========================================================\
(4) The state convention shall be held at the time and place indicated in the call. The convention shall consist of delegates selected by the county caucuses. The convention may fill vacancies in a delegation from qualified electors of that county present at the convention. \=========================================================/

[emphasis added by jalp]

So, if the convention is made up of delegates selected by the county caucuses -- and only these delegates -- then there's NO way for any other body to select any delegates . . . except the convention itself. Which is why I put in that bit about having the Meeting Manager report to the whole rest of the convention on filling the vacancies for the counties without caucuses and having them approve his report. (Or why, as noted above, we could have at least an at-large caucus at the convention -- though any caucus at the convention should obviously be very early on, to allow for the people selected as delegates and alternates at such a caucus not to miss too much of the chance to use their voting rights.)

* I'd like to "reward" both organized party activity (membership) and unstructured support (votes) with some ability to help pick our candidates. And note that, since each county gets at least one delegate from each branch of the proposed algorithm, each county would be eligible for at least two delegates. (If anyone wants to up that, we could boost the formula on either end -- or add a flat number of seats for each county, though I myself prefer to have some basis in proportionality even if we aren't yet aiming for a strict one-person-one-vote rule.) Also, since the delegates would be choosing all statewide/cross-border candidates, using the principal candidate isn't all that bad an idea . . . though I wouldn't object to using the Drolet formula ahead of its adoption by the legislature, and just going with the highest vote-getter. Except that that might tend to bias us slightly more than normal toward university towns if we have any U-board nominees.

BYLAW PROPOSAL: Alternate method of Delegate Allocation
Art Myatt, Pleasant Ridge

I believe that having county caucuses choose delegates to the state convention is simply a practice which is forced on us by state law. Allowing and encouraging all party members in the state to attend the state membership meetings - and the nominating convention is essentially just another state membership meeting - has worked for us so far. That is certainly how the first and so far only state nominating convention was run. I don't believe we can afford to keep out any interested person and, if left to our own devices, would do as we have done in the past.

Therefore I propose to do just that, in a way that should also satisfy the formal requirements of the law. That is, we can recommend to any county/congressional district caucus meeting that they select as delegates from their district - all GPMI members in the district who care to attend the convention. (Maybe we can even include this requirement in our bylaws, as a necessary condition for holding the caucus.) This should not be limited to those who have attended the caucus meeting, but should include all GPMI members. The state party can invite all other members not covered by a caucus district. Votes at the convention can be allocated on the basis of how many people show up - one member, one vote sounds about the right proportion.

This should, I think both satisfy the requirements of the law and allow us to continue pretty much as we have been doing. It's not a perfect method, but it suits us and has gotten us this far. We don't need to tie ourselves into knots over the idea that conforming slavishly with the requirements of the SOS is the best and only way that things should be done.

Maybe for the 2004 nominating convention, when we have 84,000 members (to match the 84,000 votes Ralph got in 2000) and there are several locals in every county, - then we can worry about apportioning delegates and making sure they represent their counties in a fair and democratic fashion. For now, it's a little bit unrealistic.

BYLAW CHANGE: Caucuses may coincide with State Conventions
John Anthony La Pietra, Marshall <jalp@internet1.net>

Amend language of Article VI, Section 3, Subsection D to read as follows:
(added language SHOWN IN CAPITALS):

Current language:
----------------
D) Caucuses held under this section shall be convened no earlier than 60 days before and no later than 15 days before the statewide convention held in accordance with Article VI, Section 1 of these Bylaws.

Proposed new language:
---------------------
D) OTHER THAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE CAUCUSES FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS, AS PROVIDED ABOVE, caucuses held under this Section shall be convened EITHER:

* no earlier than 60 days before and no later than 15 days before A statewide convention held in accordance with Article VI, Section 1 of these Bylaws; OR

* AT SUCH A STATEWIDE CONVENTION, IF A BODY PROPERLY AUTHORIZED TO HOLD A CAUCUS GIVES NOTICE TO THE MEETING MANAGER REQUESTING A TIME AND PLACE ON THE CONVENTION AGENDA FOR ONE OR MORE AUTHORIZED COUNTY AND/OR DISTRICT CAUCUSES.

Proposed changes:
----------------
* Add the caveat about special-election caucuses to this Subsection which otherwise would cover convening ALL caucuses.

* Change reference to "the" statewide convention held in accordance with Article VI, Section 1 to say instead "a" statewide convention -- mostly because I wanted to emphasize that it's not just a one-and-out thing. (If someone prefers "the" and can give a reason at least as cogent as mine for "a", I'll yield -- this is hardly a deal breaker. :] )

* Capitalize "Section" to emphasize/clarify that it is the whole Section (currently designated Section 3 of Article VI) that is meant.

* Add a second path for holding caucuses, as specified above -- and thus add EITHER and OR, and punctuate to set off the two paths from each other. (Ah, now we're getting to the heart of it. . . .)

Resolution on First Priorities in Reducing the State Government Budget Deficit
Offered for May 2002 SMM by John Anthony La Pietra (Marshall)
Whereas official estimates now put that the state government's annual budget at approximately $700 million and whereas, earlier in this current legislative session, state legislators voted themselves a pay raise of nearly 40%.

Now, therefore, the Green party of Michigan hereby resolves:
That regardless of whatever other measures may be necessary to reduce the state budget deficit, among the first steps to be taken should be the immediate repeal of the legislative pay raise and the reconsideration of any and all concurrent pay raises for elected officials.

That the party will publicize this deficit-reduction policy position-and encourages its candidates, its members, and all persons of sound judgment to join in a drive to implement this position as official policy and legislation.

Green Party of Michigan Other GPMI State Meetings

http://migreens.org/convention/0205min.htm

web page last updated: 07/07/2002