Mike Heichman commented on Repealing the Neutrality Policy on Endorsements and Nominations
2013-04-19 14:35:05 -0400
· Flag
(Note: This proposal was vetted by the CDLC on 4/16/13 and was significantly modified according to guidance received.)
Sponsors: Mike Heichman (Suffolk) and John Andrews (Middlesex)
Floor Manager: Mike Heichman, mikeheichman@verizon.net, 617-265-8143
Committee Vetting: CDLC
Summary: An option for early endorsement/nomination is created in cases where CDLC recommends it.
Background: At the Summer, 2012 StateCom meeting, 4 members of The State Comm. introduced a proposal, which was passed, entitled “Neutrality Policy on Endorsements and Nominations”.
The new and current policy states: “The State Committee adopts a policy to take no action of endorsing or nominating a candidate for public office until after the filing deadline established by the Commonwealth for seeking that office. In the case of a contested GRP primary it will indicate no preference and will respect the choice of primary voters.”
The purpose of this proposal is to provide some flexibility in this policy so that earlier endorsements/action are not precluded when it is clear that they would be beneficial. The arguments for earlier action in some circumstances are:
1. Early endorsements/nominations of our candidates by both our local chapters and state party increase the viability and strength of our campaigns by allowing full party engagement in the critical early stages of a campaign.
2. There can be a concern that a premature endorsement/nomination by our state party would be unfair for potential GRP members who might announce their candidacy after the endorsement/nomination took place. The provision below allows CDLC to examine the circumstances of the race to determine if there are other potential candidates whose possible entry would argue for postponing the endorsement/nomination decision. This is not, however, a likely problem. Except for the presidential campaign, which is handled in a different manner, we have never had a member of our party run for public office against another member. (In 2012, we had one candidate for 200 contested seats in the state legislature.) Our real challenge has been to persuade our members and friends to run for office under the GRP label. A major reason for not running is not having a political machine behind them that can help with the formidable amount of work involved in a political campaign. In some cases, we are talking to people who have a solid reputation as a community leader and who are considering jumping into politics. The Democratic Party often moves swiftly to assure them that they would have support if they ran under that party’s label. The GRP needs to show similar support when we ask them to run under our label.
3. Experienced political advisors emphasize the importance of starting early to build a campaign organization. Our candidates do not have big political machines ready to jump in to help. Generally they don’t have the money to hire professional staff that starts work immediately. They need to build support over time, train volunteers, and recruit help. In order to run strong, we often need to launch a campaign early. In addition, we want candidates to forge a strong bond with the Party, and this is much less likely to happen if their campaign gets up and running with non-Party support. The Party benefits from being engaged at the beginning and from learning about the race from the inside.
Proposal:
StateCom’s Neutrality Policy on Endorsements and Nominations is hereby revised to read as follows
The State Committee adopts a policy to take no action of endorsing or nominating a candidate for public office unless
1) The filing deadline established by the Commonwealth for seeking that office has passed, or
2) The application of the candidate has been forwarded to StateCom by the Candidate Development and Legal Committee (CDLC) with a recommendation of early action. In recommending early action, CDLC should consider whether any other candidates are likely to emerge as contenders for the endorsement/nomination, whether the candidate has demonstrated serious commitment to the race, and whether the candidate’s campaign has clear potential for benefiting the Party.
In any case in which two GRP candidates are engaged in a contested primary, StateCom will take no action on a nomination and will respect the choice of primary voters.
Mike Heichman commented on Talk Less Accomplish More
2013-01-03 20:43:59 -0500
· Flag
I believe that Nat had introduced this idea before he withdrew it at the last StateCom meeting.
I find the proposal to be upsetting not only because I believe that this proposed policy is unnecessary and would be harmful, if passed, but also because I’m feeling paranoid about its intentions.
I have been a member of the merged party since before the merger, when I was a member of the Rainbow Coalition Party. I can remember a time when the StateCom had played a more active and vibrant role in our organization. A time when we had lots of proposals, and from time to time many disagreements, sometimes quite disagreeable. It was a time when there was a great deal of discussion on the statecom-discuss list; from time to time, someone would resign from the e-mail list and even from the statecom, because it could get quite contentious.
I believe that many of the veteran members of the StateCom look back at those days and are much happier that the StateCom of today is a much more peaceful place. As for me, I must admit that I once again represent the “minority opinion” and for the most part, do “miss the good old days”.
I must admit that I have made a large number of proposals over the years. While my psychology is no doubt complicated, I believe that a great deal of my motivation has come from a belief that our small group of prophetic comrades has played and can continue to play a more important role in the future in the creation of a better Commonwealth, Country and Planet. To be modest, I believe that while I have communicated a ton of words, I have backed it up with a great deal of work and deeds these last 10 years. I just took a list of the current members of the StateCom. Some of you are relatively new and others have been around for many years. I believe that most of you have never initiated a proposal. The result of this proposal, if passed, would mean it would be less likely for you to do so in the future. And most definitely DO NOT come up with a wonderful idea unless you are willing to be its shepherd!
In a very short period, Nat’s proposal has generated a great deal of excitement. He has struck a cord. I shudder at its significance. Most certainly, the future of our statecom and party will continue to grow more peaceful.
I ask the manager of the proposal to point out examples of proposals since January, 2012 that have lacked a “good shepherd”. After all, if we have a problem, there must be many examples to support this part of the proposal.
On the other hand, if the real intention is to prevent any member of StateCom to be the “manger” of more than one good idea in a 3-month period, I must confess my repeated guilt.
For the record, I have made 2 proposals for the upcoming StateCom. Before I read Nat’s proposal, I had already announced that I had, after receiving feedback, withdrawn one of my proposals.
I might be a little paranoid. However, I believe that my behavior past and present might be the major motivator behind this part of the proposal.
I also want to share the following: I often find it difficult to find a co-sponsor for my proposals. While others seem to have no difficulty finding sufficient co-sponsors, I do. No question, the quality of our ideas plays an important role in the relative ease or difficulty of getting co-sponsors. There is a possibility (that I will not admit to, so I call it a possibility) that maybe from time to time, I have not received co-sponsors because my ideas are clunkers. Yet, I do know that from time to time, I have had difficult getting co-sponsors even when I know that some StateCom Reps agree substantially with my proposal. Group dynamics and psychology are a challenging mystery.
While I believe that the “good shepherd” proposal, if passed, would be harmful, I question its necessity. Part of the template to submit a proposal is “implementation”. I believe that it would be very appropriate for StateCom to make sure that the question of implementation be satisfactorily addressed by those responsible for its implementation before StateCom would approve any future proposal.
Mike Heichman
Suffolk County Rep
Brian Cady tagged
Mike Heichman's
Short Term Attainable Goals for the GRP with Will co-sponsor
2013-01-10 09:20:57 -0500
Short Term Attainable Goals for the GRP
Sponsors: Mike Heichman, Suffolk County and
Contact Info for Floor Manager: mikeheichman@verizon.net, 617-265-8143
Committees Vetted: Adcom, StatreCom,Working Committees, & Local Chapters
Background: Our party needs a long-term strategic plan. Over the years, there have been 2 unsuccessful attempts to create such a plan. As a first step, the State Party will create a plan for the rest of 2013 and 2014.
Summary: The Winter 2013 StateCom meeting will request that Adcom, members of StateCom, the Working Committees and Local Chapters will come up with proposals for the StateCom’s consideration at the Winter, 2013 StateCom meeting.
Some over-lapping questions:
1. How can we increase and strengthen existing chapters and increase our membership?
2. How can we better encourage and support our candidates to run for public office?
3. What issues should be the focus of our statewide party and how can that both serve the Commonwealth and also build our party?
Proposal:
I. Adcom, members of StateCom, Working Committees and Local Chapters will be invited to submit proposals for the Spring, 2013 StateCom meeting. All will be invited to submit attainable proposals with requests on how the different structures of the State Party and Local Chapters can support their plans.
II. Proposals will be presented to the Spring, 2013 StateCom meeting. The StateCom will spend 60 minutes (more if it decides to extend) discussing and deciding a plan to grow the party for 2013 and 2014. Members of Working Committees and Local Chapters will be invited to attend the meeting.
Nat Fortune responded to Choosing a New Method to Elect StateCom Members
with not planned
2013-01-05 17:14:46 -0500
Sponsors: Mike Heichman, Suffolk County and
Contact Info for Floor Manager: mikeheichman@verizon.net, 617-265-8143
Committees Vetted: Adcom, ComCom, CDLC, Membership & Diversity, & Platform
Background: We want to grow our party. From the beginning of our party’s history in 2002, we have been overly dependent on a relatively small number of people who have carried the party on their shoulders. We all agree that we need to grow and we all agree that we need more of our members to become leaders in our party.
Sometimes, our members are prevented from being on the StateCom. Some counties are only able to elect a small number of Representatives. The fact that some of our active members are not Representatives while other Representatives are inactive is unjust and dysfunctional. As much as we can, we want to encourage our members to become active leaders of our party. The way we elect our leadership (StateCom) should reflect the values and principles of our party.
Summary: We want to encourage our members who want to be leaders of our state party, to be members of the StateCom. The requirement for being a leader of the State Party is that StateCom members agree to help with the work of our state party. We especially want to encourage and support the leadership of our members who are people of color, women, GLBTG, handicapped, low-income and youth.
This proposal is consistent with the following “10 Key Values”: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, Decentralization, and Respect for Diversity.
This proposal will end the necessity of having regional conventions to elect members of the StateCom.
Proposal:
1. We will have a StateCom that will have a maximum of 100 members. Increasing the number above 100 would require a 75% vote of the StateCom.
2. StateCom will be a continuous body.
3. Requirements to be a member of the StateCom
A. You must agree to participate in the work of the StateCom (attend meetings, read your e-mails and if you wish, participate in the discussions, etc.)
B. You must choose at least one of the following:
i. Be a member of Adcom
ii. Be an active member of at least 1 Working Committee
iii. Be a GRP elected official or candidate
iv. Participate in the work of the GPUS
v. Be an officer (Co-Chair, Secretary or Treasurer) of a local chapter
4. Local Chapters will elect as many members as they wish to the State Comm. The only requirements are that those elected will agree to the description of requirements in 3A and 3B.
i. Local Chapters are encouraged to elect a diverse membership to the StateCom.
ii. Each member will serve a 1-year term. At the end of their term, they will be eligible for re-election by their local chapters.
iii. Local Chapters can recall their Representatives any time they wish.
5. Members of Adcom (Co-Chairs, Treasurer, Secretary, and Diversity Reps) are members of the StateCom. Adcom members are encouraged, but not required, to be members of local chapters. As long as they remain on Adcom, they will remain on StateCom. (Note: Members of Adcom will continue to be elected in the same manner.)
6. Committee Directors and Committee Co-Chairs are members of the StateCom. They are encouraged, but not required, to be members of local chapters. As long as they remain in their positions, they will remain on StateCom. (Committee Directors will continue to be elected at the annual convention. In case of a vacancy, they will continue to be elected by the StateCom. Committee Co-Chairs will be elected for up to a 1-year term by members of their committee and can be re-elected.)
7. Members elected at the MA Presidential Primary at senatorial districts will continue to be elected to the StateCom for a 4-year term.
8. Members of the StateCom who represent local chapters, who are members of Adcom, who are elected for a 4-year term during the MA Presidential Primary, and who are Committee Directors and Committee Co-Chairs will elect other GRP members to be on the StateCom. (They can be elected as long as the number of the current members of the StateCom are 100 or lower, unless the StateCom votes by at least a 75% vote to increase the number.)
i. These members must agree to the same requirements as other StateCom members (see 3A and 3B)
ii. Encouraging diversity is an important consideration.
iii. They will serve a 1-year term and will be eligible for re-election.
9. There will no longer be any StateCom Alternates. This position will no longer be needed.
10. If this proposal is passed, the appropriate sections of the by-laws will be changed.
Implementation: This new structure will go into effect after the 2013 annual convention. After the convention, the new officers will take the necessary steps to encourage local chapters to elect their Representatives, and to encourage other members to apply for membership on the StateCom (which will be elected at the Winter, 2012 StateCom meeting.)
Budget: None
Choosing a New Method to Elect StateCom Members
Sponsors: Mike Heichman, Suffolk County and
Contact Info for Floor Manager: mikeheichman@verizon.net, 617-265-8143
Committees Vetted: Adcom, ComCom, CDLC, Membership & Diversity, & Platform
Background: We want to grow our party. From the beginning of our party’s history in 2002, we have been overly dependent on a relatively small number of people who have carried the party on their shoulders. We all agree that we need to grow and we all agree that we need more of our members to become leaders in our party.
Sometimes, our members are prevented from being on the StateCom. Some counties are only able to elect a small number of Representatives. The fact that some of our active members are not Representatives while other Representatives are inactive is unjust and dysfunctional. As much as we can, we want to encourage our members to become active leaders of our party. The way we elect our leadership (StateCom) should reflect the values and principles of our party.
Summary: We want to encourage our members who want to be leaders of our state party, to be members of the StateCom. The requirement for being a leader of the State Party is that StateCom members agree to help with the work of our state party. We especially want to encourage and support the leadership of our members who are people of color, women, GLBTG, handicapped, low-income and youth.
This proposal is consistent with the following “10 Key Values”: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, Decentralization, and Respect for Diversity.
This proposal will end the necessity of having regional conventions to elect members of the StateCom.
Proposal:
1. We will have a StateCom that will have a maximum of 100 members. Increasing the number above 100 would require a 75% vote of the StateCom.
2. StateCom will be a continuous body.
3. Requirements to be a member of the StateCom
A. You must agree to participate in the work of the StateCom (attend meetings, read your e-mails and if you wish, participate in the discussions, etc.)
B. You must choose at least one of the following:
i. Be a member of Adcom
ii. Be an active member of at least 1 Working Committee
iii. Be a GRP elected official or candidate
iv. Participate in the work of the GPUS
v. Be an officer (Co-Chair, Secretary or Treasurer) of a local chapter
4. Local Chapters will elect as many members as they wish to the State Comm. The only requirements are that those elected will agree to the description of requirements in 3A and 3B.
i. Local Chapters are encouraged to elect a diverse membership to the StateCom.
ii. Each member will serve a 1-year term. At the end of their term, they will be eligible for re-election by their local chapters.
iii. Local Chapters can recall their Representatives any time they wish.
5. Members of Adcom (Co-Chairs, Treasurer, Secretary, and Diversity Reps) are members of the StateCom. Adcom members are encouraged, but not required, to be members of local chapters. As long as they remain on Adcom, they will remain on StateCom. (Note: Members of Adcom will continue to be elected in the same manner.)
6. Committee Directors and Committee Co-Chairs are members of the StateCom. They are encouraged, but not required, to be members of local chapters. As long as they remain in their positions, they will remain on StateCom. (Committee Directors will continue to be elected at the annual convention. In case of a vacancy, they will continue to be elected by the StateCom. Committee Co-Chairs will be elected for up to a 1-year term by members of their committee and can be re-elected.)
7. Members elected at the MA Presidential Primary at senatorial districts will continue to be elected to the StateCom for a 4-year term.
8. Members of the StateCom who represent local chapters, who are members of Adcom, who are elected for a 4-year term during the MA Presidential Primary, and who are Committee Directors and Committee Co-Chairs will elect other GRP members to be on the StateCom. (They can be elected as long as the number of the current members of the StateCom are 100 or lower, unless the StateCom votes by at least a 75% vote to increase the number.)
i. These members must agree to the same requirements as other StateCom members (see 3A and 3B)
ii. Encouraging diversity is an important consideration.
iii. They will serve a 1-year term and will be eligible for re-election.
9. There will no longer be any StateCom Alternates. This position will no longer be needed.
10. If this proposal is passed, the appropriate sections of the by-laws will be changed.
Implementation: This new structure will go into effect after the 2013 annual convention. After the convention, the new officers will take the necessary steps to encourage local chapters to elect their Representatives, and to encourage other members to apply for membership on the StateCom (which will be elected at the Winter, 2012 StateCom meeting.)
Budget: None
Official response from Green-Rainbow Party not plannedThis proposal has been withdrawn by its sponsor.
Mike Heichman commented on Redefine regional convention districts and terms of appointed State Committee representatives
2012-09-22 09:43:45 -0400
· Flag
1. A major problem for our party is that we donât have enough leaders, who are willing to do the work. Instead of having the result of increasing the leadership of the party, I am concerned that this will reduce the numbers of leaders, especially in areas of the state where our party is currently the strongest.
2. This proposal does not increase the number of StateCom from the current number of 60 elected by counties. I am unclear from this proposal whether members will be elected by the 12 regional conventions (which would mean an average of 5 per regional district) or from the 40 state senate districts (which would mean an average of 1.5 members per senate district).
3. This proposal is silent about the potential impact of diversity in our leadership.
4. The current active leadership of the party is from 3 or 4 areas (Berkshires, Pioneer Valley, Worcester and Greater Boston). This means that it will be much easier for our members to be elected from areas that have few active members and much worse, will make it more likely to exclude those who want to be active from areas where our party is the strongest.
Mike Heichman
Mike Heichman commented on Limit proposal proposers to no more than 1 proposal per meeting (as floor manager)
2012-09-22 10:12:37 -0400
· Flag
1. I donât remember that we have ever spent the âbulk of the dayâ discussing proposals at StateCom meetings. Recently, we have shortened the time that we have spent together and have had less time discussing proposals.
2. I donât see the problem of the state party being solved by âtaking on lessâ. When I look at what the state party has been doing this year, I canât think of very much beyond the presidential campaign and our support for our one candidate for State Rep. At our StateCom meeting on 9/23, we may decide to take positions on ballot questions. By the time, we create a leaflet, there will be precious little time to do outreach. The major problem is that we do not have a compelling program. This proposal will have no effect at best on this problem and possibly could discourage such a thing from happening.
3. This proposal has the intention of discouraging proposals. A small handful of StateCom members are responsible for most of the proposals that are submitted. The âshepherdâ responsibility will discourage our members, who may have good ideas, from submitting proposals.
Mike Heichman commented on Include Locals in AdCom
2012-09-09 22:16:52 -0400
· Flag
Thank you for presenting a bold plan. I agree with the idea of having a larger Adcom. I like the idea that every local chapter have a member on Adcom.
However, I have major concerns with the details of your proposal.
1. I don’t think that there is a more demanding job in the state party than being on Adcom. Currently, Adcom meets on a weekly basis. Every member of Adcom, except for the Diversity Rep, also has additional responsibilities being officers. The current Diversity Rep, David Gerry, has taken on a lot of responsibilities for the state party. While having more members on Adcom should potentially lighten the work load of the current Adcom, this would REQUIRE people to be on Adcom.
2. One of the major values of our party is decentralization. Currently, there is very little that the by-laws REQUIRES from local chapters. For the most party, local chapters have local autonomy. A mandate from the State Party to the local chapters could be a dangerous precedent. (I was recently talking with a member of my chapter, who has an excellent idea for a by-law change. More about this sometime in the future. I expressed concern that the initial draft would make a requirement on local chapters.
3. Enforcement: How do you enforce such a provision? What if a local chapter refused to select someone? What if a local chapter selects someone and that person refuses? What are the consequences for refusal?
4. We are a voluntary organization? How can we require someone to serve?
Alternative Ideas:
1. Local chapters are encouraged to select a member to be on Adcom. (Especially if there is no one from their chapter on Adcom)
2. Adcom should meet every other week for 2-3 hours (if necessary) instead of a weekly basis. Adcom should develop ways of making decisions between meetings (email votes, delegating authority to 1 or more members in certain areas, etc.) These ideas would not necessitate by-law changes.
3. While requiring diversity, increase the size of Adcom. These members would not be required to be officers or have other party responsibilities.
Mike Heichman
Suffolk County Rep to StateCom
Become a Volunteer
Thank you for volunteering to help!
Your information is being sent to our Membership, Diversity and Volunteer Recruitment Committee liasion Brian Cady, as well as the chairs of the Membership and Communications Committees.
Please let us know what kinds of tasks or campaigns would most interest you, in what regions you would find it most easy to volunteer, and how and when to get in contact with you, so we can put you in contact with the right people right away.
Feel free to also contact our office directly at office@green-rainbow.org or at 413-650-6542. We'll be glad to hear from you!
Mike Heichman commented on Title: Short Term Attainable Goals for the GRP
2012-06-21 16:19:57 -0400
· Flag
Title: Short Term Attainable Goals for the GRP
Sponsors: Mike Heichman, Suffolk County and Rick Purcell, Hampden County
Contact Info for Floor Manager: mikeheichman@verizon.net, 617-265-8143
Committees Vetted: Adcom, ComCom, CDLC, Membership & Diversity, & Platform
Background: Our party desperately needs a strategic plan. Unfortunately, it seems that the recent current effort has once again gone limbo.
Summary: The June 23rd StateCom meeting will adopt attainable goals for the rest of 2012 and establish a process that will continue to develop attainable goals with a realistic timeline.
Proposal:
I. Adcom and Working Committees will come up with a report for the Fall, 2012 StateCom meeting of its major goals for the rest of 2012 and 2013, and include a list of things they will need from other structures of the State Party to accomplish their objectives.
II. Reports will be presented to the Fall StateCom meeting. The StateCom will spend 30 minutes (more if it decides to extend) discussing and deciding a plan to grow the party for the rest of 2012 and 2013.
Mike Heichman commented on Redefine regional convention districts
2012-06-12 10:08:24 -0400
· Flag
1. What is the best way to elect the leadership of the state party?
2. What values are important to us in selecting the leaders of our party?
A. We want leaders who will do the work of the state party, which include:
1. Participates in the work of the StateCom-attends meetings, participates in some of the discussions, etc.
2. Being a member of Adcom
3. An active member of at least 1 Working Committee
4. An active member of a local chapter
5. Participates in the work of the GPUS
B. Diversity: We especially want to encourage and support the leadership of people of color, women, GLBTG, handicapped, low-income and youth.
C. Open: We want to encourage all of our members to be leaders in our party.
Responding to Nat and Mereliceâs ideas:
1. The current structure is not working. The fact that Nat Fortune is an Alternate is outrageous. The fact that Brian Cady-a new member from Boston who has become an active member of our local chapter and an active member of the Membership and Platform Committees-is an Alternate, while some Representatives remain uninvolved, is unjust and dysfunctional. I agree that changing the structure is a good idea.
2. I like the idea of a structure that represents a meaningful electoral district. Congressional or State Senatorial makes much more sense than Counties.
3. The problem with State Senate is that you start with a structure that potentially has at least 40 members (1 from each district) or 80 members (2 from each district which would be 1 male and 1 female). Iâm concerned that this structure would not be helpful in accomplishing my 3 objectives above.
4. Given my 3 values above, Congressional makes more sense to me.
Counter Proposal: A State Committee that is Representative (active members of the local chapters), will do the work of the State and National Party, encourages diversity and encourages all of our members to become becoming leaders in our party
1. We will have a StateCom that will have a maximum of 100 members. Increasing the number above 100 would require a 75% vote of the StateCom.
2. StateCom will be a continuous body.
3. Local Chapters will elect as many members as they wish to the State Comm. The only requirement is that every member agrees to be an active member of the local chapter and agrees to be an active member of the State (Adcom, Working Comm.) or National Party.
a. Local Chapters are encouraged to elect a diverse membership to the StateCom.
b. Each member will serve a 1-year term. At the end of their term, they will be eligible for re-election.
c. Local Chapters can recall their Representatives any time they wish.
4. Members of Adcom (Co-Chairs, Treasurer, Secretary, and Diversity Reps) are members of the StateCom. Adcom members are encouraged, but not required, to be members of local chapters. As long as they remain on Adcom, they will remain on StateCom.
5. Committee Directors and Committee Co-Chairs are members of the StateCom. They are encouraged, but not required, to be members of local chapters. As long as they remain in their positions, they will remain on StateCom.
6. Members of the StateCom who represent local chapters, are members of Adcom, and are Committee Directors and Committee Co-Chairs will elect other GRP members to be on the StateCom.
a. They must agree to be active members of the State and/or National Party.
b. Encouraging diversity is an important consideration.
c. They will serve a 1-year term and will be eligible for re-election.
Mike Heichman, Suffolk County