~ Merelice commented on Bylaws Revision for Chapters and Caucuses
2013-01-18 20:18:14 -0500
· Flag
I thank John for making some changes to his original proposal, but they do not adequately address the concerns I have shared with him. I do agree that this section of the bylaws would benefit from greater clarity. So please understand that my comments are made in the spirit of working toward a better understanding of the role of local chapters.
Historically, the GRP has given little emphasis to forming official Ward, City, and Town Committees. In contrast, some members have felt that one purpose of local chapters is to foster — and even eventually become — Ward, City, and Town Committees. Until that happens, I’m not particularly fond of calling the chapter a “club” — which sounds exclusive rather than inclusive (and no new chapter has ever put “club” in its name). But if (when?) a chapter becomes a state-recognized committee, why would we want to drop it as a GRP chapter? That seems counter-productive — especially since such a committee is no longer officially recognized by the state when the GRP is a political designation.
The bylaws should be flexible enough to accommodate the party’s status as either a political designation or a political party in the context of Massachusetts regulations. It would be far too complex to have to make bylaw changes every time the GRP swings back and forth.
The Boston Chapter would not be recognized under the proposed requirements if we were not grandfathered. Our Bylaw provision that we encourage the formation of other chapters in our area would not be allowed. Our becoming a PAC would not be allowed. The fact that members in Lenox, Mass. chose to become a Town Committee would eliminate them as a local chapter. The proposal simply does not allow enough flexibility to accommodate the stage of growth that the party is at TODAY — and the ways in which local members are determining how best to grow the party locally.
I urge the State Committee to consider chapters and caucuses separately. I think it would be confusing to identify caucuses as chapters, given their distinctive roles and responsibilities.
It would also help to discuss further the role of campus organizations. It was my understanding that the-then MIT and Harvard Greens were part of the-then Mystic River Green-Rainbow Action (MRGRA) which was a Cambridge-Somerville GRP chapter. In fact, students from both MIT and Harvard ran for office in Cambridge. The Amherst Chapter has a varied history that has included being a Town Committee and, I think, at the time might have encompassed the UMass-Amherst Greens. When Mike Aleo ran for State Rep (getting 38% of the vote), Smith College students were major supporters/campaign workers. Were they part of a campus or local chapter?
Although I hope this proposal benefits from some serious discussion, it is a complex proposal that, in my view, is not ready for prime time. In particular, it is not tuned in to the thinking of some of the most active GRP members and local chapter activists. I urge the State Committee to refer it to the Membership Committee and Local chapters for further input and development.
Historically, the GRP has given little emphasis to forming official Ward, City, and Town Committees. In contrast, some members have felt that one purpose of local chapters is to foster — and even eventually become — Ward, City, and Town Committees. Until that happens, I’m not particularly fond of calling the chapter a “club” — which sounds exclusive rather than inclusive (and no new chapter has ever put “club” in its name). But if (when?) a chapter becomes a state-recognized committee, why would we want to drop it as a GRP chapter? That seems counter-productive — especially since such a committee is no longer officially recognized by the state when the GRP is a political designation.
The bylaws should be flexible enough to accommodate the party’s status as either a political designation or a political party in the context of Massachusetts regulations. It would be far too complex to have to make bylaw changes every time the GRP swings back and forth.
The Boston Chapter would not be recognized under the proposed requirements if we were not grandfathered. Our Bylaw provision that we encourage the formation of other chapters in our area would not be allowed. Our becoming a PAC would not be allowed. The fact that members in Lenox, Mass. chose to become a Town Committee would eliminate them as a local chapter. The proposal simply does not allow enough flexibility to accommodate the stage of growth that the party is at TODAY — and the ways in which local members are determining how best to grow the party locally.
I urge the State Committee to consider chapters and caucuses separately. I think it would be confusing to identify caucuses as chapters, given their distinctive roles and responsibilities.
It would also help to discuss further the role of campus organizations. It was my understanding that the-then MIT and Harvard Greens were part of the-then Mystic River Green-Rainbow Action (MRGRA) which was a Cambridge-Somerville GRP chapter. In fact, students from both MIT and Harvard ran for office in Cambridge. The Amherst Chapter has a varied history that has included being a Town Committee and, I think, at the time might have encompassed the UMass-Amherst Greens. When Mike Aleo ran for State Rep (getting 38% of the vote), Smith College students were major supporters/campaign workers. Were they part of a campus or local chapter?
Although I hope this proposal benefits from some serious discussion, it is a complex proposal that, in my view, is not ready for prime time. In particular, it is not tuned in to the thinking of some of the most active GRP members and local chapter activists. I urge the State Committee to refer it to the Membership Committee and Local chapters for further input and development.
~ Merelice commented on Talk Less Accomplish More
2013-01-03 10:57:11 -0500
· Flag
I like this proposal. I’ve seen good proposals be passed by StateCom and then disappear into a black hole. This would correct that problem. I am assuming that if an urgent need arose, it would be addressed as an urgent item and would not be subject to the limitation placed on regular proposals. I’m willing to co-sponsor.
~ Merelice commented on Improving the regional convention election process
2013-01-18 13:31:28 -0500
· Flag
NOTE: Based on the vetting by AdCom and CDLC, this proposal has been edited. Rather than re-posting the entire proposal here, I will email a pdf of the revised proposal for your advance review. Thank you.
~ Merelice commented on Choosing a New Method to Elect StateCom Members
2013-01-01 21:32:01 -0500
· Flag
I have several concerns about this proposal. The main issue is that I don’t see how this proposal to change the size and membership of StateCom will solve the problems that Mike seems to want to solve.
1) Although the proposal allows for StateCom members to be elected by state senatorial districts at the presidential primary every four years (as provided by Mass. election laws), if and when the GRP becomes a permanent Mass. political party, that process has the potential of automatically sending 80 representatives to the State Committee.
2) Either the GRP believes in proportional representation, or it doesn’t. If it does, appointing additional StateCom members according to proportional representation should not be abandoned. Meanwhile, we don’t even fill the 60 proportional seats that currently exist, let alone elect more than 1 or 2 at the presidential primary. How would this proposal do any better?
3) If greater diversity is a concern, the bylaws already allow for appointing diversity representatives to StateCom. Why drop that provision?
4) One-year StateCom terms could be problematic. It generally takes a couple of meetings to get into the swing of things.
5) Confining StateCom membership to places where there are active chapters cuts off other GRP members who can be (and are currently) elected where there isn’t a local chapter. That, in turn, has the potential to spawn and strengthen local chapters.
6) We have witnessed the drawbacks of pushing GRP members into taking positions that either turn out not to be of particular interest to them or pile on too much activity and burn them out. This proposal seems to have the potential of exacerbating this problem.
Merelice, Norfolk County
1) Although the proposal allows for StateCom members to be elected by state senatorial districts at the presidential primary every four years (as provided by Mass. election laws), if and when the GRP becomes a permanent Mass. political party, that process has the potential of automatically sending 80 representatives to the State Committee.
2) Either the GRP believes in proportional representation, or it doesn’t. If it does, appointing additional StateCom members according to proportional representation should not be abandoned. Meanwhile, we don’t even fill the 60 proportional seats that currently exist, let alone elect more than 1 or 2 at the presidential primary. How would this proposal do any better?
3) If greater diversity is a concern, the bylaws already allow for appointing diversity representatives to StateCom. Why drop that provision?
4) One-year StateCom terms could be problematic. It generally takes a couple of meetings to get into the swing of things.
5) Confining StateCom membership to places where there are active chapters cuts off other GRP members who can be (and are currently) elected where there isn’t a local chapter. That, in turn, has the potential to spawn and strengthen local chapters.
6) We have witnessed the drawbacks of pushing GRP members into taking positions that either turn out not to be of particular interest to them or pile on too much activity and burn them out. This proposal seems to have the potential of exacerbating this problem.
Merelice, Norfolk County
Convention fee
Thank you for registering for the 2012 Green-Rainbow Party State Convention and your support of our party. The registration fee helps cover the cost of the facilities, child-care, registration materials, and refreshments, including lunch.
OPTION 1: To pay in advance by credit card or debit card
- please enter your information here
- click on Proceed To PayPal (does not require a PayPal account)
- to pay using a credit card/debit card, choose "Pay with Bill Me Later, Debit or Credit Card*"
- to pay using a PayPal account, choose "Have a PayPal account? Log in to your account to pay"
OPTION 2: To pay in advance by check
- please first enter your information here as if you were going to pay online
- print out a paper copy (after the information is typed in! ), then click on Proceed to PayPal as if you were going to pay online
- instead of actually paying on line, choose "Cancel and return to Green-Rainbow Party" at the bottom of the page
- mail your check and completed paper form to Green-Rainbow Party, attn: 2012 Convention, PO BOX 87, North Hatfield MA 01066
*Tip: If you don't see "Pay with Bill Me Later, Debit or Credit Card" then click on "Don't have a paypal account"
~ Merelice commented on Limit proposal proposers to no more than 1 proposal per meeting (as floor manager)
2012-09-22 10:51:09 -0400
· Flag
This proposal is no longer on the meeting agenda.
Get Stuff!
Welcome to our online store! To start, we're offering highly fashionable and comfortable T-shirts. Can Green-Rainbow dress shirts, sweaters, hats and scarves be far behind? To learn more about our T-shirts, click on the clothing link or image below.
You have two options for purchases: in-person or online.
- To buy a T-shirt in person, bring your checkbook or credit card to the next meeting of the Green-Rainbow Party local nearest you and pick up GRP merchandise while you're there! Here's a paper receipt and order form for in-person sales. Alternatively, if you have internet access, feel free to pay online, but choose the 'pick up' instead of 'USPS mailing' option when it comes to shipping.
- To buy a T-shirt online, click on the clothing link below and choose the numbers and size of shirts you want. You can have them sent by mail direct to your home address or post office box for the cost of the shirt plus shipping.
We also have brochures and flyers that you can download for FREE.
~ Merelice commented on Redefine regional convention districts and terms of appointed State Committee representatives
2012-09-22 11:05:39 -0400
· Flag
Mike’s concerns are broader than this proposal.
All this proposal does is have the 12 regions be based on State Senatorial Districts rather than Counties. Everything else regarding the process for appointed PROPORTIONAL representatives is identical EXCEPT that the terms of these representatives will equal the four-year terms of those elected on the presidential primary ballot.
Diversity is already covered in the bylaws and this proposal does not change that.
If other changes are desired, they would have to be presented in a future proposal.
All this proposal does is have the 12 regions be based on State Senatorial Districts rather than Counties. Everything else regarding the process for appointed PROPORTIONAL representatives is identical EXCEPT that the terms of these representatives will equal the four-year terms of those elected on the presidential primary ballot.
Diversity is already covered in the bylaws and this proposal does not change that.
If other changes are desired, they would have to be presented in a future proposal.
~ Merelice commented on Include Locals in AdCom
2012-09-10 17:39:39 -0400
· Flag
On the StateCom business list, I have sent a pdf of AdCom’s report on AdCom’s current structure that was presented at the last StateCom meeting. This proposal grew out of that report and addresses, in particular, problems #2 and #5 — the need for the GRP to develop a “farm team” and the need for more geographic diversity.
The thought that local chapters would not be willing to support the party infrastructure or have their members grow into leadership positions by observing and participating at a below-officer level seems unduly pessimistic. At least I hope that people are willing to learn the ropes before being pushed into positions for which they have no experience, while contributing important support to the running of the party.
The thought that local chapters would not be willing to support the party infrastructure or have their members grow into leadership positions by observing and participating at a below-officer level seems unduly pessimistic. At least I hope that people are willing to learn the ropes before being pushed into positions for which they have no experience, while contributing important support to the running of the party.
Donate Online!
152 donorsGOAL: 300 DONORSPsst: prefer to pay by check? No problem! Just fill in the needed information (including employer and occupation), print out the completed form, and mail it along with your personal check to the Green-Rainbow Party, P.O. Box 87, N. Hatfield MA 01066.
Prefer to schedule a small, automatically renewing monthly or yearly contribution? Please click here.
If the state of our state doesn't feel like paradise to you, and you'd prefer to support a true democratic alternative to today's politics as usual, we'd welcome your contribution in support of voter outreach, candidate support, and day to day party expenses. We're not expecting that you can come up with federal fund limit of $10,000, or even the state fund limit of $500 (but hey, go ahead and surprise us). Instead, please consider what a government that truly worked for us, listened to us, and answered to us would mean to you, how more Green-Rainbow party members in elected office could help bring that about, and then contribute at at level that would be meaningful and significant for you.
Please note: by party policy, we don't accept contributions from state or federal registered lobbyists, no matter what the issue. We want you to be sure that when we speak, we speak for the people of Massachusetts — not for special interests seeking sweetheart deals. Our support comes from you.
