[Green-Rainbow] Section 8
gary hicks
garyhicks1946 at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 7 15:51:33 EST 2002
TO CLARIFY THINGS JUST A LITTLE: WE IN THE RAINBOW COALITION PARTY CANNOT
AND WILL NOT SUPPORT IN WORD OR DEED ANYTHING THAT WILL PLACE THE MASS.
GREEN PARTY ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW. WE WANT TO BUILD A MOVEMENT, NOT
PLACE OURSELVES IN THE POSITION OF DISMANTLING ONE. :)
GARY HICKS ( BACK FROM THE LEFT COAST)
>From: "Gil Obler" <greengil at attbi.com>
>To: "'Jeffrey O'Neill'" <jeffo at massgreens.org>,
><Green-Rainbow at massgreens.org>, <procedures at massgreens.org>
>Subject: RE: [Green-Rainbow] Section 8
>Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:25:40 -0500
>
>
>Jeff -
>
>First, thank you for getting this out so that we can see it. I know
>that it was difficult to produce this so quickly while trying to
>balance the different concerns of youself, Dan K, and Jamie.
>
>Second, a few questions about your proposal:
>
>1) If I did my math correct, it seems to me that your 8.6.2 could
> produce 80 members just as easily as our 8.5.1 does. If you are
> arguing that your 8.6.2 would likely produce less than 80 members,
> then I agree, but this is precisely the same argument that I make
> about our 8.5.1.
>
>2) If your 8.6.2 does produce 80 members, then are there any seats
> remaining for your 8.6.3? If not, then how is this proportional?
> If so, then you also get more than 80 members. If your argument
> rests on the assumption that your 8.6.2 will not produce 80
> members (which I believe to be true), then you should also
> accept that our 8.5.1 will also not produce that.
>
>3) I also do not really get the point of your 8.6.1 and 8.6.2
> bylaws. It seems to me that you elect the delegate exactly
> the same way (at the presidential primaries) but you create
> 8 regions to obscure that fact. Or are you really electing
> one person with votes from 5 state senate districts? If so,
> I do not see what is gained and the legality is questionable.
> I am not against challenging the law sometimes, but I would
> rather do so when the benefits are more tangible.
>
>Now for some analysis.
>
>The only advantage of your plan seems to be that you create fewer
>additional seats beyond whatever is elected by the primaries. Fewer
>additional seats seems to me to merely make the overall result less
>proportional, not more proportional, and therefore strangely contrary
>to the previously stated aims of your group.
>
>I also think that you are doing the above, based upon a false
>assumption that our 8.5.1 will actually result in a lot of state
>committee members in 2004. I will be really surprised if more than
>10-20 state committee members actually are elected by 8.5.1 in 2004.
>The hurdle to running this way is very large compared to running at
>a regional convention, so why would anyone do it, just to get a
>four year seat instead of a two year one?
>
>I also really do not get the region thing. What is gained by this?
>The regions have no meaning as areas. At least the state senate
>districts mean something organizationally when we run Green-Rainbow
>candidates for state senate seats. The 8 regions have no electoral
>meaning, they are completely artificial.
>
>Frankly, your proposal is not what I was expecting, nor hoping for.
>Instead I was expecting that your group would concentrate on fixing
>the formula in our 8.5.2 to make it more proportional by making the
>formula based upon the total committee being proportional rather than
>just the subset. In other words, I was expecting a formula that added
>more seats in the larger membership areas and fewer in the smaller
>ones that already get enough seats from the 8.5.1 bylaw.
>
>I am frankly a little surprised that you did not address this since
>this was the biggest complaint that Dan Keshet and Jamie seemed to
>have initially had with our plan.
>
>However, even if I thought your plan was a good one, the goal of the
>Green-Rainbow proposals is to only make changes that address concerns
>of the Rainbow Coaltion Party members to joining the Greens.
>
>Your plan for doing the state senatorial and proportional seats a
>different way belongs as a seperate proposal. It is not motivated by
>concerns about how to get the Rainbow to join the Greens. It should
>not be hidden within our proposal which is only motivated by that.
>
>The merits of your proposal aside, it simply belongs in a seperate
>proposal because its purpose is to address a different question,
>your fear of the state committee becoming too big. If you are correct
>and there is a real danger of that, it is because of the 2004
>requirements made by the state, not because of the Rainbow joining us,
>except in the sense that the Rainbow raised the issue of complying
>with state law. However, Greens also have raised that issue so you
>were going to have to make your proposal anyway. It is possible that
>the Green-Rainbow initiative affected the timing, i.e., 8.5.1 and
>your proposal would have naturally come up as issues next year
>instead of now. However, that does not make your proposal a
>Green-Rainbow one.
>
>What I would suggest is that we seperate discussion of the merits of
>the Green-Rainbow proposals, which seek to do the minimum to address
>Rainbow concerns, from discussion of the question:
>
>"Will the mandates of state law cause the state committee to grow
>too large in 2004?"
>
>We may end up with the bylaws your way by the end of the state
>committee meeting or the end of the state convention, but we will
>have discussed the two questions seperately:
>
>1) Should we change our bylaws to address the Rainbow concerns?
>2) Should we modify the way we elect the state committee to avoid
> growing too large in 2004?
>
>It is even OK with me if we discuss your proposal first at the
>state committee meeting. If it passes before the Green-Rainbow
>proposals are considered, then naturally our proposal (which is
>based upon making the fewest possible changes to Green bylaws)
>would accept as friendly to follow your formulation for how to
>do the legal compliance and proporitional seating (which were
>never Rainbow issues anyway).
>
>The Rainbow Coalition only requested that the bylaws comply with
>the law, it never mandated how they do so. This is not to say that
>the individual Rainbow members will not participate in discussion
>of your proposal with interest, merely that the Green-Rainbow
>committee will have no official position for or against your proposal.
>
> Gil Obler
> Fundraising Director, Mystic River Greens
> Massachusetts Delegate, US Green Party
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>email greengil at attbi.com
>home (617)623-0582
>cell (617)388-5445
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: green-rainbow-admin at massgreens.org
>[mailto:green-rainbow-admin at massgreens.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey O'Neill
>Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 7:41 PM
>To: Green-Rainbow at massgreens.org; procedures at massgreens.org
>Subject: [Green-Rainbow] Section 8
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I've made some modifications to Section 8 after emailing with Dan Keshet
>and Jamie (though I haven't included all of Jamie's suggestions). The
>advantage to this version over the previous is that we will have a
>reasonable size StateCom in 2004 (80 members) yet retain PR as well as
>we can.
>
>I've left out the petitioning for diversity seats since it wasn't very
>well received.
>
>Below in text and attached in MS Word.
>
>Gil, I don't like the idea of adding Mass laws as an official addendum
>to the bylaws, but we can talk about that later.
>
>Jeff
>
>---------------------------
>
>8.5 The state committee shall consist of a fixed number of seats
> elected as described in section 8.6 plus a variable number of
> additional seats that will be created as necessary to satisfy the
> diversity criteria in section 8.7. In all cases, state committee
> members must be registered Green voters and their term of office
> will end on or before the thirtieth day following the presidential
> primary.
>
>8.6 A total of 40 state committee members shall be equally distributed
> to eight regions. This number shall increase to 60 members on
> February 1st, 2003 and shall increase to 80 members on February 1st,
> 2004.
>
>8.6.1 The eight regions are each composed of five state senatorial
>districts.
>
>Region I - Berkshire, Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin; Hampden; First
> Hampden and Hampshire; Second Hampden and Hampshire; and Hampshire and
> Franklin.
>Region II - will fill in later
>Region III -
>Region IV -
>Region V -
>Region VI -
>Region VII -
>Region VIII -
>These regions shall be re-evaluated when state senate districts are
>changed.
>
>8.6.2 Up to 5 men and 5 women in each region (one from each senate
> district) shall be elected to four-year terms at the presidential
> primaries as described in Massachusetts General Laws. Their terms
> shall begin on the thirtieth day following their election and end
> four years later on the thirtieth day following the presidential
> primary to be held that year. Any vacancies in these seats will
> not be filled until the next presidential primary and converted to
> a two year seat to be filled as in section 8.6.3.
>
>8.6.3 The remaining regional seats shall be elected to two-year terms
> at regional conventions and each region must reserve half (rounded
> down) of their total seats for each gender. In the event that
> there are not enough candidates of a gender, then those seats will
> remain empty. Candidates must be nominated by at least two other
> members. State committee members elected in this way may be
> removed through a 2/3 vote of a regional convention. Each region
> must hold a regional convention for the purpose of electing state
> committee members after the presidential primaries and within the
> time period specified by state law for the initial organization of
> the State Committee. Each region must also hold a regional
> convention two years later. The terms of members so elected will
> begin the day following their election and end two years later.
> In the event of a vacancy on the State Committee a region may hold
> a regional convention to fill the seat provided it is not within
> six months of the previously mentioned regional conventions.
>
>8.7 The state committee will create additional state committee seats,
> when necessary, to ensure the diversity of the state committee.
>
>By the end of March in every even year, the State Committee shall
>receive a report of the racial distribution of the general population of
>the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including estimated percentages of
>uncounted individuals and undercounted segments. The duty for
>determining the source of this report shall be assigned to a
>sub-committee of the state committee.
>
>The state committee shall take the figure, contained in this report, for
>the percentage of the population that are people of color and add 5% to
>this amount. The result of this addition shall be known as the
>diversity goal for the purposes of these bylaws. The value of the
>diversity goal for the year 2002 shall be 25%.
>
>Whenever the percentage of the state committee members who are persons
>of color fails to achieve or exceed the diversity goal for that year,
>additional diversity seats shall automatically be created to meet the
>diversity goal.
>
>In addition, the state committee may, by a 2/3 vote, create or remove
>any additional diversity seats that it desires, to represent other
>under-represented groups, such as but not limited to, on the basis of
>gender, geography, income, and sexual preference.
>
>Candidates must be nominated by at least two other members. Nominees
>for unfilled diversity seats shall be appointed by a 2/3 vote of state
>committee members prior to the consideration of regular business at any
>state committee meeting.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Green-Rainbow mailing list
>Green-Rainbow at massgreens.org
>http://www.massgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/green-rainbow
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
More information about the Green-Rainbow
mailing list