[External Relations] Fw: [statecom-discuss] GPUS P&P Template| BRPP Policies and Procedures

[Owen Broadhurst]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Broadhurst" <thersites at unforgettable.com>
To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org, external at green-rainbow.org
Subject: [statecom-discuss] GPUS P&P Template| BRPP Policies and Procedures
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:10:12 -0500

> 
> [The following proposed policies and procedures for the GPUS 
> Bylaws, Rules, Policies and Procedures committee (BRPP) has now 
> been proposed for BRPP consideration. While I had a hand in 
> drafting the document, it is by no means something that I would 
> elect for BRPP passage of without first soliciting opinions from 
> the Green-Rainbow Party. I am forwarding this, therefore, to the 
> State Committee discussion list (for the State Committee did 
> appoint me to the BRPP position), to the External Relations list 
> (for this seems to fall under External Relations purview), and to 
> other GPUS CC delegates and alternates including Grace Ross.]
> 
> [My hope is to solicit feedback on how we might improve the 
> document, which is to serve as a template for other GPUS working 
> committees contemplating behavioral regulation policies. Some 
> concerns already raised include concerns that the document could 
> institutionalize a class bias, and that it could impinge on 
> prerogative of states to appoint representatives. Please discuss 
> and advise: the passage of such or similar policies is a hot GPUS 
> topic.]
> 
> ========
> 
>  From :  Andy Parx <parx at midpac.net>
> Reply-To :  brpp at gp-us.org
> Sent :  Friday, April 29, 2005 5:22 PM
> To :  USGP BRPP <brpp at gp-us.org>
> Subject :  [BRPP] GPUS Committee Membership Rules- Template for 
> Committee P&P's- Working Group draft
> 
> 
> 
> This is the final report from the working group for drafting rules for
> membership and discipline on (formerly called "removal" from) GPUS
> committees. There are two written explanatory sections- one a general
> explanation of the work, the second regarding the nuts and bolts-
> followed by the actual proposed rules at the bottom.
> 
> The members of the working group have reached full consensus in
> supporting this draft. Those who worked on this are:
> Jody Grage Haug, Greg Gerritt, Owen Broadhurst, Rob Collins, Holly Hart,
> and Andy Parks.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> General Background
> 
> (by Greg Gerritt)
> 
> There has been much debate in the last few months over how to improve
> the communications within the party and to help the party become a more
> productive and welcoming place for volunteers.
> 
> At the same time Greenpages was developing rules to help that committee
> become more productive, a subcommittee of volunteers from the BRPP was
> working on a more general approach to this.  There is no magic solution,
> and this is just one tool for committees to be able to improve their
> tone.  It would allow committees to remove members that are extremely
> hostile and disruptive.
> 
> The subcommittee spent months just watching the discussion before
> developing the rules that follow.  We believe that we have taken into
> account all of the discussion and especially the calls for due process.
> The concern that only the body that creates committees can remove
> members has been heard, and been placed into this document as has an
> appeals process that is simple and relatively quick.
> 
> Clearly the tone of conversation in this party is not going to improve
> until people understand there are consequences for disruptive and
> hostile communications.  The subcommittee believes that rules such as
> these will go a long ways towards improving the communications and
> atmosphere for volunteers even if they are never called into use.  We
> look forward to the BRPP discussion of these proposed rules.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> What is this?
> 
> (by Andy Parks)
> 
> This is not a bylaw, or rules change. It is the proposed amendment to
> the  Policy and Procedures of the BRPP Committee.
> 
> It is also  a TEMPLATE  for all committees to either adopt, word for
> word, or adopt with changes that they might want to add as to the form
> and  function of the committee.
> 
> It is a written to pertain to and mesh with the P&Ps of  all GPUS
> committees (or at least we did our best to make sure)
> 
> It deals with membership processes and privates that pertain to  any and
> all committees, according to the dictates of the GPUS Bylaws and
> Procedures and Rules.
> 
> It is generic and it is adoptable by any committee.
> 
> That being said , we should really see if everyone supports a “Section
> 2” to this that states that,  in passing this for the BRPP, the CC also
> approves it for use by any and all committees that may want to adopt it,
> without going back to the CC for another approval... make sense, no?
> 
> Background and purpose.
> 
> Just what rights to “final say” over their membership do GPUS Committees
> have? This proposes to try to settle that issue.
> 
> Recent proposals to give state parties final say have failed. GPUS
> bylaws call for committees to “select” their members, and in doing so
> retain  confirmation rights over state appointees to their committee.
> 
> This is not an uncommon procedure for due process- open body “appoints”
> and another “confirms” a “nomination”.
> 
> That is how the power is shared when appointing unelected people to take
> on a job. If there were a better one, people would use it (although, yes
> there are “half by one body half by the other” schemes).
> 
> The problem has been that no committees have CC-approved processes
> detailed in their Policies and Procedures (P&P) documents for either
> “selecting” members of  curtailing their privileges if necessary.
> 
> The idea that states appoint people unilaterally- with the committee
> having no say- evolved because there was “nothing in writing” in their
> Policies and Procedures (P&P) of any committee.  And no one has ever
> been rejected for membership- we need people who will do the work.
> 
> This document  will give each committee a basic membership process, if
> they should ever need to use it.... we certainly all hope they won’t
> have to. Membership is automatic if no one objects within 7 days.
> 
> And they must have state permission with the state maintaining either
> three members only or the committee having an SC waiver.
> 
> Most importantly this process provides maximal due process- at every
> step-  to anyone charged with behavior that could lead to actions
> restricting or denying any membership privileges.
> 
> The main due process provision is that a committee’s decision is subject
> to appeal to the CC with a specific petition process to reverse the
> committee’s decision bit with a two delegates threshold to accept the
> petition.
> 
> And there is of course the mediation arbitration aspects along with the
> provisions favoring  settlement over action.
> 
> And all percentages of votes and numbers of required interveners favor
> the member in question.
> 
> And there’s more due process- the appeal process is “speedy”. A two week
> discussion and one week vote follows,  all to take place within seven
> (7) days of the committee vote to take action.
> 
> More protections- it’s a high vote threshold ( 2/3) that causes action
> to be taken. (It could be ¾ - but we thought that is “traditionally”
> high already  and would be “unusually” high at 3/4.)
> 
> Of course all numbers are up for grabs but we hope we’ve properly
> considered all numbers and always gave more weight to due process
> protection as people giving input  insisted .
> 
> And talk about fair.  Other than the usual prohibitions against
> “illegal” “discriminatory” “violent” actions,  which we of course
> included, definitions of  actionable behaviors are as Green as you get-
> the 10 KV
> 
> Rather than listing every behavior in creation and defining it in minute
> detail, we use two criteria.
> 
> 1) The first is the 10KV. (Brrrrilliant!!!!!).  Some might say it’s
> ambiguous and everyone interprets it differently. But that is true of
> any words that describe anything, especially behavior. At some point,
> the decision becomes subjective no matter what the parameters are and
> the 10KV is as objective as we could hope to get – we all agree on it...
> by definition. If we agree on it for “membership” we can at least  deal
> with it- if not embrace it-  for expected behavior.
> 
> The second is the most Green-used Netiquette guide- one we have
> unofficially used for years- The Core Rules of Netiquette," by Virginia
> Shea, which can be viewed at: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/ .
> 
> So, why the appeal to the CC not some other entity?
> 
> Setting up an “independent judicial authority” has been a need many have
> cited for years - a body to decide issues that are too unwieldy or take
> too much time or are potentially too many in number has caused us to
> search for a way to set one up.
> 
> The DRC is not that independent judicial authority, by definition of
> their original charge. But their P&Ps do say that if the CC wanted to
> give them the authority,  they might be able to come up with provisions.
> 
> But for right now it’s the CC’s decision according to the Bylaws.
> 
> But the P&Ps template is written so that if we create  another “final
> authority” the P&Ps could just be changed by substituting whatever it’s
> called wherever it says CC .
> 
> For now, an “appeal to the CC” process is the cleanest way to assure a
> speedy resolution once action has been taken and not let it linger while
> someone is “suspended” or otherwise sanctioned.
> 
> The power all rests with the committee members. They decide what the
> circumstances and define the terms- unilaterally .  The committee has
> ultimate discretion decide this unilaterally. However the due processes
> are substantial- even cumbersome- and detailed.
> 
> It is a good balance.
> 
> But mainly it is what we have gathered thorough research and analysis of
> that research. We took input from hundreds of people and looked for
> points of consensus and tried to  included some kind of way to address
> each concern we heard raised, even many those philosophically in favor
> of allowing the state parties to have “final say”.
> 
> But the consensus is certainly that committees do and should have
> discretion over membership according to a wide majority of delegates- as
> further evidenced during a year or more of discussion and moreover by
> the recent vote to reject state control over committee membership.
> 
> I hope the BRPP can tweak language, do some copy editing and maybe even
> change some numbers if necessary.  I think we all look forward to
> answering question since I’m sure I didn’t cover everything here.
> 
> Hit us with your best shots here so we can know what the CC will say.
> 
> Finally I hope that even those philosophically opposed can start their
> minority report now and then allow this to move this to the CC floor.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> I) Committee Membership
> 
> A) Application for Committee Membership
> 
> 1) Applicants for committee membership shall verify or submit written
> permission from their party to serve, or otherwise verify that such
> permission has been received by the committee’s cochair(s).
> 
> 2) Applicants shall provide the committee with a short statement
> expressing their interest and experience or training in areas described
> in the committees mission and purpose section(s).
> 
> 3) Upon receipt of an application and permission the cochairs shall post
> the prospective committee member’s introductory letter to the
> committee’s listserv.
> 
> 4) If no committee member raises an objection to the applicant’s
> membership within four days of posting, the applicant automatically
> becomes a member of the committee.
> 
> 5)  If a member of the committee raises objections to an applicant’s
> membership, a three-day vote of the members shall be held with a
> majority vote required for membership.
> 
> 6) Members with objections must detail their concerns for the committee.
> 
> 7) Any person whose application for membership is denied shall be able
> to appeal the committees decision to the CC as detailed below.
> 
> 8)  Listserv privileges shall begin with membership.
> 
> 9) State parties, through their cochairs, may change permission status
> for any committee member from their state at any time, subject to GPUS
> By-laws.
> 
> B) Committee Actions to Curtail or Eliminate Membership Privileges
> 
> 1) The Committee is expressly prohibited from using disagreements
> regarding differing views on issues and/or business before the committee
> as a cause for curtailment or elimination of membership privileges.
> 
> 2) The committee shall not tolerate behavior that disrupts or obstructs
> the committee’s work.
> 
> A) Committee members are required to behave in accordance with the Ten
> Key Values of the Green Party and abide by netiquette guidelines as
> posted at "The Core Rules of Netiquette," by Virginia Shea, which can be
> viewed at: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/ .
> 
> B) Other actions that will not be tolerated include:
> 
> i. misrepresentation of the committee’s or a member’s work,
> ii. financial improprieties,
> iii. violent personal attacks and/or threats, verbal or physical,
> iv. discrimination against federal or state (where applicable) protected
> classes,
> v. harassment,
> vi. any other unethical or illegal activities related to committee
> business or function.
> 
> C) Blatant and/or persistent violation of these guidelines can lead to
> suspension of privileges or termination of membership via the processes
> described below.
> 
> 3) Before beginning any process leading to curtailment or elimination of
> membership privileges, a committee shall take steps to maintain a
> productive working environment by informal actions by committee members
> followed by informal actions by committee co-chairs. These steps shall
> include:
> 
> a) communication with the member's state party requesting they intercede
> with the committee member regarding the behavior(s) in question.
> 
> b) use of facilitation, counseling, mediation, and/or arbitration
> services, as provided through the Dispute Resolution Committee or a
> mutually agreed upon outside source if necessary, which shall be
> encouraged and expected.  No member shall be subject to official action
> before being permitted to consent to mediation and/or arbitration.
> 
> 4) If all efforts listed above fail a petition may be filed by any three
> or more members of the committee from three different states (hereafter
> known as “the petitioners”) to require the committee co-chair(s) to
> initiate and administrate formal action to curtail membership
> privileges.
> 
> 5) Procedures for discussion and consensus /voting on the petition shall
> be according to regular procedures as described in these P&Ps.
> 
> 6) The specific written charge and proposed action, as determined by the
> petitioners, shall accompany the petition.
> 
> 7) The petitioners shall have full discretion for determining the
> charges and proposed scope of action.
> 
> 8) A 2/3 quorum and 2/3 vote, by state, of the committee, shall be
> sufficient to confirm charges and the initiate action(s) detailed in the
> petition.
> 
> 9) The committee co-chair(s) shall initiate and execute approved
> action(s) and notify the member immediately following the vote.
> 
> C) Appeal Process
> 
> 1) Immediately following a member’s confirmed notification of a
> committee’s vote to take action to curtail or eliminate membership
> privileges, the committee’s cochairs shall notify the CC voting listserv
> and Secretary of the action in writing and the Secretary shall re-post
> the petition on the CC listserv.
> 
> 2) The committee member in question may, within seven (7) days of these
> postings, appeal the committee’s action by notifying the CC and the
> Secretary of the appeal, in writing, with the secretary reposting the
> notice, as above.
> 
> 3) Any two or more delegates from different states, other than the
> person making the appeal, may within seven days of the posting of the
> appeal, accept the appeal.
> 
> 4) **** NOTE DELETE If two or more delegates accept the appeal the SC
> shall then schedule a two week discussion and one week vote [via]
> including the following procedures [process]:
> 
> a) The petitioners shall designate a presenter
> 
> b) The SC shall appoint a floor manager
> 
> c) The committee’s cochair(s), or their designate(s), shall present
> support for the original petition for action
> 
> d) The vote shall have a two-week discussion period and a one-week
> voting period
> 
> e) A majority vote shall be sufficient to overturn the committee’s
> action.
> 
> 
> 5)  If an appeal is not accepted by at least two CC delegates within
> seven (7) days of the posting of the appeal on the CC listserv, it shall
> signify that the CC acquiesces to the committee’s action and the
> decision of the committee shall be considered final.
> 
> 6) If the CC votes to overturn a committee’s action the committee shall
> be required to immediately reinstate all privileges to the committee
> member in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BRPP mailing list
> BRPP at gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/brpp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm