[Procedures] Committee Tasks - where to go from here?
Daniel Melnechuk
isis at isisdesign.com
Sat Sep 27 23:44:44 EDT 2003
The petition to the statecom for this meeting was unclear exactly as
to which proposals would and would not be on the agenda. So i think
this committee should decide which ones, with the error on
inclusiveness.
Also, the petition mentioned using the ranking from the last
statecom. Well we have two levels of ranking and i would like to
strongly suggest that we use both of the rankings. Read the standing
rules for statecom at this URL to refresh your memory:
http://www.green-rainbow.org/StateCom/standing_rules.html
So with both rankings, the proposals that got more than 2/3rds "No
Concerns" go into a one hour "expedited round" where they are given
no more than 10 minutes to be addressed and passed. If not passed in
the expedited round, then they fall back to their position in the
complete ranking of all the proposals.
Here is the results from the ranking - i have attached the spread to
this email:
Status Ranking Count Proposal
% No
Expedited 82.22% 37 J Creatation of standing convention com
Expedited 82.22% 37 K Support of IRV
Expedited 80.00% 36 T Request review of GRP logo
Expedited 77.78% 35 F Require to post online
financial reports
Expedited 77.78% 35 H Amend bylaws to allow
smoother convention
Expedited 77.78% 35 P Childcare at meetings
Expedited 75.56% 34 I Endorse Suport Uganda mission
Expedited 73.33% 33 B Amend Bylaws to streamline
election of adcom
Expedited 73.33% 33 N Peace resolution
Expedited 71.11% 32 Q Educational retreat on
privilege and oppression
Expedited 68.89% 31 A Endorsemenet of green strategy
Expedited 68.89% 31 E Making Monthly adcom member
reports manditory
Expedited 68.89% 31 M Amend statecom standard agenda
Expedited 66.67% 30 L Request for funding of GPUS
travel expenses
Expedited 66.67% 30 O Platform review and renewal
64.44% 29 R
46.67% 21 D
46.67% 21 G
26.67% 12 S
24.44% 11 C
0.00% 0 U
0.00% 0 V
0.00% 0 W
0.00% 0 X
0.00% 0 Y
0.00% 0 Z
Letter Proposal Name
Rank
210 G Hire a development director
183 B Amend Bylaws to streamline election of adcom
177 C Binding no candidate on 2004 GPUS
168 P Childcare at meetings
160 R Abolish poverty march next steps
146 L Request for funding of GPUS travel expenses
142 K Support of IRV
141 A Endorsemenet of green strategy
124 J Creatation of standing convention committee
120 E Making Monthly adcom member reports manditory
120 O Platform review and renewal
109 D Amend Bylaws to change officer recall procedure
109 F Require to post online financial reports
103 H Amend bylaws to allow smoother convention
96 Q Educational retreat on privilege and oppression
94 N Peace resolution
93 I Endorse Suport Uganda mission
68 T Request review of GRP logo
50 M Amend statecom standard agenda
0 S Email Behaviour Policy
You will see that the expedited round has 15 items in it if we do not
take any out. Proposed somewhere else was to remove:
A Endorsemenet of green strategy
E Making Monthly adcom member reports manditory (i add -
already a policy)
H Amend bylaws to allow smoother convention
J Creatation of standing convention committee
K Support of IRV
M Amend statecom standard agenda
S Email Behaviour Policy
T Request review of GRP logo
I would leave in:
J Creatation of standing convention committee
since we have an adhoc one but it would be good to officially sanction it
T Request review of GRP logo
but to bump it to the regular slot since it was requesting 10 minutes
to review it and it is at the end of the meeting that way anyway.
H Amend bylaws to allow smoother convention
Should be discussed as it is a bylaws amendment -- it is unclear that
we need to add this as sometimes adding specificity to the bylaws is
not a good idea, except in this case the wording includes the catch
all "but not limited too" which may make this good to add. I am still
not sure which way to go but it should get a discussion... well it
should get one here too...
By my count that gets us down to 10 expedited proposals which we can
try to do in 5 minutes each.
As for addressing all proposals from state convention, that is not
what we did at the state convention. At the state convention, we said
that we would put all the proposals that were not addressed at the
state convention into the pool of proposals for the state committee
to rank and consider... which means that the state committee does not
have to address a proposal if it sees fit. I am just drawing the
distinction for process sake.
So that is my response to Richard's excellent push forward on what to
do with the agenda.
Peace,
Dan Melnechuk
Middlesex
GRP Treasurer
At 10:04 PM -0400 9/27/03, Richard Aviles wrote:
>To the Procedures Committee:
>
>The following two suggestions are the only ones specific for the November
>meeting:
>
>(1) Ensure all proposals that originated from the State Conventions are
>addressed and voted on at Special Meeting. Owen Broadhurst
>
>(2) Recommend that the agenda for this special meeting consist of the
>following proposals in ranked order from the Sept 13 state com meeting
>(percentage of support for each proposal from the delegates present on 9/13
>is in parenthesis):
>
>G (less than 66%), B (73%), C (less than 66), P (78), R (less than 66), L
>(less than 66), E (69), O (67), D (less than 66), F (78), Q (71), N (73), I
>(78).
>
>It is my opinion the following proposals no longer need to be on the agenda
>for the following reasons:
>
>A - past deadline- by the time we vote on it the event will have passed
>
>H - it seems that most of what the proposal seeks is already happening
>
>J- such a committee now exists, therefore no need to vote to create one
>
>K- past deadline, the vote of support was wanted for public hearing on IRV
>for 9/18
>
>M - we already passed part of it and the rest should go to procedure
>committee
>
>S - proposal withdrawn by sponsors on 9/13, although they may want to revise
>and resubmit
>
>T - the new logo exists, we've all had more than ten minutes to review it,
>if we don't like it we can change it, if we don't like the process by which
>it was chosen, there is more work for the procedures committee. Anthony
>Lorenzen
>
>Rose wrote below that if the suggestions above are irrelevant to the
>Novemeber meeting, then we should skip them. The nine suggestions for "I.
>Agenda, Proposals, & Committee Reports " are pretty substanative and I'd
>prefer to hold off posting them until we deal with the above two. As for my
>two cents, I have nothing wrong with them, but I do believe that if there is
>an item that originated from the State Convention that is both still
>relevant and not on the list of agenda items as organized by Tony, then it
>would seem incumbent upon us to make space for it at the Nov. meeting.
>
>Regards,
>Richard Aviles
>Hampshire County
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rose Gonzalez" <gonzalezrose2003 at yahoo.com>
>To: <procedures at green-rainbow.org>
>Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 8:38 AM
>Subject: [Procedures] Committee Tasks - where to go from here?
>
>
>> Committee Tasks - where to go from here?
>>
>> Below is Richards email of suggestions by statcom
>> members and a very important question of how do we
>> proceed?...
>>
>> I suggest we deal with V. Proposals Specific to
>> Special November Meeting (2 suggestions) unless those
>> suggestions were just to the proposal, then we have
>> already dealt with them? please advise?
>>
>> Then I think we should take care of one thing at a
>> time, simply going down the list...
>>
>> Since no new items can be added to Nov agenda then
>> anything we might put together would be for the
>> January agenda, which I think is sufficient time to
>> get through these...
>>
>> We should keep in mind the deadline for posting
>> proposals for January meeting. And of course consider
>> anything that is time sensitive first.
>>
>> Is #V., still pertinent? if not, Richard can you post
>> the detail of the suggestions for #I
>>
>> thanks,
>> Rose
>>
>>
>> The second thing is that I have organized the 23
>> suggestions made by State Comm members on how to
>> improve the functioning of the State Comm. Several of
> > them more or less say the same thing. Many are pretty
>> common sensical and should require much discussion;
>> others do. I have grouped them in the following
>> categories for consideration:
>>
>> I. Agenda, Proposals, & Committee Reports (9
>> suggestions)
>> II. Facilitation & Consensus (7 suggestions)
>> III. State Com Members & Membership (2 suggestions)
>> IV. Meeting Length & Frequency (3 suggestions)
>> V. Proposals Specific to Special November Meeting (2
>> suggestions)
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Procedures mailing list
>> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>
>_______________________________________________
>Procedures mailing list
>Procedures at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ranking.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 49664 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/procedures/attachments/20030927/2192a807/Ranking.xls
More information about the Procedures
mailing list