[statecom] Confusion re 'proposals' especially Prop #1

[Wanda Boeke]

To current State Com members and alternates:

Proposal #1 in front of the current virtual State Committee audience:

***1) Why is this proposal out there at all? AdCom (meeting which I
attended) requested an SC meeting to approve delegates to the national
nominating convention as this is an urgent matter with time constraints.
This is an action the SC has to take - it is not a 'proposal' of some sort.
It is an urgent matter (also part of a regular SC meeting). As such, the
virtual meeting is not a full-fledged meeting - or else we'd have to take
care of all the other 'regular' agenda items.

So, why is the list of delegates being considered merely a 'proposal' - and
Proposal #2 at that?
Why is there any 'proposal' at all - or a second one for that matter?

***2) Those placed in front of the SC to be allowed to take part in one
meeting or in any future meeting are seated only if they are credentialed
persons (i.e., GRP members either through voter registration or paid
membership).

To become an SC member, a person either has to be on a primary ballot (this
keeps the SC going by state law) or elected by a local (district). The SC is
there to represent geographical districts, so locals elect their SC
representative. The SC also has seats for diversity representatives. Five SC
members have to nominate a future SC member for seating at a meeting, and
reasons are usually given by at least one spokesperson.

How on earth is that going to happen at a virtual meeting???

It seems like a tactic to try and prevent anything from happening with the
business for which the meeting was called.

(Let me remind everyone that both co-chairs are away, the
treasurer/parliamentarian who has helped run & tally virtual meetings in the
past is away, and there do not appear to be facilitators plural facilitating
this meeting.)

The Berkshire County local (Berkshire Greens) did not approve or sponsor
David Schwab to be seated as a representative for the local at this virtual
meeting. At the regional convention (March 8, 2008), David did not step
forward, although he attended and participated. The local did approve him
(6/18) to be seated for the next in-person meeting (6/29) as per his
becoming a GRP member (he's been active, but a voter from across the border
in NY, and had not as of 6/21 paid dues). Proposal #1 has David nominated by
myself (which I did not do - except as part of the local decision on 6/18 re
6/29 meeting) and by someone who does not reside in Berkshire County or have
a seat on the SC. (Perhaps the proposal was posted before 6/18?)

I find all this very troubling for many reasons.

Jamie O'Keefe is, as far as I can tell, at the moment running this meeting
by himself with assistance from Elie Yarden. Not the usual facilitation for
an SC meeting.

I suggest that the SC delegates to the national convention who have stepped
forward be approved (on final credentialing, which I assume Dan will do when
he gets back).

There is no precedent for seating representatives at a virtual meeting that
I'm aware of - there is no way to get acquainted with the individuals or
find out why they suddenly wish to become representatives. It additionally
appears that a few people contacted a lot of other people and 'nominated'
them - with no local involved, no election.

Including the Berkshire County 'nomination' is counter to truth and reality.

I urge this 'proposal' to be removed from current business and placed on the
agenda of the upcoming 6/29 meeting - where everyone can be introduced and
properly nominated and approved.

For this virtual meeting, I am the female representative for Berkshire
County.

Wanda Boeke
Ex-fundraising director & ex-member of AdCom

[Berkshire County (as per March 8 Convention):
No full reps currently

Alternates - Male
M. Castronova
J. Cooney
G. Dunham
J. Turner

Alternates - Female
W. Boeke]





'Decisions on credentialing will be made by those delegates whose
credentials are not under review. Quorum is calculated based on delegates
whose credentials are not under review' (Bylaws 4.1).