[statecom] Additional concerns: Process and Prop #1

[Wanda Boeke]

To State Committee,

Due to work constraints I rushed off my concerns regarding the special
meeting process and Proposal #1 in the Special Meeting Email Decision.

Below is a more detailed account.
[Wanda Boeke, Berkshire female delegate to this meeting, wjboeke at gmail.com]

My MAIN OVERALL CONCERN is with MEETING PROCEDURE, PROCESS:

1) This virtual meeting is being run as an amalgam of the GRP Email Decision
Making Process - using the FIFO (first in, first out) proposal format and
setting forth business in the form of proposals. The decision to do this
was, for lack of greater transparency, Dan Melnechuk and Jamie O'Keefe's. No
facilitators were called for (male and female) and consequently no order of
business was set up (instead, parts of the Email Decision Making Process
have been put in place). Not very democratic, not very transparent, counter
to AdCom request for a special meeting.

2) 'Proposal' #2 is not a (voluntary) 'proposal.' According to the Delegate
Selection Plan:

"The State Committee, or its designee, will approve without question, lists
that conform to the above rules and that meet all other qualifications
specified in this document."

Our Delegate Selection Plan demands the SC place its seal ("approve without
question") on the list of delegates which, due to website setup, had to be
submitted in the form of a 'proposal' on the website.

The AdCom specifically requested a meeting of the SC - THAT was the proposal
- although, again, not a proposal because convening an SC meeting is a
necessity for the delegate list to receive approval from the SC - and a
special meeting was called in order to meet the GPUS timeline.

3) Since Proposal #2 is not a voluntary proposal, but in fact the provision
to the SC of a mandated (by this body) list that must be approved, it falls
into another agenda category. Since it is a timely matter, it would
logically fall under 'Urgent Matters.'

Urgent Matters are defined in the GRP Standing Rules as: "legal matters that
have a deadline before the next state com meeting." Well, the new GPUS Rules
for the Nomination Convention, 2-8.1 state: "Not later than 14 days
following any action to fill seats on a state Green Party's convention
delegation, a state party shall file with the Credentials Committee the
results of its delegate selection," meaning the deadline is June 26, 2008 or
before since the convention starts July 10, 2008. So, legal by GPUS rules
(which rules, as party rules, are referred to in the MGL as what is to be
followed by Mass. Law) and beyond, then - so we have an Urgent Matter, not a
proposal on our hands.

We could also turn to the category "Old Business" defined as: "any items
assigned to the Current State Committee meeting from the last State
Committee meeting." (GRP Standing Rules)

This is a good fit because the SC approved the Delegate Selection Plan which
is to be carried out (here and now).

Whether Urgent Matter or Old Business, this item, now mislabeled "Proposal
#2" should precede discussion of any proposal because it cannot be defined
as a proposal (Mirriam Webster definition: "something proposed:
SUGGESTION").

Asserting the slippery argument that, well, a group  has to put forward a
proposal as to whether the list can be submitted at this time, which will be
regarded as a proposal, directly conflicts with the purpose and wording
("without question") of the Delegate Selection Plan.


CONCERNS WITH "PROPOSAL" #1

1) The Bylaws provide that the State Committee is to discuss and oversee
credentialing of potential representatives (delegates in the text). There is
no way to do that in a timely or accountable fashion online. For one or two
individuals, this might be done, but not 22.

2) Even though this session is being called a 'virtual meeting,' the FIFO
format and ordering of 'proposals' is the FIFO (first in, first out) form of
the GRP State Committee Email Decision Making Process. Since we are using
that process (who agreed to this format??) within this 'virtual meeting,' we
should honor it more fully (and we would honor this in a regular meeting as
well). The Email Decision Making Process states that "Four or more SC
representatives can sponsor a proposal" - who are the sponsors?

3) Since we have not seen who the sponsors are and how many, how are we to
know that "if sponsorship drops below the required amount during the 2 week
discussion period, the email decisionmaking process is ended immediately and
no Decision period is held" (GRP SC Email Decision Making Process)? If there
were 0 sponsors (none evident) initially, if there were less than 4
(unidentified) initially, the number was below the acceptable level to begin
with, i.e., at filing = beginning of discussion period.

4) The potential SC reps are almost mockingly being put forward by one
another or else by three current SC members. The Massachusetts General Laws
spend quite a bit of care and attention on the primary election of
individuals to state committees, what happens if they withdraw or die, etc.
I find the presentation of this proposal and its content basically counter
to the spirit of geographical diversity and mindfulness to the broadness of
acceptability of candidate reps as provided in the MGL.

5) The onslaught of 22 members AFTER the renewal of the State Committee by
the two duly elected members (Merelice and Dan Melnechuk) to be unusual (in
fact, unprecedented), this in combination with the fact of venue (choosing
the platform of a virtual meeting) and the fact of timing (choosing a
meeting specially called to deal with one mandated item - instead of waiting
2 weeks for the in-person meeting) all add up to demonstrable intent that is
harmful to the order of business (approving delegate list) and to the trust
and goodwill among all members. It's called pushing the envelope and works
against any and all party building or teamwork or building mutual respect.

6) There is nothing legally timely about the content of Proposal #1, why is
it part of a special meeting called by AdCom - specially called because of
the timely nature of fulfilling the Delegate Selection Plan and reporting to
the GPUS?