2012 Fall Meeting Proposals

Scroll down to review or submit proposals for the September 23rd meeting. Please use the following format (you can cut and paste): 

Proposal Header and Preamble

  • proposal title: short version
  • proposal sponsors (2 required, 1st serves as floor manager; click on Will Co-Sponsor button to co-sponsor)
  • contact info for floor manager
  • committees to which proposal has been sent for review and feedback
  • explanatory background 
  • proposal summary
  • financial impact
  • implementation: who will do what, when, where and how? 

Proposal Language

Limit proposal proposers to no more than 1 proposal per meeting (as floor manager)

State Committee meetings are an excellent opportunity for long-term planning, training, and getting actual work done implementing proposals we have already based.  We shouldn't necessarily spend the bulk of the day discussing new proposals just because we could.  By taking on less, we could make more progress on those we do take on. In addition, if the proposed project is an important priority, then so is the follow through, and the best person to ensure follow through occurs is the person for whom this project is their highest priority. 

(1) This proposal asks state committee representatives to prioritize their many good ideas  by choosing the one proposal they believe most important to put forward for adoption, and by increasing the commitment required of the proposal sponsor.

(2) No one may be lead sponsor for more than one proposal per meeting.  That person -- the lead sponsor for the proposal --- also agrees to become the 'project shepherd' should the proposal pass. 

(3) the Project shepherd becomes the contact person for all the committees involved in the project, including ad com, helping them keep track of progress (or lack thereof) and upcoming deadlines and milestones. One of the milestones should be date for conclusion of the project. 

(4) the project shepherd reports back to the next state committee meeting in advance in writing on the actions that have occured implementing the proposal and the current state of the project. Time will be set aside for discussion on the status of each adopted proposal. 


4 reactions Share

Include Locals in AdCom

Title: Include Locals in AdCom

Sponsors: Anthony Barrows (floor manager)

Vetting: AdCom has vetted

Background: The GRP’s day-to-day party business is overseen by the Administrative Committee (AdCom). This committee is chronically understaffed and would operate more effectively with more participants. There is also a current over-representation of AdCom members from Greater Boston. The GRP needs more people participating in this important work, and needs those people to represent the full diversity of the Commonwealth.

Summary: To ameliorate this situation, we propose that additional members be added to AdCom by requiring each officially-recognized local to supply one member to AdCom. These members will be additional to existing officers and diversity reps. Each local will also make their own decision about how to choose this member.

Financial Impact: None

Implementation: Amend the GRP bylaws as suggested below at the 2012 fall State Committee meeting. Implement this requirement immediately following the 2012 state convention. AdCom will communicate this requirement to locals as soon as it is approved. This gives locals several months to select their AdCom representative (suggested nomination deadline: by the proposal deadline for 2013 winter StateCom meeting).

Amendments to Section 9 of the GRP Bylaws:

9.2 [AMEND TO READ] The administrative committee shall consist of a female co-chair, male co-chair, treasurer, secretary, two diversity representatives, and one representative from each officially recognized local chapter (see selection process outlined in bylaw 9.21). In the event, however, that the election of officers at the state convention results in only one person (the female co-chair) representing a diversity category, additional diversity representatives shall be added as needed to ensure that a majority of AdCom members represent a diversity category.


9.18 [AMEND TO READ] The diversity representatives shall be elected by a 2/3 vote of the state committee at the first state committee meeting following the state convention. Any member of the party may be nominated by at least five other members of the party.


9.21 [ADD TO BYLAWS] The members of the Administrative Committee who are representatives of officially recognized local chapters shall be selected by whatever means each local chooses. The members chosen by the local chapters shall be confirmed at the state committee immediately subsequent to the state convention.  

3 reactions Share

Redefine regional convention districts and terms of appointed State Committee representatives

[Please note that this proposal was originally submitted Sunday, September 9.2012.]

Redefine regional convention districts and terms of appointed State Committee representatives

Sponsors: Merelice, Norfolk County, and Nat Fortune, Franklin County

Floor Manager: [email protected]

Vetting: Administrative Committee has vetted


Regional conventions are currently organized by county and are the source of most State Committee reps. Most counties exist only on paper and have no electoral, legislative, or fiscal responsibilities for StateCom reps to monitor as a team.

Regional conventions are one of three ways that GRP members can be elected/appointed to the State Committee, and this particular method was developed to provide proportional representation of GRP members on the State Committee.

This proposal changes the basis of regional elections from counties to State Senatorial Districts. In this way, GRP members could work together to have possible influence on their common State Senators, providing some electoral glue which does not exist in counties.

In addition, this change would mirror how StateCom delegates are elected every four years as part of the presidential primary election. With 40 senatorial districts, it would be impractical to implement proportional representation unless several districts were combined. To reduce the number of regional conventions from 40 to 12, it is suggested that 8 regions combine 3 state senatorial districts (= 24) and 4 regions combine 4 senatorial districts (=16).

It is further proposed that the terms of proportional representatives mirror the four-year terms of the delegates elected as part of the presidential primary election. This would reduce the burden of conducting regional conventions every two years.

Changing the basis of defining the regions and terms of office is a bylaw change and requires 2/3rds approval.


The bylaws of the Green-Rainbow Party will be changed to redefine the regions which are the basis of regional conventions. Instead of being based on counties, 12 regions will be based on the 40 State Senatorial districts. Further, the terms of the State Committee representatives to be appointed as a result of these conventions will change from two years to four years, to run concurrently with the four-year terms of state committee delegates elected as part of the presidential primary election.

Financial impact: no immediate impact; less cost for conducting less frequent regional conventions.


A request will go to CDLC to make recommendations -- with input from local chapters and GRP members -- regarding the best combination of districts to constitute 12 regions rather than 40. When the regions are defined, current appointed State Committee representatives will be assigned to the redefined regions, their terms will be automatically extended to four years, and the proportional allocation of 60 statecom reps. will be recalculated for the new regions.

2 reactions Share

Like this page to spread the word