GRP iChapters Proposal by Maha Visnu Gray (July 27, 2021)

TITLE: THE GRP iCHAPTERS

PROPOSAL SPONSORS: Maha Visnu Gray Eileen Sheehan

VETTING COMMITTEES: Adcom

FLOOR MANAGER: Maha Visnu Gray

SHEPHERDS: • GRP Co-chair (Maha Visnu Gray) • iCHOC Director

SUMMARY: Instituting the GRP iChapters program in our Party will enable the GRP to grow faster and more effectively across all demographics, particularly the younger generations.

BACKGROUND: The GRP iChapters Program is critical to both the expansion of the GRP itself and the fulfillment of the Party’s purpose, which is to get GRP candidates elected to office. Listed are the current challenges the Party faces which the GRP iChapters Program is uniquely suited to solving.

 

Current GRP Challenges:

a) Bureaucratic processes that stifle expansion.
b) Bureaucratic processes that stifle active engagement.
c) Bureaucratic processes that are cumbersome and ponderous.
d) Bureaucratic processes that establish an unnecessarily high bar for entry.
e) Inability to engage younger generations where they congregate (online) and in their comfort spaces (tech/social media/internet).
f) The complete lack of growth in the number of Chapters across the state and the membership in those chapters.
g) The inability of the GRP to function as a truly grassroots organization.
h) The inability of the GRP to be truly diverse in relation to gender, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status etc.
i) The inability to operate based on the 10 Key Value of Decentralization.
j) The inability to identify and recruit potential candidates.
k) The inability to give candidates a credible platform to immediately and effectively begin developing a local grassroots organization for their campaign.

 

How the GRP iChapters Program will tackle these challenges:

a) Provide an organizational space suitable for young generations to immediately and effortlessly engage with the GRP in a manner that is suitable to them.
b) Will enable the GRP to more easily take root anywhere in the state of Massachusetts.
c) Will be the obvious and natural precursor (the “step one”) to the development of a physical Chapter anywhere in the state.
d) Will enable members of the GRP to actively participate and even lead in both local and Statewide GRP initiatives from anywhere in the State.
e) It will create a method for easy, immediate and credible entry into the GRP.
f) It is inherently, by its very definition, a grassroots organization.
g) It will cut the many unnecessary and daunting bureaucratic hurdles to active GRP engagement and inclusion.
h) It is, while still being credible, inherently decentralized.
i) It will give prospective candidates an immediate and credible GRP platform to begin their campaigns.
j) Facilitates the easy formation of miniature “Caucuses” within the GRP.

 

TEXT OF PROPOSAL:

The GRP should immediately begin implementing the iChapters programs.

 

iChapter Basic Structure & Requirements:

1) A single individual can start (and maintain) a GRP iChapter.
2) The individual who starts a GRP iChapter can be known as its President/Director.
3) The GRP iChapter President must:
     a. Be/become an enrolled member of the GRP. (This must be an essential requirement for GRP iChapter Presidents).
4) The GRP iChapter must:
     a. Pay $50 annual Recertification Fee.
     b. Pay monthly $10 iChapter dues.
     c. Have an internet presence on any two of the following platforms or media.
        i. Facebook
        ii. Dedicated website
        iii. Twitter
        iv. Instagram
        v. Youtube
        vi. Linkedin
        vii. TikTok
        viii. Blog/Vlog
        ix. Newsletter
     d. Regularly post/share the GRP newsletter to its online sites/pages/media.
     e. Regularly post/share GRP announcements and Co-chair statements to its online sites/pages/media.
5) If a GRP iChapter has more than one individual it must meet monthly (online/onsite).
6) A GRP iChapter can exist anywhere in the state whether or not there is a physical GRP chapter in the region.
7) GRP iChapters are fully and wholly independent of the local GRP Chapter.
8) GRP iChapters must be certified by iCHOC.
9) GRP iChapters must be recertified by iCHOC annually.
10) If a GRP iChapter is decertified by iCHOC it can appeal to AdCom. If AdCom upholds the decertification then an appeal is automatically put on the agenda for the next StateCom meeting. If StateCom upholds the ruling of the iCHOC then the decertification holds.
11) Definition of Decertification:
     a. The iChapter President is ineligible to lead a GRP iChapter for the period of a year.
     b. Individual members of that particular iChapter remain eligible to lead a GRP iChapter.
12) iChapter Oversight Committee (iCHOC) Basic Function and Structure:
     a. iCHOC must have a minimum of three members.
     b. The Directorship of iCHOC is an elected position, has a seat on AdCom and has the same rights and privileges of other Directors (i.e. Communications, Fundraising).
     c. iCHOC is responsible for overseeing and monitoring whether or not each GRP iChapter is following the requirements.

IMPLEMENTATION:

1) Adopt the GRP iChapters Proposal.
2) Task ComCom with disseminating information on the GRP iChapters Program.
3) Task ComCom with sending out an Email blast encouraging people to apply for the Directorship of iCHOC.
4) Elect the first Director of iCHOC at the upcoming State Convention.
5) New iCHOC Director staffs iCHOC.
6) iCHOC, in conjunction with MemCom and ComCom, begins promoting the GRP iChapter program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Depends on the nature/method of the promotional campaign.

(Date Submitted: 7-29-21 at 9:18pm & 2nd attempt at website on 7-30-21 To: StateCom Business & Discuss lists due to tech issues w/website)

Title: Strengthening our Understanding of Feminism within the Ten Key Values 

Sponsor:Jamie Guerin; Lisa Anne Richards

Co-sponsors:Elizabeth Humphrey; Carole Oyler; Mike Heichman; Juan Sanchez; Danny Factor; Richard Vaillette; Jordan Hodges (AKA – J. Stewart); Roni Beal; Lois Gagnon; Richard Purcell; Manny Pintado; Dan Kontoff; Tom Grzybowski

Vetting Committees: AdCom; StateCom; Policy & ProcedureCom

Floor Manager: Sean Connell

Shepherd: Carole Oyler

 

Summary: 

The first wave of feminism in the US (after the suffrage movement) created a framework to address the patriarchy that mostly accounted for affluent white women shaking traditional gender roles.

The second and third waves of feminism focused on intersectionality; it brought people of color and global feminist movements into the fold while also understanding gender as more of a spectrum. Creating these connections between gender and race strengthened the legitimacy of both movements. 

The fourth wave of feminism, that is being spearheaded by young people, is not only intersectional but also cross generational. This new wave of feminism is intertwined and identifies with the struggle that our trans siblings are facing; the same heteronormative patriarchy that the first few waves addressed. Bringing trans women and trans men into traditionally “male” and “female” spaces strengthens the feminist movements of our past and the 4th wave feminist movement as it has evolved with society's understanding of Human Rights and Feminism. 

In no way does our affirmation of the more inclusive and broad reaching 4th wave of the feminist movement, diminish cis women's hard won rights in our historical feminist movements. 

 

Background: 

The Green Rainbow Party has been in a tough place with trans rights recently.  There exists a minority of members who still defer to the less evolved historical waves of the feminist movement &/or right wing talking points when speaking about trans rights issues in sports, bathroom access, and transitioning.  Example- Instead of calling trans women ‘women’, they are referred to as “men with female gender identity” 

Young people are absolutely leading the way on this issue. The GRP stands to lose youth, LGBTQIA+ and other diverse, marginalized &/or oppressed identity memberships without addressing this core value and affirming in absolute terms that trans rights are human rights and our evolved understanding of the feminist movement.

 

Text of Proposal:

The GRP affirms that TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS 

The GRP understands Human Rights extend to ALL human beings; ESPECIALLY to marginalized and oppressed identity groups.

The GRP affirms our Human Rights position is not up for debate or discussion, unless it is to discuss future evolved feminists waves to include newly recognized marginalized or oppressed identity groups, with the discussion for the purposes of advancing the GRP's understanding & affirmation of a future evolved feminist movement that is inclusive of newly recognized marginalized or oppressed identity groups.

We understand that the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s is not the same or as broad reaching and inclusive as the coalition-based 4th wave feminism we see today.

The GRP recognizes that gender identity is, and should be, a protected class along with sex; that trans men are men and that trans women are women.

 

Implementation:

The GRP will use text within this document to create a trans affirmative platform item and add the language affirming 4th wave feminism as an amendment or addendum to our 10 Key Values  which will ensure the GRP maintains a safe space for young and upcoming trans and LGBTQIA+ youth and adults.  Without implementing this proposal, youth and more diverse new membership outreach will continue to be hampered as well as diminish current youth, diverse and LGBTQIA+ membership. 

 

Financial Implications:  None

(Date Submitted: 7-29-21 at 9:18pm & 2nd attempt at website on 7-30-21 To: StateCom Business & Discuss lists due to tech issues w/website)

Title: Creating Avenues for Civility and Effectiveness through Healthy Boundaries  

Sponsor: Lois Gagnon; Elizabeth Humphrey

Co-sponsors: Carole Oyler; Jamie Guerin; Danny Factor; Richard Vaillette; Jordan Hodges (AKA - J. Stewart); Lisa Anne Richards; Roni Beal;; Richard Purcell; Manny Pintado; Dan Kontoff; Tom Grzybowski; Mike Heichman

Vetting Committees: AdCom; StateCom; Policy & ProcedureCom

Floor Manager: Sean Connell

Shepherd: Elizabeth Humphrey

 

Summary: 

Recent events within the GRP have shown that there is a need for effective protocols and policies to guide our membership and leadership around the various ways we exchange political/social views and ideas with each other internally as well as the use of GRP external communication infrastructure.

Email chains have gone back and forth with many of them being needlessly uncivil, mean spirited, hurtful or curt. Party infrastructure is being used in ways that are counter to, or undermine party values, public statements or platform; which is harmful to the effectiveness and professional integrity of the GRP.

The GRP is facing a critical time.  Like never before, there is limitless room for our growth as the corporate two-party system disenfranchises more and more people and voters.   As we welcome new membership into our party, we must be well prepared and strengthen the party to support Green candidates.   In doing this work, the GRP stands to become an exemplary model for Green Parties and grassroots democracy, and all third parties across the nation.

The Sponsors hope this proposal will establish protocols for party leadership to become better trained and knowledgeable in the most compassionate and best practices to effectively guide the party, as well as start the democratic process of evolving the party to be better prepared in welcoming new membership and support loyal Green candidates in 21st century politics - and actually WIN more elections.

 

Background: 

Recent events have necessitated the need for civility and effectiveness that can only be achieved through communications and actions with healthy boundaries that maintain, not only a respectful, peaceable and democratic process of communication but also clear and precise rules around the use of party infrastructure.

The GRP has already acknowledged the need for policy to address potential discussion in bad faith or in frustration that can unintentionally harm other members with the creation of the Vibes Policy; however, the vibes policy/protocol has recently been proven to be too vague and nondescript in its application when people and members ‘cross the line’ from civil to uncivil discourse.

It has already been decided by StateCom that our party cannot function or be effective by casually accepting or adopting whatever platform or values that would conflict with the 10 key values or the GPUS Accreditation Requirements (which was demonstrated by the issue with the Georgia Green Party). Ideological differences elicit conflicting emotional responses because more often than not, politics IS personal. Concepts of freedom, human rights, sovereignty, etc., are all emotionally charged because those concepts are about people’s personal lived experiences within a society that is very oppressive in a myriad of subtle and unsubtle ways. 

We need to codify this decision in new and/or amended policy and protocol which will foster a more socially evolved and broader understanding within the context of, and advocating for, anti-oppression and what constitutes the subtleties of violence hate-speech.  There exists a huge difference between censorship and consequences of actions and language. Censorship means being barred from the broad picture debates, not party debates that are within the healthy boundaries of democratically reached values and political/social goals. This also needs to be delineated and affirmed within the bylaws in order to deconstruct the propaganda created around censorship &/or “cancel culture” that  has proliferated through our society as of late.

These codifications will not only strengthen and evolve our understanding of the need to maintain and value the uniqueness of our 10 key values, but will also provide safer, more welcoming spaces for oppressed and diverse identity groups/individuals; who otherwise, are ignored or exploited by the two corporate party U.S. governmental system.

Conflict resolution and anti-oppression  training through the means of restorative justice will enable party leadership with the professional skills and knowledge to address internal conflicts perpetuated by any and all forms of violence, hate speech or misuse of GRP infrastructure whether intentional or unintentional.   For example: In professional practices of conflict resolution, a conflict regarding trans rights would not be implemented with heterosexual cis white men or cis white women leading the conversation about trans rights.

 

Text of Proposal:

The leadership within the GRP is sorely in need of new professional training on practices that will limit the vitriol that has been commonplace in too many meetings and email chains. To this end, those in leadership positions will commit to being trained annually on conflict resolution as done in professional practices through the process of restorative justice and anti-oppression.

There can be no functionality or effectiveness if there is no shared vision and goals. There can be no civility if oppressed groups are taking back seats to people who don’t share the oppressed identity and lived experience. The GRP needs to be clear and concise when it comes to our messaging and branding internally and externally. We cannot fall to rancor every time someone with Conservative right wing, Liberal or Neo-liberal talking points that will distract us from our core values and goals. For those who continuously do this with disregard to established democratically reached shared core values and goals, there must be consequences and those consequences have to be understood in order to sustain these shared values and goals that differentiate the GPUS and it's federation of states from any other existing political party in the United States and the world.  

This proposal will create democratically implemented mechanisms that limit hate speech and violence  WITHIN our own party as well as foster and strengthen shared values and goals to better prepare the party in welcoming new membership and support Green candidates that will run strong campaigns.

 

Implementation:

Implementation of this proposal will be two-fold.

The first phase of implementation will consist of re-activating the Policy & Procedure Committee. There needs to be healthy boundaries in the way we communicate and the way we dedicate our time to various issues & outreach. With regular review of our policies and procedures to ensure we maintain an evolving understanding of Inclusive, Safe Spaces for Diversity and Just Policies, Values and Political Goals.

The second, will be to democratically establish a policy to implement and documentation of training on conflict resolution that focuses on the process of restorative justice and anti-oppression for leadership positions within the state level of the GRP;  State Convention elected positions, AdCom and StateCom.  Those elected in special elections or nominated throughout the year between state conventions will pledge to attend the next possible training  in order to fulfill the requirements to remain in that position.

This training will be organized and scheduled by AdCom, with the approval of StateCom, and be provided once per year within no longer than one full quarter of StateCom Meeting sessions from the start of each new year; GRP State Convention marking the start of a new year.

Documentation of training participants and pledges will be recorded and clearly stated within the minutes of the first post training StateCom meeting and shared with AdCom for their use and back up record purposes.  This Documentation will be maintained and updated by the GRP Secretary and shared with AdCom and will be reported to StateCom on a quarterly basis; coinciding with the StateCom business meetings throughout the year.  

 

Financial Implications:

Limited. Will depend on training costs for restorative justice and anti-oppression workshops for leadership. 

Title: Handling differences over sex and gender

Sponsors: Matthew Andrews, David Keil

Floor Manager: Matthew Andrews

Background: The GRP has encountered sharp differences over sex and gender issues. In order to prevent these differences from splitting or paralyzing the party, an explicit expression of unity is necessary.

Proposal: "The Green-Rainbow Party welcomes members of diverse demographics and with diverse ideas. Specifically, we welcome trans members and members with divergent views on sex and gender."

Implementation: Members will continue to hold their particular opinions without trying to impose them on other individuals or the entire party.

Title: CRG Needs Accessment of GRP

Sponsors: Brian Cady, Eileen Wheeler Sheehan

Vetting Committees: To Be: Adcom, Membership, Diversity and Volunteer Recruitment Committee (MDVC)

Floor Manager/Shephard: Brian Cady

Summary: Collaborative Resolutions Group will spend three program hours working with State Com and other GRP members to assess Green-Rainbow party organizational needs and opportunities for organizational development and transformation, and present the findings back to State Com.

Background: Recent months and years have seen GRP active members embroiled in various controversies, one after another. Registered GRP voter numbers drop year by year, and party splits over the years have left only one faction remaining, with other factions leaving the GRP. Recently there's been a vigorous disagreement about trans and women's rights and related policy. Can we transform the Green-Rainbow party into what Massachusetts needs now? Can we inspire the state, our registered voters and our active membership to do the policy and political work that needs to be done in Massachusetts? Can CRG midwife the rebirth of the GRP, into a dynamic, vibrant, promising and successful political party?

Text of Proposal: The list of issues said to be 'about to split the GRP' during the past few years includes COVID existence and causation, last summer's party leadership transformation/decapitation proposal, and the current trans versus women's rights issue. Previously Brian Cady understands that there were splits surrounding Grace Ross's departure, and the incorporation of a contingent of newly recruited members into statecom.

The Green-Rainbow party appears stuck 'in a holding pattern'; our registered membership numbers steadily declining, and our active membership, those doing the work, plateaued at a skeleton crew level; yet issues we've first championed have come to be central to Massachusetts political debate. The latter shows that our policies resonate with the Massachusetts public we strive to represent, yet the former two reveal that we are stymied. Our vision of leading Massachusetts to a green, prosperous, fair and good future by winning elective office seems stuck somehow, incomplete, with no effective progression towards this goal lately.

Recently Brian Cady and John Blumenstiel were asked to research conflict resolution training options for presentation to Statecom. They approached Collaborative Resolutions Group (CRG) of Greenfield, Massachusetts, which list such trainings as services it provides. In discussion with CRG executive director Debbie Lynangale, Debbie suggested that it would be best to conduct a needs assessment of the Green-Rainbow party before pursuing any individual training, hence this proposal.

Implementation: CRG will be hired to present three hours of program time with GRP members, such as Statecom; at a rate of $125 per program hour. These program hours will not be the only labor CRG does - there will be extensive preparation and research.

Financial Implications: This will cost the Green-Rainbow party $375: $125 per program hour. for three program hours.

References and Attachments: This video introduction for GRP Adcom to CRG was prepared by Debbie Lynangale of CRG: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1foHlVQfEew8EYim-S2leqe7dTFMyyyE1/view?usp=sharing

https://www.collaborativeresolutionsgroup.org/

TITLE: CDLC OR A DIVERSE COMMITTEE OF GRP MEMBERS WILL RECRUIT AND SUPPORT A DIVERSE SLATE OF STATEWIDE ELECTIONS FOR THE 2022 STATEWIDE ELECTIONS

SPONSORS:Danny Factor and David Spanagel

VETTING: CDLC and Local Chapters

FLOOR MANAGER:Danny Factor

SHEPHERD:David Spanagel

SUMMARY:CDLC OR A DIVERSE COMMITTEE OF GRP MEMBERS WILL RECRUIT AND SUPPORT A DIVERSE SLATE OF STATEWIDE ELECTIONS FOR THE 2022 STATEWIDE ELECTIONS

GOALS: The best way for us to stop fighting with each other is to work together in behalf of a compelling program. We will call on the Commonwealth to support our bold GRP Alternative/Imperative. This campaign will rebuild our state party, increase our membership and strengthen our local chapters. This campaign will inspire and support other GRP members to run for local office. At least one of our candidates will receive 3% of the vote and we will therefore regain party status.

IMPLEMENTATION—CDLC and/or a Diverse Committee will … Research the legal requirements of running a statewide slate of candidates. Recruit a diverse slate of candidates With the candidates, come up with a campaign plan which will be submitted to StateCom for their approval. The GRP will organize a Nominating Convention and invite all GRP members to attend. This meeting will nominate our candidates and recruit campaign supporters. Support the efforts of the slate to run a coordinated campaign (Note: Getting our candidates on the ballot will be a major effort.) Deliver a report to StateCom after the election is over.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: THE STATE PARTY AND OUR SLATE OF CANDIDATES WILL NEED TO RAISE A LOT OF $