- Jan 8th, (four weeks beforehand) - Proposal submissions due.
- February 2nd, 9 am Comments and Vetting Close.
- Februrary 3rd, 9 am Amendments Close.
- February 4th, 9 pm Rankings Close.
Please enter your proposals below, including:
PROPOSAL HEADER AND PREAMBLE
- TITLE: [Provide a short, descriptive title for the proposal.]
- SPONSORS: [List the sponsors of the proposal. Proposals must be sponsored by two StateCom members or a local chapter.]
- VETTING COMMITTEES: [List the working committees that the sponsor feels are relevant to the vetting of this proposal.]
- FLOOR MANAGER: [List the name and contact information for one person who will manage the process for this proposal. This person will be the single point of contact for receiving comments on the proposal and providing decisions such as whether to accept a friendly amendment. They must be in attendance at the StateCom meeting when the proposal is under consideration.]
- SHEPHERD: List one person who will serve as “shepherd” to monitor the implementation of the proposal after it is adopted.
- SUMMARY: [Provide a short (40 word) summary of the purpose and implications of the proposal.]
- BACKGROUND: [Provide the basic background on the proposal. What will it accomplish? Why is it written with these particular provisions? Is it critical that it be adopted?]
- TEXT OF PROPOSAL: [Provide the exact text that will be implemented if StateCom adopts the proposal. If funds are being appropriated, specify that here. Note that text that appears elsewhere in the proposal will NOT be officially adopted when StateCom votes on the proposal.]
- IMPLEMENTATION: [List the persons or committees that must act to implement the proposal. What do they have to do and what are their deadlines for action? This helps StateCom assess whether the party has the staff and volunteer resources to implement the proposal. It also alerts those persons who will be asked to act if the proposal is adopted. ]]
- FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: [Describe the impacts on GRP budgeting that are expected from this proposal. Estimate total expenses or income expected from adoption of the proposal. If this proposal will be funded through an item that it already in the GRP budget, so note. Note that any appropriation required by this proposal must be included in the TEXT OF PROPOSAL section.]
- REFERENCES AND ATTACHMENTS: [Provide references (with hyperlinks if possible) that assist StateCom in understanding and evaluating the proposal. Attach any additional explanatory information here as numbered attachment sections.]
Enter the Proposal Header and Preamble here (then a second text box will appear for entry of the rest of the proposal):
Note' While not a proposal, this has been placed in 2022 Winter proposals for ease of finding it, in preparation for Feb 5th.
The Rights of Nature Sponsors: Maureen Doyle and Frank Jeffers from the Ecoaction Committee of GPUS and members of the MA GRP
VETTING COMMITTEES: this needs to be voted on by the state committee of the GRP to be included in our charter.
FLOOR MANAGER: Maureen Doyle
SHEPARD: Maureen Doyle
SUMMARY: "It is evident in conditions throughout the United States that our environmental regulatory system has failed to adequately protect our natural ecosystems upon which our health and lives depend. " The interfering with nature's regulatory system has allowed many environmental hazards that have caused health issues to humans , ecosystems, and other animals. The Green party needs to stand up and defend our life-giving nature. The GPUS accepted this document (see attached) into its platform in 2021. The state of Ma Green- Rainbow party , an affiliate of the Green Party, should endorse it and incorporate it as well. Here is a statement from Winona LaDuke, two-time Green Party vice presidential candidate, in her 2016 speech, Native Rights and the Rights of Nature, "It logically follows that recognizing the rights of our domestic natural ecosystems is both correct and necessary to help safeguard a healthy future for all our communities, for our children and grandchildren. ...We need to transform from the rights of corporations to the rights of nature. It’s going to take a lot to change the system.”
BACKGROUND: The duopoly parties (Republican and Democrat) solely defend economic rights and see nature as something that humans can use as they wish to achieve their economic goals. The Green Party is the only major party in the USA that stands for “people, peace, and planet” , defending nature as well bas the Earth's inhabitants. By endorsing this statement, the GRP accepts their role in protecting the planet that we all live on.
TEXT OF PROPOSAL: Rights of Nature We support the adoption of local, state, and federal laws which recognize the legal rights of natural communities and ecosystems - including wetlands, streams, rivers, aquifers, and other water systems - to exist, flourish, regenerate, naturally evolve, and be restored. We support the inclusion in those laws of the ability of people and communities to file legal actions in the name of the affected natural community or ecosystem, and for courts to require restoration of the natural community or ecosystem back to its pre-damaged state.
IMPLEMENTATION: The state committee of the Green-Rainbow party needs to vote to accept this document and to add it to their charter. The Communications Committee can help publicize it.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: I don't believe there would be any costs involved in this implementation and adoption.
REFERENCES AND ATTACHMENTS: The first link is a slideshow illustrating why we need this statement. The other is the complete Rights of Nature platform to the GPUS given by Ecoaction member Lizzie Adams.
* EcoAction Committee’s GPUS Platform Proposal for Rights of Nature Addition https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTTNe7oJ9-noPXHLxgnGm2UIuVR95Ln_TdO_Vxi0kIoVSIgHAKsySOPXmnkvO6RI0ySu-_to8bYWGeo/pub
4. The chapter has allowed the former male Co-Chair of the GBC (now Secretary) to repeatedly denounce and deny the validity of the statements of our state party. He has claimed falsely that the co-chairs' statement lacks standing as GRP policy.
5. The same chapter officer has organized a national group that meets every Sunday, “Greens and Allies Against Covid Repression”, a group that opposes our party’s policies. Every week he uses the GBC-Discuss list to invite our members to attend its meetings. This has been the only activity of the chapter.
6. The chapter has held hybrid meetings that have included an option for an in-person, indoor, maskless component. At the October in-person part of the meeting, only one member wore a mask. The chapter has recklessly endangered its members.
7. In an email last fall, the current Secretary attacked Danny F and called Mike H. a “CovidNazi”. When Mike H. requested that the chapter take action against the then-co-chair at a chapter meeting, the chapter chose not to take any action.
8. The GBC has created a toxic atmosphere over time in which bullying occurs, as in the name calling on list, the disruption of a vote taking place at the December 14, 2021 meeting, and harassment of a female guest activist as a "troll" or "mole". As a result of this abusive, undemocratic atmosphere, an unknown number of members have stopped attending chapter meetings, while anti-mandates members have selectively recruited new members to the chapter to support their anti-public-health agenda.
9. The December GBC meeting chose by a 2/3 vote to take no action on the StateCom effort to decertify the chapter. Clearly the majority of chapter members don't value the GRP even enough to keep the chapter affiliated with the state party.
10. The current chapter Secretary has participated in efforts disrupting events hosted by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu for her public-health policies. The chapter has tolerated this.
11. The officers elected January 11, other than the current Secretary, have been silent on chapter business. The only chapter business pursued by the current Secretary is his campaign against vaccine mandates, including denial that there is a pandemic.
12. At the January 11 chapter meeting, a duly submitted proposal to recall the Male Co-Chair for cause was skipped. Four proposals by Mike H. were not addressed. Two supporters of the actions of the former male co-chair were elected as co-chairs and he was elected Secretary.