- SPONSORS: CHERYL ROSE, LOIS GAGNON, PENELOPE HERIDEEN, ELIZABETH HUMPHREY
VETTING COMMITTEES:
MEMBERSHIP
PROCEDURES
COMMUNICATIONS
FLOOR MANAGER: CHERYL ROSE
- SHEPHERD: BRIAN MULHEARN
- SUMMARY:
PURPOSE: TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GRP AS AN ELECTORAL TOOL OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT IN MA.
IMPLICATIONS: TO INCREASE RECRUITING, INCREASE RETENTION, BUILD ENTHUSIASM FOR THE GRP, ATTRACT MORE CANDIDATES, SMOOTHER RUNNING OF THE PARTY, MEETING PARTY GOALS
BACKGROUND: A MAJORITY OF VOTERS AGREE WITH THE GRP/GP PLATFORM BUT THE GRP HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT GETTING THE MEMBERS AND VOTES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT IT. CHANGES ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO FULFILL OUR PURPOSE VIA:
- MAINTAINING BALLOT ACCESS
- INCREASING MEMBERSHIP/DIVERSITY
- RUNNING CANDIDATES
- STRAIGHTENING OUT THE GRP NAME
- UPDATING OUR BRANDING/REPUTATION
TEXT OF PROPOSAL:
THE MA GRP WILL HOLD A POST ELECTION CONFERENCE IN NOVEMBER 2024 FOR THE PURPOSES OF
FELLOWSHIP & RAISING ENTHUSIASM FOR THE WORK OF THE GRP
BUILDING AND VOTING ON APPROVAL OF TERMS, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, PROCESSES AND EXPECTATIONS USED IN THE WORK OF THE GRP, AS ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE TIME ALLOWED
REVIEWING AND MODIFYING SOME BYLAWS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AND MAKE MORE PRODUCTIVE THE WORK OF THE GRP
CONVENTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 16
IMPLEMENTATION:
THE PROPOSED MEMBERS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ARE: jOHN bLUMENTSTIEL, LOIS GAGNON, PENELOPE HERIDEEN, ELIZABETH HUMPHREY, DAVID KEIL, MARK LASERTE, BRIAN MULHEARN, AND CHERYL ROSE. COMMITTEE DUTIES INCLUDE:
CHOOSE A VENUE
MAKE LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONVENTION
PLAN FOR AND HOST THE CONVENTION
PROMOTE THE CONVENTION
CREATE AND IMPLEMENT AN AGENDA
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
EXPENSE:UP TO $500. INCOME: ?DONATIONS
POST-ELECTION REFLECTION CONVENTION: BUILDING GRP FOR THE FUTURE
Do you like this suggestion?
Showing 11 reactions
It is highly undemocratic to place the planning for a decision-making convention solely in the hands of a self-designated caucus that has demanded a convention to change the bylaws. More undemocratic is the procedure of waiting until only a short time before the convention to reveal an agenda for the meeting; presumably a set of major bylaws changes.
Please consider this post to be a counter proposal, as is the evident wish of the caucus proposing the convention. See the amendment of five days ago. Add to that a plan for a decision-making convention of the GRP in January or after, giving us time to deliberate on bylaws changes. Add as well that such convention should be organized by the State Committee, not a caucus.
1. – change “convention” to “conference” throughout
I am not sure of the difference between a convention and a conference. However, I hope that our proposal, when passed, will allow for a series of inclusive discussions before our small group of activists are convened to pass bylaws. If the conference is less rigid than a convention, then that makes sense to me.
2. – change “modifying” to “recommending modification of” in the passage “REVIEWING AND MODIFYING
SOME BYLAWS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AND MAKE MORE PRODUCTIVE THE WORK OF THE GRP”
Although wordy, I support the sense that we are bringing changes to the table for discussion, not immediate resolution.
3. – include referral of any bylaws issues to the Procedures Committee
If I understand correctly, bylaws are reviewed by the Procedures Committee before being brought to the larger body. If so, this modification makes sense.
4. – address the financing of the event; if the conference cannot be financed in person, then it should be on Zoom.
Totally agree.
5. – refer implementation to AdCom and volunteers rather than only a self-selected committee
We are all “self-selected.” I am grateful to those trying to build a more efficient organization. I do believe that AdCom should play a role in making sure proposed major changes are shared widely among working committees, chapters, and the wider membership. Give everyone a voice in an orderly manner.
for example, from within: https://assets.cambridge.org/97811084/93284/frontmatter/9781108493284_frontmatter.pdf
- change “convention” to “conference” throughout
- change “modifying” to “recommending modification of” in the passage “REVIEWING AND MODIFYING
SOME BYLAWS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AND MAKE MORE PRODUCTIVE THE WORK OF THE GRP”
- include referral of any bylaws issues to the Procedures Committee
- address the financing of the event; if the conference cannot be financed in person, then it should be on Zoom.
- refer implementation to AdCom and volunteers rather than only a self-selected committee
- change all-caps text to upper-lower case throughout
capable of large-scale actions,
supporting multiple candidates, and
stopping the duopoly.,
However, the proposal does not identify the key challenges to be addressed at a convention. nor the process by which we will address them.
I urge the working group to identify the Party’s proposed vision and the four or five actions most needed to achieve our vision. (One will surely be to solicit timely feedback from appropriate members so that hot issues don’t fizzle away.)
Within the key areas, I ask that the working group identify the parts of the bylaws that are most relevant to achieving that vision.
We need much more clarity before we spend the time and money to begin the discussion at a convention. Can the committee provide more detail on the key issues and opportunities it believes must be addressed first?
I am including a previous attempt from 2012. https://www.green-rainbow.org/strategic_plan_proposal
Thanks for your work,
Eileen Wheeler Sheehan