Hi Joyce,

I just saw your updated agenda which you posted between 8:30 and 9 p.m. tonight, and want to thank you for your hard work on this. Merelice and I have now consulted about this. (FYI Ian is away at a special family get-together this weekend.)

We think that there may have been a significant misunderstanding in regard to the intentions of the statewide candidates’ request for the StateCom meeting. I had thought that both Frank (in his posting on the agenda page) and Merelice (in her email, after her failed attempt at posting) made it clear that the statewide candidates are requesting an hour of time before statecom as a whole — rather than as a breakout session — as the way we think the campaign can best grow and prosper.

In this proposed hour, we plan to discuss with the statecom how GRP members can help the campaign grow in various areas from fundraising to social media to message clarification. We also hope to inspire our state committee by letting them know how we are working together as a team, and how we see our team consisting of not only our supporters, but also the voters.

While we welcome time for signature gathering—perhaps later in the day?— we hope that the campaign discussion (which will include signature-gathering strategies) will get more of a priority.

We are sorry for our part in any misunderstanding. The candidates hope that this matter can be resolved when the agenda is finalized at the beginning of the meeting.

For complete transparency purposes, I am copying this email to the StateCom list and will make best attempts to post to the State Com Agenda page.

Thanks again,

Danny (on behalf of the Statewide Candidate Team)

Hi Joyce,

I just saw your updated agenda which you posted between 8:30 and 9 p.m. tonight, and want to thank you for your hard work on this. Merelice and I have now consulted about this. (FYI Ian is away at a special family get-together this weekend.)

We think that there may have been a significant misunderstanding in regard to the intentions of the statewide candidates’ request for the StateCom meeting. I had thought that both Frank (in his posting on the agenda page) and Merelice (in her email, after her failed attempt at posting) made it clear that the statewide candidates are requesting an hour of time before statecom as a whole — rather than as a breakout session — as the way we think the campaign can best grow and prosper.

In this proposed hour, we plan to discuss with the statecom how GRP members can help the campaign grow in various areas from fundraising to social media to message clarification. We also hope to inspire our state committee by letting them know how we are working together as a team, and how we see our team consisting of not only our supporters, but also the voters.

While we welcome time for signature gathering—perhaps later in the day?— we hope that the campaign discussion (which will include signature-gathering strategies) will get more of a priority.

We are sorry for our part in any misunderstanding. The candidates hope that this matter can be resolved when the agenda is finalized at the beginning of the meeting.

For complete transparency purposes, I am copying this email to the StateCom list and will make best attempts to post to the State Com Agenda page.

Thanks again,

Danny (on behalf of the Statewide Candidate Team)

In the end, the campaigns have a break out session (45 min plus discussion through lunch, plus the first 30 minutes after we reconvene), a total of more than 1hour 15min, plus lunch and plus 2 hours of signature gathering. I hope that satisfies Frank’s concerns. See you all bright and early tomorrow.

Sorry for the repeat – having trouble posting, like so many of us.

Frank – I’m not sure what you are asking for in your comment (if anything). You have 45 minutes in the morning to lead a discussion of what we can do tot help the campaigns, do you want me to make that an hour? Or is there something else you want to talk about with the whole group? Please comment soon, I need to get this agenda finalized. I’ll email so you know to look here. Joyce

Frank – I’m not sure what you are asking for here. Can you tell me what you would be talking about outside of the 45 minute break out session already scheduled for the campaigns to talk about how the locals and all greens really can help the campaigns. I’ll email you so you know to check here, but I need to know soon so I can make the agenda final.

From: “David Rolde”
to: [email protected]
Cc: “Statecom-discuss Statecom-discuss”
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:52:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Statecom-discuss] GRP Positions on the 2014 Ballot Initiative Questions

Hi. I want to further explain my positions on these statewide ballot questions a little bit.

First I think that the numbering of the statewide ballot questions that will appear in November is different than the numbering Mike used. This is not Mike’s fault as the numbering has been changed or listed backwards on the state website. Repeal of 2013 Gas Tax Indexing is Question 1. Updating the Bottle Bill is Question 2. Law to Prohibit Casino Gambling is Question 3. Law Relative to Earned Sick Time is Question 4. See http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/initiatives-and-other-ballot-questions/current-petitions-filed.html and http://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_2014_ballot_measures

On question 1, repealing the gas tax indexing (automatic future gas tax hikes), while I agree with encouraging people to burn less gasoline, this is a regressive tax that disproportionately affects some impoverished people. We do not have good public transportation. Public transportation in Massachusetts is expensive, does not serve some geographic areas at all, and runs very infrequently to other areas. Fuel efficient cars also tend to be more expensive. Housing, especially in some areas, is very expensive. Thus people are forced to live far from their jobs, far from family and friends, far from their places of worship, far from other things that are important to them. Personally I can afford to pay increased gas taxes. But I know there are people who need to get to work to support their families and pay for housing and food and medical care, who need to drive in order to get to work, and who cannot afford to pay increased gas tax. I cannot in good conscience suggest that GRP tell impoverished people that they should vote against a ballot initiative opposing a regressive tax that they can’t afford to pay. I think that GRP should either support this ballot question or not take a position. Opposition to this ballot question would be against the interests of many impoverished people in Massachusetts. Incidentally I don’t think that this question would repeal an existing tax but rather that it would stop the tax from being automatically increased at the inflation rate.

I also support the other three statewide ballot questions. I think Question 2, the initiative for the Law to Prohibit Casino Gambling. is especially important. Casino Gambling is terribly socially destructive. GRP members have long been opposing the legalization of casino gambling. GRP members, including Jill Stein, Eli Beckerman and me, spoke in opposition to legalizing casino gambling and slot machines at a hearing at the State House a few years ago. This year MA Attorney General Martha Coakley attempted to stop the current initiative from appearing on the ballot this November. I am not sure exactly how it was achieved, but the initiators of the ballot question have achieved a real victory in getting it onto the ballot. I think it is very important for GRP to endorse this ballot initiative and to work to support it and encourage people to vote yes in November. GRP statewide candidates should speak in favor of this ballot question. Deval Patrick and several of the Democrat candidates for governor support casino gambling and oppose this ballot question.

~ David Rolde
Middlesex County rep to GRP State Committee

From: “Mike Heichman”
To: “State Committee” , “Statecom-discuss Statecom-discuss”

Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 4:34:03 PM
Subject: [Statecom-discuss] GRP Positions on the 2014 Ballot Initiative Questions
7/07/14

Dear StateCom Members:

GRP POSITIONS ON THE 2014 BALLOT INITIATIVE QUESTIONS

At an earlier StateCom meeting, Gus Stevens, David Rolde and Mike Heichman agreed to work together and come up with a proposal for the July StateCom meeting on this year’s ballot initiative questions.

I have been unable to get in touch with Gus. David and I have briefly talked with each other. To be honest, neither one of us did much research. However, David and I agree about our recommendations on 3 of the 4 questions. Our positions are below.

1. Earned Sick Time-Employees at companies with 10+ workers should earn as many as 40 hours of paid sick time/year. (YES)

2. Prohibit Casino Gambling (YES)

3. Expanding the Bottle Bill (YES)

4. Repeal of 2013 Gas Tax (Mike-NO; David-GRP don’t take a position.)

I don’t think that this issue should take much time at our meeting on Saturday.

Mike Heichman [email protected]

The statewide campaign feels like a discusion of the committee as a whole would be beneficial. Therefore to acomodate it I would suggest:

Lunch ends at 12:55
Candidate/Signature block 12:55-1:55
Ballot Question discussion 1:55-2:20
GASP Presentation 2:20-2:40
Consideration of GASP proposal 2:40
….

Why shorten ballot question discussion? Only one question seems like it will be controversial.
Why shorten GASP Presentation? Most proposal get 10-15 minutes to present. The GASP proposal makes sense, and since it has already been approved by AdCom it is already in some ways a position of the party.

Re: Elie’s comment on a space for substantive discussion of fundamental and current concerns. I am not exactly sure how to put this into the agenda – it’s not a proposal, and it’s not a thing we vote on. I am interpreting Elie’s comment to mean he would like to bring up this problem for at least some preliminary discussions, which might bear fruit as proposals in future meetings. Have I got that at least partway right Elie? (It’s sort of in the same spirit as Scott’s comment/suggestion below – bringing up a problem we have and suggesting that it become a topic on the discussion agenda of the meeting.) If so I think I should put a short item on the agenda and have Elie lead that discussion. Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do? It will be more fruitful if I can give folks some homework’ reading to do before the meeting. Any suggestions of what to read or what folks can do to be prepared for that discussion, Elie?

Re: Ballot Q’s: I think it would be productive to combine Danny’s and Mike’s comments and have one period of time devoted tot he ballot Q’s. To help facilitate that portion of the meeting, I’ve asked Mike to summarize the recommendations of the group of 3 statecom members tasked with looking into the BQs at our last meeting, and make that into some homework for all to read before the meeting.

Since quarterly State Committee meetings do not provide time and space for substantive discussion of fundamental and current concerns, it might be valuable to discuss and find ways in which this might be done. If the GRP is to provide leadership for political change in Massachusetts, the GRP needs also to be the place where the informed dialog occurs. In the absence of a public space of political dialog, political action becomes and remains an individual matter rather than a partisan one. How should we go about making that space? Is there a better place to talk about this than at a State Committee meeting.
Elie Yarden,
Middlesex

Now that the status of the four statewide 2014 ballot questions has been finalized, the three GRP statewide candidates have discussed the need for the GRP to take positions on these ballot questions. We ask that State Com discuss all four ballot questions and vote on whether to endorse them. Since GRP involvement in ballot questions was part of the Bold Plan approved by State Com last year, this agenda item can take place as a part of “old business.”, or it could be elsewhere in the agenda. We would like the statecom co-chairs to have the discretion to decide how much time is necessary to discuss and vote on the four ballot measures.

At an earlier meeting, the StateCom establish a committee, composed of Gus, David R, and myself (Mike) to come up with recommendations for the GRP positions on the ballot questions that will be on the November ballot. I’m hopeful that a recommendation will be sent out before the meeting. (Note: This is NOT a new proposal. It is an implementation of an earlier decision made by StateCom.

Mike Heichman

I would like for the agenda to include comprehensive reports from the Treasurer, the Membership Committee, and CDLC and a discussion on growth strategies and assessing success. These three reports, in my opinion, will tell us if the party is growing stronger or not.

Treasurer: I hope we introduce a standard format that breaks down income categories and expense categories that relate to our budget. Quarterly reports should include YTD information, comparisons to the previous years quarter and YTD, and comparisons to budget targets. I hope it doesn’t take the passing of a by-law to obtain reports that any organization’s board should absolutely require of those who steward the bank account. I have not seen a Treasurer’s report in over a year and a half that comes close to a generally accepted minimum standard.

Membership: two and a half years ago State Committee passed a proposal that asked for the Membership Committee to produce quarterly reports on Membership. State Committee has not received very informative reports since then, even when we had party status. I suggested at the Spring 2014 State Committee Meeting that the Membership Committee recruit State Com members to cull party registration data quarterly from select locales. If the Membership Committee wishes to do this I volunteer to do Pittsfield to help the Membership Committee and the State Committee understand trends to arrive at a proxy quarterly figure for determining if our registration is growing, stagnant, or declining.

CDLC: CDLC has produced quarterly reports for the most part that comply with the spirit of proposal of 2-1/2 years ago that is referenced in the previous paragraph.

There seems to be an unfortunate correlation between the relatively stagnant growth in the number of candidates and the number of registered greens (if the 5100 figure of registered J’s, G’s, and H’s shared by the statewide campaign is accurate).

I would like for there to be time on the agenda to discuss how the party can better assess if its growth strategies are working. Having measurements like this – Treasury, Membership, and Candidates – in my opinion is critical to assessing this but I’d welcome additional thought.