- short title: GRP T-Shirts
- Shirley Kressel, Mike Heichman
- floor manager: Shirley Kressel, email@example.com
- for consideration by Adcom, Fundraising Committee, ComCom, Membership & Diversity Comm, Local Chapters & Treasurer
We want to grow our party. We want our party to become more visible and respected for our work. We often go to events where organizations, who have members with T-Shirts, stand out in the crowd; even a small number indicate the presences of a larger organization. We need our own GRP T-Shirt.
- The Party will spend no more than $1,000 for our first order.
- The goal will be for the party to raise at least $500 for the t-shirts.
- We will ask our members, and invite supporters, to purchase the t-shirts at cost, and encourage those who can to make an additional contribution for our low-income active members who desire to have a t-shirt.
- Low income members who are active members of the State Party and/or local chapters will be asked to make a contribution for the t-shirts. However, no active member will be excluded from having a t-shirt because of income.
- Through our e-mail lists, we will recruit a special task force which will design a GRP T-Shirt and find a company or a group of creative people that will make our product
- This committee will make a recommendation to Adcom, who will approve the design and company.
- We will use our party's network (ComCom, Membership and Diversity Comm, Local Chapters, etc.) and encourage our members and general public to purchase and wear our t-shirts.
- Six months after the selling of the first t-shirt, we will seek feedback about the successes and failures of this investment.
The GRP will create our own t-shirts and encourage our members and supporters to purchase and wear them.
END OF PROPOSALOfficial response from Nathanael Fortune considering
Note added [NF]: The Green Party of the U.S. has recently started offering a T-shirt for sale through Wired For Change. A sample is shown here. https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/175/shop/item.jsp?storefront_KEY=4&t=&store_item_KEY=821
I would hope the task force would take into account the plausibility that the sponsoring organization can effectively and successfully collect the signatures needed during a very short 2 month period this May and June, as it only becomes a useful issue in this year’s campaigns if the initiative actually appears on this year’s ballot.
Also, please note that many of the petitions certified by the attorney general are slightly differently worded versions for the same initiative, only one of which actually go forward. There are, for example, two slightly different versions of the expanded bottle bill. (This is done in case one particular wording gets rejected). Others have been dropped b/c of actions of the legislature (software sales tax, for example). The number of actually active petitions is around a dozen.
Nat Fortune, Franklin County
Requested Vetting: Ad-com, working committees
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) the project shepherd reports back to the next state committee meeting on the actions that have occured implementing the proposal and the current state of the project. This report should be no more than 1 - 2 pages, is to be in writing, and should be submitted at least 2 weeks in advance. Time will be set aside early in the state committee meeting (either as a committee of the whole or in a working committee) to discuss the report and the implementation of the adopted proposal.
If you value your time, think the proposals you put forward and state com agrees to are important enough to merit successful implementation, and want state com to be a more productive body, sponsor and support his proposal.
State Committee meetings could be an excellent opportunity for getting work done: long-term planning, training, and implementation of past proposals. State com could also become a quarterly opportunity for productive, in-depth, in-person meetings of working committees. Instead, we often spend most of the day discussing and debating limitless numbers of new proposals, without any time allocated for their implementation. By taking on less, we could make progress on those we do take on.
This proposal asks state committee representatives to prioritize their time and ideas by putting forward as floor sponsor no more than one proposal per meeting. It also seeks to improve the proposal's chances for successful implementation by giving the proposal sponsor an integral role shepherding the implementation of the proposal and assessing of results (and asking the sponsor to be willing to invest their own time in their highest priority).
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. At present, because there is no limit on the number of proposals a single enthusiastic representative can make and no incentive for a representative to prioritize their suggestions, the time required for preliminary consideration and explanation of proposals even the sponsor considers low priority or would have no time to help implement expands beyond reason, crowding out timely consideration of other proposals and limiting the time available for state com to actually engage in long-term planning and productive work.
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.
GOAL: 550 DONORS
Psst: prefer to pay by check? No problem! Just fill in the needed information (including employer and occupation), print out the completed form, and mail it along with your personal check to the Green-Rainbow Party, 232 Highland Ave, Arlington, MA 02476.
Prefer to schedule a small, automatically renewing monthly or yearly contribution? Please click here.
If the state of our state doesn't feel like paradise to you, and you'd prefer to support a true democratic alternative to today's politics as usual, we'd welcome your contribution in support of voter outreach, candidate support, and day to day party expenses. We're not expecting that you can come up with federal fund limit of $10,000, or even the state fund limit of $5000 (but hey, go ahead and surprise us). Instead, please consider what a government that truly worked for us, listened to us, and answered to us would mean to you, how more Green-Rainbow party members in elected office could help bring that about, and then contribute at at level that would be meaningful and significant for you.
Please note: by party policy, we don't accept contributions from state or federal registered lobbyists, no matter what the issue. We want you to be sure that when we speak, we speak for the people of Massachusetts — not for special interests seeking sweetheart deals. Our support comes from you.
Please consider becoming a sustaining donor and make your contribution a monthly event! click here
Advance with the Green-Rainbow Party's Greater Boston Chapter on Jan. 25th 2014, 10am-4pm
Posted by Brian Cady · January 20, 2014 3:55 PM
This process was voted at the February 2009 State Committee Meeting,to be reviewed after following the process at subsequent State Committee Meetings. It grew out of comments from GRP members and research into how a number of other groups implement the consensus process. While some GRP members strongly advocate using Robert’s Rules instead of consensus, this process tries to embody the spirit of consensus by seeking to hear and respond constructively to every voice.
A more constructive, effective, and ecological approach to decision-making. This process involves the State Committee more fully in the development of a proposal by not giving the sponsors of a proposal sole power over the proposal’s content. At the same time, the process attempts to move more smoothly to a State Committee decision.
Consensus Seeking Process:
In the following process the default time periods for general discussion and individual speaking can be altered at the discretion of the meeting facilitators who can consider the complexity of the proposal, its importance, and the time available on the meeting agenda. Extensions of discussion time can be effected by vote of the State Committee. A person who is allocated time may yield any portion of their time to another speaker.
I. PROPOSAL PRESENTATION
The sponsors of the proposal select a single person to communicate sponsor decisions during the floor discussion. The sponsors present the proposal as written, along with any background information they think is pertinent. The default time for this is 5 minutes. Then any working committee that has reviewed the proposal and approved a statement on it is given 1 minute each to summarize their findings or recommendations.
II. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSAL
This period allows for clarifying questions, statements supporting the proposal, statements of concern with the proposal, attempts to address concerns, and encouragement to those with a concern to propose an amendment. An initial discussion period of 15 minutes can be extended by a majority straw poll. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes, and must wait until the stack is empty before they get back on. Whenever possible, facilitators should balance the stack according to gender, race, and the amount of time a person has already spoken. After any speaker, the facilitators may, at their discretion, recognize the lead sponsor of the proposal to give a reply or clarification.
III. CALL FOR CONSENSUS
The facilitators ask the lead sponsor to restate the original proposal and then ask, “Does anyone have concerns that stand in the way of consensus?” Those who answer “yes,” are asked to state their concerns and are asked (1) whether they have amendments to propose and (2) if not, whether they will stand aside. If those with concerns stand aside, the facilitators state, “The proposal passes by consensus.”
IV. PRESENTATION AND VOTE ON AMENDMENTS
If the proposal has not passed by consensus, amendments sponsored by at least 2 StateCom members are considered in this period as an effort to address concerns and reach consensus. One of the amendment sponsors provides a written copy of the amendment to the facilitators, states their amendment, and has 1 minute to explain it. The proposal sponsors have 1 minute to express their opinion. After hearing all of the proposed amendments, there is a 10-minute discussion period. At the end of this period, which cannot be extended, the meeting facilitators decide upon the order in which amendments will be taken up, and proceed with an up-or-down vote on each one. An amendment must receive a 2/3 majority in order to pass. After all amendments have been considered, if any amendment has been adopted, the facilitators may, at their discretion, recognize the lead sponsor for a 1-minute statement on the amended proposal.
V. CALL FOR CONSENSUS
The facilitators clarify any amendments that have been made to the text of the proposal and restate the proposal as amended. The facilitators then ask, " Does anyone have concerns that stand in the way of consensus?" Those who answer “yes,” are asked whether they are willing to stand aside. If yes, the facilitators state, "The (amended) proposal passes by consensus." If anyone with a concern does not stand aside, the proposal drops to a vote.
VI. MOVE TO VOTE (if no consensus)
The facilitators ask for a show of hands in favor of the final proposal, as amended. Then for a show of hands opposed, and then for abstentions. The vote is tallied: A 2/3 majority of the votes cast (minus abstentions) is required for the final proposal to pass.
A) At any time, the sponsors of a proposal or an amendment can withdraw the proposal or amendment from consideration.
B) If any decision is to be made that involves more than one choice, the GRP rules as specified in section 5.3 of the bylaws apply.
GPUS presidential and vice-presidential candidates Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala are generating lots of press! Links to interviews and articles are posted below, and more links can be found at the campaign website: www.jillstein.org. Onward!
Does your state representative know you support mandatory mediation before any foreclosures, so unnecessary evictions no longer occu? Calls from supporters last week succeeded in adding the needed language to the MA Senate Bill. Your call today will help us add that language in the House.
Here's what your call today to your state rep can help bring about:
- Mandatory mediation, like all of our other sister New England States
- Transparency, so homeowners can understand the new procedures and obligations
- consistency with Federal Standards
- protect and preserve Homeowner rights
- allow homeowners to rent after foreclosure, should that come to passIs this too much to ask for?
Of course not. So please, ask. Call today!
Just call the switchboard at 617-722-2000, and ask to be transferred to your state representative's office* to leave a message.
The person who answers the phone will be VERY polite, and won't get into an argument. They'll just take your message, and pass it on to your state rep. The one that's supposed to represent you, and who's job it is to listen. They want your call.
OK, I'm ready to make the call. What's the message?
Personally, I would recommend Yes on the Medical Marijuana (as it is in keeping with our already established policy positions) and No on usurping the authority of our elected School Committees to negotiate teacher evaluation policies. I would recommend ‘no opinion’ on the other two. That said, please note that intense negotiations are now underway regarding the teacher evaluation ballot measure, and it may be withdrawn if the legislature passes a compromise bill suitable to the measure’s sponsors.