People, Planet & Peace
The Massachusetts Affiliate of the Green Party of the United States

followed Growing the GRP with our GRP T-shirts 2012-04-12 13:10:47 -0400

Growing the GRP with our GRP T-shirts

Proposal Name/Sponsors

  • short title: GRP T-Shirts
  • Shirley Kressel, Mike Heichman
  • floor manager: Shirley Kressel,
  • for consideration by Adcom, Fundraising Committee, ComCom, Membership & Diversity Comm, Local Chapters  & Treasurer

Proposal Preamble


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.

Financial impact: 
  1. The Party will spend no more than $1,000 for our first order.
  2. The goal will be for the party to raise at least $500 for the t-shirts.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  1. 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
  2. This committee will make a recommendation to Adcom, who will approve the design and company.
  3. 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.
  4. Six months after the selling of the first t-shirt, we will seek feedback about the successes and failures of this investment.

Proposal Language

The GRP will create our own t-shirts and encourage our members and supporters to purchase and wear them.


Official response from 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.

commented on Mass. Carbon Tax and Policy Forum, January 2015 2014-10-05 10:35:34 -0400 · Flag
The successor to the Committee for a Green Economy appears to be Climate-Xchange. I attended a presentation at the Coop-Power Sustainability Summit by Dan Gatti, Executive Director of Climate XChange (and resident of Northampton). This time around, they are talking about a revenue-neutral plan where the carbon tax would be returned in equal per-person payments (half payments for each child), instead of as reductions in other taxes. I had a long discussion trying to convince Dan Gatti that any tax on carbon-based fuels needed to include all carbon-based fuels — he had excluded wood and biomass on the fallacious idea that wood is carbon neutral. The reality is burning wood doesn’t plant trees, and trees don’t care where the carbon they pull out of the air (as CO2) came from. The overnight release of carbon by wood burning and 100 year (re)sequestration of carbon by tree growing need to be treated separately. We’ll see if their proposal changes to include wood, as their tax mechanism only taxed fuels coming from out of state.

commented on GRP Involvement in 2014 Ballot Question Initiative Campaigns 2014-01-10 09:28:00 -0500 · Flag
The current status of each petition can be found here: .

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.

commented on Review and Update Main GRP Brochure 2014-01-10 09:10:40 -0500 · Flag
Some past attempts have been stymied by trying to produce a single brochure that covers everything anyone might possibly want to read or say. I would encourage the working group to instead consider producing multiple single-issue brochures (with some common elements) and a more condensed summary brochure.

commented on Pass Mass Ammendment (Emailed 12/14 midnight to Statecom by Dannyl Factor) 2014-01-10 09:04:02 -0500 · Flag
The PassMass Amendment was rejected ("not certified’) by the Attorney General on the grounds that it is inconsistent with certain constitutional rights. That decision is currently being contested legally, but the timing and outcome of any legal decision is unknown, and may not occur in a timely or favorable manner. This proposal seems premature. Why not instead put our efforts towards passage of the very similar U.S. Constitutional amendment proposed by Move To Amend?

commented on Endorsement of Committee for a Green Economy's Carbon Tax Initiative 2013-07-12 19:53:05 -0400 · Flag
It looks like this proposal has been withdrawn, but would definitely want the GRP to advocate in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon taxes (or as I would call them, carbon savings bonds) so I will promise to work with Dru Tarr, Brian Cady, and other interested parties in drafting a proposal for the Fall state com meeting. Suffice it to say that if you want to raise revenue (instead of being revenue neutral) there are better ways to do so, including by eliminating special giveaways for favored, highly politically influential industries (tax expenditures). The reason for a carbon tax is to broadly and comprehensively have the price of fossil fuels reflect the true environmental and social cost of their use (and the toll they inflict on our communities, including the siting of dirty power plants in poor communities). The challenge is that a tax on energy, like any sales tax, is regressive, and without assistance, the poorest among us may not have ways to reduce their energy use still further than they already do. Making it revenue neutral means you can take the money raised and return it directly to the residents of the commonwealth. You could literally just write checks (of equal amount) to every resident once a month. The poorest could use that to compensate for the higher cost of energy; anyone more fortunate could use some of the money to invest in the conservation and efficiency measures (and make a shift towards renewables) that will be needed to reduce carbon pollution and reduce the magnitude of the global warming and climate disruption still to come. What to do for local businesses and non-profits is actually important to think about, and I hope we will.

commented on A Bold Action Program for the GRP in 2014 2013-07-12 19:35:03 -0400 · Flag
Just my opinion as a former candidate for both state house and constitutional office, but I would think the single most effective step in candidate recruitment would be to assemble a team of shared campaign managers, treasurers, volunteer coordinators, and media coordinators ready and willing to support candidates should they agree to run. It is really daunting task for 1st time candidates to tackle all this, especially if they have to recruit and train their staff, and too often the candidate has to do many of the tasks on their own. Shared legislative/policy proposals are helpful too, but anybody running better already have some policy ideas they care enough about to want to run, and nobody runs because they want to take on the logistics. So if our priority is state house races, for example, that prioritization could be expressed by having this team available for those particular races.

commented on Piloting New Proposal Vetting and Ranking Procedures 2013-07-12 19:25:13 -0400 · Flag
I love this idea. We would need to make sure that the deadlines work for members who only have computer access when at work or when at their public library, but adopting this idea would be much more respectful of members time and of those who take the time to draft proposals!

commented on The real Obama emerges, again 2013-01-19 12:01:26 -0500 · Flag
worth reading!

tagged Lee Laugenour's Talk Less Accomplish More with Will co-sponsor 2013-01-14 19:24:59 -0500

Talk Less Accomplish More

Floor Sponsor

Nat Fortune, Franklin County

Requested Vetting: Ad-com, working committees

Proposal Text:

(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.  


commented on Improving the regional convention election process 2013-01-03 09:58:42 -0500 · Flag
wil co-sponsor, but with following amendment:replace ‘Instead of being based on counties, 12 regions [to be defined] are to be based on the 40 State Senatorial districts’ with ‘instead of being based on counties, 8 regions (to be defined) are to be based on the 40 State Senatorial districts, with each region consisting of 5 state senate districts.’

tagged Mike Heichman's Limit proposal proposers to no more than 1 proposal per meeting (as floor manager) with Concerns 2012-09-10 18:11:02 -0400

Limit proposal proposers to no more than 1 proposal per meeting (as floor manager)

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. 


donated 2017-04-04 17:10:29 -0400

Donate Online!

494 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 $500 (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

published Greater Boston Blog in Locals 2012-07-29 20:55:00 -0400

published Consensus Seeking Process in State Committee 2012-07-25 15:56:00 -0400

Consensus Seeking Process


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.


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.


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.


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.”


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.


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.

Presidential/Vice Presidential News

cheri_honkala70.jpgGPUS 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: Onward! 


published Does Your State Rep Know? in Economy & Labor Blog 2012-06-29 10:13:00 -0400

Does Your State Rep Know?

Nat_Fortune150sq.jpg 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 pass
Is 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? 

commented on agenda state committee 2012 06 23 2012-06-12 18:14:38 -0400 · Flag
we will add both to agenda — NF and DV

commented on GRP Involvement in 2012 Ballot Question Campaigns 2012-06-12 10:14:52 -0400 · Flag
I support the GRP taking a position on at least some of the 4 ballot initiatives currently slated to appear this November. Rather than have the entire State Committee try to draft the exact language of particular flyers, I recommend that the State Committee instead determine “Yes/No/No Opinion” positions on each measure, then ask Platform and Communications to draft language and prepare materials. I recommend this in part b/c I am not happy with the present (partially drafted) proposed language — for example, I do not find that it would be persuasive to anyone who doesn’t already have a position on these particular measures — but I do not want this to preclude taking YES/NO/NO OPINION positions on each issue. If we remove the proposed language of the flyers from the proposal or split the proposal into two, one taking positions and the other a procedure to come up with supporting language, then I will co-sponsor.

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.

commented on Redefine regional convention districts 2012-06-10 13:58:54 -0400 · Flag
I will co-sponsor, butI believe the regions represented by appointed representatives (and those elected at regional convention) should match the regions represented by those elected in party presidential primaries. That means state senate districts, not US Congressional districts. This change would also help strengthen our electoral focus, and help lay the groundwork for candidates seeking MA legislative office.

1  2  3  4  5  Next →