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.
I support this if it is combined with a membership recruitment piece.
Although the Green-Rainbow Party State Committee is not legally bound to following the Open Meetings Law of the Commonwealth I believe we should follow it in spirit. We are an elected representative body. The Open Meetings Law clearly states that agendas must be made public 48 hours in advance. I will vote against last-minute changes to the items of business that we discuss. If a matter of new business urgently arises within the last 48 hours prior to the meeting that requires a State Committee action I suggest we invoke our procedures to make an online decision in the weeks following the decision.
We are quick to decry that our representatives on Beacon Hill have exempted themselves from the Open Meeting Law; lets not operate in the Beacon Hill manner.
When the original proposal came before the State Committee, the sponsors considered whether to reduce the number of regions from 12 to 10 or to 8. It seemed wiser not to reduce the number by one-third. Further, it seemed that larger regions of five senatorial districts would be geographically more remote and unwieldy.
My main question is whether larger regions with more state senators will provide the political glue that prompted this exercise in the first place. My other question relates to how effectively proportional representation will be implemented with larger regions in which reps could be geographically clustered instead of spread out.
Regarding splitting municipalities, this is inevitable — at least in the case of Boston which has so many state senatorial districts. However, for regional conventions, it has usually been the practice for regions to combine so it is possible to keep municipalities intact for those conventions.
I believe it would be helpful to pass the current changes, even if only to put on record that there will not be regional conventions in 2014 as would be the case under the former system.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Merelice wrote:
Pasted below are brief explanatory notes about the bylaws changes to be voted on tomorrow (see agenda item at 10:30). Please refer to the links provided in the agenda to review both the bylaws and the proposed new regions based on State Senatorial Districts. Thanks!
State Committee meeting, October 20, 2013, old business
Brief explanatory notes about the bylaws changes that follow [copies of this will be provided at the meeting]:
Overall: This is to honor the GRPs efforts to supplement the Mass.-mandated Senate-like process of electing two State Committee representatives from each of 40 State Senatorial Districts at the presidential primary every four years. These are “elected” representatives.
The goal is a Representative-like process of proportional representation which to date has been based on Massachusetts counties. The State Committee voted to change from the county basis to State Senatorial Districts (1) to provide political cohesion on issues within a region and (2) to provide compatibility and acquaintance with the State Senatorial Districts in which members can officially run for election. In addition, the terms of office for these “appointed” proportional representatives have been increased to the same four years as the elected representatives.
First paragraph is an update
Second paragraph simplifies how the number of proportional representatives is determined. The original intent was to match the number of elected representatives (potentially 80), with a minimum of 60. Since there has never been more than two officially elected representatives, this simply sets the number at 60, a number that could be increased when the GRP seats more than 60 elected representatives.
Third paragraph and list of regions identify the newly proposed regions based on State Senatorial Districts instead of counties. It also reduces the number of regions from 12 to 10 and provides a simpler explanation of how the proportion of representatives from each region is determined.
Fourth paragraph eliminates how proportional representatives can be removed from the State Committee because this is covered in another section of the bylaws (plus the reference to regional convention should be State Committee).
Fifth and last paragraph reflects the change of office terms to four years and adds GRP chapters as a potential source of recommendations for filling empty seats on the State Committee.
In my opinion, State Committee nomination or endorsement is not an internal party call for support; rather, it is a public message to the voting public that identifies the candidate for whom the party recommends a vote.
The policy is not in place only because of the possibility that other candidates may or may not come along or because we may or may not have contested primaries. Until the filing deadline has passed we do not know who will be on the ballot. Some potential candidates do fail to get on the ballot.
I don’t accept the argument that a GRP State Committee nomination or endorsement will bolster a campaign organization sufficiently to help it achieve ballot access. In fact, tt would raise a red flag in my mind that the candidate was overreaching if I heard him/her make the argument that it needed GRP State Committee nomination or endorsement in order to get on the ballot. (For the record, Francisco White, for the record, has never made such a claim. As co-chair of CDLC I have been in touch with Francisco since before he became a GRP member and since before he contacted the Greater Boston Chapter. Mr. White has not challenged the Neutrality and Fairness Policy. When he learned about the policy he stated he thought it was ‘reasonable’ and asked for his nomination to be considered after the filing deadline.)
I was opposed to the original wording of this proposal, a repeal of the current policy, because I continue to believe that State Committee should be neutral until after the filing deadline or until after a contested primary. I also believe that it is reasonable for the State Committee to know, prior to making such a decision, if the candidate applying for nomination / endorsement is ballot-qualified or is a write-in candidate.
I am opposed to the revised proposal because it is not necessary and because discussion of it will take time away from more important agenda items. The current policy is not a by-law or a fixed procedure; does not close the door to exceptions. Even with the current policy in place any two State Committee representatives could have submitted a proposal for the spring meeting seeking nomination for Francisco White and could have asked CDLC to vet such proposal. Even with the current policy in place, Francisco White could have requested on his CDLC application that his campaign’s nomination be decided on April 21, in which case CDLC would have requested that it be placed on the agenda.
I hope this proposal is tabled so that more time can be devoted to discussions about party-building.
I am individually committed to Francisco’s campaign and hope others join me in spending much more time on the streets of Boston supporting him than what may be spent in discussing this procedurally unnecessary modified proposal.