[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership

Thu Feb 22 00:29:43 PST 2018

That would require a separate proposal, I think, rather than an amendment
to this one.

I know that, generally, the GPUS aims for gender balance among committee
and Caucus co-chairs (although that target gets a little bit more complex
when you're dealing with gender diversity in a non-binary world; the usual
simplification is no more than one cisgender male); I think this should be
a goal of every committee, with a specified tolerance for deviation from
absolute balance for the sake of flexibility, and to incorporate non-binary
identities while still achieving "balance" (so that an eight member
committee with a non-binary individual and three cisgender men could be
considered balanced, as well as one with a non-binary person and three
cisgender women, for example).

Thomas

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Marnie Glickman <marnie.glickman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Greetings from San Rafael. I’ve often dreamed of requiring gender parity
> on our committees.
>
> Marnie Glickman Curtis
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:22 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm ambivalent, as I've seen plenty of gamesmanship on committees, and
> qourums make it that more difficult--but committees that are non-functional
> for extended periods due to lack of quorum is a major liability as well,
> and can be a "game" all its own.
>
> I'm curious as to why simply reducing the size of committees to be more
> realistic considering resources available was not considered instead? Fear
> that quorum requirements would be even harder to meet, even with less
> people required in absolute terms?
>
> FYI, the way the GPUS Platcom handles this is dynamically setting quorum
> based on "active membership" (responses to quorum calls and posts to the
> mailing list). That prevents inactive members from impairing the committees
> ability to get things done, while imposing a minimal set of expectations
> for engagement, and letting people tune in and out as they feel able. Is
> there an obstacle within our bylaws to adopting an approach like this?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt
>
> On Feb 21, 2018 3:16 PM, "Nassim Nouri" <nassim1nouri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I strongly support this decision.
>>
>> We are all busy and it's understandable that committee members can’t make
>> every call, every month. However this fact shouldn't bring the critical
>> work of our organization to a halt.
>> The current quorum requirements have already proven unrealistic based on
>> the level of participation we have.
>>
>> Nassim Nouri
>> Green Party of Santa Clara County
>> Clearinghouse Committee Co-Coordinator
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:26 AM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> To address your concern, James, committees, WG, etc are all responsible
>> to the GA. When mundane b.s. can't be addressed month after month because
>> of chronic absences we have to be willing to recognize that a party is an
>> organization that exists to do work. This is a simple solution. Also in
>> this proposal is clarification for meetings that are regularly scheduled
>> don't require notice. This is because the problem has been noted as people
>> not being in meetings and having an unrealistic quorum that castrated the
>> committee.  Now there's no excuse.
>> I support this proposal.
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2018 9:27 AM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This proposal was brought forth by members of GPCA Members who actually
>>> sit on Committees. We need our Committees to be functional. Please vote
>>> yes.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:49 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For our many small committees even the current quorum of 50% +1 is
>>>> really problematic. Half of our committees can’t make quorum because there
>>>> are just not enough people serving on committees. Committees are generally
>>>> made up of 8 people and that forces us to make sure 5 show up to reach
>>>> quorum. This is too high a bar, and 4 is much more manageable.
>>>>
>>>> And bear in mind that if a committee makes poor decisions, those can be
>>>> overruled by the GA/SGA, so a 2/3rds supermajority is not needed for
>>>> specialized committees.
>>>>
>>>> We badly need this amendment so that we can get our committees properly
>>>> functioning again.
>>>>
>>>> Eric Brooks
>>>> SF, CA
>>>> GPCA Media Committee Co-Coordinator
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf
>>>> Of *james clark
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM
>>>> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment:
>>>> Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For
>>>> Standing Committees’ Voting Membership
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A quorum should be no less than 66.66% of voting members. Having a
>>>> smaller quorum leaves to much room for members to be excluded from
>>>> important votes and decisions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 12:45 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>> <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ranked Choice Vote ID #157
>>>>
>>>> Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and
>>>> Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership*
>>>>
>>>> Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura
>>>> Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
>>>>
>>>> Discussion  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
>>>>
>>>> Voting  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
>>>>
>>>> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Background*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This proposal has been brought forth because in recent years a number
>>>> of standing committees of the Green Party of California (GPCA) have been
>>>> unable to conduct any business for lengthy periods of time due to failure
>>>> to reach quorum.  This state of affairs has often impeded the GPCA
>>>> Coordinating Committee (CC) from fulfilling its own responsibilities per
>>>> GPCA Bylaw 8-1.7 (“Request and receive reports from Committees and Working
>>>> Groups, refer matters to them, and monitor and assist their work”).  GPCA
>>>> standing committees are capped, for gender balance, at an even number of
>>>> members, and currently establish quorum at a majority of voting members.
>>>> This proposed amendment would establish the minimum quorum at least 50% of
>>>> standing committees’ voting membership.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This proposal would also clarify an ambiguity in notice requirements
>>>> for calling meetings.  The language of GPCA Bylaw 9-3.1 is silent regarding
>>>> notice requirements for standing committees that establish regular meeting
>>>> schedules.  In practice, most if not all standing committees establish
>>>> regular meeting schedules for their work year.  The proposed language would
>>>> make explicit that two weeks’ notice is required for meetings that fall
>>>> outside a standing committee’s regular meeting schedule, should one be set.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Proposal*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That GPCA Bylaw Article 9-3 be amended as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That Article 9-3 be amended from its current text:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Section 9-3 Meetings
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on
>>>> teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives
>>>> outlined in its work plan. Meetings must be called with a minimum of two
>>>> weeks notice to committee members.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that
>>>> described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum is a majority of the
>>>> committee's voting membership.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To read as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Section 9-3 Meetings
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on
>>>> teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives
>>>> outlined in their work plans. Meetings outside any regular meeting schedule
>>>> shall be called with a minimum of two weeks notice to committee members.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that
>>>> described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum shall be at least 50%
>>>> of the committee's voting membership.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sponsors: The proposed amendment has been endorsed and sponsored by the
>>>> Green Party of Butte County and the Green Party of Yolo County.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s
>>>> ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>> <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Erik Rydberg *
>>>
>>> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
>>>
>>>
>>> *erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com>530-781-2903
>>> <(530)%20781-2903>*
>>>
>>>                 cagreens.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>
>>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>
>> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
>
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180222/f32a2951/attachment.html>