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

[Erik]

I believe only the proposers can accept the amendment. Which in this case
would be GP Yolo County correct?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:53 PM Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Eric,
> I support the amendment to make the two Green Party spokespersons voting
> members of the Media Committee.
>
> Nassim Nouri
> County Council
> Green Party of Santa Clara County
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2018, at 6:52 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Proposed Amendment to Item 157 – Resetting Quorum and Noticing for
> Committees.
>
> Hi all, and to the proposers of Item 157,
>
> I have a proposed amendment to solve a particular technical problem we
> have specifically for the Media Committee.
>
> Currently the Bylaws state that our two GPCA spokespersons can be ex
> officio members of the Media Committee, but cannot count toward quorum and
> vote on the committee. This has effectively made it impossible for the
> Media Committee to reach quorum.
>
> Since the Media Committee has been active, and as long as I have been on
> it, it has always made decisions by full consensus – and two votes out of a
> quorum of four does not allow the spokespersons to carry any potential vote
> by themselves. And regardless the GA/SGA can always override any committee
> if it ever does make mistakes or show any bias.
>
> So I am asking the proposers to amend this proposal to:
>
> Make the two Green Party spokespersons voting members of the Media
> Committee.
>
> thanks
>
> Eric Brooks
> SF, CA
> Media Committee
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org
> <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:45 PM
> *To:* gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify
> Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing
> Committees’ Voting Membership
>
> *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/sga_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*

                cagreens.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180222/dc52b46e/attachment.html>