Hi Delegates, Here are my concerns/suggested ammendments regarding the proposals. Also, please note my endorsements (linked from my sig). Consent Items - fine LA Rep (p.13) - 1) Yes, their election was valid under their current (flawed) bylaws, and their 3 elected reps should be seated. 2) Yes, see my recommendations regarding LA (linked from my sig) 3) Decertify LA county and region, and not re-certify them until they've reorganized into something decentralized and democratic (as in #2) Finance (p.15) - Abandon efforts. Delegates should also be aware that the co-chairs of Finance recently proposed spending up to $15000 on an independent audit of the Treasurer's Office in response to some baseless mouthing- off by John Morton. I asked that both (Craig Peterson and Jo Chamberlain) step down for making this proposal, which was both unprofessional and fiscally irresponsible. Finance (p.19) - no concerns Voting Threshold (p.22) - I favor high thresholds (75/80%) for policy decisions, but those who want to make everything 2/3 have a good point (would cause fewer fights over what's policy). Internal Democracy and Ethics - no concerns GDI #1 (p. 27) - I would accept this if the presenters accept a friendly ammendment to apply the same principles within California (substituting "county" for "state" and "GPCA" for "GPUS"). By these standards, SF is currently under- represented on the GPCA CC, and not represented on any other GPCA leadership body (such as the Finance or Bylaws Committees). It would be hypocritical for us to hold the GPUS to standards the GPCA doesn't live up to. GDI #2 (p. 29) - Friendly ammendment: each candidate submits an ordered list of approved delegates at the time they submit their name to be on our primary ballot. Delegates are chosen to go to the National Nominating Convention in order from the candidates' lists, according to the percentages each receives in the primary. Delegates who can't go are replaced by those lower down the list, in order. If the candidate doesn't submit enough delegates, or the list runs out, the GPCA CC will appoint the candidate's remaining delegates WITHOUT input from the candidate (but presumably from among the candidate's supporters). If this FA is not accepted, I would definitely block this proposal: post-election vetting of the delegates by the candidate would allow a candidate to subvert the will of their own voters. GDI #3 - I have concerns that this would set a bad precedent for locals, and would need to be overturned in very rare cases at the state level (i.e. an endorsement against a Green in Name Only candidate). Suggest a Friendly Ammendment that it apply ONLY at the national level (i.e., for presidential candidates), and that we be prohibited from endorsing any non-Green candidate. I also have concerns about the language "in any way assist" since, for example, the GPCA's media press releases mentioning any legislator (e.g., Sheila Kuehl) could be interpreted as assisting that candidate in their next race. Fair Wage - No concerns as long as the funds for this are raised specifically for that purpose. Union Platform - remove A.14, C.3 as fiscally nutty. Concerns about costs of implementing D.2. Health Care Platform - no concerns JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) My GPCA Endorsements (May 2005): http://sfgreens.org/jmc/