- gpca-votes - list.sfgreens.org

Fw: Discuss ID 173: PLATFORM AMENDMENT: Urb
by Randy Hicks 21 Aug '18

21 Aug '18

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Randy Hicks" <rhfactor_98(a)yahoo.com> To: "GPCA-SGA-Vote Discussion" <sga(a)cagreens.org> Cc: Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:06 AM Subject: Fw: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 173: PLATFORM AMENDMENT: Urb Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Randy Hicks" <rhfactor_98(a)yahoo.com> To: "GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion" <sga(a)lists.cagreens.org>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)hotmail.com>, "GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion" <sga(a)lists.cagreens.org> Cc: Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 173: PLATFORM AMENDMENT: Urban L Is this set to ADA compliance for all services including title 24 state county its not enough to have services but they must be compliant to the above statutes RandySacramento Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Eric Brooks<brookse32(a)hotmail.com> wrote:  Discuss ID 173: PLATFORM AMENDMENT: Urban Land Use plank revisions Please send your discussion comments to sga(a)lists.cagreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA Platform Amendment Proposal: Proposal ID 173 Proposal Platform Amendment: Urban Land Use Presenter Platform Committee Floor Manager Eric Brooks Phase Discussion Discussion 08/06/2018 - 09/16/2018 Voting 09/17/2018 - 09/23/2018 Result Presens Quorum __ 0.5001 Consens Quorum __ 0.6666 of Yes PLATFORM AMENDMENT: Rewrite Urban Land Use as “Land Use” BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our Land Use Plank is pretty good, but overemphasized urban planning. Land Use is policy that mediates all economic activity and should reflect that. Most of the planks on the specifics in urban design were combined under New Urbanism. A right to housing and concepts of housing justice were incorporated or strengthened. It was organized to be more coherent, as general principles, urban and rural principles, rather than a group of points. It expanded on rural areas and includes principles of permaculture design as overarching principles of organizing society on the land and makes explicit a program of transition to a post carbon geography. The existing plank is here: https://cagreens.org/platform/urban-land-use PROPOSAL: Proposal: Rename "Urban Land Use" as "Land Use" and address issues specific to both rural and urban land use patterns and how they interact. Make a right to land explicit. KV: GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY: democratize decision making; SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: provide for everyone's basic needs, creating equity in housing and access to public infrastructure; ECOLOGICAL WISDOM: address climate change, pollution and metabolic rift of capitalist markets which mediate production and consumption geographically; DECENTRALIZATION: implicit goal in financing and administration, provide for variation in how problems are addressed; COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE: rebuild vibrant economies that meet human and nonhuman needs based in a localized and equitable system of exchange; RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY: permit the growth of regional cultures through the organic development of regional economies built around the natural bounty of regional ecologies. Title: Land Use Justification: The way we build human habitats reflects our values and order our material lives through networks of production and consumption. Currently, our human habitats have been designed to be energy and resource intensive. Further, cities and rural areas have different needs and purposes and there exists (as described by, for example, Liebig and Marx) a metabolic rift in which cities extract resources and fertility from its periphery and do not return nutrients. Due to fossil energy depletion and climate change, we need to rapidly transition to a new way of organizing human settlements. 1. Develop general land use policies and fund projects that: a) Adhere broadly to the principles articulated in the Charter for the Congress of New Urbanism and the Transition Towns Movement (https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism & https://transitionnetwork.org/about-the-movement/what-is-transition/princip…) which incorporate pedestrian-scale design into human habitats. b) Mandate and fund energy efficiency in our building stock and implement the “passivhaus” principles as much as financially feasible in all new construction (http://www.passivehouse.com/02_informations/02_passive-house-requirements/0…) c) Implement democratic planning that emphasizes subsidiarity, encourages the evolution of bioregional cultures and identities, and prevents displacement of peoples and gentrification. d) Reduce, with the aim to eliminate, land speculation and the outsized influence of real estate developers in county and city bureaucracies. e) Invest in historically underserved and marginalized communities to build democratic economies primarily based in the local production and consumption of goods and services. f) Reduce the geographic distance between energy flows of production and consumption (metabolic rift), aiming for regional self-sufficiency in meeting basic needs (i.e. Housing, food, water) while developing bioregionally-appropriate agriculture, manufacturing and services sectors which produce income through trade. g) Halt and reverse urban sprawl, ensuring degraded ecosystems and agricultural lands are restored as urbanization withdraws. h) Declare land as a commons, to which all people have a right, and implement democratic structures to decentralize land management to the county, city or unincorporated village except for broad directives. i) Emphasize renewable resources, harvested sustainably,+ as the primary source of communal wealth, and leverage all investment into the restoration, maintenance and productive capacities of those ecosystems. j) Incorporate more rigorous coursework in regional ecology into compulsory schooling, deemphasizing Western scientism to open intellectual space for indigenous “ways of knowing,” and using service learning projects to restore habitat and instill a common, place-based identity. k) Implement a “zone” system for directing regional land use policy, providing a smooth and productive edge between human habitats and wild lands: 5) wild spaces for academic and spiritual learning, 4) extensive, low-impact use and harvesting of renewable resources, emphasizing ecosystem integrity, 3) broad acre productive systems more intensively managed 2) wildland-urban interface, intensive agroforestry and silvopasture systems, and highly managed recreational lands, 1) Intensive food production and social spaces and dwelling units. 2. Land use planning in rural areas will: a) Integrate concepts of urban land use in rural villages, towns and other clustered settlements. b) Implement bioregional plans for developing the ecological capacities for sustainably meeting basic needs and developing regionally-appropriate agricultural commodities and industries. c) Eliminate industrial extraction and pollution through limiting use of destructive technologies and developing alternative appropriate methods for harvesting renewable resources, such as timber, while maintaining overall ecosystem health. d) Provide rural communities access, financial resources and management authority over timberlands proximate to human use zones to develop local commodity production and provide for fuel reduction to protect from wildfire. e) Decentralize distribution and logistics infrastructure as appropriate and network these economic centers into the regional and continental economies. f) Collectivize and democratize commodity processing facilities (e.g. hulling, drying, packing) and distribution infrastructure, eliminating corporate hegemony over farmers and loggers. g) Develop decentralized electric and telecommunications capacities for rural communities to reduce O&M costs and provide for community autonomy. h) Redistribute most public lands to rural communities which will manage them, prioritizing indigenous land claims and opportunities to provide material reparations to marginalized and excluded communities. 3. Urban Land Use will transition away from the Robert Moses Model of segregationist and automobile-oriented urban sprawl toward the New Urbanist model by: a) Using the ecological footprint model, among others, to help communities assess the burden they place on their local, regional, and global ecologies and develop plans to rectify. b) Mandate higher-density mixed use communities and urban infill development, using land currently dedicated to parking, as well as redeveloping dilapidated building stock. c) Transition suburbs into nodal regional cities according to these principles, reclaiming sprawl for agroecological systems and habitat restoration. d) Collectivize and decentralize institutional control of all critical infrastructure to include electricity, water and telecommunication. e) Implement an emergency ecological restoration jobs program to depave the urban environment, restore degraded ecosystems, bioremediate brown sites, open space for urban agriculture, improve storm and waste water management and provide recreational spaces and animal habitats (Also see Water, Wildlife and Food and Fiber Systems planks). f) Require cities identify and develop programs for tenant farmer leases on underutilized lands, utility easements and other unused edges of the urban environment. g) Mandate and implement regional plans for managing liquid and solid wastes (Also see Water plank). h) Fund urban infrastructure using the Land Value Tax model, Proposition 13 reform and other means of shifting the burden from the landless to the landlord class. i) Declare housing a human right and principal function of government, mandate emergency and transitional housing for the homeless, and provide, in building codes, for owner-built housing if it remains owner-occupied. j) Protect and expand the amount of affordable housing and housing democracy through Land Trusts, limited equity housing, co-housing projects and tenant unions. == == == Please send your comments to sga(a)lists.cagreens.org _______________________________________________ SGA mailing list Reminder: Please do not "Reply All" or include other addresses in the CC line -- only use "Reply" SGA(a)lists.cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sga_lists.cagreens.org

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Vote on ID #164 is about being inclusive of non-binary Greens
by pkoteen 21 Jun '18

21 Jun '18

Oh boy, I'm actually getting my first SGA email. It is nice to know that my email issue has been resolved. . I wonder how much I've missed in the discussion of the proposals. June, however well intention this proposal 164 is, we really need our 6 week discussion.. The rest of us have not weighed in on the wording, and I certainly would like to hear from those who do not identify as male or female from birth on this issue. And not just one or two people but a variety of opinions. Thamk you for giving us your history of this. I will likely ote no because it is so disconcerting how number 164 has come about. Peggy Koteen Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: June Brashares <june.brashares(a)gmail.com> Date: 6/20/18 18:55 (GMT-08:00) To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Vote on ID #164 is about being inclusive of non-binary Greens For over a year, Greens whose gender identity does not fit the Male / Female binary framework have talked with me and other members of the Coordinating Committee (CC) about addressing the problem of how they are excluded from being candidates when there is an election that is limited to "Male" seats and "Female" seats for the CC. Approving the Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 will mean that we can conduct the CC election in an inclusive and fair manner. A lot has been done over many months that has established expectation for this. At CC meetings in March, April and May, the CC progressively developed and approved this bylaws interpretation and its method for conducting the election. In March, the announcement calling for candidates for the upcoming CC election included the intention to welcome non-binary candidates. The notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period on May 7th re-iterated the aim of the CC as it announced: ID #161 - Election: Coordinating Committee, 12 seats for the term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_coordinating_committee_12_se… The SGA vote administrators prepared the election in accordance to the notice and decisions of the CC. Unintended error and choice for going forward: Then there was an unintended error that this bylaws interpretation was not on the agenda to be voted on by the GA on June 9-10 as it should have been. The bylaws interpretation has been put to this SGA to be voted on June 18-24. Because of the timing, that isn’t consistent with our bylaws. However, the bylaws also state the CC election must be held June 18-24. Changing the CC election process now would create changes to the election timing which would not be consistent with our bylaws.At this point, which ever path we take it will be outside of the bylaws in some way. The GA / SGA is the highest decision-making entity of the Green Party of California. It is appropriate that you/SGA decide which path best reflects the spirit of the bylaws and our Green Party values. In voting yes or no on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 the SGA resolves this and determines which way we go. Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 is about justice for non-binary candidates to be included in our CC elections. As the May 7th notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period stated, “the CC has concluded that the decades-old Green Party of California bylaws were not intended to exclude any Greens who are non-binary.” A vote of NO would return us to the past process of having to conduct the CC election in a way which excludes candidates outside of the Male /Female binary and does not recognize the full spectrum of gender identity of our Green membership. A vote of YES on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 provides a mechanism for conducting this current CC election in an inclusionary way. June Brashares, member of the current CC, candidate for CC term 2018-2020, & Sonoma County SGA delegate

1 0

Vote on ID #164 is about being inclusive of non-binary Greens
by June Brashares 21 Jun '18

21 Jun '18

For over a year, Greens whose gender identity does not fit the Male / Female binary framework have talked with me and other members of the Coordinating Committee (CC) about addressing the problem of how they are excluded from being candidates when there is an election that is limited to "Male" seats and "Female" seats for the CC. Approving the Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> will mean that we can conduct the CC election in an inclusive and fair manner. A lot has been done over many months that has established expectation for this. At CC meetings in March, April and May, the CC progressively developed and approved this bylaws interpretation and its method for conducting the election. In March, the announcement calling for candidates for the upcoming CC election included the intention to welcome non-binary candidates. The notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period on May 7th re-iterated the aim of the CC as it announced: ID #161 - Election: Coordinating Committee, 12 seats for the term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder. com/sga_election_coordinating_committee_12_seats The SGA vote administrators prepared the election in accordance to the notice and decisions of the CC. *Unintended error and choice for going forward:* Then there was an unintended error that this bylaws interpretation was not on the agenda to be voted on by the GA on June 9-10 as it should have been. The bylaws interpretation has been put to this SGA to be voted on June 18-24. Because of the timing, that isn’t consistent with our bylaws. However, the bylaws also state the CC election must be held June 18-24. Changing the CC election process now would create changes to the election timing which would not be consistent with our bylaws. At this point, which ever path we take it will be outside of the bylaws in some way. The GA / SGA is the highest decision-making entity of the Green Party of California. It is appropriate that you/SGA decide which path best reflects the spirit of the bylaws and our Green Party values. In voting yes or no on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> the SGA resolves this and determines which way we go. Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> is about justice for non-binary candidates to be included in our CC elections. As the May 7th notice to the SGA at the start of the discussion period stated, “the CC has concluded that the decades-old Green Party of California bylaws were not intended to exclude any Greens who are non-binary.” A vote of NO would return us to the past process of having to conduct the CC election in a way which excludes candidates outside of the Male /Female binary and does not recognize the full spectrum of gender identity of our Green membership. A vote of YES on Bylaws Interpretation ID # 164 <http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_164_bylaws_interpretation_CC…> provides a mechanism for conducting this current CC election in an inclusionary way. June Brashares, member of the current CC, candidate for CC term 2018-2020, & Sonoma County SGA delegate

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] [gpca-forum] Fwd: FOR TOMORROW: Energy Committee: **AB 813 OPPOSE** - GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA
by 1 19 Jun '18

19 Jun '18

Sign the petition... https://secure.foodandwaterwatch.org/act/stop-the-dirty-energy-grid On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Wes Rolley via gpca-forum < gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org> wrote: > On 6/1/17, this bill passed in the assembly by a vote of 78 yes, 2 no. I > see no reason that CA Senate will be very much different. > > It seems to me that we need to make opposition much more public than we > have. No one cares about internal acts. State Senate only cares about their > chances for re-election. > > Any comments need to be aimed at tying this to Trump’s unpopular cabinet. > > Wes. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Eric Brooks via gpca-forum < > gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org> wrote: > > Yes. The GPCA opposed AB 813 last year and the CC came to consensus to > continue opposing it this year as well. > > The key with this bill is that every expert that we have consulted has > told us that if AB 813 became law, no matter how well it is worded, Trump’s > Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would be able to legally > override **any** and **all** provisions in the bill. > > Once we give up our state control of our state grid, no clause in AB 813 > will be enforceable. > > Eric Brooks > > SF, CA > > > > > gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org > > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-forum mailing list > Reminder: Please do not "Reply All" or include other addresses in the CC > line -- only use "Reply" > > gpca-forum(a)lists.cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org > >

1 0

Test. GPCA-SGA-Votes]
by pkoteen 17 Jun '18

17 Jun '18

Just a test Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

1 0

Fwd: GP 6/5 Results ?
by 1 07 Jun '18

07 Jun '18

*22 California Greens ran in the June 5th, 2018 elections...* In detail... HOW DID ALL the CANDIDATES DO? Thanks, James Young SGA O.C. & MCM CA GP

1 0

Register for San Joaquin GA, price increases Monday 6/4
by Tarik Kanaana 31 May '18

31 May '18

*Register now for the San Joaquin General Assembly at https://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/reg_ga_jun2018 <https://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/reg_ga_jun2018>Registration is $50 through midnight, Sunday June 3rd and will increase to $65 on monday June 4th.*

1 0

SGA election May 7 to June 24 - SAVE THIS EMAIL
by GPCA Votes 28 May '18

28 May '18

Hello Standing General Assembly Delegate, The Green Party of California is holding our annual Standing General Assembly election for the Coordinating Committee and the delegation to the Green Party of the United States. Please keep this email message handy, and make note of the informational webpages. The SGA election begins on Monday, May 7, with a six-week discussion period. A one-week voting period follows, beginning on Monday, June 18 and ending on Sunday, June 24. Note that the General Assembly will happen in Stockton (San Joaquin County) on the weekend of June 9-10, about a week before the voting period starts. There are three ranked choice votes. Here are links to the long lists of candidates. ID #161 - Election: Coordinating Committee, 12 seats for the term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_coordinating_committee_12_se… ID #162 - Election: GPUS Delegation, 12 delegates, term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_gpus_delegation_12_delegates ID #163 - Election: GPUS Delegation, 13 alternates, term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_gpus_delegation_13_alternates The six-week discussion starts today on the SGA email list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org. Thank you for your participation in the Standing General Assembly. SGA Vote Administrators Victoria Ashley, Solano County Brian Good, Santa Clara County Laura Wells, Alameda County SGA Alternate Vote Administrator Eric Brooks, San Francisco County

3 3

SGA election May 7 to June 24 - SAVE THIS EMAIL
by GPCA Votes 07 May '18

07 May '18

Hello Standing General Assembly Delegate, The Green Party of California is holding our annual Standing General Assembly election for the Coordinating Committee and the delegation to the Green Party of the United States. Please keep this email message handy, and make note of the informational webpages. The SGA election begins on Monday, May 7, with a six-week discussion period. A one-week voting period follows, beginning on Monday, June 18 and ending on Sunday, June 24. Note that the General Assembly will happen in Stockton (San Joaquin County) on the weekend of June 9-10, about a week before the voting period starts. There are three ranked choice votes. Here are links to the long lists of candidates. ID #161 - Election: Coordinating Committee, 12 seats for the term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_coordinating_ committee_12_seats ID #162 - Election: GPUS Delegation, 12 delegates, term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_gpus_delegation_12_delegates ID #163 - Election: GPUS Delegation, 13 alternates, term July 2018 - June 2020 (secret ballot) http://cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_election_gpus_delegation_13_alternates The six-week discussion starts today on the SGA email list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org. Thank you for your participation in the Standing General Assembly. SGA Vote Administrators Victoria Ashley, Solano County Brian Good, Santa Clara County Laura Wells, Alameda County SGA Alternate Vote Administrator Eric Brooks, San Francisco County

1 0

Official Vote Results of March 2018 GPCA Standing General Assembly Election
by GPCA Votes 27 Apr '18

27 Apr '18

Hello Standing General Assembly delegates, In a strong voter turnout, 100 out of 116 SGA delegates voted in the election that ended at 11:59 PM on April 1, 2018. This will provide you with a summary of the vote results. To view the results online in a format through which you can explore details of the vote, go to: https://www.opavote.com/results/5739660466716672 SUMMARY OF OFFICIAL VOTE RESULTS See detailed list further below. The Coordinating Committee vacancy was filled by Josh Jones. The three vacancies for alternate seats on the GP-US delegation, in order of ranking, were Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Timeka Drew, and Jesse Townley. The General Assembly minutes from June 2017 were approved. The Ballot Measures were endorsed except for a result of “Oppose” for ID 141, Proposition 70, regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund. The GPCA endorsements are in alignment with recommendations that will be in the Voter Guide produced by Alameda County for the June 2018 primary election. The approval of both Bylaws Interpretations enabled the SGA to vote for the GP-US vacancies (as reported above), and for endorsements of ballot-qualified Green statewide candidates. Also passed was the Endorsement Policy Amendment (ID 155) that enabled us to endorse non-Green statewide candidates who qualify to be on the California ballot, including Peace and Freedom, and No Party Preference candidates, in races where there were no ballot-qualified Green candidates. With three exceptions, all candidates were endorsed. The three exceptions were “No Position” for Governor candidate Chris Carlson, and for both Secretary of State candidates Michael Feinstein and Erik Rydberg. Bylaws Interpretations and Bylaws Amendments were approved, with the required two-thirds majority, with two exceptions, ID 159 and ID 160. Thank you for participating as a Standing General Assembly delegate for the Green Party of California. Best regards, Green Party of California Standing General Assembly Vote Administrators Laura Wells, Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, and Eric Brooks *1) GPCA Elections* (3 items) http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_gpca_elections ID 136 RCV Election: Coordinating Committee, male vacancy, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019, ELECTED: Josh Jones ID 137 RCV Election: GPUS Delegation, vacancy, three alternates, remainder of July 2017 - June 2019, ELECTED: Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Timeka Drew, Jesse Townley ID 138 Approval: Minutes, General Assembly, June 17-18, 2017, PASSED *2) Ballot Measures *(5 items) http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_ballot_measures ID 139 RCV: GPCA position on Prop 68: California Drought ... and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, ENDORSE ID 140 RCV: GPCA position on Prop 69: Motor vehicle fees and taxes: … appropriations limit, ENDORSE ID 141 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA position on Prop 70: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund, OPPOSE ID 142 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA position on Prop 71: Ballot measures: effective date, ENDORSE ID 143 RCV: GPCA position on Prop 72: Property tax: new construction exclusion: rain water capture, ENDORSE *3) Statewide Races* (9 items) http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races ID 144 RCV: US Senate John Parker (Peace & Freedom Party), ENDORSE ID 145(a) RCV: Governor Chris Carlson (Green Party), NO POSITION ID 145(b) RCV: Governor Josh Jones (Green Party), ENDORSE ID 146 RCV: Lt. Governor Gayle McLaughlin (No Party Preference), ENDORSE ID 147(a) RCV: Secretary of State Mike Feinstein (Green Party), NO POSITION ID 147(b) RCV: Secretary of State Erik Rydberg (Green Party), NO POSITION ID 148 RCV: Controller Mary Lou Finley (Peace and Freedom), ENDORSE ID 149 RCV: Treasurer Kevin Akin (Peace and Freedom), ENDORSE ID 151 RCV: Insurance Commissioner Nathalie Hrizi (Peace and Freedom), ENDORSE *4) Bylaws Interpretations and Bylaws Amendments* (8 items) http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations ID 153 Bylaws Interpretation: Election of GPUS Delegation Alternate seats, PASSED ID 154 Bylaws Interpretation regarding GPCA Endorsements of candidates in statewide races in June 2018 Primary Election, PASSED ID 155 Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for Primary and General Election Candidates, PASSED ID 156 Bylaws Amendment: Procedures for Recall, PASSED ID 157 Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership, PASSED ID 158 Bylaws Amendment: Changing References to Standing Green Assembly to Standing General Assembly, PASSED ID 159 Bylaws Amendment: Elections Eligibility and Timing for Coordinating Committee, DID NOT PASS ID 160 Bylaws Amendment: Elections Timing/Eligibility/Venue for GPUS Delegation, DID NOT PASS

5 5