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@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of james clark Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@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@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

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@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@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@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *james clark *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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@gmail.com> wrote:

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@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@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*

*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*

cagreens.org

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

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@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@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@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@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@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *james clark *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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@gmail.com> wrote:

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@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@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*

*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*

cagreens.org

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

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@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@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@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@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@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@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@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *james clark *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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@gmail.com> wrote:

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@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@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*

*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*

cagreens.org

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Understandable, although I don't see how this qualifies as significantly more complex. The only difference is that you have to determine the numerical basis for a quorum monthly (or over whatever period you desire, it could be quarterly, I suppose) via a "quorum call", which is pretty trivial in practice. It actually makes things much more flexible: If only 5 people respond, then your quorum could be defined as 50% (3, rounding up) +1 under the current formula, and get you to the same target as the proposal (4 members), or just 3 members (50% rounded up), and offer greater flexibility than the current proposal. The potential for abuse of smaller quorum thresholds would be mitigated by the target is derived from a count of members who have actively indicated that they are engaged. As a side effect, it would strongly encourage active participation by all appointees by making absenteeism not an effective blocking tactic. That said, the benefits are much greater when you're dealing with 20-30 person committees who could easily have a dozen inactive members in any month, where fixed quorums based on total "book" membership would lead to complete paralysis. Is the margin of inactivity so narrow that a simple change from 5 to 4 members for quorum (which I read as the effect of this request in most cases) would result in significant benefits? Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

I’d be fine with us adopting a more complex approach in the future, but we do need a quick simple change now so that we can get the committees functioning immediately. The reason we didn’t go for a member reduction is that different committees have different numbers of members, and different numbers of voting members.

Eric Brooks

SF, CA Media Committee

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 5:23 PM

*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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

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@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@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@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@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@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *james clark *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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@gmail.com> wrote:

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@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@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*

*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*

cagreens.org

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

We could address that by simply stating that if you don't respond to the quorum call, you can participate, but you can't vote. That seems fair, especially if the process and expectation is well established, and the window is reasonably extended (PlatCom's is usually 5 days, and the co-chairs are pretty flexible in their interpretation of participation, so they will include people who post to the list during and immediately before the specified period, even if they don't respond to the quorum call directly). No great objection to the proposal as it stands, it seems clear that something needs to be done, and hopefully the change makes a significant impact on the ability of committees to act. Hopefully that, in turn, leads to greater participation, and makes meeting quorum less of an issue eventually. As I said, PlatCom's approach is far more beneficial for larger committees (and they're less susceptible to "gaming"); my intent here is to simply make people aware of the idea of a dynamically established quorum mechanism, in case a more relevant application shows up, as much as it is to persuade people that it could be of use even in a smaller committee. I'm not really arguing for this as an amendment to the proposal at hand, that would be rather unrealistic, I'd say. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

To your question, yes. In the committee meetings I attend we often get 4 people and we often do not get to 5.

I really want us to keep this simple.

I can imagine scenarios in which your more complex proposal could be gamed by people who sit out two meetings, trigger quorum to be lowered and then would show up anyway and dominate the votes.

Eric Brooks

SF, CA

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:55 AM

*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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

Understandable, although I don't see how this qualifies as significantly more complex. The only difference is that you have to determine the numerical basis for a quorum monthly (or over whatever period you desire, it could be quarterly, I suppose) via a "quorum call", which is pretty trivial in practice. It actually makes things much more flexible:

If only 5 people respond, then your quorum could be defined as 50% (3, rounding up) +1 under the current formula, and get you to the same target as the proposal (4 members), or just 3 members (50% rounded up), and offer greater flexibility than the current proposal. The potential for abuse of smaller quorum thresholds would be mitigated by the target is derived from a count of members who have actively indicated that they are engaged. As a side effect, it would strongly encourage active participation by all appointees by making absenteeism not an effective blocking tactic.

That said, the benefits are much greater when you're dealing with 20-30 person committees who could easily have a dozen inactive members in any month, where fixed quorums based on total "book" membership would lead to complete paralysis.

Is the margin of inactivity so narrow that a simple change from 5 to 4 members for quorum (which I read as the effect of this request in most cases) would result in significant benefits?

Regards,

Thomas Leavitt

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

I’d be fine with us adopting a more complex approach in the future, but we do need a quick simple change now so that we can get the committees functioning immediately. The reason we didn’t go for a member reduction is that different committees have different numbers of members, and different numbers of voting members.

Eric Brooks

SF, CA Media Committee

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 5:23 PM

*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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

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@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@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@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@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@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *james clark *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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@gmail.com> wrote:

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@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@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*

*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*

cagreens.org

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

There are few volunteers stepping forward to do that work. Wishing that there were, doesn’t solve our quorum problem. Eric Brooks Media Committee From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Ajay Rai Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 9:49 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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 Isn't the point of being a member of a committee is to do the work of the committee? If some member does not have the time or the inclination to at least attend meetings, they should either resign, be removed or replaced? This proposal further weakens the committees by lower expectation of who can be members of committees. I think we should strengthen committee by adding members who are willing to do the work rather weaken it by reducing quorum count. Ajay ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:26:08 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes 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 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@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@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@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@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@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of james clark Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@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@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjcgreens.org%2Fsga_vote_bylaw_interpretations&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=DbCkmGHdXYOZkK4HgADUsXABWZOVwI46BL9%2FHWal7Fw%3D&reserved=0> Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0> -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=OxqnTzREuTbahlZAC%2FOfArFUJP%2B3LtVq2qtBIutV1nc%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0>

Recruiting new volunteers takes time. We need the committees to be functional immediately. There is no reason we can’t fix the current problem and also work on getting more volunteers at the same time. The GPCA has a *lot* of committees. Requiring all of them to have such a high quorum is holding us back. Eric Brooks Media Committee From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Ajay Rai Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 1:07 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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 Then the thing to do is to see why people are not volunteering when there is so much enthusiasm and fix that issue, not apply band -aid.. Ajay ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:51:28 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes 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 There are few volunteers stepping forward to do that work. Wishing that there were, doesn’t solve our quorum problem. Eric Brooks Media Committee From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Ajay Rai Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 9:49 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@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 Isn't the point of being a member of a committee is to do the work of the committee? If some member does not have the time or the inclination to at least attend meetings, they should either resign, be removed or replaced? This proposal further weakens the committees by lower expectation of who can be members of committees. I think we should strengthen committee by adding members who are willing to do the work rather weaken it by reducing quorum count. Ajay ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:26:08 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes 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 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@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@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@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@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@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of james clark Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@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@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjcgreens.org%2Fsga_vote_bylaw_interpretations&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=DbCkmGHdXYOZkK4HgADUsXABWZOVwI46BL9%2FHWal7Fw%3D&reserved=0> Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0> -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=OxqnTzREuTbahlZAC%2FOfArFUJP%2B3LtVq2qtBIutV1nc%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0>

No work can be accomplished if action can not be taken because of people not attending meetings. We need this change so we can move forward as a party. Seems pretty simple. On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:17 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:

To current quorum size is also intended to promote fairness. Lowering the quorum enables committees to potentially exclude members in an attempt to move forward on issues some members may have objections to. I know there have been such issues in the past, and that some people are currently on strike, though I'm not 100% sure of the exact details of the strike.

On Feb 28, 2018 7:47 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Recruiting new volunteers takes time. We need the committees to be functional immediately.

There is no reason we can’t fix the current problem and also work on getting more volunteers at the same time.

The GPCA has a **lot** of committees. Requiring all of them to have such a high quorum is holding us back.

Eric Brooks Media Committee

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Ajay Rai *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2018 1:07 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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

Then the thing to do is to see why people are not volunteering when there is so much enthusiasm and fix that issue, not apply band -aid..

Ajay ------------------------------

*From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 23, 2018 7:51:28 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *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

There are few volunteers stepping forward to do that work. Wishing that there were, doesn’t solve our quorum problem.

Eric Brooks Media Committee

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ajay Rai *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 9:49 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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

Isn't the point of being a member of a committee is to do the work of the committee? If some member does not have the time or the inclination to at least attend meetings, they should either resign, be removed or replaced?

This proposal further weakens the committees by lower expectation of who can be members of committees. I think we should strengthen committee by adding members who are willing to do the work rather weaken it by reducing quorum count.

Ajay ------------------------------

*From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:26:08 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *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

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@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@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@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *james clark *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:10 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@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@gmail.com> wrote:

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@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 <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjcgreens.org%2Fsga_vote_bylaw_interpretations&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=DbCkmGHdXYOZkK4HgADUsXABWZOVwI46BL9%2FHWal7Fw%3D&reserved=0>

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0>

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0>

--

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*

*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*

cagreens.org <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=OxqnTzREuTbahlZAC%2FOfArFUJP%2B3LtVq2qtBIutV1nc%3D&reserved=0>

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d191a6173b4e351bc108d579755491%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548467197857311&sdata=4i3Il61p9mkTWuTk1W4E0tuWxDQNvDa3SsDQWu7CZ2Y%3D&reserved=0>

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- Anthony J. Krzywicki, *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council* www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. * -Dali Lama