More of Mike Feinstein's emails that are not being sent through to this list, despite being sent hours ago Linda

*From:*Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein@feinstein.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* *Date:*March 30, 2018 at 10:17:02 AM PDT *To:*GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>

There is no reason to require less than a majority of committee members in place to conduct committee business, especially since on-line votes are available for ALL committee members to participate in a decision, including those who may not be able to make a particular teleconference.

Again, this is a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate power in fewer and few hands.

I am really disappointed we keep seeing so many rule changes mean to reward infighting, and so little actual electoral strategy in the party.

...

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

This is NOT true. The CC has not had a quorum issue.

...

(“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,

This is yet another case where the sponsors don’t know what they are talking about. GPCA standing committees are NOT capped to promote gender balance. Only the CC has a gender balance requirement. All other committees do not.

...

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 is just a move for the other committees to have a lower participation threshold, to make it easier for a smaller number of people to push things through when others aren’t on a particular teleconference.

...

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.

If people think establishing regular meeting schedules is appropriate, THAT is what should have been submitted here, not this rule change.

For all these reasons, I am voting no

Mike Feinstein SGA Delegate, GPLAC

...

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