[gpva-ic] [gpva-discuss] [gpva-business] Bylaw amendment proposal: voting on major decisions

Fri Dec 2 12:09:15 EST 2016

Andrew,

As I have already pointed out, GPVA  Bylaws preclude packing of business meetings by requiring all voting members to be vetted by their locals or otherwise be registered with party for a full year. So that issue is a red herring.

Denying  Greens a right  to vote absent a compelling  reason to do so violates the principal of grassroots democracy, which is a Green Party core value.

I fail to see the connection between Democrats failure to turn out in the recent election and the situation hand except that failure to vote for any reason is bad for democracy.

This proposal is going to deny you your right to vote. That's not good for you and it's not good for GPVA.

Audrey

________________________________
From: Andrew Franke <frankeajs at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 11:39 AM
To: Audrey Clement
Cc: GPVA Interim Committee Listserve; GPVA Discuss; Sid Smith
Subject: Re: [gpva-discuss] [gpva-business] Bylaw amendment proposal: voting on major decisions

Good Day Sid
 I am sorry but I will have to agree with Sid here. Regardless of how much money support the party gives a local those locals are a part of the party. If I for example did a superior job of organizing 5O people here in Rockingham County then they all came with me as an organized effort to push a single agenda in our area we would be able I would dare say sway the vote. Regardless of what people think the support given is, the fact is even within the GPVA people in different parts of the state have different priorities. Those groups are represented by Locals. Each area getting a fair vote. I have Been a part of an organization that did nit have safeguards in place and lost most of it's membership when a large partisan group showed up to a meeting and took control and never ceded it.

I recognize the need for members to feel included and that they count. An open floor policy can aid in this as well. I also think we can accomplish this by including members in the news and information that the GPVA is considering and seeing on an opt in newsletter of weekly updates.

Guaranteeing someone the right to vote does not increase participation as we have seen in our last Presidential election much to the consternation of Democrats. who are ripping their clothing and wailing and moaning but failed to get out and vote.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Audrey Clement via gpva-discuss <gpva-discuss at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-discuss at vagreenparty.org>> wrote:

Sid,

I'm glad to you've dropped your concern about packed meetings as a justification for eliminating individual voting rights in GPVA. You evidently recognize there is no legitimate basis for such a concern under the current Bylaws.

You maintain, however, that inasmuch GPVA is a federation of locals, the unit of representation should be the local rather than the member. Thus individual voting rights must be eliminated.

GPVA is not a federation in any meaningful way. While it recognizes locals, it does not charter those locals and exerts no control over their operations, other than extracting a pledge that they will adhere to Green values. It also provides them no resources other than a listserv, a website, a bank account and a post office box, the maintenance of which entails the expenditure of negligible state party funds. So it cannot be argued that one local could be deprived of resources another local should have absent local representation.

GPVA is at most a confederation of loosely affiliated locals. The question is whether the confederation needs to eliminate individual voting rights in order to achieve adequate local representation at state party meetings. I don't think so. There is another means to that end, and that is for the locals to encourage members to attend.

The proposal before us would discourage attendance at state party meetings, since without a right to vote on important business, individuals members would have no incentive to attend.

Indeed that is the real intent of this proposal--to discourage rather than encourage individual participation--so that an insular and autocratic cadre of leaders can more easily control the state party.

Audrey

________________________________
From: gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org> <gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org>> on behalf of Sid Smith via gpva-business <gpva-business at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-business at vagreenparty.org>>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 11:42 PM
To: GPVA Interim Committee Listserve; GPVA Business; GPVA Discuss
Subject: Re: [gpva-business] [gpva-discuss] Bylaw amendment proposal: voting on major decisions

At present, because any party member can vote on major decisions, the
degree to which a local's interests or views are represented at in-person
business meetings depends on how many people they can get to undertake the
journey--often hours long and involving an overnight stay--to wherever the
meetings are being held. It is our sense that locals should feel confident
that their voice is equal to all others regardless of where the meeting is
held and regardless of their ability to mount a large presence there. In a
federation (which the state party is) that is what constitutes
"democratic", which is just another way of saying "fair" in this context.

The proposal would establish a democratic procedure through representation,
which is indeed how all federal systems work, for reasons too obvious to
need listing.

I want to reiterate that I would be pleased to have everyone share their
thoughts on this matter.

Thanks,

Sid

********************
B. Sidney Smith
GPVA, Co-chair

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Audrey Clement <aclement65 at hotmail.com<mailto:aclement65 at hotmail.com>>
wrote:

> Sid,
>
>
> Thanks for emphasizing the fact that adoption of your proposed amendment
> will result in the elimination of the voting rights of individual Green
> Party members on all substantive matters. It will in effect reduce the GPVA
> members to the status of peons.
>
>
> If this is your idea of democratic governance, I honestly do not see how
> it differs from that of the major parties.
>
>
> If this is your idea of how to grow the party, I am equally skeptical.
> Without a right to vote, what is point of participating in party affairs or
> attending state party meetings?
>
>
> This amendment is like telling a 19th century woman that her husband
> represents her interests. It is an insult to the party and a travesty when
> you consider that Jill Stein is out there in the trenches right now
> fighting for an individual's right to vote and have it be counted.
>
>
> Audrey
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* gpva-discuss-bounces at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-discuss-bounces at vagreenparty.org> <gpva-discuss-bounces@
> vagreenparty.org<http://vagreenparty.org>> on behalf of Sid Smith via gpva-discuss <
> gpva-discuss at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-discuss at vagreenparty.org>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 1, 2016 10:17 PM
> *To:* GPVA Discuss; GPVA Interim Committee Listserve
> *Subject:* Re: [gpva-discuss] [gpva-business] Bylaw amendment proposal:
> voting on major decisions
>
> Thank you Audrey for pointing out the inconsistency with Para. 7.4.
> Consequently, as part of the proposed change, we will include the following
> new language for Para7.4.1 (change in bold):
>
> 7.4.1 Each GPVA member, who is registered with the state party for at
> least one year or is designated to party officers by his/her Local
> Representative or Alternate as a member in good standing of the Local, is
> entitled to vote on *minor decisions* presented at business meetings.
>
> Sid
>
> ********************
> B. Sidney Smith
> GPVA, Co-chair
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Audrey Clement <aclement65 at hotmail.com<mailto:aclement65 at hotmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear GPVA Members,
>>
>>
>> I oppose as both unnecessary and undemocratic the proposed Platform
>> amendment offered by GPVA co-chairs to restrict voting membership in GPVA
>> to party officers and local representatives.
>>
>>
>> What is proposed here is a return to the status quo ante prior to
>> October, 2010, when then co-chairs Tom Yager and I advanced the current
>> rule, which allows all duly vetted GPVA members to vote at state party
>> meetings.
>>
>>
>> As indicated by the minutes of the 10/9/2010 GPVA meeting, the proposal
>> offered by Tom and me was adopted on a vote of 6-0-2 with no objections and
>> 2 abstentions.
>>
>>
>> http://www.vagreenparty.org/minutes/mt2010-10-09.html
The Green Party of Virginia - Minutes 2010-10-09<http://www.vagreenparty.org/minutes/mt2010-10-09.html>
www.vagreenparty.org<http://www.vagreenparty.org>
I. Quorum Established, Agenda Approved Quorum was maintained throughout the meeting. Present were: Candidates Kevin Chisholm and Miriam Gennari (morning only)

>>
>> There was clearly consensus on the need for more democracy in the party
>> then. Despite the current co-chairs' claim that members are concerned
>> about packed meetings, the minutes of all subsequent meetings indicate that
>> no packing has occurred.
>>
>>
>> The rationale supplied by Tom and me in support of the existing rule
>> explains why there has been no abuse that would necessitate eliminating the
>> right of members to vote at state party meetings:
>>
>>
>> "*RATIONALE:*  The current Bylaws that restrict voting to Local
>> Representatives in cases when consensus cannot be reached have never been
>> enforced.  The original rationale for the restrictions was based in
>> concerns about infiltration by individuals with values incompatible with
>> GPVA’s.  The newly proposed Section VIII.E [now  Section 10.3.1] allows
>> more of the membership to vote while maintaining safeguards."
>>
>>
>> The rationale cited above refers to the current Section 7.4, which
>> restricts voting membership to those who have either been vetted by their
>> local or have been members of the party for at least a year:
>>
>> "7.4 Voting Rights
>> "7.4.1 Each GPVA member, who is registered with the state party for at
>> least one year or is designated to party officers by his/her Local
>> Representative or Alternate as a member in good standing of the Local, is
>> entitled to vote on proposals presented at business meetings.
>> "7.4.2 At Large members who wish to exercise voting rights within the
>> first year of joining the party shall be vetted by one of the Co-Chairs."
>>
>> Given that no packing of party meetings has occurred since adoption of
>> the current voting rule, it is evident that Section 7.4 has operated to
>> insure the integrity of the party's voting process. Vague concerns about
>> the possibility of packing do not suffice to warrant a return to
>> an undemocratic status quo.
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, even if an argument can be made that more safeguards are
>> necessary, the language of this proposed amendment is deficient insofar as
>> it does not strike contradictory language in Section 7.4.
>>
>>
>> Audrey Clement
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org> <
>> gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-business-bounces at vagreenparty.org>> on behalf of B. Sidney Smith via
>> gpva-business <gpva-business at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-business at vagreenparty.org>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 2:22 PM
>> *To:* GPVA Business; GPVA Discuss; GPVA Interim Committee Listserve
>> *Subject:* Re: [gpva-business] Bylaw amendment proposal: voting on major
>> decisions
>>
>> Sorry, promised to highlight the change in bold, then didn't. Here it is
>> again:
>>
>> CURRENT LANGUAGE
>>
>> 10.3.1 Major decisions shall be made by consensus of those GPVA members
>> present, or if consensus cannot be achieved, a vote of three-fifths voting
>> members present, unless the Bylaws specify a different approval threshold
>> for the decision at hand.
>>
>> PROPOSED LANGUAGE (change in bold)
>>
>> 10.3.1 Major decisions shall be made by consensus of those GPVA members
>> present or, if consensus cannot be achieved, a vote of three-fifths of
>> voting members present, unless the Bylaws specify a different approval
>> threshold for the decision at hand. *Voting members are the co-chairs,
>> treasurer, press secretary, web-master, and one representative from each
>> local present, except that no person shall have more than one vote. If
>> at-large members are present they will be polled individually on the
>> question and their majority opinion, if any, will count as one vote.*

>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2016 2:17 PM, Sid Smith wrote:
>>
>> Dear Greens,
>>
>> I and many others have felt some concern about our voting procedures at
>> state meetings. It has been the common practice that everyone present votes
>> on any matter for which there isn't consensus. This practice places the
>> party at risk of "packed meetings," where a group could ensure passage or
>> defeat of a major decision item by bringing extra people to the meeting.
>> Even where this does not occur, it is undemocratic in a federal system (the
>> state party is a federation of its locals) to not ensure that all locals
>> are given an equal voice relative to one another.
>>
>> Consequently, Tamar and I have hammered out an amendment to the relevant
>> paragraph on major decisions. On minor decisions (where to have the next
>> meeting, etc.) the current practice would remain in place. See Para. 8 of
>> the bylaws for what constitutes a major decision; in general, it's anything
>> important.
>>
>> CURRENT LANGUAGE
>>
>> 10.3.1 Major decisions shall be made by consensus of those GPVA members
>> present, or if consensus cannot be achieved, a vote of three-fifths voting
>> members present, unless the Bylaws specify a different approval threshold
>> for the decision at hand.
>>
>> PROPOSED LANGUAGE (change in bold)
>>
>> 10.3.1 Major decisions shall be made by consensus of those GPVA members
>> present or, if consensus cannot be achieved, a vote of three-fifths of
>> voting members present, unless the Bylaws specify a different approval
>> threshold for the decision at hand. Voting members are the co-chairs,
>> treasurer, press secretary, web-master, and one representative from each
>> local present, except that no person shall have more than one vote. If
>> at-large members are present they will be polled individually on the
>> question and their majority opinion, if any, will count as one vote.
>>
>> If anyone would like to comment or propose edits please feel free. We
>> will bring this proposal to the next business meeting for a vote.
>>
>> Sid
>>
>> ********************
>> B. Sidney Smith
>> GPVA, Co-chair
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
gpva-business mailing list
gpva-business at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-business at vagreenparty.org>
http://www.vagreenparty.org/mailman/listinfo/gpva-business to change settings or unsubscribe.

_______________________________________________
gpva-discuss mailing list
gpva-discuss at vagreenparty.org<mailto:gpva-discuss at vagreenparty.org>
http://www.vagreenparty.org/mailman/listinfo/gpva-discuss to change settings or unsubscribe.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.vagreenparty.org/pipermail/gpva-ic/attachments/20161202/b44f1321/attachment-0002.html>