Green Party of San Diego General Assembly Meeting Minutes
www.sdgreens.org
February 5, 1999


Co-Chairs: Tammy Tatum (Bill Byron Absent)
Facilitator: Ricardo Newbery
Secretary:  Aubyn Stahmer
Membership coordinator: Gary Waayers
Time Keeper: Gary Waayers
Treasurer: Jane Bateman

List of Those Present:
(I am not sure I got everyone's name please add anyone I missed if you notice)
Tom Adams
Joe Mortz
Jane Bateman
Ricardo Newbury
Don Leonard (Riverside Green Party)
Chuck Reutter (Riverside Green Party)
Wendy Loeffler
Sahrley Reutter (Riverside Green Party)
Rogelio Lopez
Aubyn Stahmer
Andy Lowe
Tammy Tatum
Beth Lowe
Gary Waayers
Linda Martin
Robyn Waayers

1.	INTRODUCTIONS

2.  	AGENDA
	The agenda was determined by the group.

3.	COUNCIL ISSUES 

	a.  A question arose whether the treasurer should be part of the 
	    county council.  At the state level the treasurer is a non-voting
	    member of the council.  The state does not have specific rules or
	    guidelines for locals.  The group decided the treasurer should be
	    part of the council.  Jane will continue to be the treasurer with
	    the understanding that treasurer duties will be the only major
	    duties assigned to her.

	b.	Bill Byron has resigned as co-chair due to time constraints.  
	    A new co-chair was chosen from the council. Gary Waayers is now 
	    co-chair (with Tammy).

4.	STATE PLENARY CONFERENCE--FEB 26-27

	The agenda for the plenary were handed out. The agenda was also 
	available on-line prior to the meeting.  Each agenda item was 
	addressed by the group.

	a.  Resolution on Global Warming

DISCUSSION:  Gary stated that the resolution asks the U.S. to follow 
international protocol for dealing with global warming. He felt this 
was important.  He also felt that the resolution did not address the 
real problem of economic and population growth that leads to global 
warming.  A discussion of difficulties with alternative energies as 
an answer to global warming as populations increase. Linda stated that 
this would be coming up for a vote at the plenary and asked the group 
to discuss how to vote.  Gary stated he would support the proposal as 
it is but would like to see the group address the larger issue rather 
than ignore the underlying problem.  Discussion of alternative energies 
ensued.  We will continue discussion at another time.

ACTION: Gary will write the author and suggest considering additions 
to the proposal which would address bringing growth to a sustainable 
level or to stop growth altogether.  The goal would be maintaining a 
sustainable ecosystem.

	b.	Bylaw Changes

DISCUSSION:  Ric discussed concerns regarding the proposed changes 
to state bylaws.  He stated they were poorly worded and objected to 
the adoption of these changes.  The new portions of the bylaws were 
not clearly marked, there was unclear wording and lack of definitions 
of key terms.  

ACTION:  Ric will contact the bylaw committee with the concerns.

	c.  Gender Balance

DISCUSSION: Tom stated that there was no need to continually address 
gender balance when it is one of the 10-key values. He felt it 
disctracts from the issues.  Others agreed.

ACTION: Delegates will attempt to block this proposal at the conference.

	d.	Gender Stacking

DISCUSSION:  Linda recommended voting for this.  She knows and trusts 
the author and difficulties with gender issues have come up in the 
past when choosing discussion speaker line-ups.  Tom felt there should 
be a random distribution of people, and that no one should be denied a 
chance to speak due to gender.  Jane explained that everyone would be 
allowed to speak, women would alternate with men, if no more women 
wished to speak then men could speak, it did not need to be an equal 
number. Consensus was reached.

ACTION:  Delegates will vote for this proposal.

	e.	Standing Committees

DISCUSSION:  Linda reported that these were devised to give caucus 
groups more authority.  She felt caucus work should be ad hoc and 
that these groups were not meaningful.  Jane felt these committees 
might address outside issues and would be an important to the party.
Don felt the development of such committees would focus on differences 
rather than joining the group. Linda felt committees were set to 
address one issue and these groups should really be caucus'.  
Linda wished to vote against the measure and Jane was for the measure. 
No decision was reached by the group.

	f.	Social Justice Working Group

DISCUSSION:  Linda was against this proposal as it was hierarchical 
in nature and allowed the state to overstep the local organizations. 
A discussion indicated that several members were concerned that the 
state would have final say over what issues locals could address.  
Joe felt the working group would provide the needed coordination to 
help the Greens take more effective action on such issues.  He did 
not feel this gave the state the authority to make decsions, nor did 
the party need to wait for the working group to make decisions on an 
issue in order for locals to take action.  He felt it would allow the 
party to develop alliances in a coordinated manner. Linda disagreed.
Rogelio felt social justice was important and that world-wide this 
is an important issue for Greens.  Jane suggested changing the 
discussion format so the group and the presenter all had equal 
opportunity to present views.  Aubyn indicated that it was difficult 
to make a decision on this issue without an understanding of the 
party process or what the formation of a working group would mean.  
A straw vote was taken to see where the group stood.  
	Yea: 4 Nay: 2 Undecided: 6  
	Many did not know how to vote on this. A discussion of the process
	and how to have the delegates vote ensued.  
	Proposal:  The delegates should vote 2:1 on this issue
		This did not pass due to concerns of the group

Linda stated that she felt is was important that as our CC person she
be able to present her views and make recommendations on state issues.
She stated that in her experience the working groups were simply not 
working.  We again tallied the feelings of the group.
	Proposal:  Take a new vote on peoples feelings on this proposal.
	Yea: 3 Nay: 4
	
	Proposal: Leave the decision on this issue up to the delegates 
	with the provision that members have the opportunity to voice 
	their opinion on the proposal to the delegates after this meeting 
	(to provide members an opportunity to educate themselves regarding 
	the issue). 
	
There was objection to the proposal. 
	
DISCUSSION:   Some members felt that splitting our vote cancelled our 
voice.  It was proposed that in the future we have a special meeting 
to discuss state agenda issues.  A special meeting to get consensus 
on this issue was recommended.  The Riverside greens stated that they 
usually pass out copies of the agenda one month and vote at the next 
meeting.  It was noted that this agenda came out quite late due to 
late information from state level working groups.  A vote was taken 
on the proposal.
	Yea: 10 Nay: 2 Abstain: 2

	f.  Criminal Justice Position Statement

	DISCUSSION:  Linda did not have a recommendation on this proposal.  
	Tom approved of the proposal due to the failure of our system. 
	He wished to approve it and direct our delegates to vote for it.  
	Some of the SD Greens had earlier concerns regarding this proposal.  
	A written statement of suggested changes/additions was sent to the 
	authors.  Some suggestions were taken and others were not.  Members 
	were concerned that the wording to Stop pepper spray and stun gun 
	use would increase the use of firearms.  The suggestion was to 
	propose controlling overuse of these.  Some members felt that the 
	police were now using military tactics rather than community policing 
	and were directed to shoot to kill rather than maim, and that too 
	much money was going into local police from the federal government.  
	Most members felt that although the proposal was important and should 
	be addressed by the party, this version of the measure was poorly 
	written and incomplete.  
	Proposal: Direct delegates to vote against this statement.

	DISCUSSION:  Joe asked if we could direct them to table the resolution 
	and send it back for revision and remake.  He felt it had good intent 
	and it should be made to have good quality.  He and other members felt
	we wanted to be careful not appear to oppose the idea of the measure 
	itself.  Joe also wanted more emphasis on rehabilitation added to the 
	measure as well as provision for health care in prisons.  We cannot ask 
	for a "table". Jane felt that delegates may be able to ask for changes 
	on the floor.  She said that if it went back from a no vote it would 
	take 1-2 years to vote again on this measure.  
	Amended Proposal:  Vote against the measure unless significant changes 
	proposed by SD Greens (in the written document) were made.

	DISCUSSION:  There is no line item voting.  Changes are made by 
	consensus and the author must agree. We can suggest changes but 
	they are not voted on.

	This proposal was passed by consensus of the group.

5.	DELEGATES FOR STATE PLENARY MEETING

	Delegates were chosen by consensus.  We are allowed six delegates. 
	Four members were able to attend the meeting. Our delegates will be:
	Linda Martin
	Joe Mortz
	Ric Newbery
	Tom Adams

	Ann Menasche and Joan Stirling were not present but will be asked 
	if they would like to attend.

6.	HOSTING NOVEMBER PLENARY ADDRESS

	A discussion of costs and the possibility of making money from the 
	meeting as well as the benefits of publicity was held.  

	Proposal:  SD Greens will host the November plenary address if we 
	can keep the profit.

	DISCUSSION:  Many members felt that because we are a young group 
	we need to focus on build up membership before attempting to hold 
	a large meeting.  Concerns included: 
-Not enough support from the group
-Need a coordinator and Linda has made other commitments, but would 
 consider coordinating if there was enough support.
-A better idea might be to host a San Diego County member meeting that 
 was similar in format to a conference but more manageable.
-Suggest we do the Feb. 2000 meeting
-We need 100-200 members to consider hosting this meeting.

	Vote: Yea: 1 Nay: 7

7.	COMMITTEE REPORTS

	Bylaws Committee				No Report
		Ric, Linda, Gary, Tammy
	
8.	WORKING GROUP REPORTS

	Fundraising					No Report 
		Robyn, Linda, Tom, Carl
	Web Site						No Report
		Ric Tom

9.	MEETING SITES

	Co-chairs attempted to find a community site but these were often 
	booked.  They had thought that libraries and government buildings 
	were off limits to political groups but recently found out this 
	was not the case so Joe and Tammy will look into this.  The group 
	had some concerns that the meeting place needs to be decided at 
	least 2 weeks before the meeting and that it should not change 
	once it has been set.  It was suggested that the co-chairs look 
	at bank community rooms as a possible site.  Some members objected 
	to using a church as a meeting site.

	Proposal:  There were two proposals suggested.
	a.  Co-chairs will choose a meeting site within two weeks
	b.  The group should choose a site now and then use that site if 
	another community site is not found in two weeks.

	Proposal a was chosen by consensus.

	It was noted that the next meeting fell on Good Friday.  Discussion 
	of changing the meeting was held. Members felt that it would be 
	difficult to change meetings for religions and political holidays 
	throughout the year.  Meetings will be held on the first Friday 
	of each month.

6.	APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

	The minutes of the last meeting was approved as written by consensus 
	of the group.

7.	BUDGET

	Jane submitted a proposed budget for the coming year.  It was submitted 
	for information purposes.  We will revisit the budget at our next 
	meeting when we discuss focus and goals of the group.  Aubyn will be 
	the second signer on the bank account if Ann can no longer do so.

8.	FOCUS & GOALS

	The group decided to save this item for the next meeting and dedicate 
	the entire meeting to this topic next month.

9.	GROWTH ISSUES

	Gary discussed the new "Smart Growth Coalition" developed by the San 
	Diego County Board of Supervisors. Gary read the member list which 
	consisted of many builders and groups with a pro-growth interest and 
	a couple of environmental groups.  Gary read the goals of the group 
	which included: a. balancing the need to meet SD growth needs with 
	environmental needs; b. responsible new development and expansion of 
	developed areas; c. address the full spectrum of growth issues; 
	and d. public education which would lead to innovative solutions and 
	housing.  Gary was very concerned that this group was treating only 
	the symptoms of the problem. We have a finite world with finite resources 
	and need to look for ways to reign in growth.  Gary has sent letters 
	to the editor and to the supervisors.  He feels there are water issues, 
	land issues as well as quality of life issues involved.

The group will have an open meeting March 24th and Gary felt we should 
have a representative there and that we should put pressure on elected 
officials.  

	Gary proposed organizing a march on Earth Day (April 18th) from 
	downtown to the Earth Day event in Balboa Park.  The theme may be 
	"Sustainable Future".  Gary would be willing to contact other 
	organizations with an interest as well as Riverside and Orange 
	County Greens.

	Proposal:  Greens organize a march around the issue.

	DISCUSSION:  Joe asked that we attempt to make this a legal event 
	to everyone would feel comfortable (although he would attend either 
	way).   Linda suggested we look at the possibility of joining 
	another group if another march was already planned.  A member 
	suggested we march through Earth Day.

	The proposal passed by consensus.  Gary will coordinate the march 
	and set up an ad hoc committee.

9.	RIVERSIDE GREEN

	Chuck discussed the Riverside Greens and thanked Linda for 
	facilitating his involvement in the party.  Chuck will be seeking 
	the 66th Assembly seat that covers Riverside and some of San Diego 
	County.  The Riverside Greens are also attempting to place Greens 
	on school boards, city council, water board etc.  The Riverside 
	Greens will be hosting an Earth Day Festival on April 24th.

10.	EARTH DAY

	We can host a table at Earth Day for $50.00. Dave Chase is going 
	to give Gary the forms to apply.  Members will need to donate 
	money for the table.  Focus could be on membership and voter 
	registration. Linda indicated we may be able to get some product 
	from the state for the event.  The idea was agreeded to by consensus.  

11.	EARTH FIRST

	Earth First is having a fundraiser for the Headwaters Forest.  
	The state and federal gov. are having a disagreement regarding 
	the land. Money must be used to purchase land in 4-6 weeks or 
	it is lost.  Mike Matthews will be speaking at the event.
	Wednesday Feb. 10
	3235 5th Avenue in Hillcrest
	7-10 PM
	
	Jane and Wendy will be attending and will bring some Green literature.

12.	INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING (IRV)

	Gary found out more information on this topic.  In San Diego Sheriff, 
	County Supervisor and Treasurer could be affected by IRV.  We would 
	need 75,366 signatures (10% of voters) to have it on the ballot in 
	the county and 89,813 signatures (15% of voters) for San Diego City.
	The Mayoral races in Chula Vista and San Marcos face run-off elections
	if the winner does not have over 50% of the vote.  The timeline for 
	collecting signatures is 180 days.  Jane indicated that IRV is 
	important because in Europe it has increased the number of people 
	who vote.  Ric stated that it is important because it will put in 
	place the technology for proportional representation as well.  
	Carl is still checking on Encinitas.  Gary felt that we may wish to 
	target Nov. 2000 so we have time to write up the proposal, take it 
	to a lawyer and obtain signatures. Tom suggested contacting the Bay
	area Greens as they may already have written up similar legislation.
	We will discuss if the group wishes to pursue this at our next meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.