Minutes of Regional Meeting: Green Parties of San Diego and Imperial County Saturday, March 16, 2002 Attendees: Aaron Lipke, Magali Offerman, Karine Megerdoomian, Tammy Tatum, John Delehanty, Ed Zugates, Micki (Muriel) Adams, Jodi Beebe, Jim Bazelon, Michele Delehanty, Susan Massey, Ricardo newbery, Robyn Ardez, Ted Muga, Joel harrison, Lupita Jimenez, Bruce Chalett, Jim Meadows, Jo Chamberlain, Michael Borenstein, Peggy Lewis. Vibeswatcher: Michele Delehanty Timekeeper: Jodi Beebe Notetaker: Karine Megerdoomian Facilitator: Aaron Lipke - Meeting started at 1:50 pm and the Agenda was proposed: Agenda ---------- (1) Introductions (5 min) (2) Regional Representative position (20 min) (3) State-County Relations and Communications (20 min) (4) "Other" Party Involvement (20 min) Total: 1:05 hours Points of Process ---------------------- Magali raised a concern that there is not enough time allocated to discuss all the State-related issues. No action was taken at this time. Ric raised a concern that we don't disempower the County Council which is the decision-making body. Proposal: No decisions will be taken at the Regional Meeting; the bulk of state-related discussion however should happen in this meeting. There were no concerns to the proposal. Meeting Content --------------------- 1. Item#1: Introductions The attendees introduced themselves. Members of the GPSD county council and general membership, representatives of the State and one representative from Imperial County were present. 2. Items 2 and 3 on the agenda merged: Regional Representative position and State-county Relations and communications 2.1 Regional Rep. election process Michael Borenstein summarized the problem that had been raised with respect to the election of the Regional Rep. He said that normally a caucus is formed at the State plenary with the delegates present and a vote is taken. The problem with that approach is that the few delegates present don't necessarily represent the whole general membership of the region specially if nominations are not taken at the general membership meeting. Michael gave the example of what happened in Mendocino County. Concerns were raised from the San Diego region specifically that the process of electing the Regioanl Rep. at the last plenary in Los Angeles was undemocratic since the delegates and general membership were not aware beforehand that a vote was going to be taken. Ric pointed out that this is the default election process in the GPCA bylaws but that each region may choose its own alternative process (Section 4-1.5). The Mendocino County example is different since they actually violated the Bylaws by voting during a Plenary other than the first one of the year. Jodi mentioned that at the last elections for regional rep. the delegates did not have a list of candidates. The process was undemocratic because the delegates at the plenary in LA (January 2002) had to vote for delegates that were present. The delegates weren't prepared to vote and didn't have the list of GPSD nominees. Lupita also echoed the sentiment and said that there was not adequate notification and the election itself was removed from the participation of the general membership. Aaron said that we need to move on and discuss the future instead of rehashing the election. He believes that the delegates were presented the opportunity to postpone or change the nature of the election of the regional rep that took place in Los Angeles if they believed it was uninformed and the delegates voted nearly unanimously to have the election after healthy discussion. He also believes it is the personal responsibility of the GPSD members to be aware of the process and bylaws. Ric added that the reason delegates vote for the Regional Rep and not the general membership (according to GPCA bylaws) is because the delegates are the ones that are actively involved at the State level. Ric raised a concern that we are creating two different representation bodies to the State by asking for representation from both the regional rep and the delegates. Karine pointed out that there are two issues here: the election process and the job description of the regional rep. One of the main problems, she argued, is the lack of communication between County and State. We are not creating two different representation bodies necessarily but we need to discuss who will be taking care of the communication because it is not happening at this point. Point of Process --------------------- Robyn reiterated Magali's concern earlier about the fact that there is not enough time allocated to the regional meeting items. She asked that the time concern be addressed since the State representatives are here only for one day; the regional meeting should take precedence over the county council meeting. A vote was taken and a majority of 14 people voted to have the regional meeting take precedence over the county council meeting (i.e., the county council meeting should start only when the issues being discussed at the regional meeting have been addressed). 2.2 Questions The attendees decided to raise some questions that they would like to have answered by the State representatives in order to provide us with a different perspective. Any further comments are listed with the questions below: 1. [Robyn] How does a regional rep. get elected "ideally"? 2. [Jodi] How to get the word out on upcoming regional rep elections and also to inform delegates about candidates of both counties? 3. [Jodi] How does at large rep get elected? 4. [Ted] How is the State organized, is it by region or by county? 5. [Ted] Why don't we use Proportional Representation? 6. [Karine] Who is our representative at the State level? What is the job description of the Regional Rep? 7. [Tammy] Tammy suggested that the delegates are the ones who should be initimately involved with the GPCA (Green Party of California) throughout the year. 8. [Magali] Who does the GPCA coordinating committee represent? The county members? Where do delegates come in? 9. [Robyn] What is the debate at the State level regarding regional structure? How does this affect decision-making process/authority and democratic process? 2.3 Answers * Jo Chamberlain was the first to address some of the questions: Election Process: The election process for the regional representative is done through a delegate caucus at the plenary. However, each county has the option to select a new election process. Regional Rep. job description: Regional rep is responsible for the business between State meetings (plenaries). However, at State meetings, it is the delegates who do business. The regional representative is responsible for issues/business items that the constituency or region sends forward to the coordinating committee (cc) of the GPCA. There is a job description for the Regional Rep at the cc website but basically, the regions can set up a protocol on how State Rep should communicate with the members/constituency. County Contact: makes sure everyone has the packet in the County so that the county members can discuss how they want the delegates to vote. Delegates: As mentioned already, the delegates are responsible to do business at the plenaries or state meetings. Should the delegates remain active inbetween meetings? That is really a balancing problem - if we encourage everyone to get active at the State level, then we will lose energy at the local county level given our small resources. At-large rep election: The election process for the at-large representative requires that the candidate send a bio 8 weeks prior to the state meeting. At the state meeting, an IRV (instant runoff ) type vote is taken. Regional structure: There are 58 counties in the State of California at the present time. A decision was made to have the representatives to the coordinating committe by region rather than by county so that the number of cc members will be reduced to 22. As for the delegates for the state meetings, each active county gets a certain number of delegates. * Peggy Lewis added: Regional Rep job description: to answer the communication question... yes, the regional representatives represent all the general members and all registered Greens within the region. It is a good idea to set up a regional listserv for proposal and opinions that are sent to the regional rep from the state. That way the regional rep. could disseminate all state-related info that he/she receives and get feedback on them from people. * Micheal Borenstein: Regional Rep election process: The State cc is in the process of discussing the implementation of the election process for the regional rep position in order to "legitimize and democratice the process". The following points are being considered: 1. Prior notice mandated before the delegate caucus at the plenary/state meeting 2. Names should be in the agenda packet of the plenary beforehand (2 to 3 weeks before) 3. There is a question whether the vote should be taken at the General membership meetings of each county or region or whether the current process of delegates voting at a caucus is the best solution. The final proposal will be sent to the GPCA plenary for approval. 2.4 Proposal for future agenda After hearing the questions raised, Jo Chamberlain proposed that the San Diego and Imperial county region consider the following items for a future meeting agenda: (1) Process to elect regional representative? Do we need/want a separate process for our region? (2) Protocol for communication from the regional rep? (3) Delegates responsibilities (not only at the plenary but also inbetween state meetings)? (4) State committee representation to GPUS? 2.3 Responses Ric Newbery stated that there is a "conceptual problem" in addition to a "semantic problem" in the current discussion on the regional structure issue at the state. Ric reexplained the reapportionment debate voted at the last plenary. He said that the goal was to make the size of the State coordinating committee manageable. Currently, there exists no legitimized decision-making regional subgroup. He also argued that the State cc is not the State party inbetween meetings. Robyn asked whether the cc has any decision-making authority and Ric and Jo explained that they have limited decision-making authority since they cannot affect policy but they do make business decisions (e.g., no endorsement or bylaws changes) and they can carry out policy (i.e., decisions compatible or in line with the GPCA bylaws or platform). Ric made the following points: He warned that it seems that we want to empower the State cc to be the decision-making body. If we think of cc members as representatives then they become the decision-makers. The best concept of grassroots democracy is the town hall meeting of course where everyone can participate. It is true, however, that we eventually need to go to a representative democracy and build some hierarchy in order to function. But we should focus on empowering the delegates and the General Assembly (at the State) instead of slipping into a hierarchical structure by making the State cc be the decision-making body. Tammy Tatum echoed that last sentiment and added that we give very low expectations to our delegates. They should be encouraged to be active at the state level inbetween state meetings. After the break, the facilitator suggested that we first discuss item #4 on the agenda and then return to the items #2 and #3. 3. Item #4: "Other" Party Involvement Michael Borenstein stated that there were some recent concerns from members in the GPSD that members of another party were involved in the county organization. Ric Newbery clarified the concern by first saying that this was only mentioned as a passing observation by him and it was not a serious concern. The concern has been that members of the Reform Party are participating in the Green Party and have been elected to office (e.g., county council). Ted Muga said that he is not a member of the Reform Party but of the American Reform Party (ARP), which is really a PAC. Ric said that they are a political party but Ted said that they do not have ballot access and he is registered Green. Michael Borenstein said that forming alliances iwth other parties is relaly a philosophical question that all Greens are dealing with at some point or other. Jo Chamberlain addressed the issue by saying that for her campaign in San Mateo County she has asked and received the endorsement of the ARP among other groups. She believes that if our members are registered Greens and they're dedicated, there shouldn't be a problem. It is true, however, that we need to make sure that people don't just walk in and registerd and start voting and affecting policy... for that reason, the bylaws address certain criteria to protect us from "take-over" activity. Ric stated that choosing to work or ally yourself with another party is legitimate but we don't really talk at the GPSD meetings about what we believe in. We really shouldn't elect officers that don't agree with our values, specially if their platofrm differs very sharply from ours. Michele Delehanty stated that she is the one with a concern about this issue. Ted Muga is currently the treasurer of the State branch of the ARP. Ted said that he has resigned his national chair position, he is the treasure of State for technicality purposes only (they needed a name). He added that he views the Green Party as a vehicle to get candidates in office and he joined because of Nader. Ted also said that he doesn't think the Green Party should focus on issues but should concentrate on getting people elected to office. < The discussion was interrupted due to lack of time and postponed to a county-level meeting > 4. Return to Items 2 and 3: Regional Representative position and State-county Relations and communications Some final comments were made on these issues: Jodi said that we should discuss further the involvement of members at state level Magali suggested that - Delegate responsibilities: delegates should pass on decisions made by general membership. We need to discuss plenary packet at the general membership and announce the meeting ahead of time. This will make the decision-making process more grassroots, the general members can tell the delegates their opinion on agendat items for the plenary and give them input or even a mandate on the vote, so that the delegates already know how to vote. - State Rep: Communication is key. If there is a question on the job description, then we should come up with our own wording. Ric and Tammy point out that the agenda at the plenary changes at the last minute and new points come up, so there is a danger in mandating the delegates. Ric said that we should ask the State to be the information providers so that it is not one single person taking on the task of reporting back to the constituency. There should be an information policy at the State level. Currently we don't really have access to all the info. Ric suggested that the State could perhaps have a newsletter that sums up all state agendas, minutes, etc. for the various groups and committees. Magali responded that she would like the Regional Representative to communicate things even if they are not in the minutes of the meetings as long as it is related in some way to County issues and business. The regional rep. should be an advocate for San Diego and Imperial County and should use even ideas at the state level to strengthn us locally. Aaron wondered why we needed to have this discussion during this meeting on a Saturday; it could have taken place on email. Instead, we could have gotten some work done and discuss the proposals that are on the council agenda. Karine responded that the point of the meeting was that these issues had been around for a long time and needed to be discussed in the open and face to face. We tried it on the mailing list; it obviously didn't work since only outspoken people end up participating. Karine also said, in response to Ric's comments earlier, that we are not trying to empower the State cc. Obviously, the state cc already has some decision-making powers (cf. section 2.3) and all we are asking is for the representatives to assure the information flow between county and state. In other words, what Karine suggested was to write a protocol or guidelines asking any member of the GPSD who is active at the State to report back to the general membership about their working group or committee. Hence, we should have a protocol for the delegates who are our representatives during plenaries to communicate with the members, and for the regional rep who is the only member at the cc who knows about the decisions taken there to communicate with the members. In addition, we should have a protocol for communication guidelines for the members in GROW or platform committee, etc. Michele commented that usually at meetings local issues take precedence so there is no time to discuss state issues, and it becomes the personal responsibility of the member to get informed. The general membership meetings are so "over-agenda"-ed that the general members don't actually end up having a voice. The grassroots approach allows us to bring issues from the bottom up but discussion of issues is rarely done at meetings. Robyn said that we need to get to the "spirit" of things. We want a more representational approach but we don't want to hamstring the regional rep, instead we should focus on the original concern. If people are really objective and honest, we will get to it. An example of this effort would be to have delegates vote according to the membership's wishes, but also allow them to change their vote at the Plenary if things change or if an argument seemed valid enough as long as they provide good reason for doing so when they come back to SD. 5. Closing Remarks Peggy Lewis and Michael Borenstein said that the GPSD and Imperial County are so far ahead of other regions. There are a lot of ideas coming out at this meeting to build with. We're addressing some of these issues at the State Plenary and move forward in growing the party. Jo Chamberlain said that in resolving conflicts we should try to visualize the perfect solution and the goal we would like to reach. How would you like it to be? Then ask the group to help you reach that goal. Leave the personalities and the history out of it and just focus on reaching that perfect solution.