-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gpca-erwg-ed] Green Party Organization: comments Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:41:32 -0700 From: Jonathan Lundell Reply-To: gpca-erwg-ed@cagreens.org To: gpca-erwg-ed@cagreens.org These are comments on the Green Party Organization code section, dated 3/28 (SF plenary). 7879. "The county council will have the total elected members to which it is entitled." This seems like an empty statement. What's the point? WRT the last sentence, we should specify the Method of Equal Proportions as the means by which seats are allocated to districts. 7884. "one of the Above"? Regardless, I think the proper term for a multi-seat choice election is NOC, not NOTA. 7887. We say "up to seven", and later "number of members of a county council". But a county council can be as few as three, and as many as, what, 15? Presumably we mean the latter. 7889. NOC again. 7890. "__th___": what's the second blank for? 7892. July 20: I'm guessing that this was copied from old language dating from when we had June primaries. We should probably be saying something like "the 20th day of the month following the primary election". Also, NOC. And we should be consistent in capitalizing "liaison" here and in the other code section. 7901. "shall the responsibilities"?? 7920. "three or more", perhaps? WRT Jim's comments, if necessary, we should be prepared to propose bylaws changes contingent on the passage of these code sections, if necessary. The whole thing is obviously going to require bylaws-level GA approval anyway. 7943. Implies that a county council member can register DTS and keep his/her seat. 7945. This repeats 7920 language. Do we really need to say it twice? -- /Jonathan Lundell.