March 2017 General Assembly - Draft Minutes

[DRAFT] Minutes, GPCA General Assembly -

March 2017 General Assembly - Draft Minutes

Bakersfield (Kern County), March 11-12, 2017

(Minutes approved ---)

List of delegates, registrants and attendees

Saturday, March 11

Proceedings opened at 9:15 am, with a greeting from the Kern County Greens (Julie Cartwright et al.)

Facilitators: June Brashares, Sonoma County

Greg Jan, Alameda County

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Announcement of Standing Committee vacancies.

Announcement re: Media Presence.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

June and Greg spoke about the consensus process and the new delegate orientation.

Quorum count – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58.

9 of the 11 Regions are represented, so we have quorum. (See By-Law 7-5.3(a).) (Note: the missing Regions are Central Coast and Los Angeles.)

1. Central (at least 2 counties present),

2. East Bay (at least 1 county present),

3. Emerald (at least 1 county present),

4. Monterey Bay (at least 1 county present),

5. North Bay (at least 1 county present),

6. Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino (at least 1 county present),

7. San Diego/Imperial (at least 1 county present),

8. San Francisco (1 county present), and

9. Silicon Valley (at least 1 county present).

Question: What is the number of delegates present?

Answer: (Wells) There were 58 delegates present at 9:51 am out of 89 pre-registrants and several walk ups – twice as many as we had at the May 2016 GA. 38 delegates were needed to be present to begin decision-making at the meeting (See, By-Law 7-5.3(b).) 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

9:52 am Agenda approval

Eric Brooks (timeskeeper)
Susan Chunco (vibeswatcher)

Clarifying Question: Do the counties who we aren’t sure are certified have authorized delegates?

[No Answer Provided.]

Proposed Amendment: Certification of Counties to add to Saturday’s Agenda: (Ventura and Santa Cruz counties). Request for agenda amendment to accommodate affirmation of new counties present; there is a proposal to hear the item after lunch on Saturday, (COUNTY CERTIFICATION MATTER) at 1:00 pm and adjust remaining items in the afternoon accordingly.

Proposed Amendment: Recategorize Platform Items on Sunday’s Agenda: (Shane Que Hee)

Request for clarification of and request for agenda amendment to make the Platform Planks Item a DISCUSSION ITEM:

Sunday 9:05am Discussion Decision: Proposed Platform Planks

Proposal: Platform Plank: Initiatives, Referenda and Recall.

Proposal: Platform Plank: Peace Dividend

Proposal: Platform Plank: Militarism of Youth

Clarification: The Coordinating Committee already voted on March 6, 2017 to change this item from a “decision” item to a “discussion” item.

Friendly amendment: Since we might be able to agree on a couple of these platform planks tomorrow, could we change it back to a decision item now, to allow for that possibility, and then, if we are unable to achieve consensus, bring the ones we cannot agree on back for reconsideration later, after further consideration, discussion and possible editing by the Platform Committee?

Shane Que Hee, on behalf of the Platform Committee, will accept the friendly amendment to turn this item back into a decision item now instead.

Proposed Amendment: Bylaws Amendment to add to Sunday’s agenda: (Wanda Jean Lord) Kern County requests the addition of an item on the Sunday agenda to hear its proposed by-laws amendment re: County Recognition (hand out #1); there is a proposal to hear the item after lunch on Sunday, (Decision Item: Kern County Council of the Green Party of California Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws of the Green Party of California) at 1:30 pm and adjust remaining items in the afternoon accordingly.

Proposal to adopt all three proposed amendments and approve the revised, amended Agenda.

No outstanding questions or concerns.

Approved by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

9:55 am Discussion: Election Debriefing: Presidential Campaign

Panel discussion with audience follow – up with those who worked on the Stein campaign -- officially (David Cobb, Meleiza Figueroa, Erik Rydberg, Greg Jan and Jill Stein,) and unofficially in the counties.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

10:30 am Break

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

10:25 am Discussion: Election Debriefing: Current and past Green candidates from around California (CCWG)

Kenneth Mejia: A call for volunteers was made to help in preparation for the Tuesday, April 4, 2017 primary election for District 34 (Los Angeles) Congressional Representative. Mejia4Congress.com

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

11:10am Discussion: Brainstorming session on 2017-2018 electoral strategy for preparation of the 2017-2018 Two-Year Strategic Plan (CCWG)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

12:00pm Lunch Women’s Caucus meeting during lunch

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1:00pm Reconvene

Facilitators: Shane Que Hee

Laura Wells

Quorum count: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 66.

32 - on the phone outside

65 – please note: there is no delegate 65, it was accidentally skipped when the numbers were doled out, per Laura Wells. (Delegate 66 will be renumbered 65.)

There are currently 9 of the 11 Regions are represented, so we have quorum.

1. Central (at least 2 counties present),

2. East Bay (at least 1 county present),

3. Emerald (at least 1 county present),

4. Monterey Bay (at least 1 county present),

5. North Bay (at least 1 county present),

6. Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino (at least 1 county present),

7. San Diego/Imperial (at least 1 county present),

8. San Francisco (1 county present), and

9. Silicon Valley (at least 1 county present).

Representatives from Ventura, which is part of the Central Coast Region, are here but are seeking certification during the upcoming agenda item.

80% of registered delegates (65) and a minimum of 90% of the maximum number of delegates registered for Saturday’s session (65) needed to be present in order for the General Assembly to engage in decision-making at this part of the meeting, (See GPCA By-Law 7-5.3(b).) We have met that threshold.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
 

1:05 pm County Certification Matters

Decision: Certify Ventura County

Background: According to the GPCA Bylaws, 6-6, (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_6-6_Appointment_to_Vacancies_in_Counties_in_which_no_County_Council_members_were_elected_in_the_primary_election), in order to become certified, the County must publicize and hold a General Meeting open to all registered Greens in the county and submit to the GPCA Coordinating Committee:

(a) minutes of the election where it had the election;

(b) bylaws if they have been changed;

(c) election results, etc.; and

(d) proof of either 20 signatures of registered Greens from the county on a petition with the names of the nominees for County Council -OR- 20 registered Greens attending the election meeting, etc.

Sponsors for each County Council candidate must also meet the requirements of GPCA Bylaw 6-2.5, (http://www.cagreens.org/bylaws/2016-07-03#Section_6-2_Elections).

Ventura County (Anthony Krzywicki) – meetings were held in September and October of 2016. Then, on November 11, 2016, there was a recertification meeting. Another meeting was held on January 12, 2017, in which the following people were elected to the Ventura County Council: Linda Anderson-Moyer (C0-Co); Anthony Krzywicki (Co-Co); Jewel Santana (Secretary); Tiffany Grande (Treasurer); and Brianna Frisbey. [A copy of the Jan. 12, 2017 Ventura County Council Meeting Minutes, is attached hereto at Appendix A.]

A series of clarifying questions and answers ensued resulting in the following clarifications from Ventura County:

The County has been meeting on a monthly basis for about 4 months; the relevant County information has been transmitted to the State Party; advance notice of County Greens meetings has been made through a variety of means; and existing County Bylaws did not change.

No outstanding questions or concerns.

Approved by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Decision: Certify Santa Cruz County

Santa Cruz County (Raven Playfaire) – Presentation from three Greens who were appointed to the County Council: Rich Zitola (“Z”), Raven Playfaire and Thomas Leavitt.

A series of clarifying questions and answers ensued resulting in the following clarifications from Santa Cruz County:

The County Greens are having irregular, but frequent meetings and have not changed their existing Bylaws.

No additional outstanding questions.

Outstanding Concern, (stand aside): Eric Brooks (San Francisco) – Eric thinks there needs to be more regularization of the Party County Council meetings, and hopes the County Council will start to do that now.

No additional outstanding concerns.

Approved by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Announcement by Laura Wells: With Ventura County’s certification, we now have 10 of the 11 regions participating at the GA (Ventura is part of the Central Coast Region).

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1:32 pm Discussion: Report from counties on “What are the counties doing?” (A facilitated meeting in which people from different counties briefly share what their counties are doing. Handouts and/or links to internet information would be shared.)

Facilitators: Sadie Fulton (Yolo County)

Erik Rydberg (Butte County)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2:15 pm Discussion: Brainstorming session on party organizing and party building for preparation of 2017-2018 Two-Year Strategic Plan(GROW). First half of this session would be done with Youth-led fishbowl format. The rest of session will be opened up for more brainstorming from everyone, although it will continue to be facilitated by youth who will do the calling on speakers.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2:55 pm Decision: Confirmation of Treasurer nominated by Coordinating Committee (Coordinating Committee)

Ruscal Cayangyang (Solano County) was introduced.

A series of clarifying questions and answers ensued resulting in the following clarifications from Ruscal:

The Finance Committee recommended Ruscal to the CC and the CC confirmed his nomination at their March 6, 2017 meeting; we can expect a 45-minute to an hour budget presentation at the next GA where the budget will be approved; our current Treasurer’s term is coming to an end; currently, the Treasurer fills out the FPPC forms and Ruscal, as the Assistant Treasurer, is reviewing them; the Treasurer receives a $150/month stipend; the GPCA Bylaws say that the Treasurer will be approved during the first GA in the odd numbered years; Ruscal commits, as Treasurer, to present monthly financial statements as well as bank activity and check images to the Finance Committee; and, Ruscal also invites each county treasurer to send him an email message so that, once Treasurer, he can provide County Treasurers with assistance.

Affirmations were heard from:

June Brashares, Sonoma County

Barry Hermanson, San Francisco County

Frank Lambert, Monterey County

Beth Moore, Nevada County

David Cobb, Humboldt County

Mica Daniel, Alameda County and

Eric Brooks, San Francisco County

No other questions or outstanding concerns.

Approved by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

3:34 pm Decision: Validation of GPCA endorsement of the Movement for Black Lives platform (Validation of endorsement made by Coordinating Committee at Feb. 6, 2017 Coordinating Committee meeting.) [Policy demands are listed on the Movement for Black Lives Platform page at https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/. They are listed under six categories: (1) End the war on black people; (2) Reparations; (3) Invest-Divest; (4) Economic Justice; (5) Community Control; and (6) Political Power.]

[Liz Kroboth was unable to attend due to illness, so Greg Jan made the presentation on her behalf.]

A series of clarifying questions and answers ensued resulting in the partial reading of the Movement for Black Lives platform policy demands by Greg.

Affirmations were heard from:

Jan Arnold, Alameda County

Melanie Liu, Santa Clara County

Colt Gonzalez, San Joaquin County and

Sadie Fulton, Yolo County

Outstanding concern (standing aside): (Erik Rydberg, Butte County) Based on the assumption that the Coordinating Committee members read the whole platform before they voted for it, now that we have a general sense of the platform, he is willing to stand aside.

No other questions or outstanding concerns.

Approved by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

4:01 pm Discussion: The Electoral Reform Working Group proposes that the California Green party work quickly to build a broad coalition around the state (including Berniecrats, Libertarians, other third parties, voter reform and good government groups and others) to fight to repeal “Top Two” and to institute Ranked Choice Voting on a statewide basis in California for both state and national elections (including how Presidential votes are counted) with the goal of introducing a state ballot initiative in 2018. (ERWG)

There was a lively discussion. Those wishing to discuss the matter further were encouraged to attend the ERWG break out session, coming up next on the agenda.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

5:00 pm Announcement of Standing Committee vacancies and information about breakout sessions

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

5:10 pm Breakout sessions for committees and working groups (ERWG, Platform, Fundraising, GROW)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

6:06 pm Confirmation: Standing Committee and Working Group Co-Coordinators (ERWG, Platform, Fundraising, GROW)

Campaigns and Candidates Working Group - David Cobb has stepped up to be the male Co-Co and wants to empower local groups not stifle them. Sadie will step up on the next meeting when the current co-co steps back and Sadie will help with phone text list and will work with Mel to set up a tutorial if you want to set it up ASAP – they will give priority to Kenneth – The App requires an android phone and the phone list is about $5. Sadie can set it up for you.

Eric Brooks – The Fundraising Committee has the potential to grow to about 6 ½ people (with Ruscal Cayangyang counted as the ½ since he will be the Committee’s liaison to the Finance Committee). Currently, Wanda Jean Lord, Kern County, and Eric Brooks, San Francisco County, are the Committee Co-cos. Planning to apply for appointments to the Committee are: Erik Rydberg (Butte County), Gloria Purcell (San Mateo County), Forrest Brown (Kern County), and Ron Rodarte (Orange County).

GROW Committee - Laura Wells is one of the Co-cos and the liaison to the Coordinating Committee but there is currently no male co-co. However, some people are interested in joining and there may be another female willing to replace Laura at some point so she can just be the CC liaison.

Platform Committee – Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles County) – Steven Breedlove (Butte County) is interested in joining the Committee as is Cassidy Sheppard (Kern County), who is interested in being the female Co-co.

 6:20 pm Announcements

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 6:20 pm Dinner Break. GPUS Delegation meeting during dinner

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 8:20 pm Speech by Jill Stein

See https://www.facebook.com/mimi.newton/videos/10154898531780801/ for a video of the speech, but not the Q and A that followed.

Sunday, March 12

Proceedings opened at 9:15 am.

Facilitator: Bert Heuer (Contra Costa County)

Announcements: Pedro Gomez (Alameda County) created a GPCA General Assembly 2017 Facebook page and would like everyone to join.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Quorum count - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, and 53 (present).

# 20 - absent

9 of the 11 Regions are represented, so we have quorum at 9:25 am. (Note: the missing Regions are Central Coast and Los Angeles.)

1. Central (at least 2 counties present),

2. East Bay (at least 1 county present),

3. Emerald (at least 1 county present),

4. Monterey Bay (at least 1 county present),

5. North Bay (at least 1 county present),

6. Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino (at least 1 county present),

7. San Diego/Imperial (at least 1 county present),

8. San Francisco (1 county present), and

9. Silicon Valley (at least 1 county present).

80% of registered delegates (65) and a minimum of 90% of the maximum number of delegates registered for Sunday’s session (59) needed to be present for the General Assembly to engage in decision-making at this part of the meeting. We have met that threshold.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

9:25 am Decision: Proposed Platform Planks

Tarik Kanaana (Sonoma County) sent all three platform planks to the GPCA Forum List Serv on March 7, 2017.

҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉

Proposal: Platform Plank: Militarism of Youth (Shane Que Hee, Los Angeles County):

Shane introduced the issues and discussed proposed changes to the Militarism of Youth Platform Plank.

A series of clarifying questions, affirmations and concerns were raised which resulted in a number of suggested revisions to the platform language.

Shane accepts the revisions suggested and proposes the revised plank, (Appendix B, hereto).

No outstanding concerns or questions.

Approved by consensus.

҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉

Proposal: Platform Plank: Peace Dividend

Shane introduced the platform (Appendix C, hereto).

An affirmation was heard from:

Jon Mann (Los Angeles County)

No outstanding concerns or questions.

Approved by Consensus.

҉ ҉ ҉ ҉ ҉

Proposal: Platform Plank: Initiatives, Referenda and Recall.

Shane introduced the platform (Appendix D, hereto).

A series of clarifying questions, affirmations and concerns were raised, resulting in:

A recommendation from Eric Brooks (San Francisco County) that the General Assembly send this platform plank back to the Platform Committee to work more on this proposal, including a request that they consult with the ERWG on the language and that a new proposal be circulated to folks by April 30, 2017.

Shane, on behalf of the Platform Committee, accepts the friendly amendment that the Platform Committee consult with ERWG and resend out a revised version of the platform to folks by April 30, 2017.

No outstanding questions or concerns.

Approved by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

10:25 am Discussion: Brainstorming session on GPCA platform updates for preparation of 2017-2018 Two-Year Strategic Plan (Platform Committee, Coordinating Committee)

Shane Que Hee (Los Angeles County) - The Platform Committee is seeking new platform suggestions to include in its two year strategic plan.

A robust discussion of a variety of topics ensued.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

10:45 am Breakout sessions for committees and working groups (ERWG, Green Issues, Bylaws, GROW)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

12:20pm Announcements

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

12:30pm Lunch, Optional caucus meetings during lunch

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1:30pm Reconvene

Facilitation: Cassidy Sheppard

Quorum count:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59.

#’s 8, 13, 31, and 40 - absent

9 of the 11 Regions are represented, so we have quorum. (Note: the missing Regions are Central Coast and Los Angeles.)

1. Central (at least 2 counties present),

2. East Bay (at least 1 county present),

3. Emerald (at least 1 county present),

4. Monterey Bay (at least 1 county present),

5. North Bay (at least 1 county present),

6. Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino (at least 1 county present),

7. San Diego/Imperial (at least 1 county present),

8. San Francisco (1 county present), and

9. Silicon Valley (at least 1 county present).

80% of registered delegates (65) and a minimum of 90% of the maximum number of delegates registered for Sunday’s session (59) needed to be present for the General Assembly to engage in decision-making at this part of the meeting. We have met that threshold.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Decision: Kern County Council Proposed Amendment to the GPCA Bylaws

Wanda Jean Lord provided background regarding the proposed amendment. The copy which was handed out on Saturday morning has been revised, based on discussions with various Green Party delegates since then. A one-page handout which reflects these proposed revisions is circulated among the delegates. Wanda Jean reviews the entire proposal with the proposed revisions.

A series of clarifying questions, affirmations and concerns were raised, resulting in suggested revisions to the Proposed Amendment as reflected in Appendix E, hereto.

Affirmations were heard from:

Nassim Nouri (Santa Clara County) and

Tarik Kanaana (Sonoma County)

Outstanding concerns:

Faygo (James Clark), (Sacramento County) - is not willing to stand aside because he would want more time to review the proposal and discuss it with his County Council to get their input.

No other outstanding concerns.

Wanda Jean accepts the friendly amendments (although there is no notice requirement in the Elections Code with respect to the first meeting of the County Council), but she desires to have the revised proposal put to a vote.

YES: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 (45 yeses)

NO: 12, 27, 39, 51, (4 no’s)

ABSENT: 6, 8, 13, 23, 31, (5 absent)

ABSTAIN: 26, 33, 44, 52, 59 (5 abstentions)

80% of registered delegates (65) and a minimum of 90% of the maximum number of delegates registered for Sunday’s session (59) needed to be present for the General Assembly to engage in decision-making at this part of the meeting. We have met that threshold.

The threshold to amend a bylaw is 2/3 of all 'yes' and 'no' votes cast for passage per GPCA Bylaw 7-2.3b. The proposal was approved by 45 of the 49 delegates who voted either yes or no. [See Appendix E, hereto.]

Proposal adopted.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2:00 pm Confirmation: Standing Committee and Working Group Co-Coordinators (CCWG, Green Issues, Bylaws)

Mimi Newton and Vic Ashley are seeking confirmation as the Co-Cos for the Bylaws Committee.

(David Cobb was confirmed as the Co-Co for CCWG on Saturday by consensus and the Green Issues Working Group has not yet met.)

Confirmed by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2:05 pm Proposal: Approval Next General Assembly Meeting Date and Place (Coordinating Committee)

Sacramento County has stepped up with a proposal to host the next General Assembly and are looking at June 24 and 25 because they need some lead time to get it organized. However, since the budget needs to be approved before July 1, they will also consider the weekend of June 17 and 18 in case the 24^th and 25^th doesn’t pan out for some reason.

San Mateo County is looking at the possibility of hosting the Dec. 2017 GA.

Approved by consensus.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2:30 pm Breakout sessions for committees and working groups (Finance, Media, Clearinghouse)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

4:10 pm Confirmation: Standing Committee and Working Group Co-Coordinators (for Finance, Media, Clearinghouse and any other Committees or Working Groups not confirmed earlier)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

4:15 pm Announcements

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

4:20pm Closing session

A big thank you to Kern County!

Another big thank you to the Green veterans!

Appendix A – Ventura County Meeting Minutes

Green Party 3rd Meeting

12 January 2017 / 6:00 PM / Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf CONFERENCE ROOM

Welcome

• Introductions

• Attendees

  • Linda Anderson-Moyer

  • Anthony Krizywicki

  • Tiffany Grande

  • Brianna Frisbey

  • Michael Cervantes

  • Jewel Santana

  • By Phone-Martha Fellows

Ventura County Green Party Council

• 2017 Committee member selection

  • Read guidelines to what it means.

  • Anthony Krzywicki nominates Linda-accepts

  • Michael Cervantes and Linda Anderson-Moyer nominate Anthony-accepts

  • Tiffany Grande nominates Jewel-accepts

  • Tiffany nominates Brianna-accepts

  • Voting-

  • Brianna Frisbey gets majority vote

  • Tiffany gets majority vote

  • Linda Anderson-Moyer-voted in

  • Jewel Santana-voted in

  • Anthony Krzywicki- voted in

Host Green Party Conference

• Status of Conference

  • Martha informs everyone that March 11th and 12th 2017 in Kern County

Women’s Council

• Recruiting for participants

  • Linda shares about the information and will provide Tiffany and Jewel with more information. natlwomens-caucus@gp.org

Future Meeting locations

• Bell Arts Factory-Ventura BLVD-Linda suggests that we rent once a month and all the benefits of the facility, P.O. Box-Printer-Shredder- The Hall for events-

  • Everyone is in favor of the idea, but Anthony is concerned about parking and it might be a little congested.

  • Linda is okay with going ahead

  • Linda Proposes that all future meetings be held at Bell Arts and she pays for membership-Anthony Seconds that

  • Vote-Majority approve

• Baja Fresh conference Room-may be costly

• Universalist Unitarian Church-Ralston-expensive and need insurance

Outreach

• Twitter- only contains info on how you can get involved in community and GP posts

  • Linda created account-Brianna has mentioned she would like to be involved more with Social Media outreach

  • Brianna will be made an administrator to facebook account

  • Instagram account will be created

  • Will need to send the the state new contacts

  • Linda will call Kendra about green party information

  • Linda has many new contacts that would like to get involved

  • Anthony will be sending the names of the new Green Party Ventura County Council Members to the State.

Direct Mail

• Registered voter info from County Recorder

  • Once this meeting is over to submit meeting minutes to get addresses and start direct mail to Greens

  • 100 to 200 a week mailed postcards

Local Issues/Events

• Oxnard Power PLant Meeting- overview

  • Linda was Impressed-children were shown to stand up for community issues

• City Council Meeting- overview

  • Linda said there were two students from Ventura High that were there to present environmental ideas.

  • Linda suggests that the Green Party express their concerns and make ourselves seen

• Friends of the Earth-How to set up local event training 1/13/17 RSVP

  • Webinar-Anthony will be attending and report back

• Not My President Rally- Simi Valley 1/15/17

  • Linda is going to attend

• Benefit for Standing Rock- Thousand Oaks 1/15/2017

  • Anthony might attend

• MLK March Oxnard 1/16/17

  • Linda and Michael will be attending-8AM

• SURJ Meeting Saticoy 1/17/17

  • Anthony and Jewel might attend

• Inauguration Day of Action Oxnard 1/20/17

  •  

• March for Justice Ventura 1/21/17

  • Set up at 8 end at 12-tabling

  • Linda and Jewel will stay at table-Anthony and TIffany will attend-Brianna will try to attend

• Candidate training webinar 1/24/17 RSVP

  • Anthony and Jewel will attend-

• Gov. Center there is a protest 1/20/17

Next Meeting Agenda

Fundraisers

• T-shirts

Outreach

• Registered greens and NPP

• College Greens

• 2018 candidate search

• Connect with local progressive groups/organizations

• Event booths-Vta County Fair, Earth Day, Street Fairs, County Days

Proposed Ventura Green Party Events

• Planned Parenthood march/rally-March 10

• Tabling

• Possible Divest protest corner of Telephone and Victoria- a Fri in Feb

• Local groups speaker series-Monthly

• Earth Day-April 22

• Oxnard Earth Day April 15 11AM-3PM

• Beach Clean-up- April 23

Ventura County Fair

• Cost of 10 days at ventura County Fair Main st. 1000+ 100 inside corner fee + $20 registration fee - registration begins as early as a January 2017

• Additional cost for flyers banners posters need sales tax permit if sale T-shirt or green Party memorabilia

Next Meeting

February 9th, 2017 6PM-8PM at Bell Arts Factory

Appendix B

Militarism of Youth (revised 031217 Bakersfield)

Militarism is harmful because it consumes both natural and human resources which could be better employed in useful endeavors. People have a basic right to decide how they will serve their society and contribute to it. This choice should be based on the individual's religious, moral and ethical beliefs.

Today, most youth aged between 18 to 25, regardless of citizen status, are still required by law to register with the Selective Service System, even though actual conscription has not been used since the Vietnam War https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration. The military's propaganda ("Be All That You Can Be"), and its invasive recruitment tactics in schools, have resulted in a so-called “all volunteer force” that is, in effect, a "poverty draft." Young men and women are enticed into the armed forces as an escape from poverty and may then find themselves obligated to fight wars that they don't believe in, or that they find morally objectionable.

The Green Party urges measures to counter the injustice inherent in militarism:

• Abolish the Selective Service System.

• Respect the right of all people in and out of the military to follow their principles in claiming conscientious objector (CO) status. Currently, COs can only file a claim not to be drafted when called to the draft. Congress should monitor the military's procedures in processing CO claims.

• Service members should have a period to opt out that does not endanger their benefits and be able to finish that obligation in some other capacity.

• The military including the ROTC and all other recruitment programs should be kept out of schools.

• Deny access to the names of students under 21 from driver license records or school lists by military recruiters, unless the students, or their parents in the case of minors, sign a release authorizing access.

• Hold military recruitment materials to the same "truth in advertising" standards that are required of businesses.

Appendix C

Peace Dividend (revised 031217 Bakersfield)

Green philosophy emphasizes the need to enable people to meet basic needs of quality food, housing, health care, equal opportunity, education and employment. Our country needs economic and social revitalization that can only be achieved through sane resource use and future-focused planning.

Use of resources to meet basic human needs has long been sacrificed to pay for a huge military budget. This level of military spending is the result of a bloated defense budget based on unrealistic assessments of foreign military threats, inefficient and wasteful procurement practices, self-serving competition between different branches of the military and duplication of military functions. Local economies have become so dependent on military spending that "pork-barrel" legislation has become an accepted practice.

About one third of the national budget is discretionary spending (non-discretionary spending is mostly entitlement programs mandated by law). Military spending accounts for more than half of all discretionary spending. This means that the combined budget for all other programs in all other agencies and departments is less than what the military is getting.

To fund the wars in the Middle East and the "war on terrorism" post September 11, the level of spending is roughly equal to the combined defense budgets of the next 15 largest militarized countries. This war money comes at the expense of funding for social programs and international assistance.

The Green Party advocates a major shift in the allocation of resources: 

• Redefine the military's role in the light of post-Cold War circumstances, multi-national economics and the emergence of developing nations.

• Develop a new national defense policy with participation by citizen and governmental representatives as well as the military.

• Reduce military spending to 25% of Cold War levels. Several studies supported the possibility of reducing such expenditures by 50% during the USSR's waning years. Today, no superpower threats justify even that spending level. While a 75% reduction is an arbitrary target, the Government and military should be made to explain to citizens why more is needed.

• Stop funding the Ballistic Missile Defense system. An intercontinental ballistic missile is not the weapon of choice for a terrorist organization or a developing country. With the demise of the cold war and the growth of global economic interdependence, no industrialized nation poses a threat of an all-out invasion of the U.S. Furthermore, the current missile defense schemes cannot be proved to work since they cannot be tested against real targets, and they remain vulnerable to countermeasures and decoys.

• Distribute the resulting "peace dividend," in part, to state and local governments to handle the multitude of neglected problems in social welfare, the environment and the economy.

• Simplify and decentralize the military procurement system, and consolidate military functions to eliminate duplication.

• Eliminate the use of drones.

Appendix D

SPONSOR:  Platform Committee.

PRESENTER:  Mike Feinstein, Los Angeles, mfeinstein@feinstein.org.
SUBJECT:  Initiatives, Referenda and Recall.  A revision of the old version.  The concerned Ten Key Values are:   Social Justice; Grassroots Democracy; Personal and Global Responsibility.

BACKGROUND

The Green Party supports initiative, referendum and recall as essential direct democracy tools; and seeks to retain and enhance these important institutions.

The strength of the initiative process is that it gives citizens the ability to by-pass the legislature and act directly as legislators themselves. Through the initiative process, citizens can propose statutes and amendments to the California Constitution -- a critical option when elected officials are deemed non-responsive by their constituents. The weakness of theinitiative process is the degree to which its components can be determined by big money -- from qualifying for the ballot, to waging statewide election campaigns.

Originally intended as a way for citizen voters to access the government structure, the initiative process has too often become a large-scale commercial and fundraising enterprise. It can cost millions of dollars and require a great deal of organization just to gather the necessary signatures to qualify for the ballot. Then there is the private, for-profit role that signature-gathering companies play in determining the cost of access to our democracy.

In response, Greens support making it easier for volunteer-based efforts to qualify initiatives and referendum; and at the same time to increase financial disclosure for ballot measures. Greens also seek ways to ensure that better-drafted measures ultimately make it to the ballot.

During the election season, Greens support ensuring television and radio time for informational programming; pro/con debates for each statewide ballot measure; and contribution and spending limits for pro/con campaigns.


 

PROPOSAL

The Green Party proposes:

Signature Gathering

• Make it easier to qualify an initiative or referendum proposal using volunteers, by extending the number of days to qualify for the ballot for signature-gathering efforts that utilize large percentages of volunteers and stay within spending limits, and/or weigh more highly the signatures obtained utilizing volunteers

• Where it is possible to truly safeguard security, identity and privacy, allow signature gathering Internet and/or other electronic technology for initiatives and referenda; in such cases there may be a higher signature threshold.

Drafting

• Initiative proposals should be written in language that is precise, clear, and understandable, and meets standards of readability.

• Initiative proposals should be limited to a single subject. The definition of "single subject" should ensure clear interpretation and strict enforcement.

• Initiatives with provisions that would require funding should specify the sources or method(s) of providing the funding.

• Initiatives should include a provision providing for an automatic review/re-vote or expiration of the measure, as appropriate.

Title and Summary

• The title and summary should be written by an impartial and non-partisan official authority, such as the Legislative Analyst's Office (for statewide measures).

• Ballot pamphlet analyses of initiative and referendum measures should be written for the reading level of the average citizen.

• The ballot label and ballot pamphlet should clearly indicate the effect of a yes vote and a no vote.

Voting and Approval Thresholds

• An initiative statute, or a legislative statute appearing on the ballot as a referendum, should be approved by a simple majority of those voting on the measure.

• The approval threshold for an initiative constitutional amendment should be higher than a simple majority vote

• An initiative statute or constitutional amendment that imposes a new requirement for passage of future initiativesshould meet the same requirement.

• An initiative statute or constitutional amendment that requires a super-majority vote for passage of future related issues should be required to receive the same super-majority vote approval for its passage.

• An initiative should not be allowed to provide for different outcomes depending upon the percentage of votes cast in its favor.

Elections

• Provide free time for informational television and radio information about the initiative and referendum proposals on the ballot, and broadcast any public hearings the Legislature holds/has held on the initiative proposals.

• Impose contribution and expenditure limits by individuals and groups in initiative and referendum campaigns - mandatory limits where possible by law, and voluntary when not.

• Conduct a series of televised debates featuring the yes and no sides of initiative and referendum proposals, just as there are pro/con arguments in the voter information guide - but only for campaigns accepting and operating within spending limits.

Disclosure

• Require that disclosure requirements that already apply to mailings and advertisements in support or opposition to an initiative or referendum also apply to the ballot pamphlet and voter information guide for those ballot measures

• Require that that at least the top three sponsors of an initiative or referendum and organizations that form a committee to support or oppose a measure be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements.

• Require that at least the top three principal contributors to an initiative or referendum campaign be listed by name in the ballot pamphlet, in mailings, and in advertisements.

• Where an initiative or referendum campaign has substantially qualified for the ballot through signature-gathering by volunteers, include this with other disclosure information.

• Require that initiative and referendum committees use names that reflect their true economic or special interest.

RESOURCES.  This revised platform plank did not gain enough votes at the SGAs of 10/09/16 and 11/14/16. This platform plank was originally proposed by Mike Feinstein on Sep 9 2016, agreed to by consensus by the Platform Committee listserve on Sep 28 2016, and approved by the 2 voting members on October 4 2016.  The 11/14/16 version needed input from County Councils.

Appendix E

Article 5. County Organization  

1. Counties may organize in any way they choose that includes Consensus-Seeking Facilitation and horizontal organizing and is not in violation of the California Election Code Division 7 Part 6 Green Party and the Ten Key Values of the Green Party of the United States. Counties shall provide 21-day public notice of their first General Meeting.

2. County Green Party Recognition by the Green Party of California:

1. To be recognized by the Green Party of California, County Green Party Organizations shall make an application in writing (physical or digital) to the GPCA Coordinating Committee. The application shall include written (physical or digital) Bylaws and a list of the County Organization’s Officers and all County Organization Members also known as County Council Members for which the applying County Organization is requesting GPCA recognition and certification under California Elections Code Section 7927(a)(1). The County Council shall include their list of appointed Delegates to the Standing General Assembly (SGA) and representatives to any upcoming General Assembly (GA).

2. The GPCA Coordinating Committee has the authority, in compliance with the California Elections Code, to accept, and shall approve, any application for membership that is in compliance with the California Elections Code.

3. Any decision by the Coordinating Committee may be appealed to the GPCA General Assembly.

4. If no Active County Council exists, a new County Council may be organized as defined in Sections (A) and (B).

5. A County does not have an Active County Council if the County Organization has not held a meeting for 6 consecutive months.

3. Any and all GPCA Bylaws not in compliance with A) and B) above must be interpreted in such a way as to preserve, allow & facilitate all of the rights and processes described above and shall not in any way be interpreted or otherwise used to limit the rights described therein in any way.

Article 6. County Councils  

Section 6-1 Members

6-1.1 Members of County Councils shall be those elected in the direct primary election and those appointed in between.

6-1.2 A County Organization's bylaws must specify the number of members to be elected in the county.

6-1.3 If a county has less than 150 registered Green Party voters, the number of members to be elected shall be three;

6-1.4 If a county has between 150 and 500 registered Green Party voters, the number of members to be elected shall be five;

6-1.5 If a county has more than 500 registered Green Party voters, the number shall be either:

6-1.5(a) The greater of the number seven or the integer nearest the resulting quotient obtained by dividing 100 times the number of Green Party registered voters in the county by the number of Green Party registered voters in the state; or

6-1.5(b) Recognized County Organizations may choose to modify the number of members to be elected by notifying the Coordinating Committee at least 165 days prior to the direct primary election, notification of which must include minutes of the decision that took place. In such cases the number of members to be elected may be no fewer than five. It shall be the responsibility of the Coordinating Committee to notify the Secretary of State of the modification no later than 135 days prior to the direct primary election.

 Section 6-2 Elections

6-2.1 Members shall be elected in each county at each direct primary election. Only those legally registered to vote in California as members of the Green Party are eligible to be elected. Elections shall be for two-year terms lasting until 30 days after the next direct primary election.

6-2.2 Multi-Member Districts

6-2.2(a) Members shall be elected from one or more multi-member districts.

6-2.2(b) A County Organization's bylaws shall specify that members shall be elected from either a single, countywide multi-member district or multiple, multi-member districts corresponding to the boundaries of the Congressional, State Assembly, State Senate or Supervisorial districts within that county.

6-2.2(c) The number of seats to be elected for each district shall be proportional to the number of registered Green Party members in that district, compared to the number of registered Green Party members county wide.

NOTE: The following text 6-2.3 through 6-2.7 shall be considered part of the GPCA Bylaws, until such text or text similar to it is passed as part of a GPCA section of the California Elections Code:

6-2.3 Computation of members allotted

6-2.3(a) The Secretary of State, no later than the 125th day before the direct primary election, shall compute the number of members of County Councils to be elected in each county and shall mail a certificate to that effect to the county clerk of each county and to the Liaison to the Secretary of State.

6-2.3(b) The county clerk, no later than the 115th day before the direct primary election, shall compute the number of members of County Council members to be elected in each district if the election of the members is to be by district.

6-2.4 In each county, the name of each candidate for member of County Councils shall appear on the ballot only if she or he is registered in the Green Party and has filed a nomination paper pursuant to Division 6 (commencing with Section 6000) of the Elections Code signed in the candidate‘s behalf by Green Party voters of the County Council election district in which she or he is a candidate.

6-2.5 The number of sponsors which shall be required of a person to be a candidate for member of a County Council shall be either: (a) Not less than 20; or (b) Not less than 2 percent of the number of voters registered as affiliated with the Green Party in the County Council election district -- whichever is less. Each sponsor is entitled to sponsor as many candidates as there are seats in the district. Notwithstanding any provision of the Elections Code, as many candidates as there are seats in the district may have their names listed on a single sponsor's certificate, and the signatures thereon shall be counted toward the sponsor requirement of each and every candidate whose name is listed on the certificate. In no case shall the number of candidates having their names on a sponsor's certificate exceed the number of members of the county council to be elected in the district.

6-2.6 No write-in candidate for member of County Council shall be declared elected, however, unless that candidate has received a number of first choice votes equal to or greater than 2 percent of the number of party members voting in the County Council election district at the direct primary or 20 votes, whichever is less.

6-2.7 For the purposes of this Section, the registration figures used shall be those taken from the statement of voters and their political affiliations transmitted by the county clerk/registrar to the Secretary of State on the 135th day prior to the next direct primary election.

6-3 Vacancy

A vacancy on the County Council shall be said to exist whenever any of the following has occurred. Additional criteria may be enacted by a County Organization in its bylaws, like attendance requirements, that are not in conflict with these bylaws:

6-3.1 A County Council seat was not filled in an election;

6-3.2 A County Council member has submitted a written statement of resignation to the County Council or the Coordinating Committee;

6-3.3 A County Council member is no longer registered in the county or district within the county from which she or he was elected;

6-3.4 A County Council member is no longer registered Green;

6-3.5 A Councilmember dies or becomes incapacitated to act;

6-3.6 A Councilmember is removed for cause.

6-4 Removal for Cause

6-4.1 County Council members elected in the direct primary election may be removed from office only by a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly in response to a Removal for Cause petition from the County Council in question. Before a Removal for Caucus petition is considered, mediation is encouraged to address outstanding issues and concerns.

6-4.2 A Removal for Cause petition must contain the written basis for removal, must be approved by the County Council by a 2/3 vote, and must be received by the Coordinating Committee before it can be forwarded to the General Assembly for a vote. The written basis for removal must be based upon a substantial violation of the bylaws of the GPCA and/or the County Organization.

6-4.3 Upon receipt of such Removal for Cause petition, the Coordinating Committee shall schedule a vote of the General Assembly. If an in-person General Assembly is scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda, and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the petition for a discussion and vote of the Standing General Assembly at the next available starting date for on-line proposals, as defined in these bylaws.

6-4.4 County Council members not elected in the direct primary election, but who have been appointed by the processes described in Article 5 and 6-5 , may be removed by the process described in 6-4.1 through 6-4.3, or alternatively, by a 4/5 vote of the County Council, in response to a Removal for Cause proposal containing the written basis for removal.

Section 6-5 Appointments to Vacancies in Counties In Which No County Council members were elected in the primary election

6-5.1 The General Meeting must appoint at least one member to the County Council. Only registered Green Party members in the county are eligible for appointment. The county organization shall forward minutes of the meeting to the Coordinating Committee.

6-5.2 Once the Coordinating Committee has certified that the County Organization is recognized under Article 5, it shall review the minutes of the County Council election and certify the new County Council, unless there is clear evidence that the Council was elected in conflict with that County Organization's bylaws. Any decision by the Coordinating Committee not to certify may be appealed by that County Organization to the General Assembly and shall require a 2/3 vote to certify. If an in-person General Assembly is scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall place the vote on the draft agenda, and any agenda approved by the General Assembly must include the vote. If an in-person General Assembly is not scheduled to occur within 60 days of the receipt of the petition, the Coordinating Committee shall submit the petition for a discussion and vote of the Standing General Assembly at the next available starting date for on-line proposals, as defined in these bylaws.