{news} minutes Sept 2004 SCC meeting, part 1 of 3

[edubrule]

Minutes--September 2004 SCC meeting

Wesleyan University (Fisk Hall room 413), 7:15-9:30pm

 

Attendees:

1. Central Connecticut chapter:  Steve Krevisky, Vincent Maruffi

2. Fairfield chapter:  Ed Friend, David Bedell

3. Hamden chapter:  Aaron Gustafson, Francis Braunlich

4. Hartford chapter:  Ed DuBrule (NV),  Lynah,  Albert Marceau, Mike DeRosa, Barbara Barry DeRosa

5. New London chapter:  Andy Derr

6. Northeast chapter:  Jean deSmet

7. Northwest chapter:  Elizabeth Brancato (voting for Women's Caucus;  not voting for Northwest chapter), Judy Herkimer, Kim Herkimer, Audrey Cole

8. Shoreline chapter:  Lindsay Mathews, David Adams

9. Tolland chapter:   Karin Norton

10. Western chapter:  Justine McCabe, Rachel Goodkind

Brian Brotman (Wesleyan student) (NV) (see "guest slot" below)

 

Lindsay and Judy co-facilitated the meeting.  Persons known to the secretary not to be chapter voting representatives are so noted ("NV").  No attendees were present from the New Haven chapter.  The West Hartford chapter and Southeast chapter are no longer counted toward quorum (see minutes of June 2004 SCC meeting).

 

A.  PRELIMINARIES  The Ground Rules (developed by Connecticut Greens in meetings in November 2002) for conduct of the meeting were adopted by consensus.  The August 2004 SCC minutes were approved by consensus.  In the guest slot, Wesleyan student Brian Brotman (who had reserved our room tonight) said that he had worked on the Cobb campaign in New Jersey last summer.

 

B. OLD BUSINESS AND PROPOSALS

1. Budget.  Mike presented the budget proposal of Appendix 1, which comes from the Executive Committee.  The first two items in the budget are contributions of the state party towards the office rent and utilities.  Mike distributed a handout (available from the secretary) titled "Reasons to support the state Green Party office".   He said that the CTGP's liability insurance is directly tied to some funding connection between the state party and some rented or owned property.  He noted that people have talked about suing the CTGP.  He said that two insurance agents had told him that homeowners' policies will not cover events.  He said that the Hartford chapter has been working hard (including movies and speakers) to cover the Hartford chapter's share of the office.

     The Northwest chapter had presented an alternative budget.  It was in Appendix 9 of the SCC agenda distributed prior to this meeting and at this meeting.  All the figures in the Northwest chapter budget are the same as those in the budget of Appendix 1 except that the Northwest chapter budget does not include money towards the Hartford office rent or utilities.  The Executive Committee's budget has an annual surplus (income minus expenditures) of $520.  The Northwest chapter's budget has an annual surplus of $2,520.  [Secretary's note:  the expenses in the Northwest chapter's budget actually add to $9,480 rather than $9,880;  hence the annual surplus is actually $2,920.]  Elizabeth Brancato said that the Northwest chapter met twice over the past month and at their more recent meeting decided to withdraw their proposed budget.

     Audrey said that budget proposals normally include the current year's appropriation for each budget item alongside the proposed appropriation for each item.  She said (or implied) that the proposed budget should be reworked until it resembles the budgets of other organizations she has seen.  She said that the Northwest chapter determined that the only statutory requirement for insurance is worker's compensation insurance (if there are employees).  Audrey has been told that the insurance industry in general doesn't require rented or owned property to provide insurance (though an individual insurance company or agency may impose this requirement).  Justine said that her insurance agent said that we don't need an office to obtain insurance coverage.  Karin said that she talked to the insurance company last June and obtained quotes for premiums with no office, one office, or two offices (Hartford and New Haven);  the premiums would be much higher if there were no office.  Karin expressed concerns about the ability of the state party to afford an office, saying that "we got way into debt with the office".  She said "what about the Hartford chapter's debt to the party?"

     David Adams asked whether political parties need insurance.  Do other states' Green parties purchase insurance, and (if so) is their insurance connected to offices?  Andy said that liability insurance is needed to protect the officers of the party;  "political parties get sued a lot".

     Andy said that advantages of having an office include visibility of the party and a place to meet.  He said that the Hartford chapter has had trouble coming up with its share of the rent.  Justine said that there have been many months when the Hartford chapter hasn't paid its share of the rent.  Mike said that recently the Hartford chapter formed a PAC and since the formation of this PAC it has been able to pay its share.

     Andy proposed that the SCC could approve continued funding for the office, subject to the condition that the Hartford chapter managed to come up with its share of the rent.  Two or three variations of this idea were discussed, such as giving the Hartford chapter a trial period of three months.

     Aaron said that if there were to be a partially state-funded office, it would be desirable to have it staffed (even a volunteer with posted office hours two days per week).

     Jean says that the Northeast chapter makes use of the CTGP's insurance regularly--events such as speakers need insurance.  The recent DNC2RNC marchers made use of the CTGP's insurance--they found they couldn't get insurance elsewhere ("we won't cover political events").  Rachel said that the CTGP insurance was used to cover the booth the Western chapter had at Village Fair Days, and that the CTGP insurance was needed to cover eight showings of movie(s) at a local library.

     Justine spoke of the large amount of money Chris Reilly has asked to be reimbursed.  She said that we need to determine the facts regarding this money through some kind of audit.  Until this matter is resolved the state party should refrain from spending on anything beyond essential needs.  Audrey agreed that there should be a full audit of CTGP past finances.

     Lindsay spoke of one Shoreline chapter member's comment that if the state passed a budget that brought the state party far into debt, the Shoreline chapter may become responsible for part of that debt.

     The facilitator asked if there were consensus that the Executive Committee budget should be passed by the SCC.  Clearly there was a lack of such a consensus.  The facilitator (making use of the modified consensus procedures) asked if the Executive Committee (the presenter of the proposal) wished to (1) ask for more time to discuss the budget, (2) withdraw the proposal (return it to the Executive Committee for modification), or (3) move to a vote.  The members of the Executive Committee present at tonight's meeting (Ed DuBrule, Elizabeth Brancato, and Mike DeRosa) left the room to discuss what to do, and returned to say that they withdrew the proposal (the budget) from further consideration at tonight's meeting.

 

2. Bylaws segment "4-1 Chapters" (Appendix 2).  Passed out for discussion at June SCC meeting;  submitted by the New London chapter for tonight's meeting. (Bylaws changes must be initiated by a chapter, per the bylaws.)

3. Bylaws segment "4-2 State Central Committee" (Appendix 3).  A version of this was passed out for discussion at July SCC meeting;  submitted by the New London chapter for tonight's meeting.  As submitted tonight, the italicized text in section 4-2-B is to replaced by the boldface text which follows it, and boldface text has been added to section 4-2-C.

 

Tonight's meeting dealt with the two bylaws segments as one agenda item.  Andy presented the proposed bylaws changes.  By consensus these proposed bylaws changes were referred to chapters for consideration.

 

Secretary's note:  below are the steps by which the bylaws are changed.  Note the asterisked sentences below (asterisks added by secretary).

 

(1) Any Chapter may, provided two thirds of its full membership concur, propose to the State Central Committee amendments or changes to the Party Bylaws.

 

**(2) The State Central Committee shall refer the proposal to all active Chapters for review and recommendations.

**(3) Each Chapter may, by a two thirds majority of its full membership, recommend rejection, State Central Committee approval, or submittal of the proposal to the next following Party Convention for consideration of the full membership.

 

(4) If two thirds of the Chapters recommend approval, the State Central Committee may enact the change or refer it for Convention action.

(5) If Convention action is called for, members in good standing but unable to attend the Convention shall each be entitled to vote by absentee ballot.

 

[From the bylaws, posted on the website www.ctgreens.org --click on "archives" on the home page.  Numbering of steps added by secretary.]

 

4. Proposal from Hamden chapter on creation of an IT (information technology) committee (Appendix 4).  Aaron presented the proposal.  Ed DuBrule noted that the proposal speaks of the committee members as " the state webmaster, all chapter webmasters and interested individuals with IT skills to offer'.  He asked if a person without specialized IT knowledge, but with an interest in contributing to the committee (and perhaps with interest in privacy issues) could join the committee.  Aaron said that such a person could join.  Mike said that he is interested in joining this committee.  Someone stated that Dmitri D'Alessandro and Chris Reilly have expressed an interest in joining the committee.   David Bedell wondered if the committee's functions would overlap the communications committee;  Aaron said that the committee would work with the communications committee.   By consensus the proposal was passed by the SCC.

 

5. Proposal from Hamden chapter on creation of voters' rights working group (Appendix 5).  Aaron presented the proposal.  It was written to address concerns raised by David Agosta and others.  It is would be an ad hoc working group rather than a committee.  Karin wondered if formation of a committee would be better--the committee could later turn its attention to implementing the voter outreach program mentioned in the proposal.  Jean said she might be interested in joining the group.  Jean spoke of creating a policies/procedures manual based on voting laws.  Audrey spoke of a case in which a town clerk was misinformed of voting laws--Audrey had to go to the Secretary of State's office.  By consensus the proposal was passed by the SCC.

 

6. Proposal from Women's Caucus on rotating location ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20041018/d6ff60cc/attachment.html>