{news} minutes of 1/13/05 Executive Committee meeting

Sun Jan 16 12:29:41 EST 2005

RE: Process Committee.  Since the board members are elected, do we want to put that on the general internal elections ballot?  Or is that just a little too confusing...

Jean
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: edubrule 
  To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org 
  Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 8:44 PM
  Subject: {news} minutes of 1/13/05 Executive Committee meeting

  Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS
  http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/

  to unsubscribe click here
  mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe@ml.greens.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Minutes of January 13, 2005 Executive Committee meeting--6:45pm-8:45 pm, Hartford office

  Financial matters.  The fundraising letter (mailed 12/2/04 to 2200 registered Greens) has by now brought in $34 over the cost of the printing and mailing.  We have paid the entire amount due to the mailing bureau.  The Party checking account now holds approximately $700.

  Internal elections.  The internal election committee plans to have the annual meeting in March, which elects co-chairs and other officers of the CTGP.  Today we discussed whether a ballot packet (ballot, voting instructions, candidate statements, annual meeting location) could be sent to all CTGP members (members per the bylaws definition).   This would be a mailing to the 2500 registered Greens and perhaps 500 other people;  this would be costly.  One alternative would be to send the ballot packet to those who voted in the 2004 internal elections, and send a postcard to the rest of the members.  The postcard would contain information on the annual meeting and how to obtain a ballot and candidate statements (via phone call or via computer).  We did a very rough calculation--the printing and mailing expenses of the latter plan might be $1600.  Some contributions might come in from the mailing.   We might need to spend money to rent rooms for the annual meeting (main room and ballot-counting room).  Fundraising calls could be made, asking potential donors for contributions for the specific purpose of being able to mail the entire ballot packet to all CTGP members.

       The US Postal service can print and mail;  Elizabeth has obtained information on this service.

       We encourage the internal elections committee to come up with a proposal (including dollar amount needed) by the January 25 SCC meeting.  We encourage Greens to run for office (three co-chair positions--must represent both genders, treasurer, secretary, two representatives to the national Party and alternate).

  Replacement for Rachel Goodkind.  The July 2004 SCC meeting elected the following as the Process Committee of the conflict resolution process:  David Adams, Charlie Pillsbury, and Rachel Goodkind.  David will be serving for one year, Charlie for two, and Rachel was to serve the three-year term.  Rachel has moved out of Connecticut.   Selecting a replacement for Rachel will be put on the agenda of the January 25 SCC meeting.  The paragraphs governing this process are appended to these minutes.  Rachel's replacement must be a female.

       Today we discussed whether the three members of the Process Committee must be from three different chapters.  Charlie and (it appears) David have expressed their belief, in e-mails to us, that such a requirement only applied to the selection of Process Committee members that was done when the very first Process Committee was set up.

  Towns/chapters map.  Bob has prepared a map showing the towns associated with each chapter.  He will distribute this map within the CTGP and ask for comments.

  Unreimbursed expenditures of Chris Reilly.   We had a lengthy discussion of a draft proposal from the Executive Committee to the SCC which expresses our belief that Chris should be reimbursed the money he paid for office rent in 2003 and early 2004.  Connecticut law appears to prohibit loans from individuals to the CTGP;  the concern behind the law may be that such loans could fail to be repaid and turn into nonrecorded contributions.

       Should the Executive Committee proposal simply state that we feel that Chris should be reimbursed, or should it state our belief as to what percent of Chris's rent expenditures should be paid from the CTGP versus the Hartford chapter?    At its November 14, 2000 meeting, the SCC decided that the CTGP would pay half the rent (and half the utilities) of the CTGP office.  The latter fact does not lead to a simple conclusion that the Hartford chapter owes half Chris half the rent money--the situation is more complicated (for example, the Sheff campaign paid toward Hartford office rent).  Will Audrey's possible audit of CTGP books supply information relevant to these issues?  The draft proposal will not be put on the agenda of the January 25 SCC meeting.

  Vas Nunes vs. Sevigny complaint.  Elizabeth will contact David Adams and/or Charlie Pillsbury regarding whether a Resolution Committee has produced a report in response to this complaint.

  Possible formation of New Britain chapter.  Mike reported that a New Britain chapter may be forming, with a possible candidate for mayor.

  Proposal to endorse March 5 "Bring the troops home" event.  The Executive Committee will submit a proposal to the SCC asking for SCC endorsement of a March 5 event sponsored by the Bring The Troops Home Coalition.

  Possible death penalty press release.  Perhaps Tim, possibly with assistance from Kaye Ward, can write a press release about the scheduled execution of Michael Ross.  Mike has learned that the state of Connecticut is trying to keep anti-death penalty protesters a long distance away from the prison where the execution will occur--a freedom of speech/civil liberties issue.

  SCC agenda.  The agenda for the January 25 SCC meeting was worked out.  As usual, it will be posted to the News listserve a week before the meeting.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------

  Appendix.  Excerpt from Conflict Resolution Process, revised after 1 year's experience.

  [NOTE: explanatory notes between brackets and in italics were not approved by the SCC and are not part of the Resolution Process, but reflect comments made at the April 2003 SCC meeting when the Resolution Process was adopted; recommended additions are in bold print; recommended deletions are in bold print between brackets.]  

  RESOLUTION PROCESS STRUCTURE.  The Resolution Process is a two-step process involving a standing (elected) Process Committee and ad hoc Resolution Committees appointed to dispose of each complaint.  The Resolution Process functions are in order of importance:   1) fact-finding, 2) education, 3) mediation and reconciliation, and 4) corrective action.  

  The Process Committee (PC) [prosecutor/grand jury function] consists of three people from different chapters who were nominated and elected by the SCC immediately after the SCC approved the Resolution Process. [The three people nominated and elected unanimously were David Adams, Rachel Goodkind and Lynah Linwood] These three people will serve until the SCC has reviewed, ratified or amended the Resolution Process, as described in the final paragraph below, in approximately one year. Upon ratification or amendment of the Process, three people will be elected immediately to serve for one year, two years and three years, respectively. After these initial terms, PC members will be elected to serve three-year terms, and no person may serve on the PC for more than six years under any circumstances. In nominating people to serve on the PC, the SCC will consider the Party's respect for diversity. At no time may all three members of the PC be of the same gender. [Key Values 7 & 8]

  The Resolution Committee (RC) ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe@ml.greens.org
  _______________________________________________
  CTGP-news mailing list
  CTGP-news at ml.greens.org
  http://ml.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/ctgp-news

  ATTENTION!
  The information in this transmission is privileged and confidential and intended only for the recipient listed above.  If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.  The text of this email is similar to ordinary or face-to-face conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion and does not constitute a representation of the opinions of the CT Green Party. The responsibility for any messages posted herein is solely that of the person who sent the message, and the CT Green Party hereby leaves this responsibility in the hands of it's members.

  NOTE: This is an inherently insecure forum, please do not post confidential messages and always realize that your address can be faked, and although a message may appear to be from a certain individual, it is always possible that it is fakemail. This is mail sent by a third party under an illegally assumed identity for purposes of coercion, misdirection, or general mischief.

  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown.  This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information.  This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly.  Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient.  Thank you for your compliance.

  To be removed please mailto://ctgp-news-unsubscribe@ml.greens.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20050116/25328970/attachment.html>