{news} Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior Center

[B Barry]

Proposed agenda for the 7PM 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting at Portland Senior
Center

Location: Portland Senior Center, 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT  06480

Facilitator:  To Be Determined

 

A.      Preliminaries:

1.       (1 minute): Introductions of voting/non-voting attendees; chapters;
if quorum was met; timekeeper; ground rules.

2.       (2-4 minutes): Approval of tonight’s proposed agenda, any deletions
or additions.

3.       (4-6 minutes): Review and approval of minutes of 12-30-09 and
1-27-09 SCC meetings.

4.     (2-4minutes): Review and acceptance of the minutes of the 1-19-09 and
2-17-09 EC meetings.

5.     (2-4 minutes): Treasurer’s report from treasurer: Christopher Reilly.

 

B.     Any proposals/referendums by chapters, committee.

1.  Election Autopsy from Steve Fournier, co-chairperson:

Four our first meeting of 2009, having had a couple of months to reflect on
the election of 2008, it seems a good time to assess our status and plan for
the coming year and the 2010 election.

Vote-getting experience:  

In the election of the U.S. House of Representative, Greens received less
than 5% of the vote. Green candidates were excluded from most broadcast
debates and largely ignored by the media. Green won ballot status in 3
districts and will be able to run candidates without petitioning in the next
congressional election, but no Green candidate had a discernible effect on
the outcome.

In state elections, four Green candidates in tree-way races did poorly
(under 10%), even though their districts were safe for the Democrat. In the
one two-way contest, the Green candidate did better at 19%. Voters for our
write-ins likely were not all counted, and there were fewer than 100
recorded altogether.

Under the campaign finance law, now under legal challenge, all but one of
our ballot candidates got so few votes that successor candidates in these
districts are legally disqualified from public financing in 2010. They are
likely to face at least one major party candidate who does qualify, and the
major party opponents will spend tens of dollars for every spent by Greens,
further disabling potential Green voters and guaranteeing continuation of
the Democratic/Republican dynasty.

Fundraising experience:

The Greens’ five congressional candidates were barely able to raise enough
to gain name recognition, and this was in sprawling districts. It is
extremely unlikely that any could have raised $5000 in a much smaller state
legislative district. Greens running for state office raised negligible
amounts.

Greens’ fundraising problems are compounded by the fact that progressives’
natural constituency consists of the working poor, the unemployed and
underemployed, and students. Greens would have to abandon principle and
alter the party’s message to appeal to high-income individuals.  The
required $5000 private funding threshold will present little impediment to
Democrats and Republicans. In fact, it appears that private campaign funds,
in helping candidates meet the threshold, will continue to wield influence,
but for a much smaller investment. Public funding for Democrats and
Republicans, far from empowering the poor, will make it ever more likely
that the needs of people without resources will be ignored.

Planning for 2010 and beyond:

Greens’ best hope of winning a seat in the state House or Senate will be a
long-term project involving the recruitment of one or more well-known,
popular progressives to try to turn out 10% in the first election year (the
best that can be hoped for without public funding) in order to qualify for
funding two years later. By the 2014 election, Greens might be able to run
one or more partially funded candidates and make themselves competitive.
Greens might also reasonably predict that the Democrat or Republican will
face no opponent in 2010 in many districts (a third of them faced no
opponent in 2008), raising the slim change that a green might garner enough
votes to qualify for funding in 2012.

Recruiting candidates was difficult before publicly-funded campaigns for
major party opponents. With public funding, potential Green candidates now
have to be willing to run hard with a certainty of defeat, and such people
are rare on the current political landscape. Candidates will have to be
willing to appeal to voters to cast their sufficient money to qualify for
funding. A plan for recruiting such people could be our biggest challenge in
the coming year. To adapt to the public funding law, the state party might
be well advised to direct all contributors to candidate committees, even if
it meant strangling the state treasury. 

As a pressure group or a progressive lobby, Greens are frustrated at every
turn by the public financing scheme, which will always depress the Green
vote. In the past, social movements have run doomed election campaigns for
the purpose of widening debate and gradually attracting support. All signs
indicate that, in state elections at least, support for Green issues will
appear to be eroding and not growing. Public funding is likely to keep
potential supporters from casting Green votes, simply because the outcome of
almost every contest will be known far in advance. It won’t be possible to
gauge true levels of support for social justice and environmental
restoration when elections are, for all practical purposes, fixed. Debate
won’t be broadened but narrowed under the new regime.  Greens might also
have to abandon the message that the party is running to win state contests
and acknowledge that’s running to qualify for funds in a future election. To
conserve the party’s sparse resources, members will have to consider, this
year, whether it’s worthwhile to run candidates for state office at all, in
view of these disabling laws, and whether the party might more profitably
put its emphasis on local elections and national office.

 

C. Reports:

1. (10-15 minutes): GPUS reports from: a) Cliff Thornton, National
Co-chairperson of the GPUS; b) CTGP representatives: Tim McKee and Charlie
Pillsbury; c) National Committee Members: Steve Fournier, Richard Duffee and
S. Michael DeRosa.

 

2.  (20 minutes): CTGP 2-09 meetings with CT State Legislative Government
and Election Committee Co-chairpersons.

 

3. (10 minutes): Update regarding CTGP lawsuit with the ACLU against the
State of CT regarding the 2005 State of CT Campaign Finance Reform Laws.
Report from Steve Fournier.

 

4. (15 minutes): CTGP concerns regarding the Elections Department of the CT.
Secretary of State during the 11-08 election: a) votes not counted for
write-in candidates for president; b) voting problems found by independent
election auditors but not by the Secretary of State.  

 

5.  (5-10minutes): CTGP literature.

 

6.  (5-10 minutes): CTGP potential goals for 2009: a) legislative goals for
petitioning; b) electric rates; c) universal health care.

 

7. (5 minutes): Authorization of money to get the state-wide list of
registered Green Party voters.

 

8.  (10-15minutes): Volunteers for the Internal Elections Committee,
Convention Committee for 4-09 CTGP Convention. 

 

9.  (2-5 minutes, each):  Chapter reports.

 

10. Date and place for the 3-31-09, Tuesday SCC meeting.  Date, place and
time of next EC meeting in 3-09: to be determined.

 

12.    Any additions

 

Green Party Key Values: non-violence, respect for diversity, grassroots
democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom,
decentralization, community-based economics and economic justice, future
focus and sustainability, personal and global responsibility, feminism and
gender 

 

 

 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1956 - Release Date: 2/16/2009
6:31 PM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20090221/3fd7e46e/attachment.html>