{news} Approved minutes of the 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting. Quorum met.

[B Barry]

Approved minutes of the 2-24-09 SCC CTGP meeting.  Quorum met.

Location: Portland Senior Center, 7 Waverly Avenue, Portland, CT  06480
Time: 7PM to 9PM

Attendees by chapter: Central: Vittorio Lancia; Fairfield: Paul Bass,
Richard Duffee; Greater Hartford: Barbara Barry, secretary of CTGP; CTGP
co-chairpersons: S. Michael DeRosa, Steve Fournier, CTGP treasurer:
Christopher Reilly;

New London: Ronna Stuller; New Haven: Jerry Martin; Northeast: G. Scott
Deshefy; Tolland: Tim McKee.

Facilitator:  Tim McKee

 

A.      Preliminaries:

1.       Introductions of voting/non-voting attendees; chapters; quorum was
met; timekeeper: Steve Fournier.

2.       Approval of tonight's proposed agenda, no deletions; addition:
resolution in support of GPUS position about the 

Pennsylvania juvenile court judges accused of fraud.

3.       Review and approval of minutes of the 1-27-09 SCC meeting. The
12-30-08 SCC minutes were held to the future.

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

5.     Treasurer's report from treasurer: Christopher Reilly: balance as of:
1-31-09: $1480.87; as of 2-24-09: $1578.83. 

 

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.

RD: we should add that candidates who want to represent financially poor
people are more likely to be rejected in the following ways: signatures of
financially poor people are more likely to be rejected because poor people
are more likely to move from residence to residence or be homeless; poor
people are more likely to have their petitions thrown out due to their
difficulty proving their residencies over time; the longer a voter is in a
residence the less likely their signature or chance to vote will be
rejected.

GSD: overall, the above leads to less representation for the financially
poor people.

RD: the Democrats and Republicans tend to have "professional" candidates and
develop multiple tiers of potential candidates in the wings.  Third
political parties tend not to have these.

PB: the 2005 CT Campaign Finance Reform Law does 3 things: 1)requires 3rd
political parties to do things that the Democrats and Republicans are not
required to do;  2) money is speech and the Democrats and Republicans get a
lot of 

"speech" with this law; 3) this law is really a referendum which is required
each time a 3rd political party requests money. E.G. 3rd political parties
need to get petition signatures which in a sense indicates that the signer
supports the 3rd political party to get money for a specific
purpose/candidate. This is vastly different from requesting a person's
signature to allow a 3rd political party to run a candidate for specific
office.  The Democrats and Republicans are not required to overcome this
hurdle.                           Consensus: passed.

2. Proposal from Jerry Martin and David Bedell to join the coalition: Better
Choices for Connecticut: Consensus: passed.  See 10 pages of Addendum 1.

 

C. Reports:

1. GPUS reports from: a) CTGP representatives: Tim McKee: GPUS National
Committee Meeting will be held in Durham, N.C. at University of North
Carolina from 6-25-09 through 6-28-09. It will have a lot of workshops and
will allow for gatherings of people who have hands-on expertise in the
various things that a 3rd political party needs.  Registration fee is likely
to be $25.  CTGP will be allowed five (5) people.   Neither Cliff Thornton,
National Co-chairperson of the GPUS nor CTGP representative to GPUS Charlie
Pillsbury were present.  b) National Committee Members: Steve Fournier:
there tends to be a continuous debate about policies, Richard Duffee on the
GPUS International Committee: one tends to get 400 emails a month. 83% of
the committee discussion is regarding Gaza. There is a current debate about
whether this committee needs to have its resolution approved by the GPUS or
can the international committee pass resolutions without GPUS approval. JM:
reviewed GPUS bylaws and perceives that the bylaws allows the international
committee to do what it wants to do. TMcK: the international committee tends
to work with other international Green Parties. SMD: on the Ballot Access
committee: is requesting suggestions for bills that this committee could
support; .

 

2.  deleted: were covered at 1-27-09 SCC meeting: CTGP 1-21-09 meeting with
CT State Legislative Government and Election Committee Co-chairpersons,
Senator Slossberg and Representative James Spallone of 36th district. and

CTGP concerns regarding the Elections Department of the CT. Secretary of
State during the 11-08 election: 

 

3. CTGP lawsuit with the ACLU against the State of CT regarding the 2005
State of CT Campaign Finance Reform Laws. The above report from Steve
Fournier. SMD: there will be another court hearing in 3-09. Date to be
determined.

 

4.  CTGP literature is available for the 2-26-09 evening Wrench in the Works
event in Willimantic.

 

5.  CTGP potential goals for 2009: a) Fight the Hike about election rates
continues there efforts inside the legislature and is also striving for
towns (e.g. New Haven, West Haven, Hamden and Bridgeport) to support
resolutions; b) universal health care: SF: we may wish to consider joining a
single payer coalition.

 

6. Authorization of money to get the state-wide list of registered Green
Party voters. SMD: an attorney with the Secretary of States office had
indicated it will be provided to the CTGP via email to SMD in the near
future, possibly for free. 

 

7.  Volunteers for the 4-25-09 CTGP Internal Elections Committee: Steve
Fournier, Barbara Barry, S. Michael DeRosa, Christopher Reilly.  Convention
Committee: Barbara Barry. 

 

8.  Chapter reports: TMc: we need to recruit local CTGP candidates; CCSU is
offering internships.

SMD: may have a candidates for Meriden mayor and perhaps Middletown mayor
and West Hartford mayor.

RS: New London had its town meeting two (2) weeks ago(i.e. it was the
scheduled 2nd meeting of each month): 

 

9. Addition was not addressed: resolution in support of GPUS position about
the Pennsylvania juvenile court judges accused of fraud.

 

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

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20090529/8c967e07/attachment.html>