Proposals for 2005 Fall State Committee Meeting

Proposals for the State Committee meeting can be submitted, revised, and commented on here. The State Committee meeting is on Saturday October 15th, 2005. State Committee proceedures say that the last day to submit anything here is Saturday October 1st, 2005.

Any two members of the State and Administrative Committees, or any Green-Rainbow Local, may submit a proposal for the State Committee to consider.

If you have proposals that are ready to post, do not hesitate as it gives people more of a chance to read it and comment on it ahead of time and possibly improve it.

If you have the proposal already in a word processor document, please attach the document at the bottom of your post to facilitate the process of making the proposal package for the meeting.

Please read them completely so you are prepared for clarifying questions, discussion, and decisionmaking. If you have comments ahead of time, you can post a follow up here and you can contact the sponsors of the proposal.

WestMass local organizing
Sunday October 09, @01:03PM by Suel Bartone
from the WestMass locals committee.
The GRP in western Mass is all but defunct. I have polled members on the WestMass locals email list about organizing GRP meetings, undertaking local projects, with virtually no response. Individuals are very active in the anti-war movement and local issues, but we are not visible or active as a party.
Read More

2006 Diverse Slate of Statewide Candidates
Saturday October 01, @08:35PM by Wendy Van Horne, Mike Heichman (alternate)
from the Exploratory Committee committee.
This proposal comes from the meeting of the Exploratory Comm. on 9-24. The purpose is to involve the membership of our party in planning and ratifying the campaign and our diverse slate of candidates for the 2006 statewide elections.
Read More (4 comments)

Proposal for GM Foods Initiative
Friday September 30, @11:16PM by Jennifer Mazer, Owen Broadhurst
This is a proposal for the Green-Rainbow Party
to spearhead an intitiative for a ban on genetically modified foods in a county or district of Massachusetts.
Read More (2 comments)

Proposal for GM Foods Initiative
Friday September 30, @11:15PM by Jennifer Mazer, Owen Broadhurst
This is a proposal for the Green-Rainbow Party
to spearhead an intitiative for a ban on genetically modified foods in a county or district of Massachusetts.
Read More

Green-Rainbow Party Plan for the Protection of Equal Marriage Rights in Massachusetts
Wednesday September 28, @03:51PM by Owen R. Broadhurst
This proposal was first submitted as a floor proposal to the State Convention by Mr. Colby Peterson. I am resubmitting it as a proposal to StateCom, and am a sponsor. The language of the proposal as drafted by Mr. Peterson is below - while background and summary text authored by Mr. Peterson now follows:

Background:

Since the landmark decision in 2004 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to allow same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, there has been a legislative push and debate in the Massachusetts General Assembly and by the general population to amend the state constitution to restrict the marriage rights of same-sex couples and/ or redefine them as "civil unions," or lesser. Many non-partisan interest groups have come out on both sides of the issue. However the baehavior of the political parties has been inconsistent. Most Republicans are for the current amendment or for the use of stronger language that removes marriage and civil unions altogether, while Democrats are not clearly united on the issue with their own presidential candidate declaring that their support for equal marriage in Massachusetts was a poor decision. The Libertarians are also splintered on this issue, some believing that marriage licenses should not exist at all. The Green-Rainbow Party is the only official state political party that has a positive, clear, and consistent stance on the civil rights of same-sex couples, yet we have yet as a party to take an action on the issue other than a post-decision written statement.

The Challenge:

This is the pivotal year for action on this issue. The amendment with the proposed language change to "civil unions" has already been confirmed once by the General Assembly. If it is confirmed again, it will go to voters for final approval on the ballot. The clock is ticking on the already thousands of existing same-sex marriages in this Commonwealth, and the Green-Rainbow Party must be active in defending those rights. This issue is an opportunity the Green-Rainbow Party cannot remain silent on any longer, and cannot afford to miss. We have a legacy of diversity and acceptance in our party, and from the beginning have supported equal civil rights. It is certainly time to show that actions are greater than words.
Read More (4 comments)

Endorsement of Initiation of Impeachment Procedures Against Select Green Party Steering Committee Members
Tuesday September 27, @03:00PM by Owen R. Broadhurst
[This is a placeholder for text presently being compiled, to be made available for presentation at the State Committee meeting in Springfield.]
Read More (3 comments)

Affirming the Green Party’s Independence from the Two Corporate Parties
Tuesday September 27, @02:55PM by Owen R. Broadhurst
One of the primary political differences within the Green Party of the United States is over the nature of our relationship with the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Some Greens favor electoral alliances with progressive Democrats and election campaigns that will avoid “spoiling” the chances of electing a Democratic candidate. Other Greens are opposed to the Green Party of the United States ever supporting, directly or indirectly, any Democrat or Republican candidate for office, arguing that “lesser evil” campaigns lend legitimacy to corporate parties, weaken the Green Party, and delay the implementation of true electoral reform, among other negative effects.

What This Resolution Says

This resolution places our state party on record as opposing any party-level concession to, or alliance with, the two corporate parties. This is a rejection of Green Party endorsement of any Democrat or Republican, and a rejection of indirect support for one corporate party candidate over another. The Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, or the leadership, of the Green Party of the United States shall not embrace a “safe states” campaign.

Why This Resolution Is Needed

In the recent history of progressive third parties, there are many examples of parties that tried to grow without challenging the corporate parties, especially the Democratic Party. For example, the New Party tried to grow through fusion candidates. Fusion is the practice of one party placing another party’s candidate on its ballot line. The 1990’s incarnation of the US Labor Party would not challenge Democratic Party candidates at all. Needless to say, all of these efforts have failed. The most successful third party attempt in recent history has been the Green Party of the United States, which has consistently grown whenever it has challenged the corporate duopoly. Unfortunately many people in the leadership of the Green Party of the United States continue to believe that Greens must now and then support Democrats as the “lesser of two evils.”

Read More (8 comments)

Accurately Representing the Will of the Voters when Selecting Delegates to the Presidential Nominating Convention
Tuesday September 27, @02:50PM by Owen R. Broadhurst
In 2004 the Green Party of the United States carried out its first truly contested primary for selection of our presidential candidate. As a young party, we are still learning to operate within the world of electoral politics. For now we continue to use a system where Greens in each state elect delegates to a national nominating convention, and the delegates select our presidential candidate. Until our national bylaws are amended, and the amendments cross-checked against legal requirements of individual states, we will continue to use this system.

What This Resolution Says

This resolution commits our state party to doing everything it can to ensure maximum participation by all Greens in the selection of our presidential candidates. It further commits our state party to ensure that our delegation reflects the will of the memberss as closely as possible. Finally, we ask the Green Party of the United States to ensure these principles are applied in all states, as these principles have been applied in our very own process.

Why This Resolution Is Needed

It is critically important -- for our credibility in the eyes of the public, as well as post-convention party unity -- that our future presidential candidates be selected in the most democratic and participatory manner possible. In order to achieve this, every state party affiliate of GPUS must have policies in place that clearly demonstrate a commitment (1) to include as many Greens as possible in the candidate selection process, and (2) to reflect the will of the members as accurately as possible at the convention itself.

Read More (2 comments)

Affirming Support for the Principle of Equal Representation for all Greens
Tuesday September 27, @02:44PM by Owen R. Broadhurst
The Association of State Green Parties (predecessor to the Green Party of the United States), established a Coordinating Committee at its founding convention. The Coordinating Committee allocated two delegates for each affiliated state party. This allocation was modified in 2001 to reflect the population of each state. That, at least, was the stated goal. This new allocation assigned one delegate to the body (now called the National Committee) for every 4 Congressional districts, with a minimum of 2 delegates per accredited state party. As a result, roughly 3/4 of the delegates are still allocated on a two-per-state basis with the rest allocated to a handful of state parties from populous states, independent of the number of Greens in that state. An equally unrepresentative allocation is used to determine the size of the delegation for each affiliated state party to the presidential nominating conventions.

It is likely the allocation of delegates for each affiliated state party on the National Committee will be modified in the next year or so. It is not clear what criteria will be used to determine how many delegates each affiliated state party will be given.

What This Resolution Says

This resolution reaffirms our state party’s support for the principle of “One Green-One vote” (OGOV) which means that every Green’s vote should be counted equally, independent of where in the country that person resides. This resolution urges the National Committee to try to approach OGOV as much as possible in any future reapportionment attempt, given current legal and practical constraints.

Why This Resolution Is Needed

National Committee delegates and leaders from a few state parties have expressed their opposition to the principle of One Green-One Vote. Therefore, it is important that our state party join other state parties, going on record in support of this important principle. This will provide clear direction in favor of One Green-One Vote for any reallocation effort that might take place in the near future.

Read More (3 comments)