Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 9 2008, 6:05 PM EST (current) | almyatt | 1363 words added |
| Dec 9 2008, 6:03 PM EST | almyatt |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
The State Central Committee (SCC) of the Green Party of Michigan (GPMI) consists of the elected officers of the state party, GPMI representatives and alternate representatives to the National Committee (NC) of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS), and representatives of GPMI Locals (up to two representatives per local organization.) There are two representatives for GPMI members who are not in a Local. These are elected at the same State Membership Meeting (SMM) as other elected officers.
The above are the voting members of the SCC. A list of positions and the names of people currently filling those positions is maintained at:
http://migreens.wetpaint.com/page/SCC+Membership.
The position listed as "Vice-Chair/SCC Whip" is, in effect, the chair of the SCC.
The SCC has conducted ongoing discussions and done business as a Yahoo Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MIGreensSCC/) since December of 2000. By the end of April, 2008, there were over 25,000 e-mail messages in the archives. All voting members of the SCC need to be members of the Yahoo Group in order to vote on proposals.
In addition to the Yahoo Group, there have on occasion been live face-to-face meetings of the SCC at SMMs and in between SMMs. There have been telephone conference meetings and simultaneous meetings by ICQ software. We have used the Wiki site (http://migreens.wetpaint.com/page/SCC+Proposals) to post the text of proposals during discussion and to record the results of our discussions and voting. Other records are posted in the "Files" section of the Yahoo Group.
Any GPMI member in good standing has the right to directly monitor the proceedings of the SCC on Yahoo, though they should not post messages or vote on proposals. Chairs of GPMI standing committees (Platform, Bylaws, etc.) and GPMI representatives to GPUS committees other than the NC (International, merchandising, etc.) can post reports from their committees but should not vote on proposals. During elections, GPMI candidates and campaign committee members are invited to participate in SCC discussions without voting on proposals.
At one time, the authority of the SCC to act on behalf of the GPMI was limited, and most state party business was conducted at the quarterly SMMs. This made every SMM into a two-day business meeting, at which internal organizational matters crowded out discussions of issues and strategy that might be of interest to people not already involved in GPMI. The bylaws were changed to give much of this authority to the SCC, in the hopes of making the SMMs events that would be more appealing to the general public.
It remains to be seen whether SMMs have become better as a result. It has, in some ways, allowed SMMs to become less important, though an SMM would still have the ability to overrule any decision made by the SCC that proves controversial. The way the SCC conducts business, and the scope of that business, has changed over time, and no doubt will continue to evolve.
Any voting member of the SCC has the right to suggest an action the SCC should take. This might be a resolution, an endorsement, a modification of the bylaws or the platform, and so on. Any GPMI member could ask a local representative, a representative of the non-local GPMI members, or any state officer to pass on an idea for the consideration of the SCC. When the intention is for an idea to become a proposal, it is customary for the poster to put "PROPOSAL" in the message header.
When the idea has the explicit support of two other voting members of the SCC, it becomes a formal proposal that the SCC must decide.
In general, a proposal is discussed on the list for one week. If the specific nature of the proposal requires a decision sooner, and the presenter requests this, we can sometimes succeed in shortening the process, provided there are no objections. A proposal obviously in agreement with our platform might be designated as a "no-brainer," but this does not automatically qualify the proposal for resolution sooner than a week. However, expedited proposals that are time-sensitive may fail to pass if they are not "no-brainers."
During the discussion period, we try to arrive at consensus on a proposal. At this time, any voting member with a blocking objection to the proposal should speak up, and use the specific phrase "blocking objection" so there is no ambiguity. Similarly, if a member has a criticism that does not rise to the level of a blocking objection, it is a good thing to state, "This is not a blocking objection." The presenter may be able to modify the proposal to resolve the blocking objection.
Consensus may be reached even when it is not absolutely clear that every member supports the proposal. It may be that some members who agree with the proposal or at least have no objection to it have said nothing. We do not require that every member express an opinion on every proposal.
We recognize that our modified consensus process is considerably less than perfect. Ideally, no member would make a blocking objection unless the proposal, in the eyes of that member, violates one or more of the 10 Key Values that the whole group supports. Ideally, we would take as long as needed to resolve the blocking objection, and would resort to voting only if the issue itself needs to be acted on one way or another.
Our process is as much expedient as it is principled, since it seems to be part of the nature of e-mail communications that any word, phrase or motivation that could possibly be misunderstood or misinterpreted sometimes will be. We still need to make decisions and move on. Our imperfect process allows us to do that. If there is a blocking objection remaining at the end of a week's discussion, the proposal is put to a vote.
At one time, the polling feature of Yahoo was not used for voting. Some members still prefer to announce their vote to the list, rather than using the polling feature built into Yahoo Groups. The nice thing about using the polling feature is that Yahoo has an impartial mechanism for recording votes. A year later, if there is some question about how many votes there were on a given proposal, it will be easy to look at the poll records, and it will be easy to overlook that one additional person voted by announcing his vote to the group by e-mail. A group moderator has no power to fiddle with voting by poll. Neither a group moderator nor the person who sets up the poll can record someone else's vote for them through this mechanism.
The choices for voting on any proposal are "Yes, "No" or "Abstain." To pass, a proposal that is voted on must have a sufficient number of voters to meet the quorum requirement, and the vote must be in favor of the proposal by 2/3 or more of those voting "Yes" or "No." Those who vote "Abstain" will be counted for purposes of making quorum, but an abstention will not count as either a Yes or a No vote.
Determining quorum: Assume 30 voting members on the SCC. 2/3 of 30 = 20, making 20 an absolute quorum for the body. If only 25 of the 30 have voted at least once in the previous 4 polls, the 5 non-voters would be considered "inactive" members. The quorum for a given poll is based on the number of active members; i.e., 2/3 x 25 = 16.666, meaning 17 voters would be a quorum for the next poll. Inactive members can become active at any time, simply by voting in a poll.
The quorum number may change from poll to poll, depending on how many voting members there are on the body, and how many of them have voted in one or more of the previous 4 polls. Some individuals hold more than one position. For instance, in the fall of 2008, John LaPietra was both the Record Keeper and the Elections Coordinator. Fred Vitale was both the state party Chair and a GPMI representative to the NC. One person still gets one vote, no matter how many voting positions are held.
The above are the voting members of the SCC. A list of positions and the names of people currently filling those positions is maintained at:
http://migreens.wetpaint.com/page/SCC+Membership.
The position listed as "Vice-Chair/SCC Whip" is, in effect, the chair of the SCC.
The SCC has conducted ongoing discussions and done business as a Yahoo Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MIGreensSCC/) since December of 2000. By the end of April, 2008, there were over 25,000 e-mail messages in the archives. All voting members of the SCC need to be members of the Yahoo Group in order to vote on proposals.
In addition to the Yahoo Group, there have on occasion been live face-to-face meetings of the SCC at SMMs and in between SMMs. There have been telephone conference meetings and simultaneous meetings by ICQ software. We have used the Wiki site (http://migreens.wetpaint.com/page/SCC+Proposals) to post the text of proposals during discussion and to record the results of our discussions and voting. Other records are posted in the "Files" section of the Yahoo Group.
Any GPMI member in good standing has the right to directly monitor the proceedings of the SCC on Yahoo, though they should not post messages or vote on proposals. Chairs of GPMI standing committees (Platform, Bylaws, etc.) and GPMI representatives to GPUS committees other than the NC (International, merchandising, etc.) can post reports from their committees but should not vote on proposals. During elections, GPMI candidates and campaign committee members are invited to participate in SCC discussions without voting on proposals.
At one time, the authority of the SCC to act on behalf of the GPMI was limited, and most state party business was conducted at the quarterly SMMs. This made every SMM into a two-day business meeting, at which internal organizational matters crowded out discussions of issues and strategy that might be of interest to people not already involved in GPMI. The bylaws were changed to give much of this authority to the SCC, in the hopes of making the SMMs events that would be more appealing to the general public.
It remains to be seen whether SMMs have become better as a result. It has, in some ways, allowed SMMs to become less important, though an SMM would still have the ability to overrule any decision made by the SCC that proves controversial. The way the SCC conducts business, and the scope of that business, has changed over time, and no doubt will continue to evolve.
Any voting member of the SCC has the right to suggest an action the SCC should take. This might be a resolution, an endorsement, a modification of the bylaws or the platform, and so on. Any GPMI member could ask a local representative, a representative of the non-local GPMI members, or any state officer to pass on an idea for the consideration of the SCC. When the intention is for an idea to become a proposal, it is customary for the poster to put "PROPOSAL" in the message header.
When the idea has the explicit support of two other voting members of the SCC, it becomes a formal proposal that the SCC must decide.
In general, a proposal is discussed on the list for one week. If the specific nature of the proposal requires a decision sooner, and the presenter requests this, we can sometimes succeed in shortening the process, provided there are no objections. A proposal obviously in agreement with our platform might be designated as a "no-brainer," but this does not automatically qualify the proposal for resolution sooner than a week. However, expedited proposals that are time-sensitive may fail to pass if they are not "no-brainers."
During the discussion period, we try to arrive at consensus on a proposal. At this time, any voting member with a blocking objection to the proposal should speak up, and use the specific phrase "blocking objection" so there is no ambiguity. Similarly, if a member has a criticism that does not rise to the level of a blocking objection, it is a good thing to state, "This is not a blocking objection." The presenter may be able to modify the proposal to resolve the blocking objection.
Consensus may be reached even when it is not absolutely clear that every member supports the proposal. It may be that some members who agree with the proposal or at least have no objection to it have said nothing. We do not require that every member express an opinion on every proposal.
We recognize that our modified consensus process is considerably less than perfect. Ideally, no member would make a blocking objection unless the proposal, in the eyes of that member, violates one or more of the 10 Key Values that the whole group supports. Ideally, we would take as long as needed to resolve the blocking objection, and would resort to voting only if the issue itself needs to be acted on one way or another.
Our process is as much expedient as it is principled, since it seems to be part of the nature of e-mail communications that any word, phrase or motivation that could possibly be misunderstood or misinterpreted sometimes will be. We still need to make decisions and move on. Our imperfect process allows us to do that. If there is a blocking objection remaining at the end of a week's discussion, the proposal is put to a vote.
At one time, the polling feature of Yahoo was not used for voting. Some members still prefer to announce their vote to the list, rather than using the polling feature built into Yahoo Groups. The nice thing about using the polling feature is that Yahoo has an impartial mechanism for recording votes. A year later, if there is some question about how many votes there were on a given proposal, it will be easy to look at the poll records, and it will be easy to overlook that one additional person voted by announcing his vote to the group by e-mail. A group moderator has no power to fiddle with voting by poll. Neither a group moderator nor the person who sets up the poll can record someone else's vote for them through this mechanism.
The choices for voting on any proposal are "Yes, "No" or "Abstain." To pass, a proposal that is voted on must have a sufficient number of voters to meet the quorum requirement, and the vote must be in favor of the proposal by 2/3 or more of those voting "Yes" or "No." Those who vote "Abstain" will be counted for purposes of making quorum, but an abstention will not count as either a Yes or a No vote.
Determining quorum: Assume 30 voting members on the SCC. 2/3 of 30 = 20, making 20 an absolute quorum for the body. If only 25 of the 30 have voted at least once in the previous 4 polls, the 5 non-voters would be considered "inactive" members. The quorum for a given poll is based on the number of active members; i.e., 2/3 x 25 = 16.666, meaning 17 voters would be a quorum for the next poll. Inactive members can become active at any time, simply by voting in a poll.
The quorum number may change from poll to poll, depending on how many voting members there are on the body, and how many of them have voted in one or more of the previous 4 polls. Some individuals hold more than one position. For instance, in the fall of 2008, John LaPietra was both the Record Keeper and the Elections Coordinator. Fred Vitale was both the state party Chair and a GPMI representative to the NC. One person still gets one vote, no matter how many voting positions are held.
