Green Party of California
Delegate Apportionment for the
May 2012 General Assembly
San Francisco
County
Registered
Greens (1)
% of Total
Delegates
Alameda
9,333
10.0%
10
Contra Costa
3,293
3.5%
3
El Dorado
909
1.0%
1
Fresno
1,622
1.7%
2
Humboldt
2,897
3.1%
3
Lake
409
0.4%
1
Los Angeles
22,415
23.9%
24
Marin
2,114
2.3%
2
Mendocino
1,860
2.0%
2
Monterey
1,083
1.2%
1
Napa
790
0.8%
1
Nevada
1,106
1.2%
1
Orange
7,593
8.1%
8
Riverside
2,504
2.7%
3
Sacramento
4,070
4.3%
4
San Diego
7,422
7.9%
8
San Francisco
8,550
9.1%
9
San Luis Obispo
1,345
1.4%
1
San Mateo
2,432
2.6%
3
Santa Clara
4,163
4.4%
4
Shasta
463
0.5%
1
Sonoma
4,592
4.9%
5
Tulare
444
0.5%
1
Ventura
2,206
2.4%
2
TOTAL ACTIVE
93,615
100.0%
100
STATE TOTAL
110,431
Agenda of the May 2012 General Assembly
of the
Green Party of California
Saturday, May 12
8:00am Breakfast, registration
9:00am Opening, new delegate orientation, quorum count
9:30am Agenda approval
9:45am Consent calendar
(a) Proposal: Add already approved GPCA Endorsement Procedures to GPCA Rules and
Procedures (Campaigns & Candidates Working Group) (Text on Page 5.)
10:00am Confirmation: Doug Barnett, Nominee for GPCA Treasurer
10:10am Confirmation: Jeanne Rosenmeier, Nominee for GPCA Assistant Treasurer
10:20am Election: On-site voting for GPUS Delegation delegates and alternates (hand out ballots, read
candidate applications here) (Text beginning on Page 8.)
10:25am Presentation: Coordinating Committee at-large candidates make statements; election via online vote begins after General Assembly (read candidate applications here) (Text beginning on Page 16.)
10:45am Proposal: Budget FY2012-2013 (Budget Committee), Strategic Plan (Coordinating Committee)
(Text beginning on Page 25.)
12:15pm Lunch, Womens Caucus meeting during lunch (also possible press conference during lunch)
2
1:25pm Quorum count
1:30pm Proposal: Budget FY2012-2013 (Budget Committee), Strategic Plan (Coordinating Committee)
Proposal: Change the GPCA Fiscal Year from May 1 to April 30 to July 1 to June 30
(Text beginning on Page 26.)
3:00pm Breakout sessions for committees and working groups (CCWG, Platform, Finance, GROW)
4:30pm Presentation: Update on Legal Cases against Proposition 14/SB6 (Coordinating Committee)
(Text on Page 27.)
4:40pm Presentation: Update on State Laws affecting GPCA ballot status (Coordinating Committee)
(Text beginning on Page 28.)
4:50pm Proposal: Amend GPCA Elections Code (Coordinating Committee) (Text on Page 29.)
5:50pm Announcements
6:00pm Dinner – at local restaurants, GPUS Delegation meeting during dinner, possible speaker during
part of dinner
7:30pm Green Party 2012 presidential candidate forum at the Victoria Theatre; Roseanne Barr, Dr.
Kent Mesplay and Dr. Jill Stein. The Victoria Theatre is across the street from the Redstone Building.
3
Sunday May 13
8:00am Breakfast, registration
9:00am Breakout sessions for committees and working groups (CCWG, Green Issues, Media)
10:20pm Quorum count, optional bring back time for any consent calendar items pulled during
Saturday's session
10:25am Proposal: Bylaws Amendment - Standing Green Assembly, other modifications (Bylaws
Committee);
Because of the amount of text provided with this proposal, please read it at the link above and only print the
pages you need. The proposal is not printed below.
Report on At-Large Coordinating Committee elections (Coordinating Committee) (Text beginning on
Page 30.)
12:20pm Womens Caucus Mothers Day presentation
12:30pm Lunch, Optional caucus meetings
1:35pm Announcements
1:40pm Completion of County Polling in Propositions 28 and 29 (if necessary); Discussion: Two
Platform Planks – Energy (page 34) and Proportional Representation (page 37)
2:45pm Breakout sessions for committees and working groups (Finance, Bylaws, ERWG, Clearinghouse)
4:00pm Confirmation: Standing Committee and Working Group Co-Coordinators (GPCA Bylaws 61.9 Coordinators)
4:15pm Closing session
4
Complete text of items on the agenda
9:45am Consent calendar
Proposal: Add already approved GPCA Endorsement Procedures to GPCA Rules and
Procedures (Campaigns & Candidates Working Group)
Add already approved GPCA Endorsement Procedures to GPCA Rules and Procedures
SPONSOR: Campaigns and Candidates Working Group
PRESENTER: --------SUBJECT: Add already approved GPCA Endorsement Procedures to GPCA Rules and Procedures
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The June 2006 Ventura General Assembly passed a GPCA
Endorsements procedure for General and Primary elections. But it never made it onto the GPCA web page
into any of the party's rules documents. Now that the GPCA has a distinct set of Rules and Procedures, this
proposal would add to them a General Election section, by taking the 2006 text and editing it for brevity and
to fit the formatting of the Rules and Procedures. Text governing Primary Election endorsements would be
deferred for later consideration, given the uncertainty around the duration and effects of Proposition 14, and
the fact that its too late to deal with it this year and there are no statewide Green candidates anyways.
PROPOSAL: That the GPCA Rules and Procedures be amended to add the following text
Article III Candidate Endorsement Procedures
Section 3-1 General Elections
3-1.1 The GPCA may endorse Green Party members who are General Election candidates for the following
offices:
3-1.1(a) Partisan statewide constitutional offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney
General, Treasurer, Controller, Insurance Commissioner)
3-1.1(b) Non-Partisan statewide constitutional offices (Superintendent of Education)
3-1.1(c) State Board of Equalization
3-1.1(d) U.S. Senate
3-1.2 The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party
members.
3-1.3 Whenever possible, the GPCA shall make its endorsements by bringing the matter before the General
Assembly. Where it is not possible, the decision may be brought before the GPCA through County Polling.
The Coordinating Committee is not empowered to make candidate endorsements on behalf of the GPCA.
5
3-1.4 The GPCA shall not consider endorsements for General Election candidates for other offices, leaving
such endorsements to the county level. County organizations are encouraged to develop their own standards
and procedures for endorsing such candidates. The endorsement of a County Organization shall not imply
GPCA endorsement.
COMMITTEE DECISION: Agreed by consensus on CCWG February 22nd Conference call.
TIMELINE: Effective upon adoption.
RESOURCES: Web page updated to reflect amended text
REFERENCE: Attached copy of endorsement policy approved in 2006
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA
General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
1. The GPCA may endorse Green Party members who are General Election candidates for the following
offices:
A. Partisan statewide constitutional offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General,
Treasurer, Controller, Insurance Commissioner)
B. Non-Partisan statewide constitutional offices (Superintendent of Education)
C. State Board of Equalization
D. U.S. Senate
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party
members.
3. Whenever possible, the GPCA shall make its endorsements by bringing the matter before the General
Assembly, taking into account agenda distribution deadlines and other relevant procedural issues.
4. Where it is not possible to bring the decision before the General Assembly, the decision may be brought
before the GPCA through a polling of the Counties.
5. The GPCA CC is not empowered to make these decisions on behalf of the GPCA.
6. Other than for the offices mentioned above, the GPCA will not consider endorsements for Green Party
members who are General Election candidates for other offices, leaving the question of endorsement to the
local/regional level.
6
7. These are policies of the GPCA. County organizations and locals are encouraged to develop their own
procedures and standards for endorsing or otherwise evaluating local candidates. The endorsement(s) of a
county organization or local shall clearly indicate that it is an endorsement of that local or county organization.
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA
General Assembly, June 25, 2006, by consensus)
1. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the GPCA will not endorse candidates in contested Green Party
primaries. To establish if such extraordinary circumstances exist, the following process shall apply:
A. The GPCA CC must approve a statement of findings, that would clarify what are the extraordinary
circumstances and their significance for the GPCA.
B. If such a statement of findings is approved by the GPCA CC, an endorsement proposal would be brought
before the GPCA.
2. Whenever possible, these endorsements shall be made by bringing the matter before the General Assembly,
taking into account agenda distribution deadlines and other relevant procedural issues.
3. Where it is not possible to bring these endorsements before the General Assembly, the decision may be
brought before the GPCA through a polling of the Counties.
4. The GPCA CC is not empowered to make these decisions on behalf of the GPCA.
5. This procedure applies to Primary Elections for the following offices:
A. Partisan statewide constitutional offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General,
Treasurer, Controller, Insurance Commissioner)
B. Non-Partisan statewide constitutional offices (Superintendent of Education)
C. State Board of Equalization
D. U.S. Senate
6. These are policies of the GPCA. County organizations and locals are encouraged to develop their own
procedures and standards for endorsing or otherwise evaluating local candidates. The endorsement(s) of a
county organization or local shall clearly indicate that it is an endorsement of that local or county
_______________________
7
10:20am Election: On-site voting for GPUS Delegation delegates and alternates (hand out
ballots, read candidate applications here)
Delegates
June Brashares, received 3/12/12
Susan Chunco, received 3/12/12
Jared Laiti, received 3/12/12
Greg Jan, received 3/12/12
David Curtis, received 3/13/13
Josefina Aranda, received 3/13/12
Sasha Karlik, received 3/13/13
Alternates
Mike Malinin, received 3/13/12
Candidate Applications - Delegates
June Brashares
Sebastopol • Sonoma County
[email protected]
1) Prior or current positions, related experience, and/or personal and professional skills
within the Green Party that apply to this position:
*Campaign Manager for Green Party candidate Medea Benjamin's campaign for CA Senate in
2000
*Delegate to National Green Party Conventions in 2000, 2004 and 2008
*Served on Green Party of San Francisco County Council 2002-2004
*Member of CA GPUS delegation 2007-2011
*Currently serving on Green Party of Sonoma County Council 2010-present
*Currently serving as Alternate to GPCA Coordinating Committee 2011-present
Volunteered on numerous Green Party candidate & issue campaigns 2000-present
Election Observation as an official Green Party observer in Florida for the recount in 2000
and in San Francisco in 2003 (also outside the GP with Fair Elections International
accompanying International Election Observers in Ohio in 2004)
8
2) Prior or current positions, related experience, and/or personal and professional skills
outside of the Green Party that apply to this position:
Professional Employment:
*1987-1988 CalPIRG (policy advocacy and door to door dialogue in communities)
*1988-1996 Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego Law School, working
with original "Nader Raider" Robert C. Fellmeth (managing quarterly journal, coordinating
consumer trainings and budget responsibilities)
*1998-1999 San Diego Labor Council (communications and administrative work)
*1999-2011 Global Exchange (advocacy for economic, environmental and social justice as the
Green Energy Director and prior to that as the Director of the Speakers Bureau)
Education:
Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of California San Diego
Certificate of completion of courses in Renewable Energy from Solar Energy International,
Carbondale, CO
Currently serving as a Steering Committee Member of the Local Clean Energy Alliance
3) Vision for serving as GPUS Delegate including addressing the job description for GPUS
Delegate:
I see the role of the GPUS Delegate as being accountable to the GPCA GA and GPCA CC,
thoughtfully representing the diverse California membership and carefully voting to best
represent the interests of the GPCA and the GPUS. I want to participate in helping the GPUS
so that it moves forward in a positive productive manner as an entity that is effective in
showing leadership and gives support to build and strengthen the Party nationally. I would like
to prioritize growing the number of young Greens in leadership.
Susan Chunco
Santa Rosa • Sonoma County
[email protected]
I have been active in the Green Party of Sonoma County since 2000, having served as County
Council member and Treasurer. Currently, I'm Assistant Treasurer and County Council
member and am also involved locally with the May 1st Coalition, the Committee for Immigrant
9
Rights. Occupy Santa Rosa and the Sonoma County Peace & Justice Center. At the national
level, I serve on the Steering Committee, the National Committee, Finance Committee and am
the SC liaison to the Fundraising and Merchandising Committees.
It is important to stay connected with Greens around the country and I subscribe to the
National Committee list serve. It better enables me to understand others' points of view and
to diminish some of the bias against CA. We are a very powerful state and, as such, have a
greater responsibility to uphold Green values and reach out to those at the national level who
might see us as combatants rather than allies. It's also important to attend the monthly CA
delegate meetings, to discuss current issues and get a feel for how our own state views
national GP concerns.
If you have further questions, please contact me.
Jared Laiti
Sacramento • Sacramento County
[email protected]
A Green voter since I was eligible to vote, I am committed to the full political independence of
the Green Party and strongly believe that we should run the strongest possible campaigns for
every office. GPUS must embody our 10 key values in order to draw support for
them. Likewise, if we hope to change the current political system, we must not shy away from
questioning it at its root. We must move beyond capitalism if we are to ever live in a world
based on our values.
I have been active at all levels of the party, including the Sacramento and Sonoma county
county councils, the GPCA Coordinating Committee, and the GPUS National Committee. I
currently serve as GPCA Liaison to the Secretary of State. I served as a Co-Coordinator of
the GPCA Coordinating Committee. I also am a member of the GPUS Presidential Campaign
Support Committee. In August 2005 I received a Bachelor of Arts Magna Cum Laude in
Political Science With Distinction from Sonoma State University. My senior thesis focused on
the role of third parties in recent US history and their potential for future successes. I
graduated as valedictorian from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in May,
2010, where I researched the roots of the current global economic crisis and its implications
for the 'neo-liberal' economic policies that helped spawn it. I was admitted to the State Bar
10
of California in December, 2010, and currently represent claimants in Social Security
Disability proceedings.
I am willing to continue to serve in the interests of having a strong CA delegation to GPUS.
Please re-elect me to the GPCA delegation to the GPUS so that I can help work to make the
GPUS a stronger alternative to the current political system and a living example of our key
value of grassroots democracy.
Greg Jan
Oakland • Alameda County
[email protected]
I have been involved with the Greens almost since the very beginning (since 1985), when I helped to organize
the East Bay Green Alliance here in Alameda county, in May of that year. Later during the 1980's I served on
the national body of the Green Committees of Correspondence, which later became the Greens/Green Party
USA. I also helped organize northern California regional meetings of the Greens and I was one of 4
coordinators for the 1988 "Greening the West" gathering, held in San Mateo county.
From 1989 until 1992 I was involved in the organizing that led to the founding of our state
party -- I served on the "Q (Qualification) Group" (to gain ballot status) during that time.
Once we became an official party, I started working on election campaigns including Dona
Spring for Berkeley City Council, Ralph Nader for President, Dan Hamburg for Governor, Gloria
Purcell for Assembly, Peter Camejo for Governor, John Selawsky for Berkeley School Board,
Aimee Allison for Oakland City Council, Don Macleay for Oakland Mayor, and Laura Wells for
Governor. I have also served many terms on my local County Council, several years on the state
Coordinating Committee, and I have been active on several state committees and working
groups, and with the organizing, fundraising, and publication of our county's Voter Guides
during the past 20 years that we have been a party.
Outside of the Green Party, I have volunteered with three different peace groups, I helped to
coordinate several Berkeley Earth Day events, I was employed as Operations Director of the
county food bank, I was on the Board (and served a term as President) of Oakland's Ohana
Asian Cultural Center, and I am currently active with Occupy Oakland.
I have served several terms on our delegation to the national party, and I was one of the cochairs of our delegation during 2008 to 2009. I also have participated in 6 annual national
meetings/conventions from 2002 through 2005, plus 2007 and 2008 (Philadelphia, Washington,
D.C., Milwaukee, Tulsa, Reading, and Chicago). I have helped coordinate several of California's
11
proposals to the Green National Committee, including a proposal related to the complex 2005
Tulsa co-chair election situation that passed by 77%, and from January through April of 2007
I worked to get the DAC (Delegate Apportionment Committee) proposal approved by the
national party, so that California (and the rest of the country) could have fairer and more
proportional representation.
Although I will be very busy with various local Green Party (and other activist) work over the
coming two years, I would be more than happy to again help our party out by serving another
term as a "moderately-participating member" of our delegation to the GPUS.
David Curtis
San Rafael • Marin County
[email protected]
I would like to be a delegate to the GPUS.
I typically don't use the term "vision" to describe things other than actual sight. But I will give
you a brief of the relevant experience.
I became a Green in 2000, I was motivated by the Nader run for president.
I am active as a Green primarily because the corporate sponsored parties do not seem to
represent me or anyone I know for that matter. I've worked with the Nevada Green party
since 2006. I assisted Craig Bergland with his 2006 campaign for governor.
I ran in 2010 as the governor candidate for Nevada. The Nevada greens are a small group and
have remained small in the face of a horrible economy. This alarms me and I'm not sure why
more people are not being more active with the Greens there. I can only guess that people are
becoming so disgusted with politics in general that they fail to make the leap to Green. All
party (and indy) registration is down 5-10% this year in Nevada.
In 2011 I relocated to California and have been active with the Marin County greens and have
been assisting Marnie Glickman with the current registration drive. I am also working with the
CMCM to create a local TV show for Greens. I've been going through tech training there and
have started a collaborative group to form the show that includes Larry Bragman the former
Mayor of Fairfax and current council member.
12
I am in a focused, self-directed training to prepare for another campaign either in 2014 or
2016.
A critical motive for the Greens at this point should be to find ways to justify the party to a
greater portion of the general population. I can see how habitual republican/democratic voters
might want to do something different but there are many tactics that the monopoly parties
have in place that are blocking us and unless we remove those obstacles through significant
legal challenges and force of numbers we will be kept out of the government.
For example, I have initiated a legal challenge to the Committee on Presidential Debates. I
have asked the IRS to remove the CPS criteria 3 that blocks 3rd party candidates from
participating in the televised debates.
I see the role of the Greens as: those who identify the structural obstacles in the US system
and remove them. And beyond that we must be the ones who restore actual leadership and
representation should we be successful in earning the peoples trust.
The Green party is not there yet. We have a very long way to go to get there.
I am willing to do everything in my power to help us get there. But we need to look at what we
are doing and figure out why more people are not joining us and remedy that situation.
Josefina Aranda
Santa Monica • Los Angeles County
[email protected]
Green Party experience:
Registered Green since the late 1990s
Ran for Santa Monica City Council as a Green in 2002
GPUS Delegation alternate since 2007
Community Activities:
2002-2007 Santa Monica, CA
Santa Monica Pier Restoration Board of Directors: Appointed twice by the Santa Monica City Council
13
2002 to present Santa Monica, CA
Member, Santa Monica Greens
2002 Santa Monica, CA
City Council candidate: Ran as a Green for Santa Monica City Council
1997-1999 Santa Monica, CA
Westside Coalition for Peace and Social Justice Coordinator: Advocacy organization working towards
increasing educational opportunity, developing leadership, and lobbying for affordable housing. Served as
liaison between community based organizations and state representatives; structured and implemented
programs for "at risk youth" with a focus on education and employment.
1996-1999 Los Angeles, CA
Chicana/o Studies Coalition
Co-founder: Proactive student oriented organization advocating for Chicana/o Studies, higher education, adult
education, and development of cultural institutions. Planned and organized community forums, fundraising
projects, and action research.
1992-1995 Los Angeles, CA
MEChA de UCLA
Retention Committee Representative: Education Coordinator and Women's Unit Coordinator: Chaired both
the Women's Unit and Educational Committee; responsible for organizing political forums and workshops on
issues relevant to the Chicana/o community.
1990-1991 Santa Monica, CA
United Farm Workers of America Union
Coordinator: Organized informative pickets and leafleting of targeted businesses; developed educational
workshops that informed the public about the plight of farm workers in America.
Education: Teachers College, Columbia University - New York, New York
Master of Arts Degree in Curricula and Teaching (2002)
University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) - Los Angeles, California
Bachelors of Art Degree in Sociology (1998)
Bachelors of Arts Degree in Chicana and Chicano Studies (1998)
Work Experience:
12/00-01/02 Los Angeles, CA
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing - Housing LA Campaign Coordinator: Planned and
implemented public education and outreach strategies for a $100 million housing trust fund campaign;
designed campaign literature, organized citywide forums, and lobbied elected officials; responsible for
communication and collaboration with labor unions, non-profit agencies, developers and faith-based
institutions in the greater Los Angeles area.
12/99-01/00 New York, NY
Teachers College Columbia University
Educator and Curriculum Developer: Managed educational process through evaluation of community
indicators; developed culturally competent curriculum to meet state standards and community goals; identified
14
and selected appropriate resources and instructional materials for students in predominantly underserved
population; designed strategies to improve reading, writing, oral language and overall critical thinking skills.
1996-1999 Santa Monica, CA
City of Santa Monica/Terry Thelma Community Center Employment Counselor: Coordinated
employment services for over 400 residents; marketed and promoted program services to local businesses and
governmental agencies; maintained relationships with community based organizations, community leaders and
local representatives in order to enhance program, evaluated community needs via focus groups and surveys;
established year-round program planning goals; provided direct services such as: pre-employment
assessments, case management, job training, and development for residents in search of career opportunities.
1992-1996 Los Angeles, CA
Associated Student Union, UCLA Recreational Department Assistant Manager: Processed payroll and
allocated funds for facility management; managed over 25 budget accounts; supervised 15 employees; planned
and assigned work schedules; recruited, interviewed, and hired personnel based on organizational guidelines.
1991-1992 Santa Monica, CA
City of Santa Monica Youth in Action Center Organizer: Developed and taught community organizing
skills to high school and college students through specialized workshops and training sessions; participated in
public speaking events, engaged in public relations activities; served as youth advocate; handled promotion
and recruitment; set up workshops and facilitated meetings surrounding youth issues.
Sasha Karlik
Los Angeles • Los Angeles County
[email protected]
Please accept my application to serve as an alternate on the GPCA's GPUS Delegation.
I have been a registered Green since the party's founding in 1990 and participated heavily in
the 1990-1992 registration drive that qualified us for the ballot. Since then I've been involved
with the party in a variety of ways, from tabling, voter registration, marches
and demonstrations, and in the last four years, serving on the GPLAC County Council. I also
have a background in IT-related tasks and have worked with the GPCA's Cameron Spitzer in
this regard for years.
I would like to serve on the Delegation to ensure our state party has a strong voice on the
national Green level. I will work with the Delegation in a spirit of consensus-seeking to form
common approaches to the challenges that face us.
Sincerely,
Sasha Karlik
15
Candidate Applications - Alternates
Mike Malinin
Los Angeles • Los Angeles County
[email protected]
I am interested in becoming an alternate delegate from the State of California. I am hoping to
become more involved with the Green Party and feel that I am suited to be an alternate
delegate because of my enthusiasm for the Party and its vision. I also hope to understand and
disseminate specific points and candidates in a timely manner.
In 1992, I worked for Greenpeace in Los Angeles, and I was the West Coast liaison for the
international chlorine campaign. Part of my job included spreading relevant information to
other environmental groups with similar platforms operating on the west coast. I believe some
of my experiences make me a good candidate for the position of alternate delegate to the
national Green Party.
Thank You,
Mike Malinin
______________________________
10:25am Presentation: Coordinating Committee at-large candidates make statements; election via online vote begins after General Assembly (read candidate applications here)
Coordinating Committee at-large candidates, May 12
Candidates to fill seven open Coordinating Committee at-large seats for the spring 2012- spring 2014
term
Marla Bernstein
Michael Rubin
Tim Laidman
June Brashares
Kate Tanaka
Maxine Daniel
Sasha Karlik
16
Candidates to fill two Coordinating Committee at-large vacancies for the remainder of the spring 2011spring 2013 term
Dave Heller
Cynthia Santiago
Candidate applications
Marla Bernstein
Los Angeles • Los Angeles County
[email protected]
This is my application for the Coordinating Committee 2012-2014
I was elected in January 2012 to fill the remainder of one of the 2010-2012 seats on the
Coordinating Committee. I have participated since then, including traveling to Northern
California to attend the Coordinating Committee retreat in San Mateo and participating on
Coordinating Committee teleconferences and email list. Based upon the positive experience
I've had thus far, I would like to run and serve the GPCA on the Coordinating Committee for
another two years.
I believe the Coordinating Committee plays an important administrative role for the GPCA,
such that if we do our job well enough, the rest of party will run better and can focus more
effectively on its political priorities. As a woman, I also would like to keep providing gender
balance to the Coordinating Committee, as there are very few women on it.
I have been a registered Green and activist in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties for a
long time and am a current member of the Green Party County Council in Los Angeles County. I
also have a long history of involvement with the Local Station Board at KPFK Pacifica in Los
Angeles.
I started my activism in 1979 when I first worked to help save the Cowles Bog in the Indiana
Dunes State Park from a Nuclear plant called the Bailly Plant. The work had began to drain
the bog. I went to the Indiana Dunes weekly as a high school student, so I was familiar with
the entire ecosystem of the area. I literally walked on the bog weekly as a student. The plant
was shut down, before it was built. I did clerical work in the office and other activist work.
This began my involvement with attempting to "Save the Environment." I walked for 30 miles
17
outside Zion Nuclear Facility as a teen. I saw the environment change from sparse vegetation
near the plant to more live vegetation farther away from the plant. I did what activists did
then and I learned of the Indigenous Rights Movement while being involved. I became a
student of the Movement for Social, Political and Environmental Rights. I have been so lucky.
I have been able to experience the United States through travel. I raised 3 children and
have been able to spend large amounts of time on that, while attending college and university.
I have been a successful mom. I have been involved and have always been passionate about
the environment and it's affects on humans, and all forms of life.
June Brashares
Sebastopol • Sonoma County
[email protected]
I hereby submit my candidate application for the GPCA Coordinating Committee for an atlarge seat 2012-2014.
Since mid-2011, I have been an Alternate (2nd Alternate, North Bay) to the Coordinating
Committee. During this time as an Alternate, having experienced being on the Coordinating
Committee (CC) listserve, attending the CC retreat, observing and participating in CC
discussions, consensus process and decision-making, phone teleconferences, etc... I've decided
I would like to become more engaged and would like to be an elected Member of the
Coordinating Committee for an at-large seat.
I have been an activist in the Green Party for the past 12 years. In 2000, I was the Campaign
Manager for Green Party candidate Medea Benjamin's campaign for CA Senate. From 20002009, I was active in San Francisco and was elected to the SF County Council for 2002-2004.
After moving to Sonoma County in 2009, I got involved with the Green Party there, became a
Member of the Sonoma County Council in 2010 and have continued to serve on the Sonoma
County Council to the present. I've also served as a Member of the CA GPUS delegation from
2007-2011 and have been a Delegate to the National Green Party Conventions in 2000, 2004
and 2008. I have volunteered on numerous Green Party candidate & issue campaigns.
I am dedicated to working for economic, environmental and social justice. I have worked for
organizations such as the California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG), USD's Center
for Public Interest Law (with original "Nader Raider" Robert C. Fellmeth), the San Diego Labor
Council, and most recently Global Exchange (as the Green Energy Director and Speakers
Bureau Director during the past 12 years).
18
I would like to serve on the CC to help the GPCA move forward in a positive productive manner,
to assist the GPCA to be as effective as possible, and build the Party. I would like to
prioritize growing the number of young Greens in leadership.
Thank you for your consideration of my candidacy.
June Brashares
Maxine Daniel
Oakland • Alameda County
[email protected]
I'm an environmentalist and an advocate for social justice from the late 60's. I'm a long term
Green (since 1992) and I've been active with GPAC since 2005. I'm currently serving a second
term on GPAC County Council.
As a woman of color and a lesbian I was drawn to the Green Party by the 10 key values. I liked
the idea that a political party had values that it aspired to...values that didn't change each
election cycle. I remain committed to the 10 key values and I remain committed to growing
the Green Party. At this time I'm interested in helping the California Greens as a member of
the state coordinating council. I believe I have valuable problem-solving and logistical skills to
bring to the council.
It was only a short time ago that you elected me to the council in a short seat. I'm now asking
for your vote to elect me to the cc for a full term in the long seat.
Thanking you all for the opportunity to serve. Grow Green.
Respectfully,
Maxine H. Daniel
Sasha Karlik
Los Angeles • Los Angeles County
[email protected]
19
Please accept my application to serve on the GPCA Coordinating Committee for the 2012-2014
term.
I have been a registered Green since the party's founding in 1990 and participated heavily in
the 1990-1992 registration drive that qualified us for the ballot. Since then I've been involved
with the party in a variety of ways, from tabling, voter registration, marches
and demonstrations, and in the last four years, serving on the GPLAC County Council. I also
have a background in IT-related tasks and have worked with the GPCA's Cameron Spitzer in
this regard for years.
I would like to serve on the Coordinating Committee so that our party can grow and realize the
potential we all saw for it when we founded the party back in 1990. I believe that my
experience with Green values and my patience in understanding the challenges in implementing
them in the real world will serve me well as part of a 20+ member group like the Coordinating
Committee.
Gratefully, In Solidarity for the Earth,
Sasha Karlik
Tim Laidman
[email protected]
I hereby submit my application for an At-Large seat for the 2012-2014 term for the GPCA Coordinating
Committee.
I would like to continue my work with the California Green Party State Coordinating Committee
after serving a one year term starting in June 2011. I hope to continue my work on committees
and working groups: Agenda Committee; Budget Committee; CC liaison to Finance Committee;
IT Committee and CC liaison to GIWG.
I am a long-time resident of El Cerrito and registered Green since 2001. I got active when a
fellow Green knocked on my door and invited me to get involved. I did door-to-door outreach
to local voters to invite them to join in Green Party activities, give them a Green Party Voter
guide or register them as Greens. I was a founding member in the weekly peace vigil in El
Cerrito at Del Norte BART, which continued for many years. I work on Single Payer Health
Care SB840/810, on Community Choice Energy, on environmental issues around the Richmond
shoreline, on stopping the Point Molate Casino and against militarism. I am very active in the
20
Richmond Progressive Alliance, serving on several committees and worked hard on Mayor Gayle
McLaughlin’s successful re-election campaign. I try to make connections between groups and
build alliances to work together for progressive causes.
I have been very active with the El Cerrito Greens for a long time, hosting monthly meetings
and cooking vegan meals, staffing booths, canvassing neighborhoods, helping with presentations
and working on an energy plan for El Cerrito. I am currently the treasurer of the EC Greens
and the Green Party of Contra Costa County. I was just elected to my third 2-year term on the
County Council (my first elected office) and I look forward to helping the Green Party really
grow in California.
I am an avid outdoors-person, woodworker, gardener, cook, dancer and dad. I am an electrical
engineer with a background in computer technology, partially retired now, giving me more time
to devote to activism. My love of this wonderful world and the beautiful people that inhabit it
motivates my search for social justice, peace and a better future for our children. I try to
bring joy and harmony with humor and a positive attitude. I have been active in the peace
movement for forty years, including non-violence training, counter-recruitment, civil
disobedience, anti-nuke work and first amendment cases. I was a member of the Muhlenberg
Five, a case that went to the Pennsylvania Supreme court and extended the first amendment
right to demonstrate on private college campuses in Pennsylvania.
Michael Rubin
Oakland • Alameda County
[email protected]
I’ve been a political activist since 1963. For more than 40 years, i’ve been a labor activist.
Though retired, I still represent my old local at the Alameda County Labor Council. I’ve been
involved in independent political action for many years as well. I helped start the Peace and
Freedom Party in the late sixties. I switched over to the Green Party in 2003 to help Peter
Camejo in his runs for governor. I’ve been involved in many Green campaigns and with Ralph
Nader’s campaigns in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. Currently i am a member of the CC, an
alternate delegate to the GPUS and active in the Alameda County and Oakland Greens.
21
Kate Tanaka
Oakland • Alameda
[email protected]
I seek to continue serving on the coordinating committee as I am a long time member of the
Green Party. I was an Alameda county council member from approximately 2002 until 2010.
I am an activist working to create a non corporate party. I have been very active on many local
Green Party campaigns (Matt Gonzalez) as well as every campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter
Camejo. I also contribute to local land use issues, anti death penalty work, Palestine and other
anti-imperialist efforts.
I hope to help the state Green Party focus its energy on viable projects to reach more
potential voters. I hope that the Green Party can take advantage of the opportunity created
by the Occupy movement to focus attention on its non corporate agenda. Also to mobilize the
newly awakened population to utilize the Green Party to advance progressive candidates and
agenda.
Thank you for considering my application.
Respectfully,
Kate Tanaka
Dave Heller
Oakland • Alameda County
[email protected]
This is to submit my application for an open seat to fill the remainder of the 2011-2013
Coordinating Committee term
I would like to re-join the California Green Party State Coordinating Committee for a one year
term, after serving since January 2012 to fill a vacancy until the end of a 2010-2012 term.
I joined the Green Party when I moved to California in 1992 and have been a member ever
since. I became active within the Party in 2000 during the Ralph Nader run for President and
22
Media Benjamin's run for the US Senate. I worked on both those campaigns from the San
Francisco Greens office.
I ran for Congress in California's 9th Congressional District (most of Alameda County, East
Bay, against Barbara Lee) in 2008 as a write-in and 2010 on the ballot as a Green. I've
personally registered hundreds of Greens since 2000.
I was the Campaign Coordinator for Measure I in Berkeley in 2004, which finally brought
Instant Runoff Voting to this city last year for the first time. I also worked on the SF
campaign and the Alaska campaign for IRV.
I have been deeply involved with the struggle for democracy at KPFA-FM community radio
station in Berkeley. It is the mother station of the Pacifica Network and has been under siege
from a group of Democrats who seem to have a nefarious plan to bankrupt the station in order
to turn it into a commercial station and cash in on its worth on the commercial section of the
radio bandwidth. This is a very important struggle not just for the Greens, but small "d"
democracy as the station is supposed to be a venue for voices that normally do not make it to
the public's ears. 3rd party politics has only gotten token spots under their management,
which has recently been removed, though many of the staff remain.
I have also been active in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The truth of the events of September
11th, 2001 do not match the official story. The physics of what happened does not match the
governments explanation. Physics does not lie. The benefits of a real investigation into 9/11
will have seismic political consequences on the side of democracy, transparency and
accountability and hopefully global awareness.
I believe the Democrats are failing so badly to meet the needs of their constituents that we
have a huge opportunity to make headway in building the Green Party. And while the new open
primary was probably designed by the duopoly parties to destroy all third parties, it does give
us a back door advantage that people do not need to register as a Democrat to vote for the
"lesser of two evils" candidate. So now hopefully, when we register someone Green, they will
stay Green.
23
Cynthia Santiago
Gardena • Los Angeles County
[email protected]
This is my application for the GPCA Coordinating Committee for the remainder of the 20112013 term.
I have been a Green Party member since I first registered to vote when I was 18 and was
elected as student body president at Santa Monica High School. Since then, I worked on the
2002 Green Santa Monica City Council campaign of Josefina Aranda and then became a Green
candidate myself in 2010, when I received 18% of the vote and finished in second place for
State Assembly in the Inglewood and Gardena area of Los Angeles County. I've also been a
GPUS delegate for the GPCA since 2009.
Outside of the Green Party I've worked for youth empowerment in a variety of ways in my
community, including
• Virginia Park Youth Involvement Project, Santa Monica, California
Youth Advisory Leader, July 2001 – January 2006
• Worked with City Staff and Architects on Youth Design team for Virginia Avenue Park Teen
Center. Conducted youth focus groups regarding programming for newly built youth center.
• Wes Prisoner Resource & Education Project (WesPREP), Middletown, Connecticut Core
Member, January 2004 – December 2006
• Worked to implement college-in-prison program for Connecticut prisons; organized the
Wesleyan Prison Education Symposium in 2004. Aided the volunteer program in local
Connecticut prisons where Wesleyan students
led workshops for prisoners; organized the prison education series.
I have also recently taken the California Bar and was a member of Southwestern University
School of Law Latina/o Law Student Association.
I am a strong believer in social justice and the environment. I will do my best to advance the
Ten Key values on the Coordinating Committee. As a woman in her late 20s, I am also
encouraged to learn that the Coordinating Committee is becoming increasingly diverse in
gender and age and would like to add to that.
___________________________
24
10:45am Proposal: Budget FY2012-2013 (Budget Committee)
Since this agenda pdf document is public, the budget has not been included. Please download it
from the cagreens.org web site. Copies will also be available at the Plenary.
Strategic Plan (Coordinating Committee)
GPCA Strategic Plan
Sponsor: Coordinating Committee
Presenter: CC members to be determined
Subject: GPCA Strategic Plan
Background and Purpose: GPCA Bylaws 7-1.13 Strategic Plan state: "The CC shall establish a two-year
strategic plan annually, using input from a brainstorming plenary session and draft work plans from the
standing committees and working groups. The proposed plan shall be presented and affirmed at the subsequent
General Assembly. The two-year strategic plan shall be reviewed and refocused by the CC and presented to
the General Assembly annually. As part of the strategic plan, the CC shall develop a two-year schedule,
including potential agenda items, for the General Assemblies and Gatherings, with input from each standing
committee and working group work plan. The two-year schedule shall be revised annually, with General
Assembly agenda and scheduling remaining flexible."
Owing to delays in the processing and transmission of work plans from standing committees
and working groups, they have not been available for the Coordinating Committee to utlize
them in production of the Strategic Plan. The Coordinating Committee is expected to take up
the matter in April and include the two-year schedule in whatever document it submits to the
General Assembly.
At its January 28-29, 2012 retreat, the Coordinating Committee did agree to propose funding
for two separate GPCA Gatherings in the late summer of 2012, one in Northern and one in
Southern California and hence this can be expected to be included in the two year schedule.
Proposal: That the draft two-year schedule be considered and approved by the General
Assembly.
Committee Decision: Approved by Consensus, March 5, 2012
Timeline, Resources: Calendar would help inform future agenda planning
25
_____________________
1:30pm Proposal: Budget FY2012-2013 (Budget Committee), Strategic Plan (Coordinating
Committee) – continuation of discussion from the morning.
Proposal: Change the GPCA Fiscal Year from May 1 to April 30 to July 1 to June 30
PRESENTER: Finance Committee
CONTACTS: Tim Laidman (El Cerrito) [email protected], Warner Bloomberg (San Jose)
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Change the GPCA Fiscal Year from May 1 to April 30 to July 1 to June 30
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The GPCA Fiscal Year formerly ran from April 1 to March 31. It was
changed to run from May 1 to April 30 under the rationalization that more time was needed for the annual
budget process. Even with this change, General Assemblies where the Draft Budget has been submitted and
finalized have been held after the Fiscal Year has expired.
The current budget process provides that Coordinators from the Standing Committees, Working Groups and
GPUS Delegation are to submit annual work plans and budget proposals to the Finance Committee by the end
of the third quarter of the fiscal year (i.e., currently January 31). A Budget Committee consisting of Finance
Committee and Coordinating Committee members is to review those work plans and budget proposals and
create a Draft Budget proposal, which is to be reviewed by the Finance Committee, and further reviewed by
the Coordinating Committee. The Draft Budget is submitted to the first General Assembly of Delegates of the
calendar year for final modifications and approval (aka the Spring Plenary or the Budget Plenary). Under
provisions of the Fiscal Policy adopted in December 2011, a Draft Budget is to be published at least 60 days
before the Budget Plenary.
The GPCA, as a political party, is required to file semi-annual reports with the California Fair Political
Practices Commission and additional reports with the Federal Elections Commission. FPPC reports for the
period ending June 30 are due by July 31, and FPPC reports for the period ending December 30 are due by
January 31. The GPCA Treasurer is personally responsible for submitting these reports and can be personally
fined if they are not timely submitted.
This proposal, if adopted, would immediately move the current Fiscal Year from May 1 to April 30 to July 1
to June 30, provide for transition to the new fiscal year on adoption, and keep the schedule for the annual
budget process as it currently is designed. The Finance Committee believes that adoption of this proposal
would have the benefits of creating better scheduling flexibility for the Spring Plenary while continuing the
goal to hold the Budget Plenary before the expiration of the Fiscal Year. Moving the Fiscal Year in this way
will amount to making the budget process a midyear review in the Standing Committees and Working Groups
and encourage longer term planning in the GPCA. Aligning the Fiscal Year with the GPCA’s financial
reporting periods will make the GPCA Treasurer’s work load a little easier.
26
PROPOSAL: The General Assembly of Delegates designates the GPCA Fiscal Year as beginning on July 1
and ending on June 30. To the extent applicable, the period of May 1, 2012, to June 30, 2012, is designated as
a transition period from the previously designated Fiscal Year (May 1 to April 30), and the GPCA Budget
adopted for the first use of the new Fiscal Year (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013) shall include that transition
period.
As part of implementation of this decision, the current schedule for the budget process shall be continued.
Specifically, the Coordinators of the Standing Committees, Working Groups and the GPUS Delegation shall
submit their respective annual work plans and budget proposals to the Finance Committee by January 31 of
each year; the Budget Committee, Finance Committee and Coordinating Committee shall complete their
review and modifications of the budget proposals in February and March, and a comprehensive Draft Budget
shall be published not later than 60 days before the the next General Assembly of Delegates (Budget Plenary).
Upon adoption of this proposal, the Bylaws Committee is directed to review the current published version of
the GPCA Bylaws and to submit technical amendments to the Bylaws necessary to conform them to this
proposal and the Fiscal Policy adopted in December 2011 for review and approval by the next General
Assembly of Delegates.
COMMITTEE PROCESS: General discussion of the subject of this proposal was held in the Finance
Committee on January 17, 2012, at which time the proposal concepts were approved. A draft proposal was
circulated on February 18, 2012. The full text of the proposal was approved on March 6, 2012.
TIMELINE: Adoption at the Spring 2012 General Assembly of Delegates in May 2012, and immediate effect
and operation.
RESOURCES: Bylaws Committee will need to prepare Bylaws updates to conform the GPCA Bylaws with
the provisions of this proposal and the Fiscal Policy adopted in December 2011. Unless the 2012-2013
Budget Proposal anticipates this change, Standing Committees and Working Groups may need to request
small budget additions at the next Plenary if the Fiscal Year shift effects regular monthly expenses.
References: GPCA Bylaws and Fiscal Policy.
_______________________
4:30pm Presentation: Update on Legal Cases against Proposition 14/SB6 (Coordinating
Committee)
Presentation: Update on Legal Cases against Proposition 14/SB6
Sponsor: Coordinating Committee
Background: Proposition 14 was passed by in the June 2010 California primary and changed the way the
state conducts its elections. Party primaries are eliminated and no longer does a candidate from every ballot
qualified party appear on the General Election ballot. Proposition 14 provides multiple threats to the Green
Party
27
At the April 30/May 1, 2011 General Assembly in Berkeley, the GPCA heard a summary of the legal
arguments against the Top Two primary (Proposition 14 in California, Initiative 872 in Washington State), as
well as Senate Bill 6 (SB6), Proposition 14's implementing statute in California. A video of that presentation
is here, featuring Richard Winger of Ballot Access News and Gautum Dutta, attorney against SB6
(http://www.businessandelectionlaw.com/sb6).
Since then the case against Initiative 872 has gone to the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco and is now
being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could consider it in late 2012 and render a decision by early
2013. At the same time, SB6 has also gone to the Ninth Circuit Court, but it appears they do not want to
decide the case until after the November 2012 general election. A running update of that case can be found
here on Dutta's website. In addition, a newer challenge to Proposition 14 was filed on November 21, 2011 in
Oakland by the Green Party of Alameda County, the Libertarian and the Peace and Freedom Parties of
California, and a number of individuals, including California Greens Michael Rubin and Kate Tanaka. A copy
of that complaint is here and the case is expected to be ruled upon on April 10, 2012.
Presentation: Dutta and Winger will be present to make an update in person on the status of these legal cases.
_____________________________
4:40pm Presentation: Update on State Laws affecting GPCA ballot status (Coordinating Committee)
Presentation: Update on State Laws affecting GPCA ballot status
Sponsor: Coordinating Committee
Background: Proposition 14 was passed by in the June 2010 California primary and changed the way the
state conducts its elections. Party primaries are eliminated and no longer does a candidate from every ballot
qualified party appear on the General Election ballot. This threatens the Green Party's ballot status by
effectively taking away one of the two ways it could retain that status - by appearing on the General Election
ballot and receiving at least 2% in a race for a statewide constitutional office like Governor or Secretary of
State.
To compenstate for this, the state legislature and the Secretary of State's office had begun discussions about
modifying the thresholds for ballot status. There were two approaches initially being discussed - changing the
voter registration threshold and making the vote test occur in the primary election instead of the general.
In February 2012, the GPCA submitted a memo to the State Assembly Elections Committee and
communicated by phone with the Secretary of State's office, supporting lower the voter registration threshold,
but opposing the primary vote test.
Specifically the GPCA's position is that the threshold for achieving/maintaining ballot status be voter
registrations equal to 1/3 of 1% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial general election, or 5% in a
28
petition. The 1/3 of 1% was the threshold included in Prop 62 in 2004, which was a less radical Top Two
primary initiative that did not pass.
The 1/3 of 1% would contrast to the current 1% for voter registrations and 10% in a petition. Among the
Green, Libertarian and Peace and Freedom parties, only the Green Party has over the 1% and the others have
maintained their status via the 2% in a statewide general election over the years. But both would have enough
registrations to retain ballot status under the 1/3 of 1% threshold.
The GPCA rejected using the primary vote as a test for party ballot status. No state in the US has ever used a
primary election for this purpose, in part because the incentives in a regular primary election are different than
a general, and don't provide an accurate assesement of the relative strength of different parties. In addition,
the added nature of the Top Two primary disincentivizes voters from voting for candidates from smaller
parties who are unlikely to make it to the general election. Then there are the issues of whether one counts
every candidate from a particular party or only the top vote getter. Richard Winger of Ballot Access News in
San Francisco advised the GPCA on this issue and the GPCA has also been in contact with the Peace and
Freedom Party to discuss a coordination of our positions.
However, it appears the Proposition 14 advocates have enough sway in the legislature to prevent any bill from
even being introduced that would advocate the change the GPCA seeks. Conversely, the GPCA has notified
the Secretary of State's office that rather than supporting any primary vote test, it would prefer to wait to see if
the Supreme Court overturns Top Two primaries in 2013 and/or if the case against SB6 prevails and then if
not, the issue could be revisited before the 2014 elections, which is when all these factors come into play again
and the ballot status of California's smaller parties decided.
Report: An update will be provided on where this issues stands at the time of the GPCA General Assembly.
________________________
4:50pm Proposal: Amend GPCA Elections Code (Coordinating Committee)
Because of the length of the documentation required for this proposal, we ask that you review the text at the
above link and only print off the sections where you may have questions, affirmations or concerns. The
Executive Summary is provided below:
Draft GPCA Elections Code
SPONSOR: Coordinating Committee
PRESENTERS: Mike Feinstein, Warner Bloomberg (on history of earlier Elections Code efforts)
SUBJECT: Amendments to draft GPCA Elections Code
29
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a proposal to update the GPCA's draft Elections Code (approved
internally in 2006, but never enacted by the legislature), in order to enable some form to be enacted by the
state legislature this year, and to seek sponsors for other portions to be enacted later. The proposal begins with
a historical background, then explains the present opportunity the GPCA has to get a draft Elections Code
passed this year and the specific changes recommended to the 2006 draft to facilitate it.
_________________________
Sunday
10:25am
Report on At-Large Coordinating Committee elections (Coordinating Committee)
Report on At-Large CC Elections
Sponsor: Coordinating Committee
Subject: Report on At-Large CC Elections
Executive Summary: Since it was approved in October 2009 and began to be implemented in March 2010,
the expansion of Coordinating Committee (CC) size from a maximum of 20 to 26 members, and the number
of at-large seats elected from 4 to 16 has ultimately led to a significant increase in CC size and participation,
and to an increase in gender balance, with more women elected via at-large election.
At the same time, disputes over the length of regionally elected CC terms and the manner in which they are
elected have continued to occur, just as they had in the years before the change in CC size and makeup; and
the net number of regionally-elected members has barely changed.
Background: For several years prior to 2009, the manner in which CC members were elected was in frequent
dispute, and the functionality of the CC often in question. Furthermore the participation in the CC overall had
been dropping for a few years, and those remaining had been those active for some time, meaning there were
very few new members becoming active.
At the May 2009 Venice General Assembly there was an agenda item to change the CC size, makeup and
manner of election, but no agreement was reached. Ultimately the General Assembly constituted a short-term
Restructuring Committee to return to the next General Assembly with further recommendations.
At the October 2009 Genera Assembly in Cotati, delegates approved of a change from the previous CC
formula of 16 regionally-elected CC members and four at-large members, where the number of elected
members from each of the 11 regions was generally proportional to the number of registered Greens in each
region, except that all regions had at least one member, and that two at-large members were elected each year;
to a system with 12 seats elected from each region, with all 11 having one seat, except the Central Valley
region had two, and 14 seats elected by Ranked Choice Voting, seven each year.
This change was initially conceived to be a two-year experiment. However in the first year, only one person
ran for any of the 2010-2012 at-large seats in March 2010 and the participation from the regionally-elected
30
seats remained low, such that most Coordinating Committee teleconferences still only had six or seven
participants.
Things began to change in May/June 2011 where three people ran fill vacant seats for the final year of the
2010-2012 term and five people ran for full two-year 2011-2013 seats. Around that same time two regions
which had not been recently participating on the CC - Los Angeles and San Diego/Imperial - also elected CC
representatives, and another individual who had been an at-large member shifted over and was elected from
the Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino region.
As a result, by July 2011 the number of members participating/total number of members at the regular
monthly meetings after the May/June CC election was as follows:
July 2011:
August 2011:
September 2011:
October 2011:
November 2011:
December 2011:
January 2012:
13/18
16/18
13/18
14/17
12/16
11/15
10/14
During this period two at-large members elected in May/June stepped down because of unexpected personal
commitments, as did one regionally elected member from the Central Coast. It was also discovered that two
regionally elected members (East Bay, Central Valley) had stayed on the CC beyond the end of their terms.
One of them was reappointed by their region and one was not, accounting for the net drop in four members
(more about this below).
During January 2012 one more individual who was elected in May/June 2011 resigned from the CC, in this
instance out of disagreement with the vision for how the Coordinating Committee should proceed.
At the December General Assembly, recognizing the slow start to the at-large trial period but the recent
increasing participation, the delegates voted to extend the at-large trial period for an additional year, and made
changes in the GPCA bylaws to codify the new at-large election procedures, which had been passed only in a
descriptive manner in Cotati (http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2011-12/bylaw-cc-election). That extension also
included a mandate for the CC to make a report with recommendations to the next General Assembly. This is
that report with recommendations.
During January 2012, there was election to fill the at-large CC vacancies that had occurred before the
December 2011 General Assembly. Four more members were elected - two to fill the remainder of the 20102012 term and two to fill the remainder of the 2011-2013 term. Attendance since that time has been:
January 2012 (CC retreat): 11/17
February 2012: 14/17
February 2012 (special meeting): 14/17
March 2012: 13/17
31
These observations can be made from this period:
- with more CC members, there is a broader decision-making base and more members available to do CC
work than in previous years
- the number of women and young people on the CC has increased
- the number of new participants on the CC has increased (i.e. those who had never previously been a
member)
- the CC has appointed a Liaison to all GPCA standing committees and working groups, where previously not
all of those positions had been filled
- the CC has appointed more members to GPCA standing committees and in the process has re-activated two
committees (Bylaws and Clearinghouse) that had been inactive for years
At the same time that these improvements have been made, some of the same old problems with the
regionally-elected CC seats have persisted:
- Central Region
Even though the Central Region term ended in June 2011, the CC member who had been serving from that
region declined to notify the CC that his term was over as of June 2011 and continued participating on the CC
until this discrepancy was discovered months later by CC members, after which the member from the Central
Valley region tried to argue that he had been re-appointed by regional caucus at the May 2011 General
Assembly in Berkeley, which he had not been and could not have been, because GPCA Bylaws state that if a
region has its own CC election process, which the Central Region does, it can not elected via regional caucus
at a General Assembly. This dispute caused tension within the CC and took up time at the CC's on-site
meeting at the December General Assembly, which could've been devoted to the business of that weekend. In
addition, it was claimed by that same individual that an alternate had been chosen for him at the May General
Assembly, which again was not permitted by GPCA Bylaw, and was for a term that would've ended in June
2011 anyway.
The next result was that the CC's meetings from July through November 2011 contained votes by a person that
was not on the CC, which in an organization that uses super-majority voting is very significant; and
furthermore that individual often held outstanding concerns during CC meetings, significantly lengthening the
CC's decision-making process to the detriment of time spent on other CC business.
- East Bay Region
Even though the East Bay Region term ended in July 2011, the CC member who had been serving from that
region declined to notify the CC that her (and her alternate's) term was over as of July 2011 and continued
participating on the CC until this discrepancy was later discovered by CC members. Unlike the situation from
the Central Valley region, this individual did not protest this discovery, but simply argued that it was an
unintentional oversight. Once this was brought to their attention. the East Bay region simply reappointed her
and her alternate But again there was a situation where a non-member had been participating in the CC's
consensus-seeking process and voting.
32
- Silicon Valley
The Silicon Valley region consists of two counties (San Mateo, Santa Clara), whose regional bylaws state that
both must come to agreement upon their individual appointments to the CC for member and alternate. As a
result of this, a scenario developed where at first both counties seemed to be in agreement about who they
would appoint as a new member and alternate and when they would begin to serve, as one county made this
vote by their County Council and another was poised and expected to make that same choice. But then at the
last minute, the second county declined to vote in the new people at that time, in order to delay the change and
facilitate continuing participation by an incumbent from that county. This created uncertainly and instability
and ill-will and gave the appearance of the manipulation of the CC regional election process for the benefit of
a certain individual.
- San Diego/Imperial
The long-standing issue over whether the CC is to police whether regions follow their own bylaws in choosing
CC members has meant factional fighting over the years from within the CC over whether it would 'accept' the
election of individuals who may not be in favor with certain CC members. GPCA Bylaws are not clear on how
such 'policing' is to occur and the inherent conflict of interest of the CC policing its own members is an
inherent aspect of how regional CC elections are currently conducted.
In the case of the San Diego/Imperial region, after that region had not elected a CC member in many years, in
March 2011 it did elect someone, but then that i election was immediately challenged by a sitting CC member.
Although this challenge was not ultimately granted, it raised again the issue over whether sitting CC members
can/should be challenging the election of people who will be serving with them. It should also be noted that
because the San Diego/Imperial region had not elected someone for so long, they themselves were not clear
what their process was to do so, and this also contributed to the potential for dispute over this newly elected
seat.
Based upon the above, the following observations can be made from the experience from the regionallyelected seats during this period:
- The number of regionally elected members has had little net change and many unfilled vacancies remain as
before.
Two regions (Central Coast, Central Valley) have not filled the vacancies that occurred during this period);
two regions which had not been participating for some time did fill their seats (Los Angeles, San
Diego/Imperial); and one long-active member who used to be from Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino and then
had become an at-large elected member, simply went back to being a regionally-elected member.
Two other regions that have not elected anyone for years (Emerald, Monterey Bay) have still not elected
anyone; and the Central Valley region, which among all 11 regions was the only one given two seats in 2009,
has not filled the second seat during this period, continuing a pattern where it hadn't filled it previously for
many years when it had two seats under the old formula.
- The 2009 regional approach creates large disparities in the number of registered Greens represented by each
region. Prior to 2009, the number of CC members to be elected from each regional was generally proportional
33
to how many registered Greens within that region. Since 2009 when this was dropped, some regions are
vastly over-represented and some vastly under-represented according to this criteria.
- The beginning/ending time of CC terms continues to be in dispute, as the experience of the Central Valley,
East Bay and Silicon Valley elections have shown.
- The election of regionally-elected CC members continues to be in dispute, as the experience of the Central
Valley, East Bay, Silicon Valley and San Diego/Imperial elections have shown.
- The gender makeup of the six currently regionally-elected CC members is five men and one woman; the
gender make up of the 11 currently elected at-large members is six women and five men.
- The voting base for the regionally-elected members can sometimes be a small number of self-selected
individuals. For example the North Bay regional election that occurred during this period had only a total of
six members from three counties. While this was in compliance with their regional bylaws, given how few
people were able to know about and be present for such an election suggests the potential for randomness
and/or party insider inclusion/exclusion for such elections depending upon who has what information.
Committee Decision: This report approved by the Coordinating Committee 9-3-2 on its March 19th
teleconference.
____________________________
1:40pm Completion of County Polling in Propositions 28 and 29 (if necessary); Discussion:
Two Platform Planks - Energy, Proportional Representation
Discussion: Platform Amendment - Energy
ENERGY PROPOSAL (underlined=new;struckout=deleted; [..]=From previous nuclear energy changes,not to be discussed]
SPONSOR: Platform Standing Group
PRESENTERS/CONTACTS: Eric Brooks, [email protected]; Shane Que Hee, [email protected]
SUBJECT: Energy in the Ecology & Earth Stewardship section. Personal and global responsibility, ecological wisdom, and
sustainability are the involved 10 Key Values of the GP.
Background and Purpose.
Conservation, efficiency, research and development, and renewable energy sources are essential elements of our proposed energy policy.
We need to develop strategies that recognize that fossil fuels are formed in geological time and cannot be replaced in the short term and
they are being depleted rapidly (except coal). Moreover, our current dependence on fossil fuels (especially coal) is creating unacceptable
environmental damage, including climate change that will bring great hardship to many humans and non-human life.
Conserving energy will reduce the need for fossil fuels [and dangerous nuclear energy.] We can also lessen our dependence upon energy
sources by driving more fuel efficient cars and by simplifying our lifestyles to include things such as living closer to our work and eating
lower on the food chain.
U.S. dependence on imported oil contributes to our military involvement in other parts of the world. Elimination or reduction of this
dependence would eliminate or diminish the reason, or the excuse, for such military involvement. In addition, with concern about further
attacks, the security of California energy resources becomes more important. Decentralizing energy production is important to improve
security from attack and also for less dependence on large facilities feeding into massive grids that are easily disrupted.
34
Proposed state and national energy policies would loosen environmental protections. Clean air, clean water, endangered species, and the
Alaska Wildlife Refuge are all threatened. Many local communities, often poor and minority, are being threatened by mining activities,
waste storage, waste incineration, dirty production facilities and other assaults.
[Nuclear Power is being promoted as a solution to global warming but it leaves long-lived and dangerous wastes in its wake]
Streamlining of permits in response to the 2000-2001 energy "crisis" changed the process for siting power plants. It sidestepped previous
environmental legislation and the process by which residents participated in the decision making. Also it has led to an increase in the
number of fossil fuel peaker plants which are used when demand for power is the highest. They are less efficient than new full-size natural
gas plants and they emit much more pollution per unit of energy produced.
Regulation vs. Deregulation vs. Public Power
California's failed attempt to deregulate energy utilities indicated the dangers of investing our energy future in the hands of an energy
market committed only to maximizing profits. Deregulation has failed to produce the promised rate reduction for residents, but rather has
caused our bills to soar.
Deregulation gave the three privately held California utilities a cash windfall that allowed their holding companies to control the allegedly
competitive market. They invested in energy plants in the U.S. and worldwide, and own billions of dollars in assets not touchable by the
state to rectify the outstanding utility debts. Under deregulation, many of the state's utility generation facilities were sold to out-of-state
companies who then sold that power on the open free market at exorbitant profits.
A growing pool of experience shows that Municipal Utilities Districts and other public power agencies run more efficiently and provide
better customer service than Investor Owned Utilities.
California's deregulation law provided a small fund to promote renewable sources, low income assistance, and energy efficiency. The
rejected alternative for renewable sources, which was pushed by environmentalists, would have required all electricity generators to
produce 10% of their energy from renewable sources. This left a voluntary effort by independent power suppliers to market "green power"
to customers. The effort resulted in very little new renewable power sources.
Approximately 25% of all energy use in California is expended on the supply and movement of water and facility maintenance and
operations.
Global Climate Change
In the last decade, the Earth has experienced some of the highest average temperatures ever. The United States is responsible for emitting
approximately 25% of all greenhouse gases worldwide. Energy generation, including transportation uses, account for most of this. The
Kyoto Protocol committed our country to reducing emissions to 1990 levels. It should be adopted nationally and should commit our state as
well to reducing emissions to 1990 levels. It is vital to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible, while also using
permaculture agriculture techniques for soil carbon sequestration, to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and then reduce CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere from their current 392 parts per million (ppm) down to a more sustainable 350 ppm or lower.[See
Protection of Atmosphere plank}
The Green Party of California proposes:
1. Phase out fossil fuels as an energy source to the extent possible and convert to renewable sources. Require all electricity sellers to
procure at least 30% of their energy from clean renewable sources by 2015, with a long term objective of procuring from 100% clean
renewable sources by 2050.
2. Use subsidies, incentives and regulations to encourage the development of such renewable sources as passive solar for heating and
cooling buildings, solar water heating, solar electricity (photovoltaics hydrogen fuel, biomass, geothermal, ocean, wind and small scale
hydroelectric). For example, reinstate the "direct access" option for residential consumers so that they can get power from companies using
renewable sources.
3. Establish higher energy efficiency standards for lighting, home and office appliances and industrial motors; and increase rebate and
replacement programs.
35
4. Require energy efficiency, passive solar and solar water heating in building codes. Do not permit homeowner associations and condo
associations to restrict member owners from installing solar equipment on their commonly held rooftops and hanging out laundry.
5. Support a massive project of energy conservation. We must make up for years of under-funding of energy conservation. We need more
efficient appliance purchase rebates, small business conservation loans and grants, training and small business development for energy
service providers, energy conservation innovation and curriculum in public school science courses on how renewable energy sources work.
6. Include information in utility bills about where to obtain energy saving products to establish better communication with people and
especially those sociologically disadvantaged to assure people’s rights relative to energy distribution
7. Restructure electricity rates so that residents are not paying more than big business. Require large users who have not done all they can to
reduce energy use to pay more for electricity. Develop a tiered residential pricing system that takes into account family size.
8. Make our supply of energy more secure and affordable through localized, decentralized energy production with a strong component of
municipal ownership to provide nonprofit competition to private providers.
9. Require utilities to accept the highest spot price of the day from the renewable resources inputted by retail consumers and net metering
(the selling of the excess power to the grid by private generators) for all other sources, to encourage building of alternative energy
generation and stipulate that it be done at retail rates.
10. Use "time-of-use" pricing as much as possible and install time-of-day meters for large users.
11. Create an incentive program to encourage conservation by landlords. Landlords refuse to pay to insulate dwellings homes, etc. because
when the tenant pays the energy bill, so the landlord has no financial incentive.
12. Cities or utilities should have a contact someone designated to educate energy wasters-.
Ssomeone that people would be able to call when they see careless energy wasting, like parking lot lights left on all day at a big box store.
13. [Stop subsidies for the research and development of nuclear power. Shut down/ and decommission existing nuclear power plants (San
Onofre and Diablo Canyon in California) and replace them with renewable sources. Repeal the federal Price-Anderson Act, which limits
the financial liability of the nuclear industry in case of accidents. Insurance companies will not cover nuclear power plants, so this liability
is a subsidy to the nuclear power industry now borne by taxpayers.]
14. Repeal the "permit streamlining process" for siting power plants. Use solar to meet peak demand.
15. Adopt the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and implement measures as soon as possible to reduce national and state carbon dioxide
emissions to 1990 levels. Reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases by rapidly phasing out confined animal feeding
operations, by encouraging a reduction in worldwide meat consumption, and by transitioning to a plant-based agricultural system.
16. Employ union labor in green energy projects.
17. To better distribute renewable sources, there should be more emphasis on individual solar power from photovoltaic panels installed on
every roof possible and subsidized by the government with increased buy-down rates and low-interest loans to those who need them.
18. Make our supply of energy more secure through decentralized energy production, including new technologies such as hydrogen fuel
and fuel cells, small wind, combined heat and power retrofitting, water and air pumped storage, hydrogen cell storage, and less dependence
on outside sources of energy. We should seek more energy independence within California borders, and strive to establish local and
regional virtual (combined) power plants in order to achieve fully localized diversified energy security with no need for long range energy
imports.
19. Prohibit sale of power generating and distribution assets to out-of-state power companies who would not be subject to California Public
Utilities Commission oversight and control.
20. When Green Power marketers reenter the market here they should provide new renewables and avoid top-down, anti-democratic,
funder-led objectives.
21. Replace aging, inefficient and polluting plants. Utilities must pay for the costs of disposing of their wastes and any costs of cleaning up
their pollution
22. Municipal utilities should address water and electricity issues together. Both should be declared a public resource to remove their
commercialization. Government at all levels must focus on increasing efficiency and conservation.
36
COMMITTEE DECISION . The revised platform was suggested during revisions concerning nuclear energy aspects before
and at the Los Angeles General Assembly on December 3 2011. Revisions appeared in 2012 on Jan 2; and April 1.
RESOURCES: This is a revision of an existing GPCA platform plank.
___________________________________
Discussion: Platform Amendment - Proportional Representation
SPONSOR: PLATFORM STANDING GROUP
PRESENTERS/CONTACTS: Ronald Hennig, [email protected], (925) 708-3907
SUBJECT: Proportional Representation II, Democracy and Electoral Reform, Involved 10 Key Values-Grassroots Democracy
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This plank is meant to supplement or replace the current one on Proportional Representation (see
end). This is a new form of Proportional Representation at the federal level that is simpler than and superior to the others. It could also be
applied at the State level, but its application at the federal level would be more immediately beneficial to both California and the nation.
BACKGROUND:
(1)Congress can no longer adequately represent the people of the United States.
(2)Modern people are connected in ways that extend beyond their geographic proximity to each other, and these connections are not
captured through the use of congressional districts.
(3)The Green Party of California supports an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would restructure the House of
Representatives.
(4)Instead of every Representative being elected from a district, there would be one national election with all of the candidates competing
against each other.
(5)The candidates who receive the most votes would become the Representatives, and every Representative would have as many votes as
he or she had received in the election.
(6)That is, the House currently has 435 Representatives, and so the 435 candidates who receive the most votes would become
Representatives.
(7)If three candidates received 1,340,592 votes, 223,302 votes, and 14,497,980 votes in the election, then as Representatives they would
respectively have 1,340,592 votes, 223,302 votes, and 14,497,980 votes when voting on legislation.
(8)The Senate would not be changed, thereby maintaining equal representation for the States and blocking any irrational legislation that
might come from the House of Representatives.
(9)By eliminating districts, this would completely eliminate gerrymandering.
(10)The Green Party of California supports legislative candidates who pledge to vote for this amendment.
37
PROPOSAL:
The Green Party of California supports the following text of the amendment:
1. The members of the House of Representatives shall be elected by the whole people of the United States. The persons who receive the
most votes shall become the Representatives, and shall have as many votes as Representatives as they had received in the election. A group
of Representatives whose votes carried are a majority of the votes carried by all of the Representatives shall constitute a quorum.
The House of Representatives shall keep record of how many votes each Representative had received from each State.
The number of members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by Congress.
In the event that multiple persons shall have received the same number of votes and not all can become Representatives, then the House
shall choose who among them shall become Representatives.
2. Every Representative shall appoint a Vice-Representative who shall assume the position of his respective Representative should it
become vacant. No Executive Authority of a State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. If the position of a ViceRepresentative should become vacant, then the associated Representative shall appoint a new Vice-Representative.
No person shall be a Representative or a Vice-Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven
years a citizen of the United States.
By a vote of two-thirds, the House may expel a Representative, Vice-Representative, or a pair of such, thereby leaving the representation
vacant until the next election.
3. The number of Electors for President and Vice-President that the States and the District constituting the seat of Government of the
United States shall appoint shall be the number of members of the House of Representatives divided among the States according to their
respective populations, plus one for every Senator to which they are entitled.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint one elector for every Senator to which it would be
entitled to as if it were a State, but shall in no event appoint more Electors than the least populous State.
In the event that no person shall have received a majority of the votes of the Electors for President, and the choice should devolve upon the
House of Representatives, then the vote shall be taken by Representatives, and every Representative shall have a number of votes, equal to
the sum of the quotients of the votes had received from each State divided into the total number of votes that all of the Representatives had
received from that State. A quorum for this purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the Representatives.
4. Congress shall choose the election in which the first three sections of this article shall take effect.
----------CURRENT PLATFORM PLANK
Proportional Representation
One of the primary goals of the Green Party is to change our electoral system from winner-take-all, to proportional
representation (PR). PR is an over-all strategy for representation that encompasses several types of voting systems. It is used
by most of the world's established democracies.
Our current winner-take-all system - where the highest vote-getter represents 100% of the electorate - causes many problems.
Among them are lack of choice for voters; gross under-representation of women, and racial and political minorities; low voter
38
turnout; issue-less campaigns; a two-party monopoly; corruption of politics by big money; and gerrymandering of legislative
districts for incumbents' protection. PR addresses these issues:
PR gives representation to voters from both minority and majority constituencies. Blocs of like-minded voters win
representation in multi-seat districts in proportion to their voting strength. A constituency or party that receives 10% of the vote
wins 10% of the seats, 30% of the vote wins 30% of seats, and so on. This way, almost the entire electorate is represented in
government, with the majority still ruling.
PR increases voter participation. More people have the ability to elect a candidate who represents them. Turnouts average
70% to 95% in PR democracies, compared to the 51% turnout in the 2000 federal elections, and the 36% turnout in 1998.
PR increases diversity in representation. Compared to the U.S. Congress, which is 88% male, women in the national and state
legislatures of PR democracies often have between 25% to 50% of the seats. Racial and other minorities are also better
represented under PR. This helps legislatures more closely reflect the composition of the general population.
PR is an effective campaign finance reform. It reduces the percentage of votes needed to win, thus the amount of money
needed to win. Minor parties like the Green Parties of Europe consistently win fair representation despite not spending as
much as the major parties.
PR also reduces the problem of gerrymandering - where incumbents and their parties get to draw district lines to their
advantage. Almost all voters in a district receive representation under PR regardless of how the district lines are drawn.
PR uses multi-seat districts where representatives are elected in proportion to the votes they receive. In the implementation of
PR systems, a threshold of votes is usually required to ensure that representatives have at least a minimum base of support.
There are forms of PR appropriate for all levels of elections:
List systems - Party based, they elect parties in proportion to their share of the popular vote. These are the most widely used
systems, and are appropriate for federal and state legislative bodies.
Mixed systems - Seats are awarded both proportionally and by single-seat districts. These do well in combining geographic
and issue-based representation, and are also appropriate for federal and state legislative bodies.
Choice voting (also known as Preference voting) - Candidate-based, voters list their first, second, third, etc. choices for a
particular race. Votes are transferred as candidates are eliminated, thus all votes help select the winner. Applicable to all levels
of government. Choice voting was successfully used to elect city councils in two dozen U.S. cities, until the 1950's. This
success led to its downfall. Political machines resented the loss of control of elections, and anti-reformers resisted diversity,
especially AfricanAmericans in government during a time of racial tension and desegregation of schools.
The Green Party seeks the implementation of proportional representation election systems:
Seek, in coalition with organizations and individuals, the formation of commissions - at local, state and federal levels - to
examine alternatives to the current electoral system, and present the findings to the public.
Initiate a referendum asking voters to decide between the current winner-take-all electoral system, and a system based in PR.
39
Replace the winner-take-all plurality approach with proportional representation systems at all levels of government.
Work to implement PR in local organizations and non-government bodies, such as union locals, schools and school districts,
civic organizations, etc.
Eliminate gerrymandering - the dominant parties' ability to create districts that ensure their continued election in the present
single-seat system.
Support the federal Voters Choice Act (HR 3068) that gives states the option of electing their congressional delegation by PR
(California elects 52 House members).
COMMITTEE DECISION . The revised platform was suggested on October 10 2011 by direct contact of the author with the
Platform Co-Cordinator. The plank was posted on the Platform list serve on Jan 2, 2012; revisions were incorporated on April
1 2012.
RESOURCES: This is complementary or alternative to the existing GPCA platform plank.
40