Green Party of the United States - National Committee Voting

Home	Vote	Results	History	Contacts	Admin
	National Committee Voting

Login

Proposal Details

Proposal ID	184
Proposal	Procedural Motion on Florida Proposal
Presenter	Green Party of Florida
Floor Manager	Steve Kramer
Phase	Closed
Discussion	09/29/2005 - 10/02/2005
Voting	10/03/2005 - 10/09/2005
Result	Failed
Presens Quorum	32 0.6666
Consens Quorum	57 0.6666 of Yes and No Votes

Background

> Florida has recently forwarded its Amended Proposal Concerning the SC
> Elections to Holly Hart, Secretary, GPUS. Florida had been assured that the
> proposal would be immediately put on the queue for discussion starting today
> and voting in a week.

> Florida then received a message from Holly telling the Florida delegates that
> in order for the proposal to be accepted, Florida would need to amend it
> further.

> ____________

> Clip "During the last SC conference call, we had agreed to put this on the
> upcomgin vitiing queue if we received it during the week. However, there are
> the same items you need to add as with the previous version. Can you do this
> within 24 hours?

> You should mention that this involves a temporary suspension of the GPUS
> bylaws (which is already implied in the language, below, but should be
> clarified at the opening); and refer to thebylaws in question:" Clip

> _______________

> Gary Hecker and Diane Cardin-Kamleiter, Florida Delegates responded as
> follows:

> _______________

> We have considered your request that we further amend the Florida Proposal
> Concerning the SC Elections to affirmatively acknowledge that the proposal
> requires a "suspension of the Bylaws." Please perform your duties as follows:

> Place the proposal in the voting queue immediately and in the form as
> presented to you.

> It is our position that the proposal does not require a "suspension of the
> Bylaws." You will see that we have indicated that the voting threshold should
> be a simple majority.

> If you or others feel that there is a Bylaws issue, you should present that
> argument, with your reasoning, during the period of discussion for appropriate
> review and debate. This will allow the larger body of delegates, who are also
> interested in the solutions offered by this proposal to speak to this issue.
> In the event that you are able to establish reasonable grounds for your
> position during the discussion, the proposal can always be amended prior to
> voting.

> We thank you in advance for your compliance with Florida's request.

> ________________

> Ms. Hart has responded to the Florida Delegation with the following message:

> _____________________

> Clip;GPUS delegates from the state of Florida:
>

> ³Thank you for your proposal which attempts to resolve the ambiguity
> surrounding the 2005 GPUS co-chair elections. However, the SC finds
> that your proposal to the GNC continues to conflict with the current
> rules and bylaws of GPUS and is unable to approve your proposal for
> the voting queue at this time.²Clip

Proposal

> Procedural Motion

> The Delegates from Florida hereby move the National Committee to instruct the
> Steering Committee to immediately place the Amended Florida Proposal
> Concerning the SC Elections in the queue for discussion and voting.

> Rationale

> The delegates from Florida feel that the proposal as offered does not in fact
> require a suspension of the bylaw rules. That being said, we are willing to
> hear debate on the issue and will seriously consider further amendments as
> recommended by National Committee delegates. In the event that the sense of
> the National Committee is that the proposal would be more acceptable with
> language indicating a "temporary suspension of the bylaws," then the Florida
> delegates would seriously consider such language and further amendment of the
> proposal.

> The primary and overriding purpose and objective of the Florida proposal is to
> help the National Committee work out a mutual acceptable solution to the very
> difficult circumstances resulting from the Tulsa, SC vote. We feel that once
> we have presented the proposal, the National Committee is capable of putting
> in the appropriate form so that it will conform to all Bylaws and rules.

> The Florida delegates feel that it is vital to bring this motion before the
> National Committee, because continuing to allow the Steering Committee to make
> these unilateral determinations is unhealthy. As can be seen from the exchange
> of messages above, Ms. Hart, apparently acting for the Steering Committee is

> attempting to unilaterally force the amendment of a proposal by National
> Committee delegates prior to allowing the proposal to be posted for NC
> discussion.

> While we acknowledge that the Bylaws and other language need to be considered
> by the National Committee, we feel that it is completely improper for the
> Steering Committee to require the Florida delegation to further amend their
> proposal before it can even be examined and discussed by the National
> Committee. This preempts the ability of Florida and other delegates to argue
> for their interpretation of the Bylaws before the National Committee.

> We want our proposal to be immediately forwarded to the National Committee as
> it is. We believe that once the proposal is before the National Committee, we
> can work together to make it a proposal of the National Committee and together
> we can make sure that it meets all the requirements of the Bylaws, rules and
> procedures.

> Thank You.

> Gary Hecker,
> Diane Cardin-Kamleiter,
> Sarah "Echo" Steiner,
> Cara Campbell,
> Florida Delegates

Letter of Agreement By Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson

As you are all well aware, the NC has come to a impasse over the
elections that took place in Tulsa. Looking over the discussion of the
past few weeks, it is obvious that there is wide range of opinion on this
issue and various interpretations of what happened. However, what is not
being argued is that our present bylaws, through no one's fault, have
failed us. We have discovered that two different vote counting methods,
both perfectly acceptable under our present bylaws, can lead to two
different results. Kristen and I have our own opinions regarding what has
transpired since Tulsa and, needless to say, we do not agree on
everything.

However, we do agree that the best thing for the Green Party US, is to
move forward. So, as the two delegates who are presently in limbo because
of this impasse, we would like to propose a possible solution. We make
this proposal in a spirit of cooperation and future focus. We ask that
delegates do the same by taking a step back from their entrenched
positions and bend a little. We understand that this issue evokes some
deeply held principles for some delegates and that some bylaw
interpretations may not condone this proposal, but for the sake of the
party, we ask that all delegates help us to move forward.

As a starting point, we used the proposal that received the strongest
support of the three we recently voted on, added some ideas that some
delegates have put forth over the past week, and created what we feel is
something the far majority of delegates can consense around.

In that spirit, we would like to jointly endorse the following solution:

1. That we be seated immediately but not vote.
2. That the NC decide how our votes should be split (switch every other
month, ½ vote each, etc.)
3. That the NC vote on the issue of how our vote should be split be
expedited (1 week discussion, 1 week for voting).
4. That we agree that our terms will end at the next convention and that
we will have to run again in the STV election if we wish to continue on the
SC.
5. That a working group be formed by the SC to straighten out the vote
counting issue as soon as possible and that this working group will make
recommendations before the end of the year. This working group will
utilize the resources of Fair Vote to help with its task.
6. That this proposal is a one time solution to a specific impasse and in
no way sets any precedent

We would like to substitute this proposal for the FL proposal if that is
ok with the FL delegation.

We are both, as are all of you, looking forward to the resolution of this
matter. And look forward to serving the Green Party of the United States,
should the NC approve

Regards,
Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson
_______________________

Proposal (as amended): The National Committee acknowledges and approves the
Florida Proposal Concerning the SC Election, amended to incorporate the
agreement reached by Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson. This proposal provides
that:

1. The SC is urged to respect and implement the agreement between Tom
Sevigny and Kristen Olson providing that they shall be seated immediately on
the SC
but shall not vote.

2. Both Tom Sevigny and Kristen agree that they will resign, thus ending
their terms, at the next convention and that they will have to run again if
They wish to continue on the SC.

3. The National Committee shall hold an IRV vote to recommend to Tom Sevigny
and Kristen Olson how the NC prefers that their vote should be split under
their agreement. Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson are invited to accept this
recommendation.

4. The IRV vote will have 1 week for discussion and 1 week for voting.

5. The National Committee urges the SC to form a working group to straighten
out the vote counting issue as soon as possible and that this working group
will make recommendations before the end of the year. This working group
Will utilize the resources of Fair Vote to help with its task.

6. The National Committee declares that this proposal is a one time solution
to a specific impasse and in no way sets any precedent. The GPUS by-laws
currently in place are not affected, nor will this proposal be considered a
Change to the current by-laws.

7. That upon adoption of this proposal the Steering Committee shall withdraw
its call for a special election to elect an SC chair.

Timeline: now
Resources: none.
References: none
Vote threshold for passage: simple majority

--- End Proposal

Resources

None

References

None

Questions about this system?
Contact the Voting Admin.
The Green Party of the United States voting system is free software, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You can download a copy here.
To independently verify a ranked choice vote, or for information about how that works, go to Jonathan Lundell's Voting Page and upload the ballot file from the ranked choice vote result page. JL's ranked choice module is licensed under an alternate free software license.

Green Party of the United States