No subject
Tue Dec 29 08:20:31 EST 2009
Sevigny CT,=20
Facilitator Ben Manski, Jo Chamberlain took over later.
Time keeper Jake Schneider
Notes Greg Gerritt, Holly Hart agreed to take notes on the discussion of
SC structuring for the brpp.
Andy Parks makes first presentation to open discussion. Noted show long
brpp had worked on it and its great flexibility. Asked SC for concerns
Jo C Generally supportive of the idea of portfolios, wanted to see a
proposal that was much tighter and more structured. Wanted the elections o=
f
the various parts of the the SC more structured, a description of how
portfolios would actually be created and selected.
Anita, does not like the proposal. believes it is too corporate and
hierarchical. Would like to see a restructuring that was much more in tune
with Green values and bringing in the grassroots.
Tom, responding to a comment on the size of the SC. BRPP supports adding
two members to 7 co chairs, or however that will be named, as incremental
change, and because do you imagine what it would be like to work as a body
of 20. =20
Andy there is pretty much a consensus that portfolios work. the issue of
how to elect, brpp offers maximum flexibility. Also thinks we can separate
a vote on how to do it and then figure out how to elect it. One step at a
time. Define responsibilities based on what committees they are working
with. =20
Jo would like to see elections for portfolios right after election of SC b=
y
the CC. Let folks choose portfolios and if more than 1 wants a particular
portfolio, then a CC vote.
Also wants a separate vote on alternates and a defined role for them. SC
should not be in charge of dividing itself up or making its own rules.
Tom rules on election are being done separately and should stay that way.
Andy Election is next project, after the proposal process. And the SC reall=
y
ought to develop its own policies and procedures, just like any other
committee. =20
JO conflicts in the SC ought to go to the CC. Wants real clarity on how
portfolios will be selected and the election of the SC. CC should define
the roles of the SC more.
Anita too hierarchical
Jo spell out elections and terms
Jake, the SC should just allow this to go to the voting page and the CC can
discuss it as a proposal rather than just send it back to committee and giv=
e
it to the CC informally.
Jonathan Lundell, send it to the CC as a proposal, do not send it back to
the brpp
Anita
Things to add and think about
Make the SC less hierarchical
More checks and balances
This does not give anything back to the other greens
funnel resources to the grassroots, this does not
not accountable
elect SC by regions
this keeps too much info in too few hands
SC then accepted the idea of this going to the voting page for a normal
procedure. Some members just felt it was ready to go out, others felt that
the SC, while it has the ability to slightly delay resolutions going out so
that the floor does not get too crowded and for other administrative
reasons, could no longer delay this going out. Greg will floor manage,
goes on for discussion on Monday.
Members of the BRPP signed off, members of the CCC Juscha Robinson, Masada
Disenhouse, Gray Newman, and Brent McMillan signed on.
Office Report from OD Emily Citkowski
Fixed technical problem with credit card donations
Need to send out Green Pages, need to allocate $1500 to mailing costs. Als=
o
looking for innovative ways to get people to buy bundles. Send suggestions
Need computer monitor for Computer for Director of African American Affairs=
.
That will cost $100. approved expenditure by SC consensus
Computers for new Fundraising Director and Political Director. This $1400
expenditure has been approved previously, it was decided to delay the buy
until just before the FD and PD are ready to start in the office, which is
Mid February.
Agreed that if Emily found appropriate student interns at no cost she was
welcome to welcome them.
At about 10:40 PM, Following the office report and votes on expenditures th=
e
SC and members of the CCC convened with Brent MacMillan to discuss the
Political Directors hiring. The SC did this in open session, but in
retrospect it is quite clear that talking about contracts with individuals
MUST be done in Executive Session. I did take notes, but I am not going to
publish them openly, I will treat them as Executive Session notes. If you
have questions about this, we can discuss it, but rather than publish them =
I
expect that the results of the negotiations will be made apparent soon.
i.e.. when the Political Director position has a signed contract and work
begins, you will most definitely be informed.
The session discussing the Political Director position ended about 11:45 PM
EST. There was still one more item on the agenda, the budget, but I excuse=
d
myself as it was too late and I had to get up in the morning. I assume tha=
t
notes were taken by someone else after I signed off.
greg gerritt=20
NOtes from Marnie glickman covering the period after greg gerritt signed
off
BUDGET=20
Jake/Jo: The fundraising committee recommends that the budget proposal wil=
l
go to a vote when the voting on the fundraising proposal concludes on
1/29/04. The budget will not be divided between discretionary and
non-discretionary. It will be one big budget.
=20
NEXT CALLS=20
Our next call is 1/29/04. After that we will meet the first and third
Thursdays of each month at 630pm west coast time.
=20
STATE OF THE UNION=20
Ben: Expressed a concern about plans. Will advise Scott to issue a
release.=20
As noted above, I had concerns about publishing the notes from the
discussion with the potential Political Director, Brent McMillan, about hi=
s
contract. Some SC members wanted them published feeling they were not
executive session notes. Brent has given permission for these to be
published, so here they are.
Folks, we discussed the PD hire in open session, but it is clearly
something that MUST be done in Executive session. I am producing these
notes so that we all have them to work from to finish the contract and get
the process moving smoothly, but I will not be posting them to any list, an=
d
ask that you refrain from that as well. If I missed something in these,
send it to all of us as since these are not for posting, i will not be
revising them. greg
session starts about 10:40 EST
Started off with financial report from Jake, essentially we have $30,000 or
so in the bank. Monthly expenses are $28,000 at a minimum, not much is
flowing in, but now FD is coming on, maybe it will brighten up. Mailing di=
d
go out this week.
About 10 convention registrations have come in, ($500), record keeping is
segregated, but money is not. It is included in what is in the bank.
Juscha, two issues 1. money 2. finalizing the contract
???With the new financial situation developing, we do not know exactly what
will happen financially, new FD, new mailings, etc. How long will it take
for us to get a handle on the financial situation so that we can do a hire
without constantly worrying that we are just not going to be able to meet
the payroll? At what point will we be comfortable, what does the financial
picture have to look like? There are no answers, just guesses as to what w=
e
can do.=20
Should Brent start part time, does it have to be from DC? How does Brent
feel about this? He has to be in on the decision and comfortable.
Went round and round, finally moved to the contract.
Jake proposed, with much amendment, discussion, and refinng
Brent starts Feb 16 full time in DC office. March 15 we reevaluate. If it
looks bad fiancially we give Brent the 30 days notice that is called for in
the contract exit clause, and (I am not clear on how the 20% reduction
business works, and how to transition back to normal if that works or what.
If we give notice on March 15 the termination date would be April 15 unless
the finances improve and we all mutually agree that Brent should stay on.
Brent is of course always free to leave with proper notice even if it is
working well. I just do not get all the details of this, but several people
had a much clearer picture on what we were agreeing to. ) Hopefully all
that info will be put into the rewritten contract that Juscha will finalize
and then offer for review. In the mean time we have a verbal agreement to
go forward and sign the contract once it does what was agreed to by the
group on the call. I am sure someone else wil fill in the details I missed=
.
Salary will be $30,000 per year.
Vote on the SC to accept the negotiations as discussed, with Brent starting
full time on Feb 16 in DC was 4 to 2. Badilli stood aside. Ben, Jo,
Marnie,
Jake voted to start Brent full time. Greg, Anita, voted to start him Part
time. vote 4 to 2
Final actions. Juscha will send around a new contract based on this
discussion. if it includes what we all think it will, SC will sign and
Brent
will start FEb 16.=20
Session ended about 11:45 EST
--MS_Mac_OE_3157454229_543571_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>SC Conference Call notes 1/15/04</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"New York"><BR>
<BR>
Minutes GPUS SC conference call of 1/15/04. submitted by greg g=
erritt<BR>
<BR>
SC conference call info<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thursday, January 15, 2004<BR>
Start Time: 9:30 p.m. Eastern Std Time<BR>
End Time: 11:55 p.m. Eastern Std Time<BR>
Participants: 30<BR>
Type of Conference: Web-Scheduled Standard<BR>
Dial-in Number: 1-858-400-4040=A0=A0(San Diego, CA) <BR>
Participant Access Code: 890654<BR>
<BR>
BRPP please join us at 9:30 EST for the first 55 minutes of the call.=
<BR>
<BR>
Agenda<BR>
Welcome, introductions 10 minutes<BR>
<BR>
SC restructuring: Discussion with BRPP 45 minutes <BR>
<BR>
Budget/finances <BR>
<BR>
What else should be on the agenda</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
Call started to convene at 9:30 PM EST<BR>
<BR>
Present on the call<BR>
More information about the MCR
mailing list