No subject

Tue Dec 29 08:20:31 EST 2009

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sevigny CT, 
 
Facilitator Ben Manski, Jo Chamberlain took over later. 
Time keeper  Jake Schneider 
Notes  Greg Gerritt,  Holly Hart agreed to take notes on the disc=
ussion of SC structuring for the brpp. 
 
Andy Parks makes first presentation to open discussion.  Noted show lo=
ng brpp had worked on it and its great flexibility.  Asked SC for conce=
rns 
 
Jo C  Generally supportive of the idea of portfolios, wanted to see a =
proposal that was much tighter and more structured.  Wanted the electio=
ns of the various parts of the  the SC more structured,  a descrip=
tion of how portfolios would actually be created and selected.   
 
Anita, does not like the proposal.  believes it is too corporate and h=
ierarchical.  Would like to see a restructuring that was much more in t=
une with Green values and bringing in the grassroots. 
 
Tom, responding to a comment on the size of the SC.  BRPP supports add=
ing two members to 7 co chairs, or however that will be named, as incrementa=
l change, and because do you imagine what it would be like to work as a body=
of 20.   
 
Andy  there is pretty much a consensus that portfolios work.  the=
issue of how to elect, brpp offers maximum flexibility.  Also thinks w=
e can separate a vote on how to do it and then figure out how to elect it. &=
nbsp;One step at a time.  Define responsibilities based on what committ=
ees they are working with.   
 
Jo  would like to see elections for portfolios right after election of=
SC by 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. &nbsp=
;SC should not be in charge of dividing itself up or making its own rules. <=
BR>
 
Tom rules on election are being done separately and should stay that way. <=
BR>
 
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 comm=
ittee.   
 
JO  conflicts in the SC ought to go to the CC.  Wants real clarit=
y on how portfolios will be selected and the election of the SC.  CC sh=
ould 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 t=
he 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 pro=
cedure.  Some members just felt it was ready to go out, others felt tha=
t the SC, while it has the ability to slightly delay resolutions going out s=
o that the floor does not get too crowded and for other administrative reaso=
ns, 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. &nbs=
p;Also 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 b=
uy until just before the FD and PD are ready to start in the office, which i=
s Mid February. 
 
Agreed that if Emily found appropriate student interns at no cost she was w=
elcome 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 Pol=
itical 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 goin=
g to publish them openly, I will treat them as Executive Session notes. &nbs=
p;If you have questions about this, we can discuss it, but rather than publi=
sh 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 e=
xcused myself as it was too late and I had to get up in the morning.  I=
assume that notes were taken by someone else after I signed off. 
 
greg gerritt 
 
 
NOtes from Marnie glickman covering the period after greg gerritt  sig=
ned off 
 
BUDGET 
 
Jake/Jo:  The fundraising committee =
recommends that the budget proposal will go to a vote when the voting on the=
fundraising proposal concludes on 1/29/04.  The budget will not be div=
ided between discretionary and non-discretionary.  It will be one big b=
udget. 
 
 
 
NEXT CALLS 
 
Our next call is 1/29/04. After that we w=
ill meet the first and third Thursdays of each month at 630pm west coast tim=
e. 
 
 
 
STATE OF THE UNION 
 
Ben:  Expressed a concern about plan=
s.    Will advise Scott to issue a release. <BR=

>

 
As noted above, I had concerns about publishing the notes from the discussi=
on with the  potential Political Director, Brent McMillan, about his co=
ntract.  Some SC members wanted them published feeling they were not ex=
ecutive session notes.  Brent has given permission for these to be publ=
ished, so here they are.   
 
 
 
<TT>Folks, we  discussed the PD hire in open session, but it is clearl=
y 
something that MUST be done in Executive session.  I am producing thes=
e 
notes so that we all have them to work from to finish the contract and get<=
BR>
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 thes=
e, 
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 i=
s 
flowing in, but now FD is coming on, maybe it will brighten up.  Maili=
ng did 
go out this week. 
 
About 10 convention registrations have come in, ($500), record keeping is<B=
R>
segregated, but money is not.  It is included in what is in the bank.<=
BR>
 
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<=
BR>
without constantly worrying that we are just not going to be able to meet<B=
R>
the payroll?  At what point will we be comfortable, what does the fina=
ncial 
picture have to look like?  There are no answers, just guesses as to w=
hat we 
can do. 
 
Should Brent start part time, does it have to be from DC?  How does Br=
ent 
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. &=
nbsp;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.<B=
R>
Brent is of course always free to leave with proper notice even if it is<BR=

>

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 a=
ll 
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 agreemen=
t 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 m=
issed. 
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<B=
R>
discussion.  if it includes what we all think it will, SC will sign an=
d Brent 
will start FEb 16. 
 
Session ended about 11:45 EST 
 
 
 
 
</TT> 
</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3157454229_543571_MIME_Part--

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the MCR mailing list