Minutes for 10/27/2010 Chapter Meeting
Portland Green Party Participating Members September Meeting Minutes
10/27 at the SE Lucky Lab meeting room from 7-9:10 pm
Facilitator: Chuck Fall
Minutes taken by: Jorden Leonard
In attendance (all 21 or older, so we could stay past 9 pm)
Jorden Leonard, JL
Chuck Fall, CF
Michael Sonnleitner, MS
Seth Woolley, SW
Rickie Woolley, RW
Chris Extine, CE
Michael Meo, MM
Steve Baurers, SB
7:00 Introductions, meeting explained
7:10 Adopt minutes from last meeting
7:11 Adopt agenda for current meeting
7:15 Last minute plans before the election
7:45 Current Bylaws explained, and compared to revision
8:15 A discussion of the status of the Thursday meeting
8:30 Office Space in November
8:45 Any other business
8:55 Announce details for next meeting
9:00 Close meeting
Minutes adopted from Sept chapter meeting
JL- Last minute plans before election: What do the two candidates present have to say? Thoughts needs etc..
MM- Spoke about campaign and some recent videos of him on youtube. (Which reminded JL to ask Tony to put them on his website which Tony did during meeting.)
CE- Proposed that we look at what has been learned as candidates. How the chapter could support more next time around.
JL- Commented that Christopher Boerl (new Portland Greens employee) has experience in England where there would be a single campaign managing a number of candidates. And proposes that this be looked at for our chapter to do next time around if candidates want/don't have their own campaign.
MM- Mentions Willie Smith the current Earl Blumenauer campaign manager as a possible hire for this after having spoken to him. (JL went to college with Willie Smith.)
CF- Brings up Voter's Pamphlet
MM- Talks about signature gathering to get on voters pamphlet. Tells his story of difficulty and getting help from chapter to get signatures needed.
JL- Proposes that lessons learned this time around by candidates and chapter be put on the private pages of the www.portlandgreens.org website for members to view.
SW- Begings Bylaw discussion. Explains a great deal and answers clarifying questions.
CF- Praises the twenty some hours that SW, MS, and MM put in meeting together to come up with the revision that is presented.
ALL- 2 main items discussed that MM and SL still disagreed on. This first discussed is putting a line in the Constitution speaking to the board "interpreting documents". A lot of clarifying goes on about this. SW explains that this needs to be included to protect the board from being sued and has no other purpose. MM explains that though he recognizes that the board must interpret documents, stating explicitly in the Constitution that they can do this undermines the ability of the general meeting to hold them accountable.
CE- During discussing mentions that he'd like to see the language change from "Powers" to "Duties" for both Board and General Meeting.
SW- Mentions examples of outside entities getting into party business because of weak constitution/bylaws.
MM- Pushes for further clarification.
SW- Clarifies but further explanations seem to be needed that their isn't time for.
CF- Suggests adjusting language elsewhere in constitution to satisfy MM concerns about including "Interrupting" power.
MM- States that unless this clause is altered, it would mean that Board is final authority for how money is spent.
SW- States that General Meeting gets to pick what's important, refers to Board proposal rules.
MS- Ask about a vote next meeting or not.
SB- (Earlier stated that board must interpret, and SB suggests MM reconsider. Later SB states that this was wasting time and the meeting should move forward.)
MM- Is willing to stand aside on the issue of adding "Interpreting Documents" to the proposed change to bylaws at next meeting.
RW- States that Article 3 section B number 5 should add "Board" so it is known that refers to a Board meeting.
ALL- Second main item discussed is whether there will be term limits or not for board members.
MS- Board limits are good.
CE- No turn limits is democratic.
JL- Proposed changed to constitution/bylaws has the minimum required number of board members being reduced to 5 from 7, but as there isn't a maximum limit what about allowing the first four elected board positions be available for incumbents and the 5th through 8th positions be only available to non-incumbents.
MM- Counters suggesting a 50/50 split, for every position that allows an incumbent another can not be an incumbent.
ALL- Concerns are raised about the practicality of not allowing incumbents given that the board work is voluntary and actual work, so finding new people willing to do it and able to do it will be a challenge. Time has gone way over with this discussion.
SW- Expresses concern with membership being presenting like three ascending levels.
MS- Asks that time limit be enforced.
JL- Ends Bylaws discussion. Briefly touches open items on agenda not covered. Speaks about office space and location of next chapter meeting potentially being there instead of at the Lucky Lab.
(Given time issues, future bylaw discussion will only be in the last half hour of the meeting in the Proposed Agenda.)