Minutes for 9/29/2010 Chapter Meeting

Portland Green Party Participating Members September Meeting Minutes
9/29 at the SE Lucky Lab meeting room from 7-9 pm

Facilitator: Chuck Fall
Minutes taken by: Jorden Leonard

In attendance (over 18 years of age)

Jorden Leonard, JL
Brian Setzler, BS
Chuck Fall, CF
Chris Lugo, CL
Kathy Bushman, KB
Lee A, LA
Greg Bourget, GB
Michael Sonnleitner, MS
Seth Woolley, SW
Rickie Woolley, RW
Chris Extine, CE
Michael Meo, MM
Steve Baurers, SB
Tannis Baurers, TB
Mark Koski, MK
Samuel Partridge, SP
Mark Callahan, MC
Jon Bartholomew, JB
Matthew Leonard, ML
Chris Henry, CH (7:30~8:00)

Agenda (Not approved/No agenda was approved; however it is referenced and used as guide)
7:00 Introductions, meeting explained
7:10 Adopt minutes
7:11 Straw poll to reaffirm bylaws
7:12 History of the Portland chapter
7:25 The vision of the party, what we are doing now
7:32 VOE guest speaker w/ call for aid
7:40 Bylaws explained and clarified
8:00 Michael Meo to bring his proposed bylaw changes in front of the membership
8:34 Straw poll in favor of Michael's proposal
8:35 A discussion of the status of the Thursday meeting
8:45 Brain Setzler speaks to his vision of the Green Party
8:50 Any other business
8:55 Announce details for next meeting
9:00 Close meeting

JL    Introductions made and meeting explained.  Given presence of members younger then 21, end time of 9 pm will be strictly enforced due to rules of meeting location.  Adopt minutes for 8/25 requested.  After some explanation consensus to adopt.

CF    Asks that guests to chapter get time to speak immediately.  Some disagreement, but is smoothed over.

JB    Guest from Yes For Portland, the VOE coalition the Portland Greens are a part of.  He asks for volunteers, donations and a day of action where a large number of Greens volunteer together.  Also asks that Greens change their Facebook profiles to something that supports VOE.

MC    Guest Green from Eugene.  He is a Green candidate there for District 13.  Was formerly an Independent before being recruited by SW.  His website is www.markcallahan.net

CH    Intends to leave at 8pm.  States that first meeting about constitution/bylaws should be nominal.  First meeting is to introduce documents, and the second is to approve.  August 25th was rushed.  His vote will be not to reaffirm for anything.

JL    Explains that straw poll for reaffirming bylaws meeting is to be done without prior discussion or explanation as part of compromise with MM and that there will be as second straw poll later.

ALL    Straw poll occurs after a little more explanation, including that it is an unofficial tally just to see where people are at.  As such it is never intended to be recorded officially.

CF    States Portland Greens is a fact.  It exists.

MS    States a coup can be a fact.

CF    States understanding that there is concern as to the manner of how things cam to be.

SW    States that we need to approve an agenda.

ALL    Some discussion about agenda for current  meeting occurs interspersed through first part of meeting.  JL assumed that since he is in charge of running the meeting and had posted the proposed agenda on website as well as emailed request “Check out the proposed agenda and contact me directly for agenda requests or clarifications” to everyone as part of newsletter that the proposed agenda was now the official agenda but that CF has discretion as facilitator to move things around.  No agenda is adopted though the proposed agenda is referenced.  GB requests that an agenda be adopted throughout meeting.  Post meeting SW explains to JL that within the Portland Greens Constitution Article IV A. 1 that “The Portland Green Party is established as a participatory democracy following the consensus model described by C. T. Butler's 'On Conflict and Consensus'.”  Further that within “On Conflict and Consensus” it is clear that no confirmed agenda may be brought to meeting.  It is decided that future proposed agenda's will include as the first thing approving agenda and to not have this done purely virtually ahead of time.

CF    States let's find a way forward.

CL    States we need to come back together and trust each other.

CH    Speaks to concerns about consensus and the spirit of consensus.

RW    Suggests cutting Thurs. Meeting discussion from agenda to save time and since it has already been addressed prior to meeting.  SW disagrees.

MM    States that the board decides what to keep secret and what not to keep secret.  Submits alternative bylaws and constitution. (Available upon request)

SW    Restates need for an agenda at meetings.  Moves on to history of current chapter.  He started it up again.  He filed the paperwork.  Just him and MM were directors.

CH    States there were 5 directors.

SW    Corrects CH.  There were five members for purposes of filing with state party but for State of Oregon there were 2 directors.  In 2008 SW reluctantly became the Treasurer and so the person legally responsible for the PAC.  There was no bylaws and the weekly meetings held at the Bipartisan Cafe had no agenda.  Over the years he asked time and time again for bylaws to be passed to protect himself.  He would go to a second table in the cafe to get business done while the main table would talk about “History of Science”.  For the bylaws meeting there was a website notice, but Helen (who was in charge of sending out the Chapter Newsletter) failed to send notice to email list.  This is because of the lack of structure in chapter.  Also the cafe meetings didn't have published minutes.

KB    Speaks to remaking.

SW    States that bylaws were designed so that they can be amended.

CF    Asks that the glitch in communication be described and articulated well.

KB    States that even if Helen had sent out notice it would not have been enough notice.

GB    Sums up that there are two issues.  The notice issue, and issues with the Constitution itself.

TB    States that everyone with access to a computer should look at the two copies (Current bylaws and MM's proposed changes.), and compare.  Comments could then be compiled and discussed at the next meeting and then make bylaws out of that.

SB    States that worked in consensus a lot.  Current bylaws was not consensus for total group (SB makes clear at other times that it was justifiably assumed so at the time of August 25th meeting).

MS    States that he is touched and feels for Seth, but that four days is not enough notice.  Suggests that current bylaws remain as they are good bylaws.

BS    Starts to speak.

KB    States we meed a grassroots movement.

CF    States that BS is on the Agenda.  Brings up the possibility of two chapters (referring to an email exchange).

MM    States that if we keep the bylaws a 2/3 vote is needed to change them.

GB    States that he just came from canvassing for chapter.  Canvassing team of four people and himself have raised $8-9,000.  States concerns as an employee at hearing that at cafe weekly meetings people were bringing up a desire to “fire everyone”.  2/3's is a safe number.  All successful non-profits have bylaws and the 2/3's vote is typical.

KB    It would be possible to create a separate nonprofit to run the canvass.

CF    MC and BS for vision.  Ought there be different organization.

BS    Makes  vision statement.  In 1991 he was a founder of the Pacific Green Party.  Gives some background.  States that he can't come to meetings like this.  Wants a party that gets stuff done.   (Contact me or Brian for full statement)

RW    States that there is a difference in opinion about election reform.  We need money for candidates, VOE, and IRV campaigns.  We get money and it is a strategic decision by the whole group as to how it is used.  Without bylaws, no employes and no overseeing the money.  Allow a structure.

KB    Why can't you do separate organizations.

JL    Speaks about what chapter is doing and the importance of what we are doing.  Later states that the behavior of some people is causing meetings to not be grassroots because meetings are negative so many who would otherwise give voice do not.

CF    How did Portland Greens come into existence.  Gives a story of two groups with the “Green” name.

JL    States that Portland Green Party name addition was added long before the August 25th meeting.

MM    Adds that it was an invitation only meeting.  (Referring to his campaign meeting where this consensus decision to add name took place).

GB    Takes issue with the word “Coup” being used as meetings occurred in an open fashion using a consensus process.  In groups he's worked with there have always been bylaws.

CF    States a division in what is wanted between structure and decentralization.

MM    Restates that he has an issue with 2/3 vote if current bylaws are accepted in the interim.  He  refers to MS and TB's proposals.).

BS/CF        Structure good for employees but must support openness.

GB    States Portland Greens name is not trademarked.

KB    States that it is not grassroots with structure.

MS    States that structure is needed for grassroots.  Constitution and bylaws are needed.  Keep current in the interim but denounces 2/3 majority rule.  A fund-raising arm is fine as part of a larger whole, and a having a board is good.

KB    Separate entity.

MS    Proposes that existing bylaws be interim document and agree to drafting committee of mutually agreeable people.  MS will facilitate committee with SW and MM to work with draft document to be presented in a month, and ratified in late November or no later than January 1st to replace interim document.

SW    Agrees with much of this.

TB    Restates that all should be allowed input and that if it was online and transparent all could give input.

CF    Restates what MS proposed.

TB    Everyone should be invited to comment about what they want.

LA    Supports TB with statement.  JL also supports TB.

CF    Restates proposal again.

GB    States that CL and MM's core issues are addressed already in current bylaws.

SW    Admits that he is human and that he can make mistakes.  States concern that committee MS proposes is a little small.

JL    We have seconds left before meeting is over.

ALL    Consensus to modified MS proposal that committee is formed to work out possible changes to bylaws, in meantime current bylaws are reaffirmed (Note that part of modification is that committee will work towards getting input from whole group and keeping things transparent).  Two stand asides, no blocks.  ML explains his stand aside is simply because he had to step outside for important part of meeting so missed some discussion.

JL    Next meeting, one month, same place, same time.  Asks for donations for meeting room which costs $100.  $3 is received.  Closes meeting at 9 pm.