Executive Committee of CTGP Meeting of November 21, 2005
Torrington Town Hall Rm 206A,Torrington CT
Meeting started at 7:15PM
Submitted by GPCT Secretary Barbara Barry DeRosa

Attending: Judy Herkimer, Northwest chapter and CTGP Treasurer: Mike DeRosa Co-Chair, Barbara Barry DeRosa, Secretary: both from Greater Hartford chapter.
Bob Eaton observer from Northwest chapter; acted as timekeeper.
Justine McCabe facilitator.

A. Preliminaries:

1. Introductions and roles of the attendees to one another: Mike DeRosa, Barbara Barry DeRosa, Judy Herkimer. Observer: Bob Eaton. Facilitator: Justine McCabe.

2. Adoption of ground rules: modified consensus process; need for attendees to raise hand so facilitator can recognize the person and allow that person to speak.

3. Discussion and development of agenda for 11-29-05 SCC meeting. Proposals of: organizational restructuring/action plan per Kelly McCarthy and Aaron Gustafson: co-chairs; storage and cataloging of SCC meetings and tape recording; usual chapter reports; committee reports are on agenda.

a) Additions were added to agenda:

JH: should the EC meet in December 2005?

JH: should the SCC meet on 12-27-05?

BB: review and approval of minutes from 10-25-05 SCC meeting, non-quorum;

Facilitator: review and approval of 6-05 and 7-11-05 EC meeting minutes. BB and MD advised that they were approved by a quorum at SCC meeting of 9-29-05. JH was under the impression that only the EC could approve the EC minutes. BB advised that at the suggestion of JH and with the approval of all EC members since 5-05, EC meeting minutes had been put on SCC meeting agenda for approval. All EC and SCC minutes are on the listserv. By consensus: the 6-05 and 7-11-05 EC meeting minutes were not put on agenda. JH: process committee: does the EC wants to do a proposal regarding person not in good standing in CTGP?

JH: discussion of Secretary’s minutes in general.

MD: treasurer’s monthly report.

MD: discussion regarding recruitment and vetting of CTGP state and federal candidates for 2006.

MD: discussion of budget committee suggestions/talking points. Is not a proposal.

Facilitator requested that secretary allocate 5minutes for each report and not 2 minutes.

MD: secretary of state and voting regulations; discussion of whether minor political parties will get campaign financing from state.

BB: modified consensus process training session that was done 11-13-05.

JH: what is CTGP going to do about voters who have lost their party affiliation after the CTGP did not garner 1% of voters in municipal elections. This happened to a Litchfield Green. The register of voters, removed this voters party designation as CTGP. JH contact at Secretary of State’s office indicated that there is a statute to support the register’s actions.

BB: treasurer’s quarterly report to Secretary of State’s election office.

JH: annual meeting and internal elections: get venue, date established.

JH: develop list of chapter representatives to SCC.

b) no deletions.

Writing of this proposed EC agenda by facilitator, determining how long to talk about each item and setting order of EC agenda: 15 minutes.

4. Discussion about next EC and SCC meetings in 12-05:

1. JH: suggest no EC and SCC meetings in 12-05 due to difficulty getting a quorum, the holidays and there is not much business to attend to right now. Would this EC committee want to come forward with a proposal for no EC or SCC meetings in 12-05, and start again in January?

BB: willing to have EC and SCC meetings in 12-05. However, I have to work until 7pm on 12-12-05 in Glastonbury. However, I can be available after that especially if the EC meeting is in the greater Glastonbury area or greater Hartford area, as I have access to Routes 2 and 3. I am sorry but this is per my employer. I have no control over this.

MD: suggest: have EC and SCC meetings and that EC reaffirm meeting the 2nd Monday of month.

JH: allow SCC to decide if EC and SCC should meet in 12-05.

MD: suggests an hour social prior to 12-05 SCC meeting.

Facilitator: requested members follow the process and raise hands.

EC meeting time: Kelly and Aaron can meet 1st and 2nd Monday of every month but not the 3rd Monday of each month. 3rd Monday of each month is when?

JH: though EC was to meet the 3rd Monday prior to the next SCC meeting?

BB: we discussed that but settled on the 2nd Monday of every month knowing that some months are shorter and other months are longer so the EC meeting might be closer to the SCC meeting (last Tuesday of every month) than some other months.

JH: 2nd Monday of every month is fine for me for the EC meeting. Question for BB: why did you not put out a notice to arrange the EC meeting?

BB: not solely the provision of the secretary. Each of the CTGP officers can initiate the EC meeting arrangements. I was under the impression, that since the next EC meeting was to be in Torrington, per prior agreed upon rotation, Judy was arranging it and would advice us as soon as she had finalized plans. No one (of officers) contacted or emailed me about any arranging an EC meeting for 11-05.

Facilitator: need clarification from the by-laws what the secretary’s role is regarding this.

MD: we are all adults. Numerous emails have been sent out regarding whether or not people have availability for today or tomorrow or on such and such days of the month. We have sent emails and get no response. We have no phone numbers (for each other). Not everyone looks at their emails all the time. We heard (from Kelly and Aaron) at 4:15pm today, that they were not available tomorrow either (in addition to today). I have a commitment to Middletown GP on 12-12-05 but I can easily delegate responsibility to Vic in that chapter.

Facilitator: any blocking concerns to extend this discussion? Consensus: no.

JH: **I booked this room for 8-05 and 9-05 and 10-05 for the 2nd Monday of all 3 of those months. I have emailed everyone. I have emails from Mike and Barbara that they were available but they have chosen not to come. Kelly and Aaron were very clear that their focus was on Kelly’s campaign. Also Kelly booked one of those Mondays with a student and she chooses not to reschedule that. I have been available as we committed from the beginning and I find communication from me sending out emails to people have not be responded to in a timely fashion. At all. We agreed to a certain Monday and need to agree to it.

JH: change location of the venue of the next meeting to accommodate Barbara’s work restraint.

Agreeable to another date but let’s target the 1st of the year to get back on track. Everyone is an adult and has an obligation to block it out on their calendar and to come to meetings.

MD: perhaps we can choose for next month between Monday, 12-12-05 or Tuesday, 12-13-05. If it is Monday, 12-12-05, that will allow you, Barbara, to make the meeting at 7:15pm perhaps in Hartford at the (Greater Hartford Green Party) office Facilitator: time is pressing. Kelly and Aaron are available for 2nd Monday of the month. Do you want to consider the 1st Monday of next month?

BB: I have a doctor’s appointment on the 1st Monday of next month, 12-5-05. I think we have agreed to the 2nd Monday of each month. The 2nd Monday of January is 1-9-06.

Facilitator: 2nd Monday of the month is the EC meeting, 12-12-05 pending approval from next SCC meeting.

MD: Barbara cannot make the 12-12-05 meeting until 7:15pm.

Facilitator: do we want more time to continue this discussion. Consensus: yes. Must raise hands to talk and be recognized by facilitator.

MD: need to clarify if the EC meeting can start at 7:15pm so Barbara can make it.

Facilitator: you are proposing that all EC meetings start at 7:15pm.

MD: no. Only start at 7:15pm for 12-12-05 meeting.

JH: I am not willing to start a meeting at 7:15pm. It is okay if we bring the tape and start the meeting.

Facilitator: are you willing to start at 7pm and Barbara can come late. Any objection?

BB: I have a clarifying question.

Facilitator: do you have an objection to the consensus of what has been agreed upon?

BB: I have a clarifying question.

Facilitator: it is not appropriate at this point. So please put your hand down.

MD: there is no consensus.

Facilitator: we will begin at the meeting at 7pm on the 2nd Monday of the month. Barbara who cannot come at 7pm will come late. Is there any objection to that?

BB: yes.

Facilitator: Do you want to give more time?

MD: I do. I believe there are 2 people in this room, who do.

Facilitator: are you willing to stand aside?

BB: no.

Facilitator: the meeting next month will begin at 7:15pm.

BB: no. So from 7pm to 7:15pm on 12-12-05 EC meeting, there will be no secretary recording.

Facilitator: someone else will have to take notes.

BB: I have a clarifying question.

Facilitator: Barbara, I do not think you understand the process here. I’m sorry. I hope I can help educate and we all can educate, about this. We haven’t assigned more time to this. Consensus:

3 more minutes.

BB: My concern is that as a duly authorized recorder of the meeting from the CTGP members, you will not have a recorder of the meeting on 12-12-05 for 15 minutes. That was my clarifying question.

MD: I do not think 15 minutes will make or break a meeting. I do not understand your objection to this. Perhaps you (JH) can explain it to me?

JH: I’m satisfied with you taping the 15 minutes. I travel a long distance and I need set times that I come and go and you already said taping is okay.

Facilitator: Barbara are you willing to stand aside and come at 7:15pm?

BB: I am willing to come about 7:15pm. That is the earliest. I usually work later actually. If it is within about a 15 mile radius of Glastonbury, I should be able to make it at 7:15pm.

Facilitator: we seem to be at a stalemate about this. If there is no consensus to this, the proposal is to start at 7pm and Barbara you will come late. Proposal: EC meeting to start at 7pm on 12-12-05.

Vote: majority opposed.

BB: if we cannot get consensus about the 12-12-05 meeting, then perhaps we need to meet another time.

Facilitator: Judy: are you willing to start at 7:15pm?

JH: can we take this off the agenda tonight and take it to the email to allow Kelly and Aaron to discuss this.

Facilitator: anyone opposed to this? Consensus: no.

(Total time to discuss date and time of next EC meeting: 30 minutes.)

5. Discussion regarding Treasurer’s report:

10 Minutes was allocated for the Treasurer’s report.

JH: This is a very straight forward part of treasurer’s report, there is nothing extraordinary on the numbers (gives hand out to EC members). Down below are a few items. We have conference call capabilities (using our 800 line number). I need receits from people. For tapes, for copying, postage. If it is considered an in-kind donation, that’s fine. And that’s it. I’m working to make it easier and accessible for people to do it (credit card donations) autonomously and to get down those monthly costs (for credit card charges).

BB: Will we have estimated time when the billing and crediting process for our 800 number (whose offices are located in New Orleans) will be more functional.

JH: It’s all being transferred out of New Orleans to Florida. It is well on its way for the billing and crediting process.

BB: We have talked about using teleconferencing in the past and we have talked about having meetings open to members, there are positive and negatives in everything and that might be one of the negatives because not everyone may be able to attend to see state officers in action (using teleconferencing).

JH: Conference calls can be set up so there are speakers, people who can interact, and those who can just listen. They have that capability.

MD: Judy, I went on the internet to get the monthly report that you sent into the state. I notice a donation by Ed Savage of West Hartford, CT for $80.00. Will that be credited to the Greater Hartford Green Party total because 30% of all state donations go back to chapters?

JH: It went to the West Hartford Chapter.

MD: There is no West Hartford Chapter.

BB: There has not been a WH chapter for over a year and half. They came back and folded back into Greater Hartford.

Facilitator: Excuse me please raise your hand, Mike you asked Judy a question Judy are you want to respond.

JH: It went into West Hartford’s.

BB: We don’t have any West Hartford chapter as indicated on this treasurer’s report.

Facilitator: Since we have a previous treasurer here, Bob,

Bob Eaton: it was always credited to the West Hartford chapter.

BB: West Hartford voted to not be a chapter anymore and they voted to join the Greater Hartford Chapter. That’s why we are called Greater Hartford.

BE: I was not aware of that, it never was brought up at last year’s executive meeting, I talked to Ed Savage about it. So I understood there was a West Hartford chapter.

MD: There’s actually a moment when the change happened. Ed sent a hundred dollars to the State Treasurer and said that money should be deposited in the Hartford chapter’s account total. Which it never was. I will get a copy of the check from him. It was probably two years ago. It never went to our Hartford’s two person PAC at the time because we did not have a two person PAC at the time. And that is the reason he sent it through, and that hundred dollars was never deposited into our (Greater Hartford chapter) totals. But that is the moment at which the West Hartford chapter dissolved and if you call Ed he will tell you that all those members re-joined our chapter. I am not saying anyone is doing it maliciously. I am just pointing this out.

Facilitator: Is there a way just to get on with this, that you in consultation with Bob and the previous past treasurers can confirm the time and get this clarified?

BE: Maybe Judy could call Ed (Savage).

Facilitator: Clarify when that changes over took place.

JH: It’s bigger than that. What he’s saying is correct, in that there is a big code map and there are two other things , there are existing chapters ,probationary chapters, chapters that no longer exist, but they still have headings. And there is a corresponding zip code map that obviously needs to be updated because if the zip code map that this created off of saying that West Hartford zip code is going under the West Hartford chapter, that no longer exists. Then the zip code map needs in the software to be recreated. And make all of those zip codes go into the Hartford chapter.

Facilitator: Any more on this?

MD: I have one other thing. I was able to get to the (quarter) report that you put out to the state through a series of steps that Chris Reilly sent to me, otherwise I would not have been able to find it. I am just throwing this out as a suggestion. Since you don’t want to give reports out at meetings or to me, that maybe you could just do the steps on paper so people would know how to get in there, the state site. For the sake of transparency it might be appropriate or easier for the members to that.

Facilitator: Do you want to respond to that?

JH: Duly noted.

MD: I have another question. $600 was deposited from Rachel Goodkind for the specific use of the Women’s Caucus. This is brand new as far as I can tell. My understanding is that if money comes in identified from a specific source from the outside. It can be identified for a specific source from the inside of the organization. That has been the pattern we have had since day one. So in the old days our chapters did not have individual two person PACs. Consequently, if the Greater Hartford chapter had an event the past treasurer’s would put this aside and say this money is allocated for Hartford because they raised this money on their own. But I have never heard of someone on the outside giving money without it going through the SCC. In my opinion, any money that comes through for a specific purpose should be passed by SCC. Because we on the EC do not have the authority to spend more that $50.

Facilitator: Judy, do you want to respond?

JH: Donations was researched, request was researched with previous treasurers, and through the documentation of the minutes of the state, of the SCC, and it was ascertained and determined that the money can be earmarked and targeted. And that’s why that decision was made. And as treasurer when donations come in they don’t necessarily have to go through the SCC.

MD: Can I ask you one question?

Facilitator: How much time do we have?

BE: We’re overtime.

MD: So we need another two minutes?

Facilitator: Hang on. Do you want to have another two minutes?

Consensus is reached for another two minutes.

MD: Can you name me one other example of this happening and could you name the specific example of when this happened in the past? That someone from the outside designated a specific amount of money for a specific task, not from inside the organization.

Facilitator: Judy can, hold it.

BB: I am waiting for the answer. And then I have a question.

Facilitator: Look . I am the facilitator. We don’t operate that way. If you want to ask a question ask a question.

BB: I am waiting for the answer.

JH: Our observer, the previous past treasurer, might be able to answer that because I can’t off the top of my head, if there is any earmark of funds before. And I think there has been.

BE: One case I know of, ask Bruce (Crowder) a question with the Hartford chapter, all the money went to the Hartford chapter specifically. Bruce told me that can be earmarked.

MD: Can I clarify that?

MD: As I said, in the years past we have had a lot of the local chapters, that do not have two person PACs. Therefore they would have an event; they have to legally declare that money, that can’t say to the state,” were writing this off the books”.’ So they would run it through the state PAC and it was put aside (for chapter usage). Because it was an event that happened only in Hartford, or only in New Haven, it didn’t just happen just in Hartford. That was an internal allocation of money for the convenience of the chapters, until Hartford got a two person PAC. New Haven got a two person PAC. This is something completely different. This is money coming from the outside that is designated for a specific purpose, but isn’t being authorized by anybody.

BB: What was the situation when moneys went to Hartford event or a Hartford chapter that you’re talking about? There are events that the state participates in that we (Greater Hartford chapter) have no knowledge of.

BE: When ever I talked to past treasurers’ about whether money can be designated, I have been told that it can be designated. Someone from Torrington can designate that they want all the money to go for.

BB: So…

Facilitator: Excuse me , please raise your hand.

BB: I just raised my hand.

Facilitator: You don’t seem to understand. I am trying to educate you of this process. Its different from Robert’s rules. OK.

You all are getting off about a particular discussion that is not raised by Judy’s report. Just to remind you that Rachel Goodkind as a person within the party to the caucus. Just so you remember that and she moved subsequently. So this is another agenda item , you have a bunch of other things on the agenda, do you want to spend more time talking about.

MD: I just want to make one more comment.

Facilitator: Excuse me. Do you want to give more time to talk about this?

MD: Absolutely

Facilitator: Are you willing to put it aside? You have other things on the agenda.

BB: I would like to have an answer to my question.

Facilitator: We’re beyond that, Barbara. We have allotted an amount of time for this.

BB: The consensus is we want answers to our questions.

Facilitator: At certain times. After you have allotted time. You have to stop.

MD: Sure. Let’s move on, will bring it up at another time. If we can’t get answers now we will get answers later.

6. Discussion On Minutes:

Facilitator: Okay. We’re going to move on. We have the elections, and the minutes to go over.

JH: The minutes that the secretary has been putting out do not fit any format that I have ever experienced. They certainly don’t follow structure for modified consensus. I would like to read the one blurb from the proposal on minutes: The Secretary of the Green Party will take the minutes of all SCC and a tape recorder may be provided as a backup, the minutes should include the following date, time and place of the meeting. List of people attending, people eligible to vote, time meeting was called to order, approval of previous minutes, and any amendments, reports, and announcements and other information. Proposals amendments and final results of any votes taken. Time of adjournment next meeting, time and location. Main person taking the minutes. Proposals with any friendly amendments shall be recorded, and accurately transcribed. Minutes should be sent to chapter representative within one week after the meeting. Copies of the minutes will be distributed at the next meeting. Corrections should be recorded in meetings and approved.

Minutes that I have been reading have been holding a quality a lack of objectivity to them. They are not factually based. You are interjecting your own personal bias into the minutes. I am asking that you follow, if you need an example to follow, I will provide that to you. That you follow the outline and try to hold on to your objectivity.

BB: I take minutes and then I take my notes and then I enhance them by listening to the tapes. As I told you before, that I have taken minutes that are verbatim from the tapes, and sometimes people forget what they have said. But instead of putting things in quotes, I have not. So it’s a little hard to be biased when you’re doing something that literally, what someone is saying. I would appreciate having that format because I haven’t seen it. The only thing that is different is sending things out to representatives a week later. It is a little hard to do, since we don’t have a list to send to the reps. as you indicated earlier in this meeting. So if you share that with me, that would be great.

JH: I would like to put this on the agenda for the SCC.

BB: Do you have a proposal?

JH: I have one right here.

BB: If I can have an e-mail address that would be great. Sooner rather than later.

Facilitator: Barbara, one of the things that might be helpful to you that came out of this workshop , the trainers say that what you actually report , proposals, amendments, and the upshot, could be pretty concise. That means decisions that were made. Registered opposition, there is a vote, one person wanted to vote for that. I will be happy to dig out something.

BB: As you can see, there are notes that say, consensus was achieved, something was deferred for time constraints. When votes are taken, I say: 4 against , so many abstentions, so many for. Maybe we need to use bold letters so that people can see them easier.

JM: So Judy you’re going to provide that to Barbara, and were going to talk about this further.

MD: I didn’t get a lot of questions answered about the Treasurer’s report. I would like to put that on the agenda for the SCC also.

Facilitator: Just hang on will get to that. 20 minutes left.

7. Discussion of Elections 2006

Facilitator: You wanted to talk about elections, Mike.

MD: We have a lot of e-mails floating around about what we’re going to do in 2006. I think that it is important that we give leadership to this organization. Positive leadership. So that we can accomplish our real goals. And our real goals are to win elections. We came real close to winning elections this time. And in a couple of places we fell down. There are two people now within the Green Party who want to run for U.S. Senate. Ralph has announced his candidacy and there is another person who may want to primary Ralph. So I think it is incumbent upon this committee to begin the process of finding candidates, or if possible maybe we need to set up a candidate committee. And that may want to be something that we talk about in December and January. Who ever is going to take over this organization has to give leadership to having good candidates running. There’s talk on e-mail by David Bedell, he has put forward about running an entire state slate: Governor, Secretary Of State, Treasurer, Controller etc. So do we want to do this? Or don’t we. I think the advantages of doing this are that we can get permanent ballot access status, and address some of the things that came up that Judy have mentioned on numerous occasions about our folks being short changed. Have the ability to call themselves Greens and register as Greens. I also think this is a nice campaign to raise the anti-war specter. There was a vote yesterday in the congress. Our Democratic party colleagues are saying “oh we have to stop the war” but then when it comes to a vote only 3 of them voted against the war last week. So I think this is an opportunity for us in 2006 to compare and contrast our opponents and what our position is on the war in Iraq, on single payer, on election reform , on breaking through the barriers that we have for minor parties, and so forth. I think that’s where we should be. I would propose that we ad hoc, or we should go through David Bedell, set up a committee that will encourage people to run for office in 2006.

Facilitator: Is that what you would like your fellow EC people to consider here?

MD: I would like to hear what they think we ought to do. And the other thing is whether they want to set up a committee, either inside or outside this committee to look for candidates.

JH: I have been involved in an e-mail exchange. I think the dialogue needs to start as he said. I don’t feel I am a leader in this party. I feel I am a servant of the SCC. And that we are a community based organization. And if the SCC, I would always defer back to them. Maybe in the form to create a committee. Or instead of creating one more committee, try and get it into a committee that already exists. And we have the opportunity to join that committee.

Facilitator: Mike proposals having some structure that would do this, act on it, your saying to have it part of the SCC.

BB: I think if I remember Kelly‘s action plan. There is something about a candidate’s committee. So this would be the place for this.

MD: I would suggest that we bring David Bedell to our next meeting, if he is willing to talk about this issue, quite frankly a lot a stuff, and I agree with you the SCC should be the place where this goes. But quite frankly there is such a back log of things, and we get into the minutiae of process, instead of focusing in on results, because results are going to make the difference between life and death of this party and the world that we live in. If we don’t stop this war soon, this war is going to destroy this country. And I think there are a lot of people out here, according to the polls, over 58% of the people want out of Iraq as soon as possible. Are they willing to back Democrats who essentially support this war? To me that is our function right now. We should be articulating in every aspect of our party the fact that our political opponents refuse to take action. They want to talk about these things but they don’t want to take action. I am going to make a proposal that at the next EC meeting that we ask David Bedell to come to our SCC meeting to speak about getting candidates in place for 2006.

JH: You should approach him to come to SCC meeting. Get him on the agenda. David Bedell needs to speak to a broader group than SCC.

BB: I can’t see why he can’t come to our meeting and send the message to the chapters to jump start this effort.

JH: Do you want him to come to this SCC meeting in December?

MD: I think both, I don’t think there is a problem. November 2006 is a hop, skip ,and a jump away. In my opinion we have to have in place, a petitioning campaign, we have to find candidates, if were going to have stand-in candidates they have to be approached now. This is stuff that has to be done immediately. My proposal is: Go to the SCC, have David come, and come to the EC meeting if there is an EC meeting in December.

Facilitator: Your proposing that he come to the November SCC meeting?

MD: Yes, and if we can fit him in to speak fine. But what ever it is, will put him in as part of a report or what ever. Then he could back to the EC meeting. If people here don’t think this is an important issue, fine. But I think he should speak to us about this.

Facilitator: We have six minutes left.

JH: The EC is not a place for strategy. We are administrators. We have the function to make agendas, to smooth out problems. We’re not the body, that’s the SCC. The SCC to committee and then report back.

Facilitator: Let me stop you here for a moment. Do you want David to come to the November meeting and see how it goes.

MD: Sure.

BB: If David can come, and make it, he can tell us what has happened already.

Consensus is reached on having David Bedell come to the November meeting with an update.

8. Discussion On Budget:

Facilitator: We have the last thing which is our budget. We have our guest, Bob Eaton.

BE: I sent this e-mail out to get the ball rolling. Just to stimulate about thinking about it. You can say it is horrible. I would like to get feed back from. Have you seen this? (passes out copies). I sent this e-mail to you guys and others and so you can pass that along. If you would like a spread sheet so you do your own manipulation, we could that. This is just to get it started. This may not go the SCC.

MD: I suggest that we talk about putting in money for a newsletter that would first start off as an e-mailed delivered newsletter.

BE: How much would that cost?

MD: We would need to get someone to collect e-mails from our members. Whatever that costs. Maybe you could hire someone to call our members and get their e-mails or put all e-mails into a list for an e-mail newsletter blaster. I would like to see a printed newsletter in the future, but we are probably not able to afford that as we have in the past.

BE: I don’t even know what people want out of budget. And let me be honest, some of the things from my research, we never had an actual budget in the past. Don’t be afraid to come forward with ideas or take on the budget yourselves.

JM: Is there anything else before we close the meeting.

BE: If you get it out and you know anybody who you want to be involved in the process more, ideas, to help with the processes so, don’t be shy, let’s talk about it. If you want me to put something up with what’s changed before then. I’ll certainly make that available.

MD: I had some questions about the Treasurer’s report. What I will do is ask those questions when she gives her report.

Facilitator: We’re almost out of time.

BB: Judy, you have another item. Would the Executive committee reach out to the Process committee regarding people not in good standing. Is that what your talking about.

MD: Judy, you can discuss it, we have 2 more minutes. It’s on the agenda let’s talk about it.

JM: You want to talk about it Judy?

BB: Judy she said she wanted to on the agenda. She wanted it on this EC agenda

JH: Not interested in discussing.

MD: One final word. My questions of the treasurer are not malicious questions. I am not saying You’re doing anything wrong. I just want some answers to some of these questions. I will raise them when you give your report and in a respectful way. Just a procedural issue that should be clarified one way or the other. So we’re all on the same page.

Meeting ends at 9PM.