Minutes of 7/28/03 SCC meeting--Portland Public Library, 7-8:45pm

1. Introductions/identify chapter reps, recruit stacker and timekeeper. (“NV” means non-voting; "V" means voting)

(1) Central Connecticut chapter: Vic Lancia(V)
(2) Fairfield chapter: David Bedell(V), Paul Bassler(V)
(3) Hartford chapter: Ed DuBrule (NV), Barbara Barry (V),Mike DeRosa(V),David Ionno(V),Chris Reilly(V),Rob Pandolfo(V)
(4) North Central chapter: Jeff Schaefer(V)
(5) Northeast chapter: Amy Vas Nunes(V),Jean de Smet(V)
(6) Northwest chapter: Tom Sevigny(V), Judy Herkimer(V but not voting tonight because facilitating), Kim Herkimer(V), Bob Eaton(V),Tom Ethier(V)
(7) Shoreline chapter: David Adams(V), Lindsay Mathews(V)
(8) Southeast chapter: Penny Teal(V)
(9) Tolland chapter: Michael Burns(V); Karin Norton(V), Tim McKee(NV)
(10) Western chapter: Justine McCabe(V), John Battista(V); Rachel Goodkind(V),Andy Ziegler(V)

No attendees were present from the New Haven, New London or West Hartford chapters. Judy facilitated; Vic served as timekeeper; Karin served as vibes watcher; Tom served as stacker (a “stacker” keep track of who will speak next). The above list indicates 27 attendees, of whom 24 were voting at this meeting.

2. Adopt groundrules. The groundrules for meetings (developed at meetings in November 2002) were adopted to apply to this meeting by consensus.

3. Approval of tonight’s proposed agenda/additions and deletions. Michael Burns said he was concerned about the "committee reports that we won't have time for at July SCC meeting" (8 committees--see end of the proposed agenda, pasted below). Michael said that committees are where the bulk of Connecticut Green Party work gets done. Ed said that he lists those committees at the end of the proposed agenda so that he can easily keep track of them. Ed spoke of the difficulties of putting together an agenda for a two hour meeting (or less) when the time could easily be much longer. The proposed agenda was accepted by consensus.

An additional agenda item was introduced for consideration by Penny Teal relating to the Patriot Act. It was agreed by consensus to place it on the agenda in the "proposals" section.

4. Comments/approval of June SCC minutes. The minutes were approved by consensus.

5 Treasurer's report. Tom had received information from Bruce, who was not here tonight. The Party bank account holds $3000 (all figures are approximate). A deposit of $175 will soon be made by Tom from the Sunday 7/27/03 fundraiser. Debts that must be paid off include insurance ($800), utilities ($200), and office rent. If all debts were paid, the Party bank account would hold about $500.

An effort was made during much of this meeting to follow the steps of a moderated consensus process (outlined in the proposal, appended below, to adopt a moderated consensus process for SCC meetings).

The beginning of the meeting was delayed by lack of a quorum. During the period between 7pm and the arrival of representatives from the ninth chapter (perhaps 7:15pm) announcements were made and the question of whether the meeting should have a vibes-watcher was discussed and decided on. (Announcements are at the end of these minutes.)

Should the meeting have a vibes-watcher? Judy (the facilitator) proposed that Karin serve as vibes-watcher. One attendee objected to having a vibes-watcher, saying that she feared that a vibes-watcher might not be unbiased. Another attendee also stated that he would prefer that the meeting not use a vibes-watcher; he said that recent SCC meetings have not shown the need for a vibes-watcher ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"); he stated that his feelings on this subject were strong enough to serve as a consensus-blocking concern. Karin said that meetings run by moderated consensus should have a vibes-watcher; a vibes-watcher can bring problems to the attention of the facilitator and (rarely) can stop the meeting and ask for a couple of minutes of time-out. Judy stated that consensus-blocking concerns only come into play with written proposals. Someone wondered if the meeting (which at this point did not have a quorum) should be discussing this issue. One attendee said that we don't need a quorum to decide an issue of how our meeting is run. A vote was held on whether to discuss further the issue of having a vibes-watcher; the decision was to not give any further time to the question (yes give the question more time--2 votes; no don't give the question more time--12 votes; abstain--2 votes). A vote was held that determined that Karin should serve as vibes-watcher (yes Karin should be vibes-watcher--10; no--4; abstain--4). Despite the decision to not discuss the issue further, one attendee asked "what's a vibe" and "how are vibes measured?" Judy read a document she had obtained from the Santa Cruz Green Party which explains the role of vibes-watcher:

(a) The vibes-watcher pays attention to the overall mood or tone of the meeting.
(b) If tensions increase, anger flares out of control, or someone interrupts a speaker in a disrespectful or threatening manner, the vibes-watcher must intervene to remind the group of its common goals and committment to cooperation.
(c) The vibes-watcher may call for a moment of silence or a short break to help keep people focused and relaxed.
(d) The vibes-watcher is the only person with prior permission to interrupt a speaker or speak without first being recognized.
(e) The vibes-watcher shall not act in his/her own interest, but in the interest of group harmony. All members of the group also have the responsibility to watch vibes and the help the vibes-watcher maintain harmony.


(5 minutes) Decisions required for formation of Resolution Committee for John Battista-against-Amy Vas Nunes complaint. (Language from the conflict resolution process document--adopted by the SCC--is at the bottom of this agenda.)

Three chapters were to be selected, each of which would designate a representative to serve on the Resolution Committee for the Battista/Vas Nunes complaint. By consensus it was agreed to select these chapters using the procedure proposed by the Executive Committee (see "proposed agenda" below). This procedure involved writing the names of chapters on pieces of paper and drawing the names from a hat. The first chapter drawn was the North Central chapter; Jeff Schaefer was present from that chapter and stated that the North Central chapter could probably select a Resolution Committee representative. Jeff stated that, due to the gender makeup of people active in his chapter, that their representative would probably be a male. (Three persons of the same gender cannot serve on a Resolution Committee.) (See "proposed agenda" below for more on gender balance questions.)

The second chapter drawn from the hat was the New Haven chapter. No one was present from the New Haven chapter. The third chapter drawn was Fairfield; David Bedell was present from that chapter and stated that he did not believe that the Fairfield chapter could select a Resolution Committee representative. Fourth drawn was New London, with no one present. Fifth was the Southeast chapter; Penny Teal was present and stated that their chapter could try to select a representative, hopefully a woman (so that the task of selecting a representative for the third chapter would not be constrained by the need to select a male). Sixth was the Northwest chapter; Tom Sevigny said his chapter could probably select a representative and, if needed, an alternate of the opposite gender.

For use in case the North Central, Southeast, and Northwest chapters could not select a representative, the hat-picking procedure was continued. The seventh pick was the Tolland chapter. The eighth and last pick was the Central Connecticut chapter. (Five chapters' names were not placed in the hat, for reasons explained in the "proposed agenda" below.)

Amy asked how it will be ensured that the Resolution Committee representatives selected were not biased toward herself or toward John Battista. At this point the timekeeper announced that the time allocated for this agenda item had been reached; by vote the time was not to be extended (yes extend--7, no--13, abstain 3). Despite this vote, one attendee asked why the New Haven chapter, which was the second chapter selected from the hat, was passed over. Couldn't the New Haven chapter be contacted by telephone tomorrow and asked if they could select a representative to the Resolution Committee? The facilitator stated that it was her understanding that in the case of an absent chapter the proposal presented by the Executive Committee (for "hat-drawing") called for disregarding chapters with no representative present. Justine stated that she supported the facilitator's decision to disregard the New Haven chapter. Because of the vote to not allocate further agenda time to this issue, the question of the passing-over of the New Haven chapter was not discussed further.

7 PROPOSALS--see attached sheets for text of proposals

(a) (10 minutes) Proposal to create a fundraiser/field organizer for statewide purposes (Executive Committee). Tom presented the proposal, which is appended below.

Responses to clarifying questions (step 2 of the moderated consensus process) follow. The position will be posted (advertised) on Connecticut Green Party listserves and perhaps in other places. The position will be a contract worker ("1099") (independent contractor). Tom will be seeking advice on legal issues related to the status of the hired worker from a national Green Party lawyer. The fundraiser could raise funds by making phone calls and/or organizing profit-making events. The Executive Committee will evaluate the performance of the hired person--this could be done with phone calls and the hired person could come to Executive Committee meetings.

Concerns, affirmative statements, and friendly amendments were solicited. Penny noted that the hired person would be paid as follows: "$500 a month based on the monthly goal of at least $500 for state efforts. If this person does not raise at least $500, that person receives no money for the month. If that person raises over $2,000 for the month, that person would receive $500 and 20% of the amount over $2000." Penny pointed out that if the hired person raised $501 in a month, the Party would be allocated one dollar. Thus we may want to discuss altering this formulation. Michael Burns suggested that the hired person be paid 20% of what he/she raises over $500, so that there was more incentive to raise more funds after the $500 threshold had been reached (and before the $2,000 threshold had been reached).

Paul Bassler asked what will the motivation of the hired person, under the proposed compensation agreement, to spend time on matters other than raising funds.

It was pointed out that if the fundraiser worked with chapters on fundraising projects, the chapters (under the compensation plan in the proposal) would receive none of the funds raised, or that this detail was not clearly addressed in the proposal. This was discussed at length and by consensus the following language will be added to the proposal when the position is advertised:


During the course of the discussion leading to the above addition-to-the-proposal, one attendee voiced a question about fundraising calls. (Such calls might be done by the hired person.) Could the person called be given options, such as giving all the money to the Connecticut Green Party OR giving part of the money to a chapter? This was proposed as an amendment to the above ideas. Another attendee pointed out that this might lead to very little money being raised by the state-level organization (despite the fact that we're paying, possibly, the hired person), if many donors decided to give most of their contributions to chapters. It was agreed that this amendment would not be considered further by the SCC at this meeting.

(b) (10 minutes) Proposal to adopt moderated consensus process for SCC meetings and to adopt rules for minute-taking (Northwest and Tolland chapters). Tom presented the proposal, which is appended below.

Clarifying questions were solicited. One attendee asked if the positions of stacker, timekeeper, and vibes-watcher were part of the proposal. She stated that a vibes-watcher might interfere with a person's right to speak at an SCC meeting, which would violate Green values. Another attendee stated that she had concerns about how the people serving in these positions were picked. Tom said that stacker, timekeeper, and vibes-watcher were part of the proposal, but that he would be willing to remove them from the proposal. Another attendee said that she did not see these positions listed in the proposal. Tom stated that the positions of stacker, timekeeper, and vibes-watcher were not part of the proposal. [Note from the secretary: the words "stacker", "timekeeper", and "vibes-watcher" do not appear in the proposal presented to this SCC meeting (and reproduced below). Another version of the proposal, which Tom sent me February 24, 2003, contains a section titled "Roles in a meeting", and contains descriptions of the roles of stacker, timekeeper, and vibes-watcher.] Another attendee stated that the Connecticut Green Party bylaws call for a facilitator at SCC meetings. Another attendee wondered (later in the meeting) what our bylaws say about how the SCC makes decisions--do they call for decisions to be made by a simple majority, for example? Still another attendee asked if the votes in step ten would be simple majority or what. Tom replied that the votes would be simple majority unless the bylaws demanded otherwise (perhaps for amendment of the bylaws, for example).

David Bedell asked about step 10 of the proposal. He pointed out that step 8 was a test for consensus; step 9 is "If unresolved concerns, are all willing to stand aside"; and that step 10 is "If not, go to closing options: A. return to committee/working group; B. request additional time, or C. move to vote." David asked how the choice among options A, B, or C would be made. Tom said that the choice would be up to the presenters of the proposal.

At this point the timekeeper announced that time for this agenda item had been reached. It was voted to extend the time (yes--18, no--2, abstain--3). Concerns, affirmative statements, and friendly amendments were solicited. Concerns (and opinions) which arose are listed:

**Consensus only works in small groups.

**There is a problem using consensus in a body (such as the SCC) where people represent, not themselves, but are serving as chapter representatives.

**Consensus may lead to an improperly-fast decision when in reality chapters should have been consulted.

**Consensus works well in chapter meetings but not in a group like the SCC where there are deep divisions, conflicts, and infighting.


**It could take a long time to make decisions if a 10-step process (that of the proposal) were always used.

**The moderated consensus process is a good process, but reaching consensus can take time--maybe we need longer meetings or more frequent meetings.


**Some SCC attendees might be reluctant to speak up as opposing a proposal (or dissenting from apparently widely-held views in the group), for fear of being disapproved of or ostracized, but they might vote against a proposal, if a vote were held.

**The consensus process slants the decision-making toward the views of people who feel comfortable speaking in groups.


**Meetings where consensus is used can be manipulated by facilitators.


**Votes should be held--people need to see votes when they must decide which officers to elect at internal elections time.


**All the Green meetings that I've been to have used the consensus process except the Connecticut SCC meetings, which switch back and forth between consensus and Roberts' Rules of Order. (This came from an attendee who serves on national committees.) Consensus is a great way to run a meeting.

**The SCC has used a combination of consensus and Roberts' Rules of Order. We've needed to use this combination of systems. There's no reason that the Connecticut SCC can't use a hybrid system that works for us.


**The consensus process is working well at tonight's meeting

**Consensus is good to use at meetings--it empowers a group rather than empowering egos and individuals.

**The SCC made a decision last year (November) to use consensus for a one-year period


**Roberts' Rules of Order has the drawbacks that people are saying tonight that consensus has as drawbacks.

**I belong (said one attendee) to a 68-member organization that uses Robert's Rules; I see power plays and discrimination at meetings. I'm trying to get this other organization to use consensus.

A vote was made to extend the time devoted to this agenda item (yes give it more time--12, no--10, abstain--2).

--One attendee wanted this issue brought to the chapters, or to a committee.

--David Bedell proposed eliminating steps 7, 8, and 9 in the steps of the consensus process in the proposal.

[Secretary's note: here, for ready reference, are the steps in the proposal below:

1. Present proposal
2. Clarifying questions.
3. List concerns and affirmations (may include general discussion).
4. Seek to resolve concerns (including amending proposal)
5. Test for consensus.
6. If concerns remain, are all willing to stand aside?
7. If not, seek to resolve individual concerns one by one (time permitting): restate, clarify, discuss.
8. Test for consensus.
9. If unresolved concerns, are all willing to stand aside?
10. If not, go to closing options:

A. return proposal to committee/working group, or
B. request additional time, or
C. move to vote.]

--Jean proposed that when the facilitator tests for consensus, the facilitator will ask if a vote is desired. Jean proposed that this be tried for a 1-year trial period. Tom accepted both parts of Jean's proposal. Michael Burns said that he opposed Jean's ideas because they could defeat the process of working toward a consensus.

--David Bedell proposed another amendment: that step 10A be changed to "return proposal to committee, working group, OR CHAPTERS".

An attendee again asked that the proposal be taken back to chapters. It was now 8:40pm and the library was soon to close. A straw poll (nonbinding sense-of-the-meeting assessment) was taken--many attendees favored taking the proposal to the chapters, so it was decided that the proposal should be taken back to the chapters.

Patriot Act Resolution. The facilitator asked if the group could skip to a time-critical matter, the agenda item added at the beginning of the meeting on the Patriot Act at the request of Penny Teal. By consensus this was done. The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union has drafted a resolution for the Connecticut Green Party on the Patriot Act, and person(s) from the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union are willing to do press conferences about this resolution. Penny passed out part of this resolution; it includes the statement that the Patriot Act and related executive orders, regulations, and actions threaten fundamental rights and liberties by [first four items only reproduced here]:

(a) authorizing the indefinite incarceration of non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and the indefinite incarceration of citizens designated by the President as "enemy combatants" without access to counsel or meaningful recourse to the federal courts;

(b) limiting the traditional authority of federal courts to curb law enforcement abuse of electronic surveillance in anti-terrorism investigations and ordinary criminal investigations;

(c) expanding the authority of federal agents to conduct so-called "sneak and peek" or "black bag" searches, in which the subject of the search warrant is unaware that his property has been searched;

(d) granting law enforcement and intelligence agencies broad access to personal medical, financial, library, and education records with little if any judicial oversight.

By consensus the SCC adopted this resolution.

"Thank you" and appropriation of $25 for gift for webmaster. The person who has maintained the Connecticut Green Party's website, www.ctgreens.org, for years without being paid is moving out of state. He informed the Executive Committee some time ago that he will no longer be able to maintain the website after July 31. This person has asked the Secretary in the past that his name not be included in SCC minutes. The meeting thanked him for his services, gave him a round of applause, and authorized by consensus the appropriation of $25 for a gift certificate to express our appreciation for thousands of dollars of services provided over the years.

The remaining agenda items were not reached due to lack of time.

--Penny announced that the elections committee (which is concerned with helping elect Green candidates running in November 2003) will be having a conference call on 7/31/03 at 8pm and invited others to join the call; she gave the phone number. [Secretary's note: as I write these minutes, this date is now past.]

--Amy announced that the Northeast chapter will be holding an event on the Patriot Act, with speaker Teresa Younger Witt, Executive Director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. The event will be at the Thread Museum, Main St., Wednesday August 13, 7pm. [Secretary's note: the reference is apparently to the Windham Textile and History Museum, 157 Union-Main St., Willimantic]

--Mike DeRosa announced that Elizabeth Horton Sheff will announce her candidacy for re-election as a Green to the Hartford City Council on August 6

--Bob Eaton announced that the next meeting of the diversity committee would occur on July 31. [Secretary's note: as I write these minutes this date is past.]

--Karin announced that the annual Greens picnic would again be held this year. [Secretary's note: it has since been announced to be Saturday September 6, 11am-7pm rain or shine, Moose Meadow Camping Resort, 28 Kechkes Rd, Willington CT, 860-429-7451; all Greens and their friends and families invited.]

--Penny announced that a campaign school will be held the weekend of September 20-21 in Cambridge, Massachusetts (at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Presenters are still needed who are knowledgeable about running electoral campaigns.


Proposed agenda for July 29, 2003 SCC meeting--Portland Library (Wagner Room), 7-8:45pm

1. (5 minutes) Introductions/identify chapter reps, recruit stacker and timekeeper.
2. (2 minutes) Adopt groundrules.
3. (5 minutes) Approval of tonight’s proposed agenda/additions and deletions.
4. (5 minutes) Comments/approval of June SCC minutes.
5. (1 minute) Treasurer's report.


(5 minutes) Decisions required for formation of Resolution Committee for John Battista-against-Amy Vas Nunes complaint. (Language from the conflict resolution process document--adopted by the SCC--is at the bottom of this agenda.)

Three chapters must be selected by the SCC. These chapters cannot be the Western chapter nor the Northeast chapter (John Battista is from the Western chapter and Amy Vas Nunes is from the Northeast chapter). The three selected chapters then choose one representative apiece to the three-member Resolution Committee, which makes a decision as to sanctions, if any, against Amy Vas Nunes.

The Executive Committee proposes that the following procedure be used to select these three chapters:

(a) The Hartford chapter and Shoreline chapter be excluded from consideration. (The Process Committee, which decided not to dismiss John Battista's complaint, consists of Lynah Linwood from the Hartford chapter, David Adams from the Shoreline chapter, and Rachel Goodkind from the Western chapter. These Process Committee members will also serve as part of the Expanded PC, which does fact-finding.)

(b) The West Hartford chapter be excluded from consideration (since it will not be meeting until September).

(c) The remaining 8 chapters be ranked from 1 to 8 by drawing their names sequentially from a hat. (These remaining 8 chapters are: Central Connecticut, Fairfield, New Haven, New London, North Central, Northwest, Southeast, and Tolland.)

(d) The three first-picked chapters (ranks 1, 2, and 3) will be asked if they are willing and able to select a representative to serve on the Resolution Committee by the August SCC meeting (August 26). If these three chapters cannot select a representative by August 26, successively higher-ranked chapters (4, then 5, then 6, then 7, then 8) will be asked the same questions. (The Executive Committee assumes that chapters will want to select representatives at chapter meetings, although the conflict resolution document is silent on this point.) (The deadline for the formation of the Resolution Committee is August 14--sixty days from the June 14 filing of the complaint by John Battista. The Executive Committee is, in effect, proposing that this deadline be extended until August 26, the date of the August SCC meeting.)

(e) Since the Resolution Committee cannot consist of three persons of the same gender, the third chapter that agrees to appoint a member to the Resolution Committee will select a representative and an alternate representative (the alternate representative being of the opposite gender from the representative). The third chapter's alternate representative will serve in place of the representative if the gender balance requirement demands this substitution. (If the third chapter becomes aware of the genders of representatives selected previously by the two other chapters, it need only select one representative of the required gender.)

(f) The chapter representative to the RC may not be a person who is serving on the Expanded PC handling the Battista/Vas Nunes complaint. (Expanded PC members for the Battista/Vas Nunes complaint are Lynah Linwood, David Adams, Rachel Goodkind, David Eliscu, and Michael Westerfield.)

(g) The Executive Committee (co-chairs, secretary, treasurer) will take responsibility for implementing the above process if the selection of three chapters cannot be completed at tonight's SCC meeting (because of absence of representatives from particular chapters, for example).

7 PROPOSALS--see attached sheets for text of proposals

(a) (10 minutes) Proposal to create a fundraiser/field organizer for statewide purposes (Executive Committee)

(b) (10 minutes) Proposal to adopt moderated consensus process for SCC meetings and to adopt rules for minute-taking (Northwest and Tolland chapters)

(c) (5 minutes) Presidential Election Committee Proposal (John Battista, David Adams, Tom Sevigny, Penny Teal, David Bedell, Trish Dayan)


(a) (5 minutes) Discussion of Executive Committee Meetings (Northeast chapter)
(b) (5 minutes) Report from diversity group (Mike DeRosa)
(c) (5 minutes) Foreign Policy Discussion Initiative (Justine McCabe, International Committee member)
(d) (20 minutes) outreach committee
(1) Approve statement of definition of allied organizations (Executive Committee modification in CAPITALS of outreach committee's work) (see minutes of April 2003 SCC meeting):

--“Designating a group as a formal Allied Organization must be approved by a majority of the voting reps of the State Central Committee.

--“What does it mean to be an Allied Organization?

**1 minute report on their activities, campaigns, events, required at every monthly SCC meeting

**Permission from majority of co-chairs needed for state sponsorship of their event when requested.

**Outreach Committee will contact this org to see if they want to be regularly notified of CT GP events.

**Allied orgs are invited to table at state GP events and speakers

**Contact information listed on our website.“


(2) general report from outreach committee
(3) additional organizations to affiliate with proposed by Northeast chapter:
(i) War Resisters’ League
(ii) Veterans for Peace
(4) Love Makes a Family (approval of details of signing Supporting Organization Sign-up sheet (attached)
(5) 1-minute reports on the activities of affiliated organizations


(a) (10 minutes) US Green Party Representatives' Report, and questions-and-answers (b) (5 minutes) Elections committee


(a) (5 minutes) "Thank you", and approval of expenditure of $25 for gift certificate for webmaster of www.ctgreens.org (he's moving out of state and will no longer be our webmaster).

(b) (10 minutes) Fundraising committee needs help to write the annual fundraising letter, get it mailed out, and with other fundraising

(c) ( 5 minutes) Request that Connecticut's representatives to the national Green Party provide a list of national committee openings (Northeast chapter)


12 CHAPTER REPORTS (1 minute apiece)

Adjourn promptly at 8:45 pm.

[Committee reports that we won't have time for at July SCC meeting:]

(i) internal issues committee
(ii) internal elections committee
(iii) media committee
(iv) “Hartford Courant” media committee (“ARENA”)
(v) state platform expansion committee
(vi) fundraising committee
(vii) V.O.T.E.R.
(viii) P.O.W.E.R.


(1) Proposal to create a fundraiser/field organizer for statewide purposes

Green Party Meeting Proposal Form

Presenter Executive Committee

Proposal (In ten words or less) Create a Fundraiser/Field Organizer for Statewide purposes

Background and Purpose (in 100 words or less) Ongoing professional fund raising, speaking programs, event programming, and candidate promotion. Fund raising efforts would help to pay for professional field organizing.

Goals of monthly income for the party, increased voter registrations, public visibility, starting and promoting campus organizations and other new areas.

Proposal: (200 words or less) Hire a Fund raiser/ Field Organizer for six months and pay that person $500 a month based on the monthly goal of at least $500 for state efforts. If this person does not raise at least $500, that person receives no money for the month. If that person raises over $2,000 for the month, that person would receive $500 and 20% of the amount over $2000.

After 6 months, both the State Party and the Fund raiser would renegotiate salary based on efforts. At any time, the State may fire that Fund raiser for cause at a monthly State meeting with a majority vote.

Job description:

1. This person should have organizing skills, experience putting together speaking programs, interactive forums and press writing skills.

2. Fund raising skills include detailed, clear records of monies raised and any expenses occurred.

3. The person should have a working knowledge of state election laws and limits and laws apply to donating to a political party in Connecticut.

Timeline: If passed at the July 29 meeting, post the job opening, and the Executive Committee would interview and hire before the August State meeting. The State Committee would have final approval of hiring by the August State meeting

Conclusion: These efforts will help make other volunteers more effective, and will not be dependent upon volunteers who may or may not be reliable. A steady stream of funds for state projects will be established.


(2) Proposal to adopt moderated consensus process for SCC meetings and to adopt rules for minute-taking

Green Party Meeting Proposal Form
PRESENTER: Northwest and Tolland chapters

CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email): Tom Sevigny, 131 Gracey Rd. Canton, 860-693-8344 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

SUBJECT (10 words or less): Proposal to adopt moderated consensus process for SCC meetings and to adopt rules for minute-taking.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee): The SCC has grown to 13 chapters and is averaging over 25 people at every meeting. Our growth demands that we have an agreed upon meeting process that is democratic and seeks consensus. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, this proposal urges that the SCC adopt the moderated consensus process for our meetings. Used by the national Coordinating Committee and by every other state Green Party, Consensus decision-making is at the core of the green movements shift away from domination-based social models toward more equal, cooperation-based ways of living and working together. It is our "eleventh key value", and brings all the other green values into daily practice - it is where we begin to walk our talk. As such, a clear understanding of consensus process, and of the radically different value system which underlies it, is essential to anyone wishing participate in building a Greener future.
PROPOSAL (200 words or less):
I. CONSENSUS PROCESS Consensus Process Step By Step

1. Present proposal
2. Clarifying questions
3. List concerns & affirmations (may include general discussion)
4. Seek to resolve concerns (including amending proposal)
5. Test for consensus
6. If concerns remain, are all willing to stand aside?
7. If not, seek to resolve individual concerns one by one (time permitting): restate, clarify, discuss
8. Test for consensus
9. If unresolved concerns, are all willing to stand aside? 10. If not, go to closing options:

A. return proposal to committee/working group, or
B. request additional time, or
C. move to vote

Presenting the Proposal

One or more presenters briefly explain the proposal to the group. Attention should be given to any aspects not covered in the written proposal, and to how the proposal furthers the interests and goals of the group. The proposal will be made available in writing to chapter representatives at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting; if possible, concerns and feedback should be communicated to the presenters prior to the meeting, so that the presenters can look for possible solutions in advance.

Clarifying Questions

It is essential to consensus that everyone in the group understand the proposal in order to make an informed decision. For this reason, the facilitators will call for any 'clarifying questions' before any discussion or concerns. Generally, presenters answer questions, though anyone may offer a 'point of information'. Questions and answers should be brief and should not slide into argumentation. Some folks try to disguise concerns or opinions as clarifying questions; facilitators should ask these folks to hold their comments until later. It is important that all questions be dealt with before moving on.

Concerns & Affirmations

Facilitators next call for concerns and affirmations. A concern is any objection or reservation about the proposal as currently stated, and may be based on personal views or values. Concerns should be briefly stated (and possibly scribed where all can see); concerns should not be repeated, except to state that "I share Carol's concern". Concerns may include suggested amendments or solutions to address the concern.

Amending the proposal

Sometimes a concern can be addressed by modifying the proposal. Anyone may suggest such an amendment, usually during the 'concerns' period. The presenter(s) of the proposal may accept or reject any proposed friendly amendment. If accepted, exact wording of any amendments should be given to the notetaker, and read back before making a decision.

Testing for consensus

Once all concerns are heard and addressed, the facilitators 'test for consensus' by asking if there are any unresolved concerns. If none exist, or if they are all willing to stand aside, then consensus is achieved and the proposal is accepted.

Unresolved concerns ('blocking') & 'standing aside'

If concerns remain after group discussion and any attempts to amend proposal or otherwise address them, then these are considered 'unresolved concerns'. Those holding the concerns are asked if they are willing to 'stand aside'; that is, allow the group to move forward with the proposal, having heard and noted their concerns. Standing aside does not indicate agreement, or even a relinquishing of one's concern. It indicates that the person doing so recognizes that their concern is not so essential that passing the proposal would jeopardize the values, goals, or interests of the group.

Closing options

If there remain unresolved concerns, presenters have three options:

1. Ask for more plenary time to try to resolve outstanding concerns.
2. Refer proposal to committee or working group
3. Move to a vote.


The Secretary of the Green Party of Connecticut shall take the minutes of all State Central Committee meetings. A tape recorder may be provided as a backup. The minutes of the meeting shall include the following

date, time and place of meeting
list of people attending and total number of people eligible to vote
time the meeting was called to order
approval of the previous meeting's minutes, and any amendments
summary of reports, announcements, and other information shared
proposals, amendments, and final results of any votes taken
time of adjournment
next meeting date, time and location
name of person taking the minutes.

Proposals, along with any friendly amendments shall be recorded verbatim and should be read back during the meeting to make sure they have been accurately transcribed.

Preliminary minutes of the State Central Committee meeting shall be sent to the chapter representatives within one week after the adjournment of the meeting. Copies of the preliminary minutes shall be distributed at the next meeting. Any corrections or additions should be recorded in the minutes of that meeting. The group should then approve the minutes, meaning that they agree that they are accurate and complete.


(3) Proposal for Presidential Election Committee:

Green Party Meeting Proposal Form
PRESENTER (committee, chapter(s) or group of individuals): John Battista, David Adams, Tom Sevigny, Penny Teal, David Bedell, Trish Dayan
CONTACT (name, address, phone number, email): John Battista, 88 Cherniske Road, New Milford, CT 06776, 860-354-9773, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
SUBJECT (10 words or less): Establishment of a Connecticut Green Party 2004 Presidential Election Committee.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee): The purpose of this committee will be to educate CT Green Party Members and the CT general public about Green Party approaches to the 2004 presidential campaign, including potential candidates and the possibility of running no candidate. In addition, the committee will obtain feedback from CT Green Party members and the CT general public about the approach they want taken, including support for particular candidates, at the 2004 Presidential Nominating Convention of the Green Party to be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If appropriate, this committee would then work to support the nominee of the Green Party Nominating Convention. This committee is justified as there is no committee or group currently functioning to carry out these purposes which are of significance to the CT Green Party and its future.

PROPOSAL (200 words or less): An open 2004 CT Green Party Presidential Election Committee shall be formed. This committee shall not promote a particular approach in the 2004 election, but rather shall serve as an educational entity. The committee will solicit input from all chapters of the CTGP, a synopsis of which shall be compiled and presented at a state meeting sometime before the 2004 convention.

Each Green Party Chapter shall be encouraged to have one of its members serve on this committee. The committee shall determine for itself a Chair, Co-Chairs, or rotating Chairs as it sees fit. The committee shall determine a secretary or rotating secretary as it sees fit. The committee shall make a report to the CTSCC each month after its existence until it is disbanded by the end of 2004. Minutes shall be kept of all meetings and shall be submitted to the Secretary of the CT Green Party and the CT Green Party website to be utilized as they see fit. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) From the conflict resolution document adopted by the SCC:

The Resolution (Sanctions) Committee (RC) [judge function] will consist of one representative from three different chapters whose members do not include any of the complainants or anyone named in the complaint. [Key Value 5] The SCC will select three neutral chapters to form the RC, and then these chapters will select one representative each to serve on the RC. The chapter representative to the RC may not be a person who served on the Expanded PC that reviewed this particular matter. RC members’ terms will expire when their work is done. There is no limit to the number of RCs, upon which a person may serve. At no time, however, may all three members of an RC be of the same gender.

Within 30 days after its formation, the RC will meet and take appropriate action, including the imposition of appropriate sanctions, based only on the facts found by the Expanded PC. Appropriate sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
Written warning
Formal censure

In determining appropriate sanctions, the RC may consider, among other things, the gravity, willfulness and frequency [the meaning of these terms is left to the common sense of the RC members] of the ethical violations. [the committee rejected more specific “sentencing” guidelines, preferring to leave the nature of the sanction to the RC to craft to fit the crime, trying to avoid the disastrous results of “mandatory minimum sentences”] Any actions taken by the RC must be approved by all three RC members and transcribed in a written statement dated and signed by all RC members. Any actions approved by the RC shall take effect immediately upon their signing the action statement and its distribution to the affected parties.

In the interests of openness and transparency, after the RC has signed the action statement, the PC shall make available copies of (1) the original complaint,

(2) the Expanded PC’s fact-finding statement, and (3) the RC’s action statement to any member of the State Green Party requesting in writing such copies. [RC members are not required to maintain confidentiality]

After three months, but before six months, from the date of the action statement, the Expanded PC will meet to (1) review compliance with the RC’s action statement, (2) engage in additional fact-finding, if necessary, and (3) submit any additional facts to the RC for further action, if necessary.


[If you have serious disagreements with the accuracy of anything written in these minutes, please contact the secretary, Ed DuBrule, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 860-523-4016. If your e-mail or letter is titled "I remember things happened differently" or "I remember that this also occurred", I will treat your e-mail or letter (or a summary of it) as an addendum to these minutes. Such e-mails or letters must be received within 6 weeks of the date of the meeting to be considered addenda.]