Minutes for 8/25/2010 Chapter Meeting

Portland Metro Pacific Green Party meeting.

8/25/10
SE Lucky Lab
7-10:15 pm

Present
Seth Woolley, SW
Rickie Woolley, RW (Facilitator)
Greg Bourget, GB
Chris Extine, CE
Michael Meo, MM
Spencer Burton, SB
David Brees, DB (Stack counter)
Jorden Leonard, JL (Secretary for meeting)
Steve Baurers, SBa (Non voting)
Tannis Baurers, TB (Non voting)

Agenda:

I.    Introductions

II.    Approval of Agenda

III.    Approval of Rules of Adoption

IV.    Proposal: Constitution and Bylaws

V.    Nomination of Board Members

VI.    Status of Canvassing Operation

VII.    Registration Drive

Agenda items I through III pass without concern.

IV    Discussion begins after 10 minutes to read documents.

MM    States a number of concerns including “peace” not being included in chapter description explicitly, and that this meeting is a seizer of power by a minority.  MM responds to request of taking issues one at a time and begins with “peace”.  Constitution, Article II, A.

JL    States that the state party handles the big picture issues like peace while the local chapter should be focused locally.

GB    Suggests adding “peace” to purpose.  There is consensus.

TB    Suggests the use of the word “sustainability” rather than just “conservation”.

GB    Speaks about the conservation movement and the value of this word with regard to identifying with environmentalism.

JL    Favors “conservation” over “sustainability”.

SW    Favors “sustainability”.

MM    Favors “sustainability”.

GB    Despite concerns about making the purpose too long GB suggests having both words.

SW    Clarifies the consensus process, and concusses is reached with regard to adding “peace” and “sustainability” to purpose as stated in the constitution.

MM    States his next concern which is about stating relationship with state.  It is suggested that the information be moved to Article I section C.

GB    Is concerned about this.

JL    Is in favor.

SW    Satisfies GB's concerns to some degree.  With GB and SB standing aside consensus is reached.

MM    States third and most important concern regarding donors as they are referred to in document and the power the board has with regard to deciding Donor status.

GB    Responds with a story with the moral that there is the need for a professional board, and legal structure.

MM    Responds by talking about the need to have better access, and concerns with the volunteer time requirement for Donors, as well as the board able to decide status of Donor.

SW    Gives background of what we are now and points out that the proposed bylaws closely mirror the state party's.

JL    Clarifies MM's main issue as being the 3 hour requirement of volunteering for non paying donors as well as the Executive Director position approving what constitutes volunteer hours.

SBa     Suggests that attendance to meetings fulfill requirement.

SW    States that there is requirement for at least quarterly meeting of Donors and that monthly meetings would be expected.  Restates transparency.

GB    Speaks about manual.

JL    Speaks in favor of 3 hour requirement in lieu of giving money to be considered a donor.

MM    Speaks in favor of 2 meeting rule.

SB    Speaks about the importance of the power of a board in an organization.

JL    Suggests that attending committee meetings counts as volunteer time, and states concern about the power of Donors who only donate money.

GB    Gives examples of how other groups are run.  Brings up specific concerns with how he perceives MM's intended structure for the chapter.  Also brings up past issues between the two, when they've worked together.

SW    Follows on JL suggestion to make distinction between a meeting group making decisions and a work group/committee, where the work group/committee would count as volunteer time but the meeting group wouldn't.

SBa     Echoes concern with Donors getting power only because they donate money.  Suggests that we separate discussion.

GB    Clarifies and agrees to separating discussion and talk about Board first then Donor Meeting.

DB    Board topic first.  Group moves to talk about board first.

GB    Clarifies two views.

MM    Clarifies his view that with the donor meeting being the ultimate authority they should be registered and have the two meeting rule in place of donor requirements.

All    Work on powers of Board and working with concerns that MM, JL, SBa, and others have.

SW    Speaks about protections he put in based on state bylaws.

MM    Speaks about the states failures to function.

JL    Clarifies that the Board is just a Policy Board.

DB    Begins assisting facilitator by keeping stack.

GB    States canvassers are doing a great job, and shouldn't be toyed around with.  Legal authority must be the Board.

MM    States that this is changing from grassroots and purposes his idea of a hired administrator and two officers.

All    Clarification is made that if f, g, and h powers of Board are removed MM would not block and group would move towards consensus.  Adjustments are made to f and h which satisfy MM.  G is tabled so discussion can move to donor requirements.  This move is reached through consensus.

MM    Restates requirement that Donors be registered Green and attend two meetings and so have weaker requirements than state party.

JL    Suggests that for Donors to have power they also must be Members.

All    Group moves towards consensus by changing “Donor” to “Participating Member” with registration and attending two official Portland Metro Pacific Green party meetings fulfilling requirement.  Consensus reached with no stand asides or blocks, g is eliminated from powers of Board.

SW    Responds to final issues with documents.  Explains Treasurer position and Central County Committee.

All    Consensus reached.  Constitution and bylaws are passed no stand asides or blocks, all are still present.

V    Nomination of Board members

JL    Nominates SB and MM

DB    Nominates CE

GB    Nominates RW

All    Voting occurs, SB, CE, and RW are elected.