Source: http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=194
Timestamp: 2018-11-16 19:07:44
Document Index: 517090716

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 4']

Implementation Proposal for the SevignyOlson joint proposal
As summarized in the "Chronological Background" section (part 1
of "References", below), in view of the results of the Tulsa election, the
percentage votes on the 3 proposals that were completed on Sept. 11, the joint
proposal submitted on Sept. 19 by Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson, and the recent
Oct. 24 passage of Proposal #188 by over 77%, we believe that our consensus-
seeking process (as specified in Article V of the By-laws) now indicates that
we should move towards implementation of the Sevigny/Olson joint proposal: for
the two of them to share the "7th co-chair seat" on the steering committee.
The original proposal submitted by Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson (copied below
under part 3 of "References") listed six specific points. Please see part 2
of "References", below, for commentary on each of those six points.
1. Upon approval of this "Implementation Proposal", Tom Sevigny and Kristen
Olson shall immediately be seated as "co-chair" members of the Steering
Committee. Except as provided for in points numbers 2, 3 and 5, below, they
shall be recognized as "regular" co-chair members of the Steering Committee --
for example, they shall be placed on Steering Committee e-mail lists, they
shall be entitled to participate in Steering Committee tele-conferences, they
may be assigned "portfolios" (as described in Article IV of the By-laws), they
shall share in the "Powers" of the Steering Committee (as described in Section
1 of the Rules and Procedures), etc.
2. Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson shall be allowed to participate fully in all
decision-making activities of the Steering Committee, except that if the
Steering Committee is not able to reach consensus on a decision, then Tom
Sevigny and Kristen Olson shall each cast a half-vote (0.5) towards the
decision. (As compared to one vote (1.0) that is cast by each of the other
Steering Committee members).
3. The term of office for Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson under
this "Implementation Proposal" shall end at the conclusion of the next "Annual
National Committee Meeting" (as described in Article VI of the by-laws. The
next "Annual National Committee Meeting" is currently scheduled for summer,
2006). If either Tom Sevigny or Kristen Olson again desire to run for the
position of co-chair, they may again do so according to the provisions that are
described in the by-laws, and in point number 5, below.
4. This "Implementation Proposal" is a one-time proposal only, and it does not
set a precedent for any other future situations.
5. If any part of this proposal is in conflict with any GPUS by-laws, rules,
or procedures, then those individual by-laws, rules, or procedures are hereby
temporarily suspended with respect to their applicability to
this "Implementation Proposal" (and only for that purpose). This temporary
suspension of individual by-laws, rules, or procedures shall expire at the
conclusion of the next "Annual National Committee Meeting" (currently scheduled
for summer, 2006).
a) Specifically, the first sentence of Article IV of the by-laws is
hereby temporarily suspended until the "next Annual National Committee
Meeting", but only for the purposes of allowing Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson
to share one of the "seven co-chair" positions on the Steering Committee, as
described in that by-law.
b) Further, the second sentence of Article IV of the by-laws is hereby
temporarily suspended until the "next Annual National Committee Meeting", but
only for the purposes of allowing Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson to serve
a "shorter than normal" co-chair term, which shall expire for both of them at
the conclusion of the next "Annual National Committee Meeting" (as described in
the first parag! raph of Article VI of the by-laws). For the purposes of "term
limits", the term of office for Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson under
this "Implementation Proposal" shall count as a "half term", and neither Tom
Sevigny nor Kristen Olson shall be allowed to exceed one and one-half
consecutive terms as a co-chair unless a separate proposal is approved that
specifically allows one or both of them to do so.
c) Lastly, the final sentence of section 4.A. of the Rules and Procedures
is hereby temporarily suspended until the "next Annual National Committee
Meeting", but only for the purposes of clarifying that in calculating whether a
quorum exists under that section, Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson shall each be
counted as a "half member" of the Green Party Steering Committee (for quorum-
calculating purposes under that section only).
I. Chronological Background
II. Commentary on the Original Sevigny/Olson Joint Proposal
III. The Original Sevigny/Olson Joint Proposal
IV. Initial listing of 14 different ways how Tom and Kristen might share a vote
For multi-seat co-chair elections, there are two different methods of counting
the votes that are valid under our current by-laws. For the co-chair elections
held at the Tulsa 2005 national gathering, one such method yielded Tom Sevigny
as the winner, while the other valid method yielded Kristen Olson as the
winner. (The three other co-chair seats that were filled by the Tulsa election
yielded the same three winners regardless of which vote-counting method was
used. Also, three other seats, out of the seven total co-chair seats, were not
up for election in Tulsa).
After much discussion of this issue, 3 proposals were put forward to fill
this "7th co-chair position". On Sunday, Sept. 11, voting on these 3 proposals
was completed. The results were #170 (To seat both Tom Sevigny and Kristen
Olson): 48 Yes, 37 No, 6 Abstain; #173 (To seat only Tom Sevigny): 39 Yes, 45
No, 8 Abstain; and #174 (To hold an election to fill the seat): 24 Yes, 57 No,
11 Abstain. Although #170 received a majority of Yes votes (56.5%), it did not
cross the 2/3 threshhold required for passage. #173 (46.4%) and #174 (29.6%)
both received less than a majority of Yes votes.
The Steering Committee then called for an election to fill the "7th co-chair
position". The notice of that election, entitled "SC Co-chair Vacancy/Call for
Nominations" was posted to the "usgp-coo" listserve on (or around) September 16.
Then, on Monday, Sept. 19, Tom Sevigny posted a joint proposal from Kristen
Olson and himself regarding how to fill the "7th co-chair position". (Their
joint proposal is copied below, for reference).
Finally, on Monday, October 24, the Green National Committee approved proposal
#188, to cancel the "7th co-chair position election" until a decision is first
made on the Sevigny and Olson joint proposal. (The vote was: 64 "Yes" votes
(77.1%) to 19 "No" votes (22.9%), with 10 "Abstain" Votes).
1. That we be seated immediately but not vote.
The proposal above is now based on Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson both being
seated, as well as both of them sharing voting privileges, no later than
Monday, December 12. At this point in time -- some 4 months since this past
summer's co-chair election at the national meeting in Tulsa, OK (with only
about 8 months remaining until next summer's co-chair elections) -- we do not
believe that there remains any significant advantage for Tom and Kristen to
first be seated without a vote, with a subsequent proposal then specifying how
their vote would then be shared. We now believe that it is preferable to
approve all of the above aspects within this single proposal (with voting to be
completed by December 12, 2005).
2. That the NC decide how our votes should be split (switch every other month,
1/2 vote each, etc.)
Thus far, the choice of Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson each receiving a half
vote (when voting is necessary) seems to be the most favored choice, therefore
this choice has been incorporated into part 2 of the proposal, above. (Note:
In particular, by having both Tom and Kristen participate in every vote -- with
a "half vote" each -- this formula would eliminate potential "gaming" that
might be possible if they were to switch (take turns) in casting votes. Also,
the formula of a half vote each eliminates potential "practical problems" that
might be involved in "flipping a coin" during decision-making tele-
conferences). For reference (as posted previously to the national "COO" list
for discussion purposes), the "Initial listing of 14 different ways how Tom and
Kristen might share a vote" is listed below, under part 4 of this "References"
3. That the NC vote on the issue of how our vote should be split be expedited
(1 week discussion, 1 week for voting).
We would like for this issue, as well as this entire proposal, to be
formally submitted for placement into the voting queue no later than Nov. 20,
2005, for 1 week of "formal discussion" (probably Nov. 27 until Dec. 4), and 1
week of voting (probably Dec. 4 until Dec. 11).
4. That we agree that our terms will end at the next convention and that we
will have to run again if we wish to continue on the SC.
This point has been incorporated in part 3 of the proposal, above.
5. That a working group be formed by the SC to straighten out the vote counting
issue as soon as possible and that this working group will make recommendations
before the end of the year. This working group will utilize the resources of
Fair Vote to help with! its task.
Proposal #182, "Establishment of Ad-hoc Co-chair Election Review Working Group"
was approved by the Green National Committee on Oct. 16, 2005. Section 3 of
that Proposal states that the working group "shall contact FairVote, or another
independent body approved by the working group, to conduct an independent
review of our [Co-chair elections] process". Section 6 of that Proposal states
that the working group "shall issue a report to the GPUS SC, no later than
December 1, 2005". Finally, Section 8 of that Proposal states that the "GPUS
SC shall use the work of this working group to present recommendations and
proposals to the GPUS National Committee". Therefore, we are satisfied that
the Green National Committee has already approved Proposal #182, along the
lines of what the Sevigny/Olson joint proposal had originally requested.
6. That this proposal is a one time solution to a specific impasse and in no
way sets any precedent.
This point has been incorporated in part 4 of the proposal, above.
(Posted to the national "COO" listserve on the evening of September 19, 2005
under the title, "New proposal"):
Dear NC delegates,
As you are all well aware, the NC has come to a impasse over the elections that
took place in Tulsa. Looking over the discussion of the past few weeks, it is
obvious that there is wide range of opinion on this issue and various
interpretations of what happened. However, what is not being argued is that our
present bylaws, through no one'! s fault, have failed us. We have discovered
that two different vote counting methods, both perfectly acceptable under our
present bylaws, can lead to two different results. Kristen and I have our own
opinions regarding what has transpired since Tulsa and, needless to say, we do
not agree on everything.
However, we do agree that the best thing for the Green Party US, is to move
forward. So, as the two delegates who are presently in limbo because of this
impasse, we would like to propose a possible solution. We make this proposal in
a spirit of cooperation and future focus. We ask that delegates do the same by
taking a step back from their entrenched positions and bend a little. We
understand that this issue evokes some deeply held principles for some
delegates and that some bylaw interpretations may not condone this proposal,
but for the sake of the party, we ask that all delegates help us to move
As a starting point, we used the proposal that recei! ved the strongest support
of the three we recently voted on, added some ideas that some delegates have
put forth over the past week, and created what we feel is something the far
majority of delegates can consense around.
In that spirit, we would like to jointly endorse the following solution:
Fair Vote to help with its task.
way sets any precedent
We would like to substitute this propsal for the FL proposal if that is ok with
the FL delegation.
We are both, as are all of you, looking forward to the resolution of this
matter. And look forward to serving the Green Party of the United States,
should the NC approve.
Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson
IV. INITIAL LISTING OF 14 DIFFERENT WAYS HOW TOM AND KRISTEN MIGHT SHARE A
1. Switch every other month
2. Switch every other week
3. Switch every two weeks
4. Switch every two months
5. Switch every four months
6. Tom and Kristen each ge! t 1/2 vote (A tie vote (4 1/2 to 4 1/2) means the
proposal fails).
7. Tom and Kristen each get 1/2 vote (For ties, switch every month as to who
breaks the tie).
8. Tom and Kristen each get 1/2 vote (Flip a coin to break "4 1/2 to 4 1/2"
tie votes, etc.).
9. Switch every other vote. (Consensus decisions don't appply to "switching").
10. Switch every two votes. (Consensus decisions don't appply to "switching").
11. Switch every 5 votes. (Consensus decisions don't appply to "switching").
12. Switch every 10 votes. (Consensus decisions don't appply to "switching").
13. Just before the roll-call vote, flip a coin to determine whether Tom or
Kristen will vote.
14. Tom and Kristen both get to cast votes: If they vote the same way, then
together they receive one vote. If they vote differently, then a coin flip
shall determine which of their votes to count. (Unless the outcome wouldn't be
affected anyway, in which case no coin flip is needed).
Here is the CA proposal. We would like for this issue, as well as this entire proposal, to be formally submitted for placement into the voting queue no later than Nov. 20, 2005, for 1 week of "formal discussion" (probably Nov. 27 until Dec. 4), and 1 week of voting (probably Dec. 4 until Dec. 11).
Budd Dickinson, delegation co-chair
PROPOSAL: Implementation Proposal for the Sevigny/Olson joint proposal
As summarized in the "Chronological Background" section (part 1 of "References", below), in view of the results of the Tulsa election, the percentage votes on the 3 proposals that were completed on Sept. 11, the joint proposal submitted on Sept. 19 by Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson, and the recent Oct. 24 passage of Proposal #188 by over 77%, we believe that our consensus-seeking process (as specified in Article V of the By-laws) now indicates that we should move towards implementation of the Sevigny/Olson joint proposal: for the two of them to share the "7th co-chair seat" on the steering committee.
The original proposal submitted by Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson (copied below under part 3 of "References") listed six specific points. Please see part 2 of "References", below, for commentary on each of those six points.
1. Upon approval of this "Implementation Proposal", Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson shall immediately be seated as "co-chair" members of the Steering Committee. Except as provided for in points numbers 2, 3 and 5, below, they shall be recognized as "regular" co-chair members of the Steering Committee -- for example, they shall be placed on Steering Committee e-mail lists, they shall be entitled to participate in Steering Committee tele-conferences, they may be assigned "portfolios" (as described in Article IV of the By-laws), they shall share in the "Powers" of the Steering Committee (as described in Section 1 of the Rules and Procedures), etc.
2. Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson shall be allowed to participate fully in all decision-making activities of the Steering Committee, except that if the Steering Committee is not able to reach consensus on a decision, then Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson shall each cast a half-vote (0.5) towards the decision. (As compared to one vote (1.0) that is cast by each of the other Steering Committee members).
3. The term of office for Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson under this "Implementation Proposal" shall end at the conclusion of the next "Annual National Committee Meeting" (as described in Article VI of the by-laws. The next "Annual National Committee Meeting" is currently scheduled for summer, 2006). If either Tom Sevigny or Kristen Olson again desire to run for the position of co-chair, they may again do so according to the provisions that are described in the by-laws, and in point number 5, below.
4. This "Implementation Proposal" is a one-time proposal only, and it does not set a precedent for any other future situations.
5. If any part of this proposal is in conflict with any GPUS by-laws, rules, or procedures, then those individual by-laws, rules, or procedures are hereby temporarily suspended with respect to their applicability to this "Implementation Proposal" (and only for that purpose). This temporary suspension of individual by-laws, rules, or procedures shall expire at the conclusion of the next "Annual National Committee Meeting" (currently scheduled for summer, 2006).
a) Specifically, the first sentence of Article IV of the by-laws is hereby temporarily suspended until the "next Annual National Committee Meeting", but only for the purposes of allowing Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson to share one of the "seven co-chair" positions on the Steering Committee, as described in that by-law.
b) Further, the second sentence of Article IV of the by-laws is hereby temporarily suspended until the "next Annual National Committee Meeting", but only for the purposes of allowing Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson to serve a "shorter than normal" co-chair term, which shall expire for both of them at the conclusion of the next "Annual National Committee Meeting" (as described in the first parag! raph of Article VI of the by-laws). For the purposes of "term limits", the term of office for Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson under this "Implementation Proposal" shall count as a "half term", and neither Tom Sevigny nor Kristen Olson shall be allowed to exceed one and one-half consecutive terms as a co-chair unless a separate proposal is approved that specifically allows one or both of them to do so.
c) Lastly, the final sentence of section 4.A. of the Rules and Procedures is hereby temporarily suspended until the "next Annual National Committee Meeting", but only for the purposes of clarifying that in calculating whether a quorum exists under that section, Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson shall each be counted as a "half member" of the Green Party Steering Committee (for quorum-calculating purposes under that section only).
For multi-seat co-chair elections, there are two different methods of counting the votes that are valid under our current by-laws. For the co-chair elections held at the Tulsa 2005 national gathering, one such method yielded Tom Sevigny as the winner, while the other valid method yielded Kristen Olson as the winner. (The three other co-chair seats that were filled by the Tulsa election yielded the same three winners regardless of which vote-counting method was used. Also, three other seats, out of the seven total co-chair seats, were not up for election in Tulsa).
After much discussion of this issue, 3 proposals were put forward to fill this "7th co-chair position". On Sunday, Sept. 11, voting on these 3 proposals was completed. The results were #170 (To seat both Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson): 48 Yes, 37 No, 6 Abstain; #173 (To seat only Tom Sevigny): 39 Yes, 45 No, 8 Abstain; and #174 (To hold an election to fill the seat): 24 Yes, 57 No, 11 Abstain. Although #170 received a majority of Yes votes (56.5%), it did not cross the 2/3 threshhold required for passage. #173 (46.4%) and #174 (29.6%) both received less than a majority of Yes votes.
The Steering Committee then called for an election to fill the "7th co-chair position". The notice of that election, entitled "SC Co-chair Vacancy/Call for Nominations" was posted to the "usgp-coo" listserve on (or around) September 16.
Then, on Monday, Sept. 19, Tom Sevigny posted a joint proposal from Kristen Olson and himself regarding how to fill the "7th co-chair position". (Their joint proposal is copied below, for reference).
Finally, on Monday, October 24, the Green National Committee approved proposal #188, to cancel the "7th co-chair position election" until a decision is first made on the Sevigny and Olson joint proposal. (The vote was: 64 "Yes" votes (77.1%) to 19 "No" votes (22.9%), with 10 "Abstain" Votes).
The proposal above is now based on Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson both being seated, as well as both of them sharing voting privileges, no later than Monday, December 12. At this point in time -- some 4 months since this past summer's co-chair election at the national meeting in Tulsa, OK (with only about 8 months remaining until next summer's co-chair elections) -- we do not believe that there remains any significant advantage for Tom and Kristen to first be seated without a vote, with a subsequent proposal then specifying how their vote would then be shared. We now believe that it is preferable to approve all of the above aspects within this single proposal (with voting to be completed by December 12, 2005).
2. That the NC decide how our votes should be split (switch every other month, 1/2 vote each, etc.)
Thus far, the choice of Tom Sevigny and Kristen Olson each receiving a half vote (when voting is necessary) seems to be the most favored choice, therefore this choice has been incorporated into part 2 of the proposal, above. (Note: In particular, by having both Tom and Kristen participate in every vote -- with a "half vote" each -- this formula would eliminate potential "gaming" that might be possible if they were to switch (take turns) in casting votes. Also, the formula of a half vote each eliminates potential "practical problems" that might be involved in "flipping a coin" during decision-making tele-conferences). For reference (as posted previously to the national "COO" list for discussion purposes), the "Initial listing of 14 different ways how Tom and Kristen might share a vote" is listed below, under part 4 of this "References" section.
3. That the NC vote on the issue of how our vote should be split be expedited (1 week discussion, 1 week for voting).
We would like for this issue, as well as this entire proposal, to be formally submitted for placement into the voting queue no later than Nov. 20, 2005, for 1 week of "formal discussion" (probably Nov. 27 until Dec. 4), and 1 week of voting (probably Dec. 4 until Dec. 11).
4. That we agree that our terms will end at the next convention and that we will have to run again if we wish to continue on the SC.
5. That a working group be formed by the SC to straighten out the vote counting issue as soon as possible and that this working group will make recommendations before the end of the year. This working group will utilize the resources of Fair Vote to help with! its task.
Proposal #182, "Establishment of Ad-hoc Co-chair Election Review Working Group" was approved by the Green National Committee on Oct. 16, 2005. Section 3 of that Proposal states that the working group "shall contact FairVote, or another independent body approved by the working group, to conduct an independent review of our [Co-chair elections] process". Section 6 of that Proposal states that the working group "shall issue a report to the GPUS SC, no later than December 1, 2005". Finally, Section 8 of that Proposal states that the "GPUS SC shall use the work of this working group to present recommendations and proposals to the GPUS National Committee". Therefore, we are satisfied that the Green National Committee has already approved Proposal #182, along the lines of what the Sevigny/Olson joint proposal had originally requested.
6. That this proposal is a one time solution to a specific impasse and in no way sets any precedent.
(Posted to the national "COO" listserve on the evening of September 19, 2005 under the title, "New proposal"):
As you are all well aware, the NC has come to a impasse over the elections that took place in Tulsa. Looking over the discussion of the past few weeks, it is obvious that there is wide range of opinion on this issue and various interpretations of what happened. However, what is not being argued is that our present bylaws, through no one'! s fault, have failed us. We have discovered that two different vote counting methods, both perfectly acceptable under our present bylaws, can lead to two different results. Kristen and I have our own opinions regarding what has transpired since Tulsa and, needless to say, we do not agree on everything.
However, we do agree that the best thing for the Green Party US, is to move forward. So, as the two delegates who are presently in limbo because of this impasse, we would like to propose a possible solution. We make this proposal in a spirit of cooperation and future focus. We ask that delegates do the same by taking a step back from their entrenched positions and bend a little. We understand that this issue evokes some deeply held principles for some delegates and that some bylaw interpretations may not condone this proposal, but for the sake of the party, we ask that all delegates help us to move forward.
As a starting point, we used the proposal that recei! ved the strongest support of the three we recently voted on, added some ideas that some delegates have put forth over the past week, and created what we feel is something the far majority of delegates can consense around.
5. That a working group be formed by the SC to straighten out the vote counting issue as soon as possible and that this working group will make recommendations before the end of the year. This working group will utilize the resources of Fair Vote to help with its task.
6. That this proposal is a one time solution to a specific impasse and in no way sets any precedent
We would like to substitute this propsal for the FL proposal if that is ok with the FL delegation.
We are both, as are all of you, looking forward to the resolution of this matter. And look forward to serving the Green Party of the United States, should the NC approve.
IV. INITIAL LISTING OF 14 DIFFERENT WAYS HOW TOM AND KRISTEN MIGHT SHARE A VOTE:
6. Tom and Kristen each ge! t 1/2 vote (A tie vote (4 1/2 to 4 1/2) means the proposal fails).
7. Tom and Kristen each get 1/2 vote (For ties, switch every month as to who breaks the tie).
8. Tom and Kristen each get 1/2 vote (Flip a coin to break "4 1/2 to 4 1/2" tie votes, etc.).
13. Just before the roll-call vote, flip a coin to determine whether Tom or Kristen will vote.
14. Tom and Kristen both get to cast votes: If they vote the same way, then together they receive one vote. If they vote differently, then a coin flip shall determine which of their votes to count. (Unless the outcome wouldn't be affected anyway, in which case no coin flip is needed).