[Iowa-dx] HELP! - FEEDBACK REQUESTED! - PLEASE REVIEW AND SEND YOUR FFEDBACK
on SUBMISSIONS FOR THE NATIONAL GREEN PLATFORM (by April 30)!
Hart, Holly J
holly-hart@uiowa.edu
Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:36:29 -0500
Iowa Greens:
I'm writing as a member of the GPUS Platform Committee to ask for your assi=
stance for a critical part of our work. The national Platform Committee ha=
s adopted a process that requires getting feedback from state party members=
hip on the various submissions made for the 2008 platform update. The comm=
ittee needs this feedback by April 30, 2008. The Green Platform is designe=
d to be a document that represents what most greens reasonably agree on as =
"green policy" and the basis for the Green presidential campaign. It's no=
t meant to be a "crisis document" addressing every item that comes our way;=
it needs to be broad enough to not go out of date in 6 mos. time. Only=
items that meet a very strong level of approval are to be included, so it'=
s important to know not only what you like, but what you don't like. If yo=
u feel something isn't appropriate, or not reflective of a broad general co=
nsensus, then let us know - it shouldn't go into the final document. If yo=
u find something you'd generally approve of,but have some concerns, please =
let us know that as well. If you think some of the new language is good or=
off-putting, let us know that, too.
Please look over this message, follow the link to the Platform Submissions,=
((which are side-by-side with the current content, for the most part) and=
then use the ratings system (included below) to rate each submission.
Comments by way of explaining a rating are welcome, too. A list of the Sub=
missions/Amendments is included, below, as well, followe dby the Platforo T=
imeline/Process, just as an FYI.
PLEASE GET BACK TO ME, ASAP - BEFORE APRIL 30th!. I am to forward all rati=
ngs and comments back to the Platcom.
****
Final platform hearings will be held in Chicago, the day before the nominat=
ing conventional. Any final decisions and touch-ups will be made at that t=
ime. Any of our members may attend and participate in the platform hearing=
s. If you think you'd like to do this, please let me know and I can get y=
ou more information as to what will be involved. The 2004 hearings were re=
asonably well attended and, with a few very minor bumps, went well, thanks =
to many people who were there to work in good faith as a consensus group, o=
ne of the more positive aspects of that convention.
In 2004, the most controversial aspect was not policy, but "style." Be awa=
re that much of what was contained in the original style also involved far =
more feminist and holistic politics than some currently favor. When you r=
ead these over, ask yourself if the *policy* is being changed, as well as t=
eh style; and/or if some language merely replace other with no real change,=
and if so, is it better than the current language? Also, watch for some p=
otentially significant changes (hints: middle east; economics
***************************************************************************=
**********************************
***************************************************************************=
**********************************
LINK to PLATFORM SUBMISSIONS
Submissions for the 2008 Green Platform are found here:
http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/draft/work/
***************************************************************************=
**********************************
IV. RATING FORMULA
A rating of 1 =3D 3 points
A rating of 2 =3D 2
A rating of 3 =3D 1
A rating of 4 =3D 0, and
A rating of 5 =3D -1
1 - Approval. Material meets with general approval of membership, a str=
ong majority or consensus.
2 - Approval, with minor revisions. Overall approval, but minor revisio=
ns such as corrected or updated information may be needed, or minor revisio=
ns to
meet concerns are suggested.
3 - General support, but with more substantial concerns to be addressed=
(this could involve more substantial working out of material, possibly ref=
erring
content to those with particular expertise or background)
4 - General lack of support. This might be more acceptable if (...), bu=
t overall, members find it unnecessary/unacceptable/doesn't really fit.
(Unlikely that material garnering this type of rating will make it into=
the 2008 platform, but worth looking into.)
5 - Reject. Members do not support inclusion of this amendment in the G=
reen Platform
***************************************************************************=
**********************************
V. AMENDMENTS
PREAMBLE, incl. 10KV
3. Ellingston (DC) =96 Call to Action deleted. New preamble. =
New descriptions of the 10 Key Values.
I. DEMOCRACY
A. POLITICAL REFORM
3. Ellingston (DC) =96 Labeled Preamble, but also has a new Dem=
ocracy intro.
4. Ellingston & Ely (DC) =96 Shortening
B. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
4. Ellingston & Ely (DC) =96 Shortening
C. COMMUNITY
4. Ellingston & Ely (DC) =96 Needed Shortening
5. Bortz (PA) =96 Opposition to the Draft
D. FOREIGN POLICY
6. Mattera (NY) =96 New plank on Iraq
7. Ellingston (DC) & Gerling (MO) =96 Longer, rewrite of Foreig=
n Policy
8. Schwartzman (DC) =96 Peace in the Middle East
9. Ellingston (DC) =96 Space =96 Re-write of existing.
10. Ellingston (DC) =96 Trade - Re-write of existing.
II. SOCIAL JUSTICE
A. Civil Rights and Equal Rights
11. Ely (DC) =96 Deletes section intro. Deletes planks on =93racial profil=
ing=94 and police brutality. Deletes language on Indigenous Peoples and mo=
st of Justice for Native Hawaiians. Deletes parts of Religious Freedom and=
Secular Equality and Veterans' Rights. Deletes some of C. Economic Jus=
tice / Social Safety Net, including ?
12. Ellingston & Clement (DC) =96 Women=92s Rights. Shortening=
.
13. Reiter (TX) =96 Youth Rights. New point.
E. Education and the Arts.
14. Taylor (UT) =96 Education. Re-write. Is all on the Arts to=
be deleted?
F. Health Care
15. Link (NY) & Ellingston (DC) =96 A few words added on HIV. =
Shortening.
G. Labor
16. Ellingston (DC) =96 Shortening.
H. Criminal Justice
17. Zara (DC) =96 Re-write and Shortening.
18. Thornton (CT) =96 a couple of points on Drugs
I. Population
19. Ellingston & Clement (DC) =96 Re-write.
20. Schwartzman (DC) =96 Re-write and long background article.
K. Immigration/Emigration
22. Ailey (IL) =96 Additions. Lengthened.
L. Housing & Homelessness
21. Ellingston (DC) - Shortening
III. ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
A-F. Energy, etc
23. Ewall (PA) - Deletes section intro. Other word changes, i=
ncluding controversial #23 under Air Travel.
B. Nuclear Issues
26. Kuppers (NC) =96 Change language on nuclear waste storage.
J. Animal Rights
24. Canney (FL) =96 Additions to Animal Rights.
25. Koteen (CA) =96 Additions.
G. Water
27. Ska (NM) =96 Very lengthy Water plank was submitted a year =
ago and shortened.
H-L. Agriculture, etc.
28. Zara (DC) & Thornton (CT) =96 Deletions& Shortening.
IV. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
A-H. Several sub-sections,s.
29. Ellingston, Ely, & Zara (DC) - Deletes section intro. It is difficult=
to compare to original because sub-sections are renamed, with several new =
ones thrown in. Includes 5 separate sub-sections on taxation, and deletes =
some material that is very important to me about work, etc. Economics is t=
he most controversial area and the one where we can best distinguish oursel=
ves.
C. Citizen Control over Corporations
30. Dickinson (CA) =96 Re-write.
M. National Debt
31. Barlow (DC) =96 Updating.
***************************************************************************=
**********************************
*****VI. GPUS Platform 2008 Timeline/Process
I. Basic Timeline
Approval by National Committee in summer or fall of 2006
First deadline for submissions: April 1, 2007
First draft by May 31, 2007 (comparison draft, also let's assume a document
which incorporated new text; may be rough, but will give an idea...)
Second deadline for submissions: December 31, 2007
Second draft by January 30, 2008 (may still be rough, but less so than he
first draft; will incorporate the rest of the new text)
Final/near-final draft - ca. 2 months before convention.* NOTE: 2 mos. pr=
ior
to the convention is something to aim for; depending on the exact date,=
we
may get cut a week or two, if the convention is early. If the conventi=
on
is *very* early, we will need to go back and revisit this.
*ca. should =3D within a week of the convention date
******
1 - National Committee approves the timeline/process this summer or early f=
all
of 2006. Platcom can already be looking over current document and
looking where to weed out extraneous stuff, recommend areas for
updates, possible new areas, etc.
2 - First deadline, April Fool's Day (why not): 4/1/2007. Throughout
late 2006 and early 2007, intensive outreach will be done to make
sure that all states and caucuses have informed their membership of
the opportunity to submit platform amendments. A template for online/email
submissions will be distributed to state Green parties and accredited
caucuses. A postal mail box will also be made available for hard copy
submissions.
The Platform Committee will track and organize submissions. They will also
'recycle' submissions back to state parties/accredited caucuses: 1) that co=
me
directly from individual Green party members back to their state parties to
encourage further discussion and debate; 2) for clarification, if needed.
Submissions which don't conform to submission guidelines would be returned
with an explanation of the needed changes. To help ensure that all state
Green parties are made aware of the platform and members enabled to
participate, we will ask each state that does not have a member on the
platform committee to designate a member to act as a platform contact.
3 - First draft by 5/31/2007. Submissions will be accepted until 5/25/2007=
.
Submissions, possible comparison draft, {and/or} early draft will be posted=
on
the web.
Reminders will go out periodically to all members urging them to read the
draft and send in feed back. Qualitative and quantitative feedback will be
actively sought from all states/caucuses. Opportunity to submit feedback v=
ia
web should be available. Feedback will be posted on the website.
4 - Second deadline: 12/31/2007. Second draft by 1/30/2008. Based
on feedback from first round of proposals, the committee will create
a second draft and facilitate work with material for which further
work is needed. To assist in assessing the level of support for
platform submissions, the committee will ask each affiliated state
party and accredited caucus to obtain feedback from their membership
and use a simple rating system to indicate the type of support, along
with comments, concerns and suggestions. Non-responses will not be
counted when evaluating support or opposition to a proposed
amendment. Feedback from a state/caucus that is qualitative, but
lacking quantitative ratings will be interpreted by the Platform
Committee when evaluating quantitative support for an amendment.
**SEE RATING FORMULA, BELOW.
5 - Final draft by two months prior to 2008 convention. There should only =
be
a few, if any, unresolved issues at this point. Unresolved amendments will
be circulated back to states/caucuses at least two months prior to the
convention for last-minute feedback, informing them that they could be voti=
ng
on these at the final platform hearings, to be scheduled as close as possib=
le
to the day preceding the presidential nominating convention. Ay items and
language that remain t be determined at the final hearings, if such are
needed, will be made available to all convention delegates as part of the
convention packets (as well as available online).
6 - Copies of the nearly final platform (with an addendum listing
unresolved issues) would be made before the convention and would be
available at the convention. Platform hearings would be held to
refine the unresolved issues in an effort to make them acceptable to
Greens at large. Platform hearings would be open to all, but only
those chosen specifically to represent their state or caucus on the
matter of these unresolved amendments would be entitled to
vote, {if such is needed; however, consensus is the goal, so material not
gaining obvious overall support will not be included}. States/caucuses can
caucus at the convention and choose who will represent them in these hearin=
gs
(it's up to the state/caucus chair or co-chairs to inform the PlatCom about
who was chosen to represent them).
States/caucuses can choose more than one
representative, but votes will be counted in such a way that each
state/caucus will be represented proportionally, with voting weight
equal to the number of voting delegates they're entitled to have at
the convention. No single person may carry more than three
votes. If consensus cannot be reached in the hearings, the voting
representatives shall vote on proposed amendments. Those amendments
pass only if they obtain the support of 90% or more of the weighted
vote of the representatives in attendance.
7 - Final copies of any amendments approved on the floor of the
convention will be printed and made available, as a final addendum to
the printed "near final" draft that the delegates will already
have. This will prevent a frantic, last-minute printing
adventure. Nice and pretty final copies can be done up after the conventio=
n.
**************************
**RATING FORMULA
A rating of 1 =3D 3 points
A rating of 2 =3D 2
A rating of 3 =3D 1
A rating of 4 =3D 0, and
A rating of 5 =3D -1
1 - Approval. Material meets with general approval of membership, a strong
majority or consensus.
2 - Approval, with minor revisions. Overall approval, but minor revisions
such as corrected or updated information may be needed, or minor revisions =
to
meet concerns are suggested.
3 - General support, but with more substantial concerns to be addressed (th=
is
could involve more substantial working out of material, possibly referring
content to those with particular expertise or background)
4 - General lack of support. This might be more acceptable if (...), but
overall, members find it unnecessary/unacceptable/doesn't really fit.
(Unlikely that material garnering this type of rating will make it into
the 2004 platform, but worth looking into.)
5 - Reject. Members do not support inclusion in the Green Platform