[Pnp-wg] floor rules-Platform

[Steve Kramer]

Owen,

I'm confused about one point concerning the platform review.  Let me take 
the GRP's stance on the UN missions as an example.  The GRP, as a rule, is 
not bound by any of the decisions of the GPUS concerning its functioning. 
So the GRP has every right to take this stance.  The only thing that the 
GRP is really bound to is the GPUS's decision concerning Federal 
candidates - in other words, the President.

Now granted, it could be argued that the UN example involves a Federal 
responsibility and therefore needs to be introduced at the Federal level 
to be effective...but even then, the GRP has access to the Platform 
Committee at any time.

So, why would it be necessary at the Presidential Nominating Convention to 
consider a matter on which the GRP has already decided, on which it is 
already allowed to decide independently, on which it already has had 
opportunity to send delegates to influence at the committee level - and do 
so under the only instance where the states are subject to the decision of 
the GPUS?

Steve Kramer
Maryland


On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Owen Broadhurst wrote:

> I feel it important to note that seriatum consideration would not
> entail consideration of each and every word or sentence as a seperate
> motion, but involves consideration by paragraph. I fully expect that
> most portions of a platform would sail with ease. What should not sail
> with such ease are those more controversial areas of consideration
> (such as our platform's support for UN peace-keeping endeavors) over
> which some affiliates (such as the Green-Rainbow Party) have clear
> differences as is made evident from the GRP foreign policy statements.
>
> The GRP's views on such matters as Iraq and the Sudan have had fairly
> wide distribution within Greendom, and several of our state party's
> officers had expressed their concerns with certain platform planks
> quite early within the process. That inclement weather prevented our
> State Committee from formally critiquing such planks was unfortunate,
> but I'm certain that if national nominating convention delegates had
> been able to secure the floor during platform consideration then a
> clear lack of consensus regarding them would have seen expression.
>
> An up or down voice vote on such matters, particularly when the
> determination of vote results is without appeal, effectively squashes
> our sole opportunity for the various affiliates to have a genuine up
> or down vote on those matters arousing most controversy. When our
> party's officers expressed their misgivings at the hearings, we were
> told that opening up the process to DELEGATE determination was
> anathema.
>
> We have no congress beyond the convention at which every GPUS
> affiliate is assured of a DETERMINING voice in the matter.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Owen R. Broadhurst
>
> On 6/29/05, Gary Hecker <hecker@ecoisp.com> wrote:
>> I sit on the Platform Committee, and was part of the platform process in
>> Milwaukee.
>>
>> There was not enough active state participation in formulating the GPUS
>> Platform. I think it is appalling that there is not at least one member from
>> each state on such an important committee, but, there is no requirement, and
>> if states trust people like me to do the work (as you should:)) then you get
>> what you get.
>>
>> My problems with how the platform was addressed in Milwaukee:
>> First, the Platform was never truly voted on by any delegates. Rather, a
>> general murmur of approval was accepted as a vote.
>>
>> More importantly, the Platform Committee had identified several issues where
>> consensus could not be reached by the committee, and input in Milwaukee was
>> used to determine acceptance by the GPUS. A meeting/discussion of the
>> individual issues was held, and about 30 people showed up. Unfortunately,
>> there was no determination on whether an opinion expressed was individual
>> (often the case) or one by a state (I had specific instructions on FL
>> opinion from our CC). Thus, one individual could negate the opinion of 7,000
>> FL Greens I was sent to represent.
>>
>> This situation was unintentional, but avoidable, and we should take steps to
>> ensure the NC understands the seriousness of the topic.
>>
>> That being said, I reiterate that it is, IMO, impossible to have an
>> individual vote on each proposed change to the platform (which numbered in
>> the HUNDREDS in 2004).
>>
>> Recommendation? How about each state have a designated Platform spokesperson
>> delegate who will attend the platform meetings and provide input. This
>> proposal sucks, but I don't know how else to do it....
>>
>> As for amending the floor rules, I don't have a problem with requiring three
>> states.
>>
>> Gary
>> FL
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>

-- 
   Steve Kramer           ||         scooter (at) guisarme dot net         ||
   _____________________  ===================================================
  |  __/^\__        ,-^,|        "...Into the sea of waking dreams,
  |/~       \_     {  / |              I follow without pride,
              \/\   |!  |        For nothing stands between us here,
                /  / )  |___           and I won't be denied."
               (_  \ \     /
                 ~v^  ?_,-'         Sarah McLachlan, "Possession"