[Pnp-wg] floor rules-Platform

[Greg Gerritt]

I agree we should have a regular vote on the platform.  As Phil pointed out
that means early preparation and a longer convention.  greg

> From: Gary Hecker <hecker@ecoisp.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:19:42 -0500
> To: Jeff Peterson <peterson@lakeland.ws>, NPWG <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] floor rules-Platform
>=20
> I sit on the Platform Committee, and was part of the platform process in
> Milwaukee.
>=20
> 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 f=
rom
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> More importantly, the Platform Committee had identified several issues wh=
ere
> consensus could not be reached by the committee, and input in Milwaukee w=
as
> 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.
>=20
> This situation was unintentional, but avoidable, and we should take steps=
 to
> ensure the NC understands the seriousness of the topic.
>=20
> That being said, I reiterate that it is, IMO, impossible to have an
> individual vote on each proposed change to the platform (which numbered i=
n
> the HUNDREDS in 2004).
>=20
> Recommendation? How about each state have a designated Platform spokesper=
son
> delegate who will attend the platform meetings and provide input. This
> proposal sucks, but I don't know how else to do it....
>=20
> As for amending the floor rules, I don't have a problem with requiring th=
ree
> states.
>=20
> Gary
> FL
>=20
>=20
> On 6/27/05 2:03 PM, "Jeff Peterson" <peterson@lakeland.ws> wrote:
>=20
>> I had intended to go through Owen's floor rule's proposal in it's
>> entirety, pointing out each of the changes he has made from 2004 and
>> adding my comments. This is taking me longer than expected, however, so
>> I'm going to send this along in installments. Please let's continue
>> this discussion.
>>=20
>> Jeff
>> WI
>>=20
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>=20
>> All,
>>=20
>> I appreciate the work Owen has put into his revision of the floor rules
>> and I agree that his work offers a good framework for our discussion. I
>> think it will be helpful for everyone to know exactly where Owen=B9s
>> proposal differs from the floor rules adopted for 2004, which he
>> obviously used as a starting point. I=B9m sure many on this list have
>> already done the comparison, but for those who haven=B9t I offer the
>> below, which includes my own comments.
>>=20
>> 1) Owen=B9s proposal gives convention delegates the authority to =B3amend
>> or modify=B2 the floor rules and also requires their approval by majority
>> vote. In 2004 the floor rules were drafted by a floor rules committee
>> and then adopted by the NCC prior to the convention.
>>=20
>> Comments: I am not opposed to allowing amendments to the floor rules
>> from the delegates as long as such amendments have the backing of at
>> least three state delegations.
>>=20
>> 2) Owen=B9s proposal would, as I read it, allow for platform amendments
>> to be made from the floor after the nominating convention has been
>> officially convened. The rules for 2004 stipulated that amendments
>> would be dealt with at a platform hearing on Friday and that the vote
>> on the floor would be an up or down vote on the entire document. (There
>> was also an option that the Platform Committee could submit certain,
>> presumably controversial, amendments to the convention floor, but there
>> was no requirement that they do so.)
>>=20
>> Comments: I believe the platform revision process is as open and
>> transparent as it can be. All Greens have equal opportunity, if they
>> decide to use it, to influence the platform during the years between
>> revisions. I am extremely leery of allowing delegates to propose
>> platform revisions from the floor. (If that=B9s not what you=B9re
>> recommending, Owen, then you need to use different language.)
>>=20
>> Owen writes: =B3Regardless of the manner in which a platform amendment
>> proposal has been arrived at, each proposed amendment to the present
>> platform shall be individually voted on and adopted if approved by the
>> majority of delegates on a voice vote.
>>=20
>> Owen says each amendment deserves =B3seriatum=B2 consideration, whatever
>> that means. I wouldn=B9t object to having an up or down vote on each
>> amendment that=B9s already gone through the hearing process (presumably
>> the day before the convention), followed by an up or down vote on the
>> platform in its entirety.
>>=20
>> But, other than the fact that it seems to allow any delegate to rise
>> from the floor and propose a brand new platform piece, Owen=B9s proposal
>> would also have us vote on =B3each proposed amendment,=B2 meaning . . .
>> what? The Platform Committee claims to receive hundreds of proposed
>> amendments in each revision cycle. Will they still be allowed to sift
>> and winnow and combine those that are virtually identical, or does
>> Owen's proposal require every submission to be brought to the
>> convention? This needs clarification!
>>=20
>>=20
>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>> multipart/alternative
>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>> text/enriched
>> ---
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg