ok-
so, i've decided to go ahead and post these since people keep talking about them, but don't email me.
i'm going to post as time allows, so bear with me.
brent
CampusActivism.org
Forum for Student and Youth Activists
Conference Call Mintues
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
8/28/02
by brizzent on Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:37 am
have fun
Adam volunteered to be point person for strategic retreat
Unresovled Questions:
How are were going to invite people onto listservs
Audit timeline and what type
More detail on donors
Location and logistics of strategic retreat
CONFERENCE CALL NOTES August, 28 2002
Starting around 9:00?...
Carolyn Danckaert: Whoever facilitates the list should send invitations to them. The list should not be an auto subscription.
Brent Perdue: I think we should talk about this over the listserv because we have 15 minutes left.
CD: We should wrap-up first, since Adam wanted launch tonight so who will be the interim moderates: Southeast: Brent, Northeast: Tracy, West: , Southwest Sekai, Midwest: Adam and Tyler. I will send out moderation instructions.
Tyler Endsley: Next on the agenda is Financial Report. I’ll let Carolyn talk about that one.
CD: The Financial Report was sent out. Its not worth the time to define the findings.
Stacey De-Lin: Back on call
CD: I’ll talk immediate questions.
BP: Carolyn can you send out an audit timeline with people to identify to volunteer.
Tracy Eames: I want to know exactly who gave money, so that we do not double call people. I know everyone is busy, but we need more detail about the donors and reimbursement. I don’t want to call the same people.
CD: an electronic list of donors raises issues of privacy. That info is not usually given to people. I don’t anticipate cross-over, as long as close contact. Meet directly with people the National Office has established relationships with. She would lodge strong concerns about disseminating a donor list.
TE: agrees with Carolyn, at least with the election version. Its not safe. Available to the SC on case-by-case basis. I haven’t seen the report yet. But, it seemed to lack info about contractors like who, what for how much paid. Elaborate an audit or not time?
CD: She followed the 990s to get the structure. I didn’t know exactly the depth. The bulk expenditures correspond to the budget limits. Tried to keep compatible.
Alexis English: I understand the privacy issue, but there is letter mail. She would like to know the donors.
BP: Agrees with eh privacy issue. But, would to see anonymous amounts, like if one person gave $1000 or if 10 gave $100.
CD: what type of audit. Gather not corporate type audit. SC members present and a volunteer?
BP: the later.
TE: Wants to move on. Next on the list is the Strategic Planning Retreat, go around and timeframe and location.
SL: on my school calendar we have off the 11th of November
TEa I go to a private school and I don’t have those days off.
TE: thinks its important to have it done soon or we are killing the first two months of the year. Should we just discuss the location? I heard some people might finance their own trips.
CD: We immediately need the retreat. It provides cohesiveness and focus. Recommends no later than September. Is someone willing to volunteer to bottom-line the retreat. Including hosting duties, like housing free venue, etc would be the easiest way.
TEa: I know last year it was in conjunction with the eco-conference. Can’t bottom-line, but check into her area.
TE: offer time to help organize, but can’t bottom line. Proposes Chicago because its central local, airport, cheap housing.
TEa: We could coordinate checking the books with that.
CD: Chicago is fine. We need a point person rather than left to the last minute and it falling go on the staff shoulders.
Adam Jungk: I can do it. Can be point person, but not bottom-line. Everyone else needs to give a hand.
AE: Like Chi-town because of the big city airport with cheaper and central location.
TE: Doesn’t want to make the proposal.
TEa: I propose the strategic conference e be in Chi-town sometime in September.
CD: Suggest looking into the city a little more before making the decision.
AJ: Agrees with CD about looking into another city.
TEa: IF not decided, make deadline to decide.
TE: Proposing location set by September 9th. Give Carolyn time to search out places and maybe Hartford.
AE: is it necessary to have free housing versus $10 a night.
SD: We need to raise money before the trip, right?
TE: Free housing is preferable because its cheaper.
SD: there’s a youth hostel in Chi-town.
AJ: I think it’s a good idea to raise money before hand. Tyler and I are selling t-shirts to raise money. Doesn’t want to the a requirement. If we do in last week in September, I have already committed to the IMF demos.
CD: raising funds before the retreat is not a requirement. But, its not that challenging to get the money. Lots of money in school.
TE: Moving to outros What are you planning to do with the CGs this week.
SD: I’ll talk with Carolyn and get ideas about materials and fundraising.
AJ: I’ll work on tax status stuff, looking into ideas about the listserv and doing fundraising with Tyler. He knows of potential large donors looking for the financial documents.
TEa: Follow-up with organizing and working on coalition RC. Contact Brent about finances. Fundraising and checking about the conference in Hartford.
AE: Fundraising. Trying to mobilize people to San Fran. Making contacts with peoples in chapters.
Sam Worley-Ekstrom: Going back to school. Working with local CG and beginning to bring them into the national organization. Going to a Minnesota CG regional meeting. Continue discussing of regional structure and help with retreat location.
BP: Build by-law and finance RC. Work on contract stuff.
TE: Continue to sift through regional structure stuff and get propose finished. Continue with Brent about role of Treasurer and get piece about role of sectary and treasurer.
Sekai Maswoswe: Speaking with Lauren Schwartz and CD about fundraising. Writing article for the Houston Chronicle with an intro to the CG.
CD: Talking with everyone. Working on post-convention wrap-up. I mentioned before the convention about Global exchange initiating September 11th peace day and they waned to know our interest. Last SC expressed interest, I’ll find it again and send it. We could send it out to chapters.
SL and AE: Are already working on it locally.
AJ; I noticed people saying things whenever and I encourage people to stick to the stack. Also, Minsky said GPUS doesn’t have foreign policy and one way to help med the relationship with them is by brainstorming about reactions to things in Iraq and the War on Terrorism. He is talking with NYSPC and it is getting ready to roll. The focus is on preventing a war with Iraq. It’s a very winnable campaign, but it doesn’t need to be our main focus. Encourage everyone to get involved.
CD: Last year, there were specific SC point people with NYSPC. Are we going to have people still serve that role.
AJ: Yes. Any member of the SC can be involved. Need to discuss posting of minutes on the website.
Adam volunteered to be point person for strategic retreat
Unresovled Questions:
How are were going to invite people onto listservs
Audit timeline and what type
More detail on donors
Location and logistics of strategic retreat
CONFERENCE CALL NOTES August, 28 2002
Starting around 9:00?...
Carolyn Danckaert: Whoever facilitates the list should send invitations to them. The list should not be an auto subscription.
Brent Perdue: I think we should talk about this over the listserv because we have 15 minutes left.
CD: We should wrap-up first, since Adam wanted launch tonight so who will be the interim moderates: Southeast: Brent, Northeast: Tracy, West: , Southwest Sekai, Midwest: Adam and Tyler. I will send out moderation instructions.
Tyler Endsley: Next on the agenda is Financial Report. I’ll let Carolyn talk about that one.
CD: The Financial Report was sent out. Its not worth the time to define the findings.
Stacey De-Lin: Back on call
CD: I’ll talk immediate questions.
BP: Carolyn can you send out an audit timeline with people to identify to volunteer.
Tracy Eames: I want to know exactly who gave money, so that we do not double call people. I know everyone is busy, but we need more detail about the donors and reimbursement. I don’t want to call the same people.
CD: an electronic list of donors raises issues of privacy. That info is not usually given to people. I don’t anticipate cross-over, as long as close contact. Meet directly with people the National Office has established relationships with. She would lodge strong concerns about disseminating a donor list.
TE: agrees with Carolyn, at least with the election version. Its not safe. Available to the SC on case-by-case basis. I haven’t seen the report yet. But, it seemed to lack info about contractors like who, what for how much paid. Elaborate an audit or not time?
CD: She followed the 990s to get the structure. I didn’t know exactly the depth. The bulk expenditures correspond to the budget limits. Tried to keep compatible.
Alexis English: I understand the privacy issue, but there is letter mail. She would like to know the donors.
BP: Agrees with eh privacy issue. But, would to see anonymous amounts, like if one person gave $1000 or if 10 gave $100.
CD: what type of audit. Gather not corporate type audit. SC members present and a volunteer?
BP: the later.
TE: Wants to move on. Next on the list is the Strategic Planning Retreat, go around and timeframe and location.
SL: on my school calendar we have off the 11th of November
TEa I go to a private school and I don’t have those days off.
TE: thinks its important to have it done soon or we are killing the first two months of the year. Should we just discuss the location? I heard some people might finance their own trips.
CD: We immediately need the retreat. It provides cohesiveness and focus. Recommends no later than September. Is someone willing to volunteer to bottom-line the retreat. Including hosting duties, like housing free venue, etc would be the easiest way.
TEa: I know last year it was in conjunction with the eco-conference. Can’t bottom-line, but check into her area.
TE: offer time to help organize, but can’t bottom line. Proposes Chicago because its central local, airport, cheap housing.
TEa: We could coordinate checking the books with that.
CD: Chicago is fine. We need a point person rather than left to the last minute and it falling go on the staff shoulders.
Adam Jungk: I can do it. Can be point person, but not bottom-line. Everyone else needs to give a hand.
AE: Like Chi-town because of the big city airport with cheaper and central location.
TE: Doesn’t want to make the proposal.
TEa: I propose the strategic conference e be in Chi-town sometime in September.
CD: Suggest looking into the city a little more before making the decision.
AJ: Agrees with CD about looking into another city.
TEa: IF not decided, make deadline to decide.
TE: Proposing location set by September 9th. Give Carolyn time to search out places and maybe Hartford.
AE: is it necessary to have free housing versus $10 a night.
SD: We need to raise money before the trip, right?
TE: Free housing is preferable because its cheaper.
SD: there’s a youth hostel in Chi-town.
AJ: I think it’s a good idea to raise money before hand. Tyler and I are selling t-shirts to raise money. Doesn’t want to the a requirement. If we do in last week in September, I have already committed to the IMF demos.
CD: raising funds before the retreat is not a requirement. But, its not that challenging to get the money. Lots of money in school.
TE: Moving to outros What are you planning to do with the CGs this week.
SD: I’ll talk with Carolyn and get ideas about materials and fundraising.
AJ: I’ll work on tax status stuff, looking into ideas about the listserv and doing fundraising with Tyler. He knows of potential large donors looking for the financial documents.
TEa: Follow-up with organizing and working on coalition RC. Contact Brent about finances. Fundraising and checking about the conference in Hartford.
AE: Fundraising. Trying to mobilize people to San Fran. Making contacts with peoples in chapters.
Sam Worley-Ekstrom: Going back to school. Working with local CG and beginning to bring them into the national organization. Going to a Minnesota CG regional meeting. Continue discussing of regional structure and help with retreat location.
BP: Build by-law and finance RC. Work on contract stuff.
TE: Continue to sift through regional structure stuff and get propose finished. Continue with Brent about role of Treasurer and get piece about role of sectary and treasurer.
Sekai Maswoswe: Speaking with Lauren Schwartz and CD about fundraising. Writing article for the Houston Chronicle with an intro to the CG.
CD: Talking with everyone. Working on post-convention wrap-up. I mentioned before the convention about Global exchange initiating September 11th peace day and they waned to know our interest. Last SC expressed interest, I’ll find it again and send it. We could send it out to chapters.
SL and AE: Are already working on it locally.
AJ; I noticed people saying things whenever and I encourage people to stick to the stack. Also, Minsky said GPUS doesn’t have foreign policy and one way to help med the relationship with them is by brainstorming about reactions to things in Iraq and the War on Terrorism. He is talking with NYSPC and it is getting ready to roll. The focus is on preventing a war with Iraq. It’s a very winnable campaign, but it doesn’t need to be our main focus. Encourage everyone to get involved.
CD: Last year, there were specific SC point people with NYSPC. Are we going to have people still serve that role.
AJ: Yes. Any member of the SC can be involved. Need to discuss posting of minutes on the website.
- brizzent
10/2/02
by brizzent on Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:39 am
2002-2003 CG SC 10/2 Conference Call
Attending: Brent, Carolyn, Mary, Matt, Sam (facilitator), Sekai, Stacey, Tracey, Tyler
Absent: Adam, Alexis
DECISIONS
• Leonard Minsky empowered to fundraise with stipulation that he will speak with Carolyn
• Approved voting procedures
IMPORTANT STUFF
• Need packet for inviting advisors to councils
• Need better plans for getting together at big marches
• Need agenda for strategic retreat
• Need facilitators for strategic retreat
• Encourage people to apply for SC
Check-In
Sam: What are you chapters doing for the anti-war actions?
Tracey: Working with local Greens to block traffic
Tyler: Banner drop, rally
Stacey: Speaker, open mike, music
Brent: Rally, teach-in
Mary: Debate
Sekai: Got the 4th Freedom Grant. Walkout, teach-in
Carolyn: Everybody should send in your action to put together. Working on a list of 25 ways to stop the war.
Sam: rally with gubernatorial candidates
Approval of 9/25 CG SC Conference Call Minutes
Sam: questions? Blocking concerns?
Invitation of Carl Davidson and Leonard Minsky onto Council of Advisors
Ty: wants to expand the number of advisors. We should send more ideas on list. They provide value insight to organization and Education Under Attack campaign. Wants to approve the invitation.
Ca: Concur with expanding. Councils are underutilized, particularly the advisory council. Raising point of sequential process, we don’t have any written document about expectations, privileges and responsibilities of councils. Ran into these questions before when talking about the councils, like what does it mean, expectations, fundraising, required meetings. Should draft a document that has that info, maybe a packet. Its ok if that puts this invitation back a few weeks. Some organizations have similar councils that we could look at.
Ty: Agrees with concrete vision. Feels like these two particular candidates are familiar with the CGs. In particular, Minsky offered to assist with fundraising and wants empowerment by the SC to do so. We must be low on money if we can’t call about actions, therefore we can’t afford packets. One way to avoid is get Minsky to fundraise.
Br: Concurs with Ty.
Ca: fundraising needs to be clear. Minsky could do whether or not he was on a council. He needs to be in close coordination to make sure we don’t overlap. Doesn’t imagine if he comes on a council he will immediately make fundraising a priority. Calling cards for actions would take us over budget. This is difficult to do after the fact.
Se: Asks someone who is familiar with the relationship with these people to give some background. An SC function is to lay a good groundwork for future SC, like material development. Its easy to by-pass material development for quick decisions. Bad if we don’t have anything on paper.
Tr: Need these people involved. Agrees with getting stuff on paper. Get a proposition with a deadline of Friday or Saturday. Shouldn’t refuse the generous offer of Minsky.
Ty: Minsky can make fundraising a priority. Would like to let Minsky know he is empowered to fundraise. Can Carolyn give a background on Minsky.
Ca: need protocol for nominations of advisors. Minsky can fundraise, but he and Carolyn need to communication to prevent cross-over. Minsky was the former head of the National Coalition of Universities in Public Interest, which is now defunct. Foremost expert in the corporitization of education. Connected to Nader family of groups. Policy and litigation guy, not organizer. Had one document written by Nader and interns, which was a guide to researching corporations in education and passed it on. There was some confusion about how to incorporate it and the extent of content. Trying to contact about that, its needed to work out for the campaign. He is difficult to get a hold of.
Ty: He can contact Minsky easily. He hasn’t expressed any concerns to him about the campaing since the convention. Iraq is time sensitive and he wants to fundraising about that action. Unprofessional to wait to fundraise until money is needed.
Br: Warns against bogging down in policies and protocol.
Ca: Wants Minsky to fundraise with stipulation that they converse, about things like tax status.
Ty: Proposal: Minsky can fundraise with that stipulation.
Sa: Blocks?
Ca: Important that they talk, should add as a stipulation. Can Tyler arrangement a conversation.
Ty: He will see what he can do to get Minsky to call Carolyn. Wants him to be able to fundraise.
Ma: Back on. What’s going on?
DC Update
Ty: Second time we tried to form a CG contingent. There is a problem with hooking-up. Need more concrete plan. There were 10-20 members—too small, not much impact.
Br: A Food Not Bombs guy had a CG shirt on.
Voting Procedures
Se: Concerns expressed have been addressed. If there are no more blocking concerns, we should move on.
Ma: Confused about the classification between informal and formal voting. Seems that anything could be informal, even really important stuff.
Se: Formal requires deliberation. Informal facilitates moving ahead.
Ma: Seems if import, informal leaves too much leeway within 24 hours.
Ty: Things that are proposed on a conference call and tabled can taken care on informally. Regardless, of voting procedures anything can be pushed to a vote. Something that drastic won’t take place until next convention.
Ma: Thought informal could be put on email as is.
Se: Can be put on email, but primarily for tabled conference call items. If need vote immediately we can put on email.
Ty: Pass if possible. What Sekai laid out and what’s in the by-laws is clear enough. As evidenced by the United for Peace decisions, sometimes thing need to be acted on quickly. Proposal: Approve Sekai’s voting procedure document.
Ma: So, the distinction lies in the mind of the person who makes the proposal.
Se” Presumably, people will know the distinction. And people should check there email once a day.
Sa: Comments?
Se: Blocks?
Ca: should add abstentions.
Sa: Blocks or abstentions?
Anti-War
Sa: Where are we at?
Tr: Got an email from a Green in Maine about filibuster by Senator Byrd. Everyone should call them tomorrow. Forwarded and should forward on.
Ty: Wondering if Matt or Carolyn could give a run-down from response of chapters to mobilization call? His chapter got the 4th Freedom grant.
Ma: Pretty good response. Wants report backs from chapters. Global Exchange is doing a good job of getting national media. Confident the word is out. Not aware of any other groups that got the grant.
Ty: hasn’t notice CG name of the coalition material, what’s up?
Ca: in the United for peace campus section the main piece is the call to action with our name.
Ma: Sent email about getting CG name on the home page. Chris says we should be on it in a couple days.
Ca: Doesn’t think they have updated the website in awhile.
Ma: Resource packet with different things from each group: Global Exchange tool kit, CG 25 ways to stop the war.
Ca: We have the grassroots going. One of the role of the SC is to put out organizational statements. Former SC only put out 2-3. give chapters the idea that the SC is thinking about this stuff and can be used for press releases. Should put one out about the First Monday stuff.
Ty: Something was being written about the state of the world one year later. Anyone interested in writing an initial draft?
Sa: Was going to write state of the world, but didn’t. willing to write Iraq one next week, but not tomorrow.
Ca: In the terms of policy, statements are a primary function of the SC, often have subcommittees and ongoing.
Ma: What are we asking for? No to unilateral war.
St: Can do some writing.
Br: Can you bottom-line a subcommittee.
Ca: Paul was on the research committee. Wrote something to jump start it. Should get some other CGs to write statements.
Ty: Do we still have the contact for William Justice.
Ca: Can try to get it.
Br: Stacey, can you write the statement and think about bottom lining it.
St: Will write one this weekend.
Br: prioritize Education Under Attack on the next call and move on.
SC Application
Ty: It went out on the chapter-announce list and Matt said it would go out on the digest. How was it received.
Ca: Next digest is going out tomorrow.
Ty: Wondering if people been encouraging people to apply. We were lacking applicants at the convention and need to encourage.
St: Yes
Br: Yes
Ty: should try for geographic diversity. Encouraging outside city and state?
Br: Was encouraged by Karla and was the reason applied.
Strategic Retreat
St: Am I facilitating for the event?
Br: No, you need to participate, we will have professionals. You are facilitating the next call.
Ca: Need outside facilitation. Need someone to bottom-line the construction of the agenda now. Someone she knows might come to NY.
Ma: Reaching out to people in NYC. Talked to Corey Eastwood about facilitation, he is working on it. Alexis, asked when we are planning on everyone getting there?
Ty: Trying to find a facilitator. Carolyn could pas on your contacts? Trying to come up with ideas about an agenda and need someone to bounce off ideas. Ideally, Friday night best for people to arrive.
Br: Everyone needs to fundraise for this.
Tr: Email her you flight time and she will pick you up.
Ca: If at LaGuardia could take the subway.
Ma: My dad will pick you up as well.
Ca: Friday night is best. Saturday we would loose half a day. Friend, Rachel, who facilitated last year, ICA, could lay out key Qs.
Ty: Carolyn, can you send me her name and email. Can we have last year’s strategy retreat plans?
Ca: Sure. Do we need a new strategic plan or revisit last year’s?
Ty: You can send Rachel’s contact?
Ca: Yes
Check Out:
Good call. Good facilitation. Carolyn recommended more go-arounds.
Attending: Brent, Carolyn, Mary, Matt, Sam (facilitator), Sekai, Stacey, Tracey, Tyler
Absent: Adam, Alexis
DECISIONS
• Leonard Minsky empowered to fundraise with stipulation that he will speak with Carolyn
• Approved voting procedures
IMPORTANT STUFF
• Need packet for inviting advisors to councils
• Need better plans for getting together at big marches
• Need agenda for strategic retreat
• Need facilitators for strategic retreat
• Encourage people to apply for SC
Check-In
Sam: What are you chapters doing for the anti-war actions?
Tracey: Working with local Greens to block traffic
Tyler: Banner drop, rally
Stacey: Speaker, open mike, music
Brent: Rally, teach-in
Mary: Debate
Sekai: Got the 4th Freedom Grant. Walkout, teach-in
Carolyn: Everybody should send in your action to put together. Working on a list of 25 ways to stop the war.
Sam: rally with gubernatorial candidates
Approval of 9/25 CG SC Conference Call Minutes
Sam: questions? Blocking concerns?
Invitation of Carl Davidson and Leonard Minsky onto Council of Advisors
Ty: wants to expand the number of advisors. We should send more ideas on list. They provide value insight to organization and Education Under Attack campaign. Wants to approve the invitation.
Ca: Concur with expanding. Councils are underutilized, particularly the advisory council. Raising point of sequential process, we don’t have any written document about expectations, privileges and responsibilities of councils. Ran into these questions before when talking about the councils, like what does it mean, expectations, fundraising, required meetings. Should draft a document that has that info, maybe a packet. Its ok if that puts this invitation back a few weeks. Some organizations have similar councils that we could look at.
Ty: Agrees with concrete vision. Feels like these two particular candidates are familiar with the CGs. In particular, Minsky offered to assist with fundraising and wants empowerment by the SC to do so. We must be low on money if we can’t call about actions, therefore we can’t afford packets. One way to avoid is get Minsky to fundraise.
Br: Concurs with Ty.
Ca: fundraising needs to be clear. Minsky could do whether or not he was on a council. He needs to be in close coordination to make sure we don’t overlap. Doesn’t imagine if he comes on a council he will immediately make fundraising a priority. Calling cards for actions would take us over budget. This is difficult to do after the fact.
Se: Asks someone who is familiar with the relationship with these people to give some background. An SC function is to lay a good groundwork for future SC, like material development. Its easy to by-pass material development for quick decisions. Bad if we don’t have anything on paper.
Tr: Need these people involved. Agrees with getting stuff on paper. Get a proposition with a deadline of Friday or Saturday. Shouldn’t refuse the generous offer of Minsky.
Ty: Minsky can make fundraising a priority. Would like to let Minsky know he is empowered to fundraise. Can Carolyn give a background on Minsky.
Ca: need protocol for nominations of advisors. Minsky can fundraise, but he and Carolyn need to communication to prevent cross-over. Minsky was the former head of the National Coalition of Universities in Public Interest, which is now defunct. Foremost expert in the corporitization of education. Connected to Nader family of groups. Policy and litigation guy, not organizer. Had one document written by Nader and interns, which was a guide to researching corporations in education and passed it on. There was some confusion about how to incorporate it and the extent of content. Trying to contact about that, its needed to work out for the campaign. He is difficult to get a hold of.
Ty: He can contact Minsky easily. He hasn’t expressed any concerns to him about the campaing since the convention. Iraq is time sensitive and he wants to fundraising about that action. Unprofessional to wait to fundraise until money is needed.
Br: Warns against bogging down in policies and protocol.
Ca: Wants Minsky to fundraise with stipulation that they converse, about things like tax status.
Ty: Proposal: Minsky can fundraise with that stipulation.
Sa: Blocks?
Ca: Important that they talk, should add as a stipulation. Can Tyler arrangement a conversation.
Ty: He will see what he can do to get Minsky to call Carolyn. Wants him to be able to fundraise.
Ma: Back on. What’s going on?
DC Update
Ty: Second time we tried to form a CG contingent. There is a problem with hooking-up. Need more concrete plan. There were 10-20 members—too small, not much impact.
Br: A Food Not Bombs guy had a CG shirt on.
Voting Procedures
Se: Concerns expressed have been addressed. If there are no more blocking concerns, we should move on.
Ma: Confused about the classification between informal and formal voting. Seems that anything could be informal, even really important stuff.
Se: Formal requires deliberation. Informal facilitates moving ahead.
Ma: Seems if import, informal leaves too much leeway within 24 hours.
Ty: Things that are proposed on a conference call and tabled can taken care on informally. Regardless, of voting procedures anything can be pushed to a vote. Something that drastic won’t take place until next convention.
Ma: Thought informal could be put on email as is.
Se: Can be put on email, but primarily for tabled conference call items. If need vote immediately we can put on email.
Ty: Pass if possible. What Sekai laid out and what’s in the by-laws is clear enough. As evidenced by the United for Peace decisions, sometimes thing need to be acted on quickly. Proposal: Approve Sekai’s voting procedure document.
Ma: So, the distinction lies in the mind of the person who makes the proposal.
Se” Presumably, people will know the distinction. And people should check there email once a day.
Sa: Comments?
Se: Blocks?
Ca: should add abstentions.
Sa: Blocks or abstentions?
Anti-War
Sa: Where are we at?
Tr: Got an email from a Green in Maine about filibuster by Senator Byrd. Everyone should call them tomorrow. Forwarded and should forward on.
Ty: Wondering if Matt or Carolyn could give a run-down from response of chapters to mobilization call? His chapter got the 4th Freedom grant.
Ma: Pretty good response. Wants report backs from chapters. Global Exchange is doing a good job of getting national media. Confident the word is out. Not aware of any other groups that got the grant.
Ty: hasn’t notice CG name of the coalition material, what’s up?
Ca: in the United for peace campus section the main piece is the call to action with our name.
Ma: Sent email about getting CG name on the home page. Chris says we should be on it in a couple days.
Ca: Doesn’t think they have updated the website in awhile.
Ma: Resource packet with different things from each group: Global Exchange tool kit, CG 25 ways to stop the war.
Ca: We have the grassroots going. One of the role of the SC is to put out organizational statements. Former SC only put out 2-3. give chapters the idea that the SC is thinking about this stuff and can be used for press releases. Should put one out about the First Monday stuff.
Ty: Something was being written about the state of the world one year later. Anyone interested in writing an initial draft?
Sa: Was going to write state of the world, but didn’t. willing to write Iraq one next week, but not tomorrow.
Ca: In the terms of policy, statements are a primary function of the SC, often have subcommittees and ongoing.
Ma: What are we asking for? No to unilateral war.
St: Can do some writing.
Br: Can you bottom-line a subcommittee.
Ca: Paul was on the research committee. Wrote something to jump start it. Should get some other CGs to write statements.
Ty: Do we still have the contact for William Justice.
Ca: Can try to get it.
Br: Stacey, can you write the statement and think about bottom lining it.
St: Will write one this weekend.
Br: prioritize Education Under Attack on the next call and move on.
SC Application
Ty: It went out on the chapter-announce list and Matt said it would go out on the digest. How was it received.
Ca: Next digest is going out tomorrow.
Ty: Wondering if people been encouraging people to apply. We were lacking applicants at the convention and need to encourage.
St: Yes
Br: Yes
Ty: should try for geographic diversity. Encouraging outside city and state?
Br: Was encouraged by Karla and was the reason applied.
Strategic Retreat
St: Am I facilitating for the event?
Br: No, you need to participate, we will have professionals. You are facilitating the next call.
Ca: Need outside facilitation. Need someone to bottom-line the construction of the agenda now. Someone she knows might come to NY.
Ma: Reaching out to people in NYC. Talked to Corey Eastwood about facilitation, he is working on it. Alexis, asked when we are planning on everyone getting there?
Ty: Trying to find a facilitator. Carolyn could pas on your contacts? Trying to come up with ideas about an agenda and need someone to bounce off ideas. Ideally, Friday night best for people to arrive.
Br: Everyone needs to fundraise for this.
Tr: Email her you flight time and she will pick you up.
Ca: If at LaGuardia could take the subway.
Ma: My dad will pick you up as well.
Ca: Friday night is best. Saturday we would loose half a day. Friend, Rachel, who facilitated last year, ICA, could lay out key Qs.
Ty: Carolyn, can you send me her name and email. Can we have last year’s strategy retreat plans?
Ca: Sure. Do we need a new strategic plan or revisit last year’s?
Ty: You can send Rachel’s contact?
Ca: Yes
Check Out:
Good call. Good facilitation. Carolyn recommended more go-arounds.
- brizzent
10/16/02
by brizzent on Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:41 am
2002-2003 SC CONFERENCE CALL 10/16
Attending: Adam, Alexis, Brent, Carolyn, Mary, Sam, Sekai, Stacey, Tyler
Facilitating: Adam
Office Update
Carolyn: Busy with field stuff. Matt was out. Rate of chapters wanting to start is immense. September had 50, October has 31 so far, about 2 a day. Sent out newsletter. Working with Matt to wrap-up. Updating website, particularly Iraq. Getting stuff for interns. Sent fundraising mailer last week to prospective big donors. Inquires about chapters at big protest on the 26th in DC and San Fran, are we endorsing? Working out retreat stuff.
Alexis: how much money do we have?
Carolyn: $4500
Block of New SC Vote
Adam: sent email about why blocked.
Stacey: curious about your reasons
Adam: not about whether Matt qualified. This process is the only time the word unamous is used. Probably disregarding the by-laws unintentionally.
Sam: ideas about how to move forward?
Adam: no
Stacey: regarding all matters (reading from the by-laws) that seek consensus and then vote. Need to do something, vote is one way. Block for concern, but can’t block a vote.
Adam: consensus model everywhere else, but not here. It needs the backing of the entire SC. It only had five members, this is the first time that happened.
Carolyn: not sure if that’s true. Competitive for two positions, tyler’s and brent’s. don’t remember details, not this split, but not unanimous.
Adam: thought tyler was unanimous, can’t remember brent’s
Tyler: brent’s spot wasn’t consensus. Who applied was, but it took a long time. Consensus was achieved.
Adam: Tyler was the only candidate at the end
Sekai: just came on the call. Wondering where we were at?
Proposal: take vote about interpretation of the by-laws.
Adam: go around about views
Sekai: ask for by-laws to be read
Carolyn: reads the by-laws. Article IV Section 8 and Article IV Section 9 and subsection 9a.
Alexis: thought special clause for application of new SC?
Carolyn: she read it—IV 8. understands 9a applies to 8. phrase proposal specifically to say ya or nay instead of feelings.
Alexis: prefers to hear what everyone is thinking.
Sekai: PROPOSAL: if you believe the election of a new SC member requires unanimity vote ya or nay.
Alexis: Y
Adam: Y
Brent: Y
Mary: Y
Sam: N
Sekai: Y
Stacey: N
Tyler: Y
6 yas, 2 nays
Sekai: use majority vote to preserve democratic process. If blocking concern it is diminutive to say so.
Adam: Clarify?
Sekai: people think need unanimity, but we should strike it.
Tyler: Thinks Sekai means, if anyone opposed to Matt speak up and waive right to block.
Sekai: yes
Adam: same position as before. Wording is unanimous and SC agrees unanimous. Are you asking for another vote.
Sekai: adam, did you go over concerns? Process or Matt?
Adam: process
Sekai: resolve processes by resolving candidate. How unanimous if not talking about candidate.
Alexis: not concern about matt, but process. One applicant had a detailed personally account and the other just an application. Uneven playing field, tom put in an unfair disadvantage.
Sekai: most people had the opportunity to meet Matt so balance evened out.
Adam: doesn’t what to disregard by-laws. Personally account about tom not favorable and when you meet someone its not negative.
Alexis: meeting someone is different than a personal account. Bias would influence the description.
Sekai: appreciates the comments. Noting to do about it, unless take more candidates. Nee to move ahead. Hearing no one ahs concerns about matt being on the SC then put him on.
Adam: doesn’t think matt would be bad. Concerned with Tom because of the split. Not following by-laws and might increase the division on the SC.
Stacey: find out what unanimous means. Question about who we think would be best or if unanimity means a majority of votes.
Alexis: willing to support matt, not block. Hope in future that we have it untainted with just applications and no personal accounts.
Tyler: couple options- 1) appoint matt 2) open up the application process 3) vote again. Agree with Alexis about the vote being tainted. Concerns about Tom where not about his experience, but about created a division with staff and the SC. Came from one personal account and to let it go unchallenged is unfair. Is Carolyn ok with forwarding Carolyn’s email to Tom and let Tom respond.
Carolyn: doesn’t have a problem with Tom seeing it. Thought important that the SC know the candidates prior relationship with the organization, like taking a position and leaving. Might talk to Tom about it.
Sam; move to accept matt and ask for blocks.
Adam: block because wants to discuss
Sam: understands from last week was we would vote, expecting non-unanimity, and most votes for candidate would win, unless blo0cks about qualifications.
Adam: 5-4 Matt. 6-2 unanimous. Doesn’t see how say majority voted this way and disregard the other vote. Like to hear Tom’s response. Not just about prior relationship with organization because would of included founding the organization. People knew at the convention the relationship of two-term SC candidates with staff and still voted for them.
Alexis: matt Hancock left the SC, but would we not vote for matt because of that. Like to see tom response.
Carolyn: don’t think said Tom left because taking another job. Left because he wanted absolute authority with exception of the Board. Reason bought up Tom’s case because not raised in his application. Tom talked enough about his prior relationship with the organization. What Sam was raising was important and didn’t receive a response. Sam said a clear process was agreed to and people had ample time to raise concerns, but were not raised.
Adam: there have been times when the SC has made decisions and realized later that they were disregarding the by-laws.
MARY TOOK NOTES HERE
Tyler: understands Stacey. Important to have input from staff. Feel not unbiased info. Directly impacted the 10th person. Can’t allow staff to fundamentally change votes. When look at applications, tom lead in experience. Maybe other reasons for voting for matt.
Brent: agrees with Tyler and Adam
Carolyn: under the impression that we would discuss on the list. Hoped people would put out opinions and take with a gain of salt. Adam wrote position about tom. Hearing a viewpoint leveled toward Tom that was negative is said to be unbalanced.
Adam: if a voting member had concerns, Carolyn not a voting member, but put forward more power. Knows of some non-profits where the Director chooses the Board to get things done.
Stacey: resents the implication that Carolyn said something and she decided just because of that. Thinks matt is the best candidates. Feels like we are running in circles.
Adam: You said you would never vote for Tom because of relations with staff. This call has solidified that this vote was tainted. People aren’t going to recall votes.
Tyler: PROPOSAL: Take another vote by midnight tomorrow and majority rules.
Otherwise new search will look unprofessional and we will have to eliminate two qualified candidates.
AdaM; Block
Sam: Block. Doesn’t see anything different from now and when last was taken.
Adam: Agrees with Sam. Vote tainted, no one is changing their vote
Sekai: Adam your aren’t just blocking the vote, you are stonewalling. Your giving us no options. People have to yield in groups. Need something tangible.
Adam: rather open it up
Tyler: Felt the vote would move us ahead. Need a 10th at the retreat. Even if vote doesn’t change it gives closure.
Sekai: suggest to have majority rule and by-pass unanimous?
Tyler: yes
Sam: open up whole application process?
Adam: yes
Sam: not a good idea. Said we didn’t want to extend last-time.
Adam: this process was bullshit. Thinks the revote will not change. Steps aside. Thinks by-passing the by-laws.
Alexis: doesn’t appreciate the stonewall because it implies belligerence. By-passing is a shame. Vote unprofessional before now and feel comfy opening up application again.
Sekai: Alexis, relax. Just imploring Adam to give options.
Alexis; still doesn’t appreciate.
Tyler: Brent suggested a vibes watcher and thinks it would be a good idea.
Mary: agrees
Stacey: Adam abstains. Echos Tyler’s proposal to vote tomorrow and accept. Ask for blocking concerns for voting tomorrow by 12:00.
Sam: not block, but bad to post pone.
Tyler: volunteer for vibes watcher.
Mary: question about the proposal. Would vote need to be unanimous consensus, don’t want to same predicament.
Tyler: restates original proposal- new vote will accept will of the majority.
Adam: Stacey proposal, any blocks?
NONE. PASSES.
Stacey: Tracey will you be able to let Mary know.
Tracey: yes
Sam: abstains from vote
Alexis: abstains from vote
Adam: abstains from vote
Brent: travel prepaid and then reimburse. Vibe watching.
Carolyn: not problem about spotting. Have to go on credit card, don’t have business credit card.
Brent: put things on credit card in the past. We need a credit card.
Carolyn: true. Denied on credit card, working on debit. In past never had people fundraising locally. Need to talk about transparent process, the money should be recorded. If keep and reimburse, send receipt for ticket to make sure no on is keeping the money.
Brent: will send
Carolyn; email receipt for the ticket.
Tyler: Raised $240, the ticket is more than that. Wondering if should just email and if someone to pay on a credit card and then reimburse them.
Carolyn: complicated math.
Sam: mar, wondering if could stay at your house ill Monday
Mary: cool
Carolyn: 1) if stay till Monday it cuts price down
2) if haven’t gotten ticket it will go up tomorrow.
Adam: is Amtrak near.
Mary: penn station and train goes to the house. Tracey didn’t know about transportation, there are subways and buses.
Attending: Adam, Alexis, Brent, Carolyn, Mary, Sam, Sekai, Stacey, Tyler
Facilitating: Adam
Office Update
Carolyn: Busy with field stuff. Matt was out. Rate of chapters wanting to start is immense. September had 50, October has 31 so far, about 2 a day. Sent out newsletter. Working with Matt to wrap-up. Updating website, particularly Iraq. Getting stuff for interns. Sent fundraising mailer last week to prospective big donors. Inquires about chapters at big protest on the 26th in DC and San Fran, are we endorsing? Working out retreat stuff.
Alexis: how much money do we have?
Carolyn: $4500
Block of New SC Vote
Adam: sent email about why blocked.
Stacey: curious about your reasons
Adam: not about whether Matt qualified. This process is the only time the word unamous is used. Probably disregarding the by-laws unintentionally.
Sam: ideas about how to move forward?
Adam: no
Stacey: regarding all matters (reading from the by-laws) that seek consensus and then vote. Need to do something, vote is one way. Block for concern, but can’t block a vote.
Adam: consensus model everywhere else, but not here. It needs the backing of the entire SC. It only had five members, this is the first time that happened.
Carolyn: not sure if that’s true. Competitive for two positions, tyler’s and brent’s. don’t remember details, not this split, but not unanimous.
Adam: thought tyler was unanimous, can’t remember brent’s
Tyler: brent’s spot wasn’t consensus. Who applied was, but it took a long time. Consensus was achieved.
Adam: Tyler was the only candidate at the end
Sekai: just came on the call. Wondering where we were at?
Proposal: take vote about interpretation of the by-laws.
Adam: go around about views
Sekai: ask for by-laws to be read
Carolyn: reads the by-laws. Article IV Section 8 and Article IV Section 9 and subsection 9a.
Alexis: thought special clause for application of new SC?
Carolyn: she read it—IV 8. understands 9a applies to 8. phrase proposal specifically to say ya or nay instead of feelings.
Alexis: prefers to hear what everyone is thinking.
Sekai: PROPOSAL: if you believe the election of a new SC member requires unanimity vote ya or nay.
Alexis: Y
Adam: Y
Brent: Y
Mary: Y
Sam: N
Sekai: Y
Stacey: N
Tyler: Y
6 yas, 2 nays
Sekai: use majority vote to preserve democratic process. If blocking concern it is diminutive to say so.
Adam: Clarify?
Sekai: people think need unanimity, but we should strike it.
Tyler: Thinks Sekai means, if anyone opposed to Matt speak up and waive right to block.
Sekai: yes
Adam: same position as before. Wording is unanimous and SC agrees unanimous. Are you asking for another vote.
Sekai: adam, did you go over concerns? Process or Matt?
Adam: process
Sekai: resolve processes by resolving candidate. How unanimous if not talking about candidate.
Alexis: not concern about matt, but process. One applicant had a detailed personally account and the other just an application. Uneven playing field, tom put in an unfair disadvantage.
Sekai: most people had the opportunity to meet Matt so balance evened out.
Adam: doesn’t what to disregard by-laws. Personally account about tom not favorable and when you meet someone its not negative.
Alexis: meeting someone is different than a personal account. Bias would influence the description.
Sekai: appreciates the comments. Noting to do about it, unless take more candidates. Nee to move ahead. Hearing no one ahs concerns about matt being on the SC then put him on.
Adam: doesn’t think matt would be bad. Concerned with Tom because of the split. Not following by-laws and might increase the division on the SC.
Stacey: find out what unanimous means. Question about who we think would be best or if unanimity means a majority of votes.
Alexis: willing to support matt, not block. Hope in future that we have it untainted with just applications and no personal accounts.
Tyler: couple options- 1) appoint matt 2) open up the application process 3) vote again. Agree with Alexis about the vote being tainted. Concerns about Tom where not about his experience, but about created a division with staff and the SC. Came from one personal account and to let it go unchallenged is unfair. Is Carolyn ok with forwarding Carolyn’s email to Tom and let Tom respond.
Carolyn: doesn’t have a problem with Tom seeing it. Thought important that the SC know the candidates prior relationship with the organization, like taking a position and leaving. Might talk to Tom about it.
Sam; move to accept matt and ask for blocks.
Adam: block because wants to discuss
Sam: understands from last week was we would vote, expecting non-unanimity, and most votes for candidate would win, unless blo0cks about qualifications.
Adam: 5-4 Matt. 6-2 unanimous. Doesn’t see how say majority voted this way and disregard the other vote. Like to hear Tom’s response. Not just about prior relationship with organization because would of included founding the organization. People knew at the convention the relationship of two-term SC candidates with staff and still voted for them.
Alexis: matt Hancock left the SC, but would we not vote for matt because of that. Like to see tom response.
Carolyn: don’t think said Tom left because taking another job. Left because he wanted absolute authority with exception of the Board. Reason bought up Tom’s case because not raised in his application. Tom talked enough about his prior relationship with the organization. What Sam was raising was important and didn’t receive a response. Sam said a clear process was agreed to and people had ample time to raise concerns, but were not raised.
Adam: there have been times when the SC has made decisions and realized later that they were disregarding the by-laws.
MARY TOOK NOTES HERE
Tyler: understands Stacey. Important to have input from staff. Feel not unbiased info. Directly impacted the 10th person. Can’t allow staff to fundamentally change votes. When look at applications, tom lead in experience. Maybe other reasons for voting for matt.
Brent: agrees with Tyler and Adam
Carolyn: under the impression that we would discuss on the list. Hoped people would put out opinions and take with a gain of salt. Adam wrote position about tom. Hearing a viewpoint leveled toward Tom that was negative is said to be unbalanced.
Adam: if a voting member had concerns, Carolyn not a voting member, but put forward more power. Knows of some non-profits where the Director chooses the Board to get things done.
Stacey: resents the implication that Carolyn said something and she decided just because of that. Thinks matt is the best candidates. Feels like we are running in circles.
Adam: You said you would never vote for Tom because of relations with staff. This call has solidified that this vote was tainted. People aren’t going to recall votes.
Tyler: PROPOSAL: Take another vote by midnight tomorrow and majority rules.
Otherwise new search will look unprofessional and we will have to eliminate two qualified candidates.
AdaM; Block
Sam: Block. Doesn’t see anything different from now and when last was taken.
Adam: Agrees with Sam. Vote tainted, no one is changing their vote
Sekai: Adam your aren’t just blocking the vote, you are stonewalling. Your giving us no options. People have to yield in groups. Need something tangible.
Adam: rather open it up
Tyler: Felt the vote would move us ahead. Need a 10th at the retreat. Even if vote doesn’t change it gives closure.
Sekai: suggest to have majority rule and by-pass unanimous?
Tyler: yes
Sam: open up whole application process?
Adam: yes
Sam: not a good idea. Said we didn’t want to extend last-time.
Adam: this process was bullshit. Thinks the revote will not change. Steps aside. Thinks by-passing the by-laws.
Alexis: doesn’t appreciate the stonewall because it implies belligerence. By-passing is a shame. Vote unprofessional before now and feel comfy opening up application again.
Sekai: Alexis, relax. Just imploring Adam to give options.
Alexis; still doesn’t appreciate.
Tyler: Brent suggested a vibes watcher and thinks it would be a good idea.
Mary: agrees
Stacey: Adam abstains. Echos Tyler’s proposal to vote tomorrow and accept. Ask for blocking concerns for voting tomorrow by 12:00.
Sam: not block, but bad to post pone.
Tyler: volunteer for vibes watcher.
Mary: question about the proposal. Would vote need to be unanimous consensus, don’t want to same predicament.
Tyler: restates original proposal- new vote will accept will of the majority.
Adam: Stacey proposal, any blocks?
NONE. PASSES.
Stacey: Tracey will you be able to let Mary know.
Tracey: yes
Sam: abstains from vote
Alexis: abstains from vote
Adam: abstains from vote
Brent: travel prepaid and then reimburse. Vibe watching.
Carolyn: not problem about spotting. Have to go on credit card, don’t have business credit card.
Brent: put things on credit card in the past. We need a credit card.
Carolyn: true. Denied on credit card, working on debit. In past never had people fundraising locally. Need to talk about transparent process, the money should be recorded. If keep and reimburse, send receipt for ticket to make sure no on is keeping the money.
Brent: will send
Carolyn; email receipt for the ticket.
Tyler: Raised $240, the ticket is more than that. Wondering if should just email and if someone to pay on a credit card and then reimburse them.
Carolyn: complicated math.
Sam: mar, wondering if could stay at your house ill Monday
Mary: cool
Carolyn: 1) if stay till Monday it cuts price down
2) if haven’t gotten ticket it will go up tomorrow.
Adam: is Amtrak near.
Mary: penn station and train goes to the house. Tracey didn’t know about transportation, there are subways and buses.
- brizzent
10/21/02
by brizzent on Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:45 am
2002-2003 SC CONFERENCE CALL 10/21
Agenda
1) The Decision
2) Logistics
3) Joint Statements
4) SC member actions
Attending: Alexis, Adam, Brent, Mary, Sam, Sekai, Tom, Tracey, Tyler
Facilitator: Alexis
1) Adam: agenda ok?
Tyler: read the agenda.
Adam: reads the agenda. No timeframes. Is that cool? Stack for number one.
Tom: what does decision refer to do.
Ad: the one on Saturday.
Sekai: heard voice, is that tom.
Ad: vote 5-4 to ask for Carolyn resignation and if refused then termination. Sam, Sek, Stacey felt marginalize. Majority feels was democratic.
Tracey: can’t hear.
Sek: I think its inappropriate for Tom to be on the call. Two blocking concerns.
Tyler: decided we would accept majority vote for new SC member. Based on that, I assume no longer contention for what is going on. Clarification.
Sek: the decision was made and that was the result, but two blocking concerns. Irregardless of conclusion, those blocks should be dealt with. Not going to argue with people because feel what we are going to do.
Sam: two blocks. His and Stacey’s. adam you said that could block about qualifications. Need Stacey on the call to address on the call. Not appropriate.
Tom: Understanding this call not official business. If this call just get to know you and understand were coming from and move organization forward. Might be able to address blocking concerns about the candidacies.
Sekai: it makes sense, but the person you lodged the block isn’t on the call. Don’t believe consensus didn’t mean no blocking concerns.
Sam: regardless if official or not, it is SC call.
Alexis: maybe Brent could get the votes.
Sam: reads from email Adam vote about blocks only for qualifications.
Tyler: feels this is damn, but have bigger fish to fry. Agree that wouldn’t be able to come to consensus. Need idea about democratic process, this doesn’t seem to be it.
Sekai: What?
Tyler: Trying to understand process, ideas about were to move on this. We went though democratic process.
Sam: argue that the process was not democratic. Took one vote and then another under the same circumstances. Argue to open up application process.
Tyerl: Was difference between votes. Agreed on call that it wouldn’t be unanimous, so to sovle we would reach to get someone of the SC with a majority. Don’t understand Stacey’s block about experience.
Alexis: from what Sam quoted, we will have to hear Stacey out. Propose: as much as she doesn’t want to do it, maybe you shouldn’t be on the call.
Tom: Before get off the call, willing to go, but wants to address blocking concern. Done everything procedurally to get on the SC. Tried of hearing blocking, frustating because it’s the second CGs chapter to started and sent last two or three years organizing for Greens, especially on the SC. Like him know. Fair compromise tell him the concerns and then get off the call.
Sekai: Stacey not on the call. Can’t speak for her. Things that need to be dealt with tonight, but need to do it and if person not on the call we can’t move forth with your suggestions.
Sam: To Tom, was about the process. Stacey does have concerns about the candidacy. Propose: Tom get off the call and table till Wednesday.
Brent: Adam can write emails, but conference call is binding.
Sekai: like to move forth.
Tyler: to try to expedite, this agree we will all attempt to put Tom and Stacey in contact with each other and try to resolve the concerns and then have the discussion on the call on Wednesday.
Sam: Still have concerns with process, wouldn’t be resolved by Wednesday.
Proposal: Discuss on Wednesday and then let Tom know.
Adam: Blocks?
Tyler: Abstain
Brent: Abstain
PASSED
Alexis: need to talk about retreat on Wednesday. Seems like a lot.
Brent: it would be great to know who was at the retreat in order to talk about the retreat. Need to talk about both.
Alexis: hear Sam;s concerns tonight.
Sam: need Stacey because share same concerns.
Adam: Asks Tom to leave.
TOM LEAVES
1) Tyler: talked to Sam and Sekai the big thing is that there is an air of mistrust. People need to keep an open mind and be considerate of people’s feelings. Need to talk about the feelings to be efficient.
Sekai: Sam, Sekai and Stacey have released a joint statement so it seems silly to readdress.
Sam: point out, I was part of the statement even through she spelt my name wrong.
Tracey: Talked to Sam and Sekai right now there are clearly factions. Everyone thinks that people are going behind backs. Technically talked to Carolyn which was being deceptive. Doesn’t appreciate being called deceptive even when wsan’t on the Sunday call.
Tyler: Agree on vibes watcher.
Adam: Can do.
Alexis: in the statement, there is a statement about the co-chairs and the first person is me and the other Tyler. I called Miranda and Adkins for advice as an individual and SC member because they had experience. Opposed to making look shitzy politicians
Sekai: hear what you saying now, but not what you said on Sat. Said you had your ducks in a row.
Alexis: If I said that I apologize because we didn’t line up anybody. Nobody lined up candidates. Didn’t talk to anyone about being the next director.
Tyler: feel like we need to go over the statements. More air of distrust all together resulting in how we will be able to work together in the future. How do people feel about he other SC members and what can be done. and ultimately where the commitment to the CGs and set personal politics aside.
Adam: healthy. Put cards on the table. Try to best job I can to state where I stand and refrain from using term majority and minority. Some members feel decision is invalid because way it was made and others feel valid. Distrust. Call on Sunday with Carolyn and the 3 minority members. Obviously factions. Some members don’t feel comfortable with the influence of outside forces. Staff contacting chapters asking them if they would like to impeach myself, Tyler and Brent. Members of SC denied access to chapter lists. Everyone feels there is mistrust and working in best interest of the CGs.
Brent: why asking us to resign
Sekai: Them contacting GPUS members have been coordinating with each to effect your vision of the CGs, including removing Carolyn. Measure of selective exclusion. Vote was forced Sat. one member agreed. You guys acting in manner not congruent ok with the SC. The three of you have develop with yourself your own vision and imposed on the organization in an undemocratic fashion. That decision should be made with minimal consideration by other members. Would like written grievances. Felt stuff sent to list from plenary. Anything new? Felt like to terminate and did what you needed to do. Feel like you guys are acting like the gods of the SC. To move forth with the organization, them 3 need to be upfront. Acted in completely undemocratic fashion. At plenary several delegates expressed concerns that a vote wasn’t considered with chapters. Each got a potion of chapter contacts. Only a selective few knew what was happening. Deliberate exclusion. Asked in a manipulative fashion and all manifested Sat with the forcing of the vote when we didn’t have a chance to vote.
Alexis: Brent, Adam, Tyler weren’t only to vote in favor. They didn’t strong-armed. Most time talking we talked about other stuff. Don’t like idea that they forced. I was interested in doing it.
Sekai: reason exclude all yeas, primary concern with the communication with the GPUS. You would rely concerns if democratic. Your intentions set long before Sat.
Tracey: To response, we could sit here all night and talked about what happened. We should talk about who to move froth. I’ve been thinking about since the convneiton because it was the major discussion. Don’t what to move on ignoring people’s feelings, but move conversation in that way.
Tyler: Don’t have response, who hopped on the call?
Mary: Me.
Brent: talked with GPUS some, but maybe once. It’s a normal function. Vision the same.
Tyler: feel its our duty to talk to other SC members. Responsibility to talk with advisors, GPUS (as delegate from MI and Jt. Com). And even one everyone talked to me on the phone I’m not coherent enough to convince anyone of anything. Not a smooth talker. No potential to wield great political power. Don’t feel excluded and included and planned. Talked with people and apparently we need to talk more. Reliant on the email.
Adam: hearing the same things that have been said. Try to talk about how to get past. Awkward position as SC member that is committed to the organization, but not as effective fighting on two staff. If petition going around by paid staff I won’t fight. They is a war. Feel comfy that plenary will believe I acted in the best interest. If members drop off fine, but need to try to work together till then. Ideas about how to move forward.
Tracey: only way to remove SC by SC vote.
Adam: impeached by 2/3 delegates.
Tyler: not laid out, but implied. 150 chapters if a 100 sign this petition.
Brent: if 100 chapters sign I will drop off, but I feel confident chapters won’t. Retreat with group therapist and face-to-face will help.
Adam: talk more on this call
Tyler: This here is the problem. This is huge shit and we need to talk. Sekai laid out her feelings, but proactive measures by 3 SC members to impeach another 3 SC. Is that the best use of their time? How is this being organization, we have a right to know?
Tracey: waste of time to try to get each other impeach. Not going to work together, not foster communication. Stop asking members to stop others to impeach. Know who hard to choose another SC, it will be hard. New relationship than beat them into the groud.
Adam: go around about what people what to talk about or end call.
Mary: are there people not planning on coming to the retreat?
Adam: anyone not coming to the retreat?
NO
Tracey: how we told Carolyn she is not coming to the retreat.
Adam: That is the issue of contention. If you feel decision made.
Brent: contention not about the decision, but about the manner. Go around
Go-Around
Alexis: at a loose. Like to hear from excluded people. Doesn’t feel her relationship tainted, but
Brent: agrees. Retreat will help.
Mary: optimistic about the retreat. Dynamic about having people in person is important. What Alexis said important because worried about where to go from here.
Sam: nothing to say know. Still thinking through what to do.
Sekai: individual conversations good. Sat disgusts. Moving forth and accepting that moves turns my stomach. At this point I would like issue a statement to the chapters. Termination about the ND should be communicated to the chapters. Won’t issue statement unless everyone else has a chance. Let them response. Not apporaite to contain within the SC. Opportunity to connect with chapters. Delegate felt it was a big deal about communicating. Waiting on reasons of why it happened.
Tracey: frustrated. Going over same stuff. Should issue statement to the chapter, but why voted for and against, but not undemocratic. If we accuse each other we all look undemocratic. Retreat good for group dynamic.
Tyler: quote: Einstein, you cannot effectively prepare for and prevent war. Do members want to be proactive in strengthen personal relationships or proactive in removing SC members. More healthy to work through.
Adam: Agree. Not opposed to a statement going out, in moderation or both sides critique or views about how it went done. one statement saying it was democratic and another not and when vote delivered they were denied audit, resources and campaign against them.
Adam: Go around about talking or digest.
Brent: statement done would be cool
Mary: digest. And response. Stay on for little longer.
Sam: Can stay and talk and digest while sleeping.
Sekai: ambivalent. Digest. Decision need to be made now. Like to resume going to work so need to make decisions.
Tracey: I’m getting off because have a mid-term. Don’t mind if continue. Everyone knows how I feel.
Tyler: important to talk, but sounds like people need to digest.
Alexis: either way. Talk more, but may not be productive. Concerned about joint statement, make sure not to throw mud.
Adam: talking good, but getting late. Everyone ambivalent and should get off. Resume discussion on the listserv and talk individually.
Sekai: as soon as chapter contact info given then will release her statements.
Brent: caution against. Going to create dvisions and less trust.
Adam; proposal: talk about this on list and personal.
Alexis: email could have damaging effects for the organization. Bringing more people into the infighting.
Tyler: go on the proposal.
Adam: blocks.
PASSED
Adam: on everyone to contact everyone.
Agenda
1) The Decision
2) Logistics
3) Joint Statements
4) SC member actions
Attending: Alexis, Adam, Brent, Mary, Sam, Sekai, Tom, Tracey, Tyler
Facilitator: Alexis
1) Adam: agenda ok?
Tyler: read the agenda.
Adam: reads the agenda. No timeframes. Is that cool? Stack for number one.
Tom: what does decision refer to do.
Ad: the one on Saturday.
Sekai: heard voice, is that tom.
Ad: vote 5-4 to ask for Carolyn resignation and if refused then termination. Sam, Sek, Stacey felt marginalize. Majority feels was democratic.
Tracey: can’t hear.
Sek: I think its inappropriate for Tom to be on the call. Two blocking concerns.
Tyler: decided we would accept majority vote for new SC member. Based on that, I assume no longer contention for what is going on. Clarification.
Sek: the decision was made and that was the result, but two blocking concerns. Irregardless of conclusion, those blocks should be dealt with. Not going to argue with people because feel what we are going to do.
Sam: two blocks. His and Stacey’s. adam you said that could block about qualifications. Need Stacey on the call to address on the call. Not appropriate.
Tom: Understanding this call not official business. If this call just get to know you and understand were coming from and move organization forward. Might be able to address blocking concerns about the candidacies.
Sekai: it makes sense, but the person you lodged the block isn’t on the call. Don’t believe consensus didn’t mean no blocking concerns.
Sam: regardless if official or not, it is SC call.
Alexis: maybe Brent could get the votes.
Sam: reads from email Adam vote about blocks only for qualifications.
Tyler: feels this is damn, but have bigger fish to fry. Agree that wouldn’t be able to come to consensus. Need idea about democratic process, this doesn’t seem to be it.
Sekai: What?
Tyler: Trying to understand process, ideas about were to move on this. We went though democratic process.
Sam: argue that the process was not democratic. Took one vote and then another under the same circumstances. Argue to open up application process.
Tyerl: Was difference between votes. Agreed on call that it wouldn’t be unanimous, so to sovle we would reach to get someone of the SC with a majority. Don’t understand Stacey’s block about experience.
Alexis: from what Sam quoted, we will have to hear Stacey out. Propose: as much as she doesn’t want to do it, maybe you shouldn’t be on the call.
Tom: Before get off the call, willing to go, but wants to address blocking concern. Done everything procedurally to get on the SC. Tried of hearing blocking, frustating because it’s the second CGs chapter to started and sent last two or three years organizing for Greens, especially on the SC. Like him know. Fair compromise tell him the concerns and then get off the call.
Sekai: Stacey not on the call. Can’t speak for her. Things that need to be dealt with tonight, but need to do it and if person not on the call we can’t move forth with your suggestions.
Sam: To Tom, was about the process. Stacey does have concerns about the candidacy. Propose: Tom get off the call and table till Wednesday.
Brent: Adam can write emails, but conference call is binding.
Sekai: like to move forth.
Tyler: to try to expedite, this agree we will all attempt to put Tom and Stacey in contact with each other and try to resolve the concerns and then have the discussion on the call on Wednesday.
Sam: Still have concerns with process, wouldn’t be resolved by Wednesday.
Proposal: Discuss on Wednesday and then let Tom know.
Adam: Blocks?
Tyler: Abstain
Brent: Abstain
PASSED
Alexis: need to talk about retreat on Wednesday. Seems like a lot.
Brent: it would be great to know who was at the retreat in order to talk about the retreat. Need to talk about both.
Alexis: hear Sam;s concerns tonight.
Sam: need Stacey because share same concerns.
Adam: Asks Tom to leave.
TOM LEAVES
1) Tyler: talked to Sam and Sekai the big thing is that there is an air of mistrust. People need to keep an open mind and be considerate of people’s feelings. Need to talk about the feelings to be efficient.
Sekai: Sam, Sekai and Stacey have released a joint statement so it seems silly to readdress.
Sam: point out, I was part of the statement even through she spelt my name wrong.
Tracey: Talked to Sam and Sekai right now there are clearly factions. Everyone thinks that people are going behind backs. Technically talked to Carolyn which was being deceptive. Doesn’t appreciate being called deceptive even when wsan’t on the Sunday call.
Tyler: Agree on vibes watcher.
Adam: Can do.
Alexis: in the statement, there is a statement about the co-chairs and the first person is me and the other Tyler. I called Miranda and Adkins for advice as an individual and SC member because they had experience. Opposed to making look shitzy politicians
Sekai: hear what you saying now, but not what you said on Sat. Said you had your ducks in a row.
Alexis: If I said that I apologize because we didn’t line up anybody. Nobody lined up candidates. Didn’t talk to anyone about being the next director.
Tyler: feel like we need to go over the statements. More air of distrust all together resulting in how we will be able to work together in the future. How do people feel about he other SC members and what can be done. and ultimately where the commitment to the CGs and set personal politics aside.
Adam: healthy. Put cards on the table. Try to best job I can to state where I stand and refrain from using term majority and minority. Some members feel decision is invalid because way it was made and others feel valid. Distrust. Call on Sunday with Carolyn and the 3 minority members. Obviously factions. Some members don’t feel comfortable with the influence of outside forces. Staff contacting chapters asking them if they would like to impeach myself, Tyler and Brent. Members of SC denied access to chapter lists. Everyone feels there is mistrust and working in best interest of the CGs.
Brent: why asking us to resign
Sekai: Them contacting GPUS members have been coordinating with each to effect your vision of the CGs, including removing Carolyn. Measure of selective exclusion. Vote was forced Sat. one member agreed. You guys acting in manner not congruent ok with the SC. The three of you have develop with yourself your own vision and imposed on the organization in an undemocratic fashion. That decision should be made with minimal consideration by other members. Would like written grievances. Felt stuff sent to list from plenary. Anything new? Felt like to terminate and did what you needed to do. Feel like you guys are acting like the gods of the SC. To move forth with the organization, them 3 need to be upfront. Acted in completely undemocratic fashion. At plenary several delegates expressed concerns that a vote wasn’t considered with chapters. Each got a potion of chapter contacts. Only a selective few knew what was happening. Deliberate exclusion. Asked in a manipulative fashion and all manifested Sat with the forcing of the vote when we didn’t have a chance to vote.
Alexis: Brent, Adam, Tyler weren’t only to vote in favor. They didn’t strong-armed. Most time talking we talked about other stuff. Don’t like idea that they forced. I was interested in doing it.
Sekai: reason exclude all yeas, primary concern with the communication with the GPUS. You would rely concerns if democratic. Your intentions set long before Sat.
Tracey: To response, we could sit here all night and talked about what happened. We should talk about who to move froth. I’ve been thinking about since the convneiton because it was the major discussion. Don’t what to move on ignoring people’s feelings, but move conversation in that way.
Tyler: Don’t have response, who hopped on the call?
Mary: Me.
Brent: talked with GPUS some, but maybe once. It’s a normal function. Vision the same.
Tyler: feel its our duty to talk to other SC members. Responsibility to talk with advisors, GPUS (as delegate from MI and Jt. Com). And even one everyone talked to me on the phone I’m not coherent enough to convince anyone of anything. Not a smooth talker. No potential to wield great political power. Don’t feel excluded and included and planned. Talked with people and apparently we need to talk more. Reliant on the email.
Adam: hearing the same things that have been said. Try to talk about how to get past. Awkward position as SC member that is committed to the organization, but not as effective fighting on two staff. If petition going around by paid staff I won’t fight. They is a war. Feel comfy that plenary will believe I acted in the best interest. If members drop off fine, but need to try to work together till then. Ideas about how to move forward.
Tracey: only way to remove SC by SC vote.
Adam: impeached by 2/3 delegates.
Tyler: not laid out, but implied. 150 chapters if a 100 sign this petition.
Brent: if 100 chapters sign I will drop off, but I feel confident chapters won’t. Retreat with group therapist and face-to-face will help.
Adam: talk more on this call
Tyler: This here is the problem. This is huge shit and we need to talk. Sekai laid out her feelings, but proactive measures by 3 SC members to impeach another 3 SC. Is that the best use of their time? How is this being organization, we have a right to know?
Tracey: waste of time to try to get each other impeach. Not going to work together, not foster communication. Stop asking members to stop others to impeach. Know who hard to choose another SC, it will be hard. New relationship than beat them into the groud.
Adam: go around about what people what to talk about or end call.
Mary: are there people not planning on coming to the retreat?
Adam: anyone not coming to the retreat?
NO
Tracey: how we told Carolyn she is not coming to the retreat.
Adam: That is the issue of contention. If you feel decision made.
Brent: contention not about the decision, but about the manner. Go around
Go-Around
Alexis: at a loose. Like to hear from excluded people. Doesn’t feel her relationship tainted, but
Brent: agrees. Retreat will help.
Mary: optimistic about the retreat. Dynamic about having people in person is important. What Alexis said important because worried about where to go from here.
Sam: nothing to say know. Still thinking through what to do.
Sekai: individual conversations good. Sat disgusts. Moving forth and accepting that moves turns my stomach. At this point I would like issue a statement to the chapters. Termination about the ND should be communicated to the chapters. Won’t issue statement unless everyone else has a chance. Let them response. Not apporaite to contain within the SC. Opportunity to connect with chapters. Delegate felt it was a big deal about communicating. Waiting on reasons of why it happened.
Tracey: frustrated. Going over same stuff. Should issue statement to the chapter, but why voted for and against, but not undemocratic. If we accuse each other we all look undemocratic. Retreat good for group dynamic.
Tyler: quote: Einstein, you cannot effectively prepare for and prevent war. Do members want to be proactive in strengthen personal relationships or proactive in removing SC members. More healthy to work through.
Adam: Agree. Not opposed to a statement going out, in moderation or both sides critique or views about how it went done. one statement saying it was democratic and another not and when vote delivered they were denied audit, resources and campaign against them.
Adam: Go around about talking or digest.
Brent: statement done would be cool
Mary: digest. And response. Stay on for little longer.
Sam: Can stay and talk and digest while sleeping.
Sekai: ambivalent. Digest. Decision need to be made now. Like to resume going to work so need to make decisions.
Tracey: I’m getting off because have a mid-term. Don’t mind if continue. Everyone knows how I feel.
Tyler: important to talk, but sounds like people need to digest.
Alexis: either way. Talk more, but may not be productive. Concerned about joint statement, make sure not to throw mud.
Adam: talking good, but getting late. Everyone ambivalent and should get off. Resume discussion on the listserv and talk individually.
Sekai: as soon as chapter contact info given then will release her statements.
Brent: caution against. Going to create dvisions and less trust.
Adam; proposal: talk about this on list and personal.
Alexis: email could have damaging effects for the organization. Bringing more people into the infighting.
Tyler: go on the proposal.
Adam: blocks.
PASSED
Adam: on everyone to contact everyone.
- brizzent
10/23/02
by brizzent on Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:51 am
2002-2003 SC CONFERENCE CALL 10/23/02
Agenda: 1) Carolyn
2) Blocking concerns for Tom
Attending: Alexis, Brent, Mary, Sam, Sekai, Stacey, Tracey, Tyler
Facilitating: Alexis
Tracey: Cool to sign onto the sustainable agricultural petition?
PASSED
1) CAROLYN
Tyler: Table Carolyn until after blocking.
Sam: is Sekai on?
No?
Al: blocks?
No.
2) Blocking Concerns for Tom.
Al: people who have blocks talk about them.
St: bought concerns on the list. We never settled the issue whether or not he was legitimate. Supposed to email alternate delegate info, etc. both processes were a complete mess. If we move forward, we need to start with a legitimate process. Block about tom and process. Talked with other people who think this call should be about process. PROPOSAL: Start proposal from scratch, open up applicant process again. Candidate needs an established chapter, so I could feel comfy that he was legit. Agree not to have a unanimous vote, majority rules and no blocks.
Brent: this sounds like last call. We said majority would rule and no blocks.
Tyler: Tom does have a chapter. Does have the names, but trying to get Stacey in contact with Tom to talk about it. Couple calls that lead to this point. First, we voted we would accept Tom and Matt’s applications. We would vote on them. After we didn’t meet consensus, we decided that people would accept the majority vote as winning. Sam was the only person who abstained. Sam put in a no vote about unanimous in decision.
Alexis: thought Sam abstained?
Ty: sam abstained for the first vote. Then no on the unanimous.
Sam: sorry if incoherent. Trying to piece together the chronological. My understanding was it was obvious we wouldn’t reach consensus, so we go with the majority vote. Only blocks allowed for candidate not process. Adam’s block on process gave us no other choice then to vote again. Upset with the whole process.
Stacey: echo sam. Matt’s blocks were only for his candidacy, not process. Illegitimate at that point.
Alexis: notes?
Sam: he looked it up before and its not in the notes. Pretty sure want we decided.
Sekai: My question would be we agreed no blocks. We didn’t address the blocks. How do we move on from there? Vote for revote.
Tyler: Vote again. This is a highly modified consensus process. Vote on the issue. Could be just as off as Sam, but it wasn’t explicated stated that the vote would be consensus. Only after the
Tracey: bought up unanimous clause. Stacey said that we aren’t going to be unanimous so we should just take vote. With the revote, I’m concerned it people are going to change their vote. Are we just going to revote and revote.
Tyler: fall under highly modified consensus. Instead of normal process. We voted twice and this would be the third normal vote.
Stacey: everyone has the same perception of what happened. Still concerned with Tom’s legitimacy. Tom said he had the info and Matt Hancock said he didn’t. wants him to run legitimately. Was matt’s late application legitimate? The process is muddled. Only option is to start from scratch.
Alexis: Close stack. Then try for consensus.
Mary: pass
Tyler: hears what Stacey and sam saying. Concerns Stacey bought up with process is correct. But, this is what we said before the second vote. We talked about opening up application vote or take majority rule. We decided for majority. Talk to Carolyn right before votes going to be release. Provided me with Matt Herrin’s number because they needed to buy their plane ticket so the rate wasn’t 800. called tom because and let him know because we agreed on majority rule. If this was matt he would be going to NYC, but with Tom there are blocks.
Brent: Agrees with Tyler.
Sekai: Stack.
Alexis: Closed stack. Anyone on stack before close. Voting on Stacey proposal.
Brent: Agree with Tyler. This is the same conversation. My chapter doesn’t have alternate delegates
Sekai: no not fruitful to retroactively fulfill by-laws. Just because neglected in past doesn’t mean we should neglect it right now. Process sucks. Open up the applications. SC can’t afford such a contentious load.
Stacey: tom already buying ticket seems to buy your ticket. Similar to last minute buying of a chapter. Like to provide Tom opportunity to be legitimate.
Alexis: on the call before second vote, we decided majority would rule because the day before tickets would rule. Blocks should have been done there. Tom bought his ticket because we made the decision the night before.
Sam: It would most expedient to put Tom on, but in terms of following a clean process and keeping with the by-law its not. No legitimacy.
Stacey: Restate PROPOSAL: to reopen application process, agree on timeframe afterwards.
Tyler: Friendly amendments. Both Tom and Matt are not applicants. After going through democratic process we can’t allow these applicants go forth.
Stacey: hear discussion because no other eligible candidates.
Tracey: friendly amendment good. Last SC applications process not many people applied. Tom and matt are causing problems.
Tyler: fear about letting these applicants back in. we open the application process and narrow down to matt and tom again. We will do the same thing over again.
Mary: received late applicants
Sam: if alternative to accepting process that already happened. Not necessary. Just open up the process again.
Tyler: PROPOSAL: big point of contention is Tom’s eligibility about his chapter. Sam and Stacey called them to satisfy their fears. No qualms with moving forward with Tom.
Sam: my primary concern is about the process
Stacey: agrees with sam. Comfy with Tyler’s proposal. Willing to accept
Brent: reads 10-16-02
Sam: what date?
Tracey: Made clear voting on Tyler’s or Stacey’s?
Brent: reads notes again.
Al: for the blocking concern for the proposal does it read about the proposal or until noon.
Sekai: sounds like blocking for vote.
Tyler: Brent, I guess adam was facilitating, Adam talks about stacey’s proposals. Any blocks in block in by noon which would be the 17th, vote came out midnight the 17th and blocks were 24 hours late.
Stacey: both times. Blocks messed up. Go idea to go with tyler’s amendment. PROPOSAL; open up applicant process and throw out Tom and Matt.
Tyler: Sam or Stacey, seems to be pretty good that their were no blocks about process before vote came out. Blocks came out and quote from Sam saying he didn’t think the vote would change so it was ok. Breaking process and he needs to call Tom and tell him this.
Sam: democratic process was the first vote that occur and Adam not giving any option. The second vote was bullshit.
Alexis: with the first vote we thought we would have unamity. Since didn’t have we voted to vote again. People can change votes. If wanted to go with the first majority vote. We agreed to vote again. When people with free will changed their mind. Seems legitimate.
Sekai: regressing back into the same conversation. Should take up the proposal. Sam abstained from the vote. A couple other people abstained. Blocks are ok. Focus on the vote on the table.
Brent: Adam asked to open up process.
Sam: if Tom on SC would have
Brent: I think Adam would have on grounds of unamity.
Tyler: people could of thrown up blocks. We needed unamity. We realized we wouldn’t have.
Alexis: final stack.
Stacey: PROPOSAL: open up the applications again, discuss time on the list, and strike Tom and Matt.
Alexis: block
Brent: block
Tyler: Abstain
Alexis: decided on the last call. Can’t believe its happening.
Sekai: ask the question before, after blocks thrown up what happens.
Tyler: state proposal, ask for blocks. Discuss blocks and end stack. Try for consensus and blocks. Facilitator may call for a vote and majority rules.
Sekai: two consensus process and then vote.
Stacey: understands about blocks, but can’t do this without legitimacy. Need to do this over. All come together. Who said what when doesn’t get us anywhere.
Sekai: relieved at the fresh start with candidates. The process was tainted, we can all agree on that. Everyone look prospects. Extending options, itsonly way to move forward.
Tyler: agree with what’s being said. The SC needs to move forward with a single cohesive and not have ridiculous bicker. Feels in regards, but someone has to tell Tom. Reminiscent in a recent email in the interest of preserving democratic process how are where doing that.
Sekai: tom is aware of what is going on. To have democratic upheld, to start afresh. Unfortunate that he is the victim of the taint. I’ll make that call.
Brent: I think the process sucks. But, we talked about this last time and decided that majority ruled.
Sekai: implement stipulations to be clear regarding blocks, chapters, time extension. As you read the notes people weren’t sure about what the votes were. Send an email reiterating the stipulations.
Tyler: Points on procedure, if do it we must say applicants must be male, two members in your chapter. Big question about how we going to get this out on the digest?
Tracey: get on the digest because sam, Sekai and Stacey have been sending stuff out.
Alexis: people said if tom originally elected they would not block, but now the are blocking.
Brent: what about the strategic retreat.
Stacey: PROPOSAL: reopen applicants, strike matt and tom, they have to fulfill what makes up a chapter in the by-laws, two members.
Alexis: Blocks.
Alexis: Block.
Brent: Abstain
Tyler: Abstain.
Alexis: take it to a vote.
Tracey: how many people needed to win the vote.
Tyler: 8 people on the call. Need at least 5 vote in favor.
Tracey: is an abstention a vote. Two people abstain will be a vote.
Stacey: whoever wins majority rules.
Tyler: reads by-law, affirmative may be necessary and sufficient for matters, that means 5 yeas.
Stacey: doesn’t majority mean if one person votes nay and two yeay that’s a majority.
Tyler: needs to be at least 6 people (out of 9) for vote to take place and need 5 people to vote yes.
VOTING ON STACEY’S PROPOSAL
Alexis: abstain
Brent: abstain
Mary: abstain
Sam: yea
Sekai: yea
Stacey: yea
Tracey: abstain
Tyler: abstain
FAILS
Brent: read art IV and section 9
Tyler: last line struck.
Tyler: point of process, since not reopening application process. Needs to be another vote, explicitly qualify, majority will rule and to be as fair as possible, Matt going to be out of town need to email him and ask them to issue paragraph about why the CGs important, like a tie-breaker.
Tracey: open up for one more week. Give chance tyler’s proposal and matt and tom time to response.
Stacey: out of town, in Europe.
Tyler: PROPOSAL: vote again by midnight EST on Oct 25th where majority will rule.
Tracey: qualify blocks.
Tyler: PROPOSALS: all proposals by noon EST.
Stacey: block
Sam: block
Tyler: need vibes watcher.
Tracey: volunteer.
Stacey: going back to the same agenda to the same agenda about completely corrupt is ridiculous. Baffled.
Tracey: need time check. Second of all, abstained because wasn’t ready to make a decision. No decision because need to make a decision about something. Be more leanet.
Brent: we need to deal with Carolyn before this call ends.
Stacey: PROPOSAL: something to talk about the retreat Talk about at the retreat. If other matters to talk about tonight. Adam not on the call and we need him on the call.
Alexis: call for consensus on tyler’s proposal.
Tyler: need stack check. Question for Stacey, did you mean retreat not convention.
Stacey: yes. If vote on process that is corrupted is unsound. Really contentious. Think about at the retreat and deal with at the retreat.
Tyler: FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: tom calls both Stacey and sam to talk about the concerns about the chapter.
Stacey: add that need to stick to call time. Over call time.
Alexis: call for two hours
Sam: thought call lasting for 1.5 and need to go.
Alexis: two proposals, discuss at the retreat and vote on Friday, which is at the retreat.
Tracey: Both are saying we are voting at the retreat.
Sam: restate.
Tyler: incorporating stacey’s, PROPOSAL: that we vote by 12 noon EST Sat Oct 26th between Tom and Matt. Majority rule in affect.
Alexis: tom has a ticket. He will be in NYC. If in NYC do we want to invite him or do Stacey or Sam call him.
Stacey: no comfy with him coming.
Alexis: call him with concerns.
Stacey: concerns with process.
Tyler: we need to have people stay on stack.
Tyler: understands feelings about the process being corrupted. Took vote about new applicants, seems this is like where we are at. Improvise with a similar idea.
Sekai: seems that with either proposal we won’t have people at the retreat. Only seems logical to open up the process. Doesn’t understand why that would be a problem. To vote on the same thing sucks.
Alexis: we just voted on reopening process.
Stacey: different because with tom and matt.
Tracey: half want them to be candidates and half doesn’t. none wants them at the retreat. Trying for middle ground.
Mary: PROPOSAL: Willing to open up application process with the stipulation that Matt and Tom.
Brent: need to talk about bigger stuff.
Alexis: Blocks.
Tyler: Block. No other way to talk. Wonder if people cool with, we meet matt at the convention, if we are the reasons tom went to NYC. It would only be fair for him to stop be for a little awhile. Then remove my block.
Stacey: completely opposed. Effort to bias. Completely inappropriate.
Brent: what’s more inappropriate to bring him to NYC and not be on the SC. We can just drink some beers together.
Tyler: can only stop by for an hour. Assume if opening up application process again because not voting on Sat.
Alexis: was mary proposal open up again with no deadline to revote. Was your proposal to reopen to process, but with no voting date specified.
Mary: reopen process with either of them with the deadline rolling. Would that mean getting consensus with no vote date.
Sekai: mary, willing to add majority stipulation as well with application that Monday of the retreat.
Mary: about going to consensus. Adam bought up that we vote unanimous. I’m a fucking moron. Monday seems soon. Willing to say vote the next Friday. Open up process for a week again and vote Friday the 1st.
Tracey: since matt incommunicable do we keep matt’s application. Don’t see harm with Tom stopping by because he already bought a ticket. Address concerns with Tom.
Tyler: ridiculous to say majority first vote. Strive for consensus then majority rule. Matt’s already gone?
Stacey: wont’ be able to submit anything till Nov 2.
Mary: understand from application process that when I accepted I was stockpiling for future vote.
Stacey: don’t think everyone got a chance to meet matt. Completely unfair to assume that we all meet someone two months and then meet a candidate right before the elections.
Sam: agree with that. Not going to meet any other applicants. Didn’t meet Matt.
Mary: PROPOSAL: reopen the applications to any eligible member, including tom and matt, close the application Oct 31sr and have votes Friday Nov 1st midnight EST.
Stacey: including matt’s application stockpile.
Tyler: Friendly amendment: make midnight on the 30th
Mary: yes.
Alexis: should we add midnight Oct 30th midnight EST.
Tracey: what time? Server time?
Tyler: server time set at CDT.
Mary: use CDT. Means 1200 CDT.
Alexis: blocks.
PASSES
CAROLYN
Brent: PROPOSAL: go up to chi-town, empower a SC member to do so. Meet with a lawyer and go with a court order and get CG resources from Carolyn.
Tracey: agrees with brent. She can’t keep our resources from us. Some of us have lists and some don’t
Stacey: if we are speaking to chapters, told Carolyn we needed them. About the proposal, she has spoken with Carolyn and Matt, the keys are available. She has no legal responsibility to keep those things. Lawsuit fruitless, since there is no legal process. No grievance, no notice. She doesn’t have any responsibility to do anything. Matt’s not going to help out. Need to address firing process first. Getting a lawyer is fruitless.
Tracey: Carolyn was giving a list of grievances at the convention. Listed them on the convention. We gave her notice with severance.
Brent: lawyer would be just consultation. I don’t know if she called tyler or alexis about turning stuff over.
Tyler: just pre-law, the proposal that passed was to offer her a severance agreement under IL, DC and corporate law under those laws we offer a severance agreement and they don’t accept within 21 days. If the take action to get it we can. No one wants to do anything they don’t have. All work complied by CGs staff is property of the CGs non-profit corporation. She could accept severance and turn over or not accept a severance agreement. We weren’t allowed to offer her a severance. Then we take action.
Sekai: the larger issue, as far as I’m concerned she is not required to assist in the transition process. Need to address those issues.
Tracey: clarify we aren’t asking them to assist in transition. We are asking to release password. She is withholding info which is the property of the CGs.
Tyler: she doesn’t have to help in transition. Intellectual property law even refers to passwords are the property of the CGs. Has to hand over what we own.
Brent: empower someone to go up to chi-town consult with a lawyer issue a court order to retrieve all CG resources from Carolyn, if necessary.
Alexis: Blocks?
Stacey: Block
Sam: Block
Alexis: discuss blocking concerns.
Sekai: just went over her’s
Stacey: an official letter hasn’t been issued to Carolyn. Haven’t tried to talk to them. Talking to lawyer premature.
Tracey: tried to contact them. But, they didn’t try to contact. Not hiring a lawyer, consulting.
Brent: Tyler and I went to Chi-town to talk to Carolyn.
Tyler: need to issue a formal notice. Went in terms of a voicemail. Co-chairs need to issue letter to her residence. Consulting and need be legal action.
Alexis: everyone on stack and then consensus.
Sekai: Stacey makes a good point that this is premature. First, its logical to deliver a formal notice, voicemail not formal. Consulting lawyer with legal action will increase hostility.
Sam: our first step to send her a letter. That’s all we need to do.
Alexis: Propsol, blocks?
Sekai: block
Stacey: block
Sam: block
Alexis: move to a vote.
Mary: friendly amendment, in hopes in achieving consensus could we possible put some sort of letter to Carolyn through people she is still speaking and after two day period go through with .
Brent: are we still empowering someone to do this if necessary.
Tracey: 24 hours notice.
Brent: relayed story thinks she knows she is fired.
Tyler: she does knows. Need to follow legal law. Though breaking executive session not a good thing, but we still need to issue a letter. If issue letter tomorrow she has after Tues she would have to contact us by Tues (4 business)
Sekai:
Brent: like to still empower someone to go up there unless this letter not responded to.
Stacey: ridiculous because empower Miranda and DJW to help with the entire process. Not trying to cooperate on process before.
Tyler: Carolyn just needs to correspond with one of the co-chairs about when the info exchange will take place. Trying to bend with the circumstances.
Stacey: do we have quorum
Alexis, Stacey, tracey, tyler, sam, brent, mary
YES- quorum
Tracey: is this vote majority or consensus.
Alexis: consensus. We still need five.
Brent: can you read the friendly amendment again
Tyler: the SC will empower an SC member to go to Chi-town
Sekai back on.
Alexis: friendly amendment to response by mail by tues.
Tyler: empower SC member to go to Chicago and meet with an attorney and determine a correct course of action if we receive pursuant with all DC labor law.
Alexis: using DC? Were where are incorporated?
Someone: yes
Tyler-Y
Al-Y
St-N
Se-N
Tracey-Y
Mary-Y
Sam-N
Brent-Y
Adam (proxy)-Y
6 yeas and 3 yeas
Tracey: ask to Sam, Sekai and Stacey to rescind resignation requests or include myself in those calls. Rescind to form a cohesive group.
Sekai: going behind people backs clear that the letter going out. Reasons for three specific people. Clear beforehand.
Brent: why are you asking us to resign?
Stacey: waiting for us for chapters to response.
Tyler: it is late. Really important. Feel that people are going to do what they are going to do. What’s morally right. We agreed to critique a letter to chapter and they sent one out beforehand.
Mary: request to sam, Sekai and Stacey you forward response of chapters to the list.
Stacey: getting off the call.
Agenda: 1) Carolyn
2) Blocking concerns for Tom
Attending: Alexis, Brent, Mary, Sam, Sekai, Stacey, Tracey, Tyler
Facilitating: Alexis
Tracey: Cool to sign onto the sustainable agricultural petition?
PASSED
1) CAROLYN
Tyler: Table Carolyn until after blocking.
Sam: is Sekai on?
No?
Al: blocks?
No.
2) Blocking Concerns for Tom.
Al: people who have blocks talk about them.
St: bought concerns on the list. We never settled the issue whether or not he was legitimate. Supposed to email alternate delegate info, etc. both processes were a complete mess. If we move forward, we need to start with a legitimate process. Block about tom and process. Talked with other people who think this call should be about process. PROPOSAL: Start proposal from scratch, open up applicant process again. Candidate needs an established chapter, so I could feel comfy that he was legit. Agree not to have a unanimous vote, majority rules and no blocks.
Brent: this sounds like last call. We said majority would rule and no blocks.
Tyler: Tom does have a chapter. Does have the names, but trying to get Stacey in contact with Tom to talk about it. Couple calls that lead to this point. First, we voted we would accept Tom and Matt’s applications. We would vote on them. After we didn’t meet consensus, we decided that people would accept the majority vote as winning. Sam was the only person who abstained. Sam put in a no vote about unanimous in decision.
Alexis: thought Sam abstained?
Ty: sam abstained for the first vote. Then no on the unanimous.
Sam: sorry if incoherent. Trying to piece together the chronological. My understanding was it was obvious we wouldn’t reach consensus, so we go with the majority vote. Only blocks allowed for candidate not process. Adam’s block on process gave us no other choice then to vote again. Upset with the whole process.
Stacey: echo sam. Matt’s blocks were only for his candidacy, not process. Illegitimate at that point.
Alexis: notes?
Sam: he looked it up before and its not in the notes. Pretty sure want we decided.
Sekai: My question would be we agreed no blocks. We didn’t address the blocks. How do we move on from there? Vote for revote.
Tyler: Vote again. This is a highly modified consensus process. Vote on the issue. Could be just as off as Sam, but it wasn’t explicated stated that the vote would be consensus. Only after the
Tracey: bought up unanimous clause. Stacey said that we aren’t going to be unanimous so we should just take vote. With the revote, I’m concerned it people are going to change their vote. Are we just going to revote and revote.
Tyler: fall under highly modified consensus. Instead of normal process. We voted twice and this would be the third normal vote.
Stacey: everyone has the same perception of what happened. Still concerned with Tom’s legitimacy. Tom said he had the info and Matt Hancock said he didn’t. wants him to run legitimately. Was matt’s late application legitimate? The process is muddled. Only option is to start from scratch.
Alexis: Close stack. Then try for consensus.
Mary: pass
Tyler: hears what Stacey and sam saying. Concerns Stacey bought up with process is correct. But, this is what we said before the second vote. We talked about opening up application vote or take majority rule. We decided for majority. Talk to Carolyn right before votes going to be release. Provided me with Matt Herrin’s number because they needed to buy their plane ticket so the rate wasn’t 800. called tom because and let him know because we agreed on majority rule. If this was matt he would be going to NYC, but with Tom there are blocks.
Brent: Agrees with Tyler.
Sekai: Stack.
Alexis: Closed stack. Anyone on stack before close. Voting on Stacey proposal.
Brent: Agree with Tyler. This is the same conversation. My chapter doesn’t have alternate delegates
Sekai: no not fruitful to retroactively fulfill by-laws. Just because neglected in past doesn’t mean we should neglect it right now. Process sucks. Open up the applications. SC can’t afford such a contentious load.
Stacey: tom already buying ticket seems to buy your ticket. Similar to last minute buying of a chapter. Like to provide Tom opportunity to be legitimate.
Alexis: on the call before second vote, we decided majority would rule because the day before tickets would rule. Blocks should have been done there. Tom bought his ticket because we made the decision the night before.
Sam: It would most expedient to put Tom on, but in terms of following a clean process and keeping with the by-law its not. No legitimacy.
Stacey: Restate PROPOSAL: to reopen application process, agree on timeframe afterwards.
Tyler: Friendly amendments. Both Tom and Matt are not applicants. After going through democratic process we can’t allow these applicants go forth.
Stacey: hear discussion because no other eligible candidates.
Tracey: friendly amendment good. Last SC applications process not many people applied. Tom and matt are causing problems.
Tyler: fear about letting these applicants back in. we open the application process and narrow down to matt and tom again. We will do the same thing over again.
Mary: received late applicants
Sam: if alternative to accepting process that already happened. Not necessary. Just open up the process again.
Tyler: PROPOSAL: big point of contention is Tom’s eligibility about his chapter. Sam and Stacey called them to satisfy their fears. No qualms with moving forward with Tom.
Sam: my primary concern is about the process
Stacey: agrees with sam. Comfy with Tyler’s proposal. Willing to accept
Brent: reads 10-16-02
Sam: what date?
Tracey: Made clear voting on Tyler’s or Stacey’s?
Brent: reads notes again.
Al: for the blocking concern for the proposal does it read about the proposal or until noon.
Sekai: sounds like blocking for vote.
Tyler: Brent, I guess adam was facilitating, Adam talks about stacey’s proposals. Any blocks in block in by noon which would be the 17th, vote came out midnight the 17th and blocks were 24 hours late.
Stacey: both times. Blocks messed up. Go idea to go with tyler’s amendment. PROPOSAL; open up applicant process and throw out Tom and Matt.
Tyler: Sam or Stacey, seems to be pretty good that their were no blocks about process before vote came out. Blocks came out and quote from Sam saying he didn’t think the vote would change so it was ok. Breaking process and he needs to call Tom and tell him this.
Sam: democratic process was the first vote that occur and Adam not giving any option. The second vote was bullshit.
Alexis: with the first vote we thought we would have unamity. Since didn’t have we voted to vote again. People can change votes. If wanted to go with the first majority vote. We agreed to vote again. When people with free will changed their mind. Seems legitimate.
Sekai: regressing back into the same conversation. Should take up the proposal. Sam abstained from the vote. A couple other people abstained. Blocks are ok. Focus on the vote on the table.
Brent: Adam asked to open up process.
Sam: if Tom on SC would have
Brent: I think Adam would have on grounds of unamity.
Tyler: people could of thrown up blocks. We needed unamity. We realized we wouldn’t have.
Alexis: final stack.
Stacey: PROPOSAL: open up the applications again, discuss time on the list, and strike Tom and Matt.
Alexis: block
Brent: block
Tyler: Abstain
Alexis: decided on the last call. Can’t believe its happening.
Sekai: ask the question before, after blocks thrown up what happens.
Tyler: state proposal, ask for blocks. Discuss blocks and end stack. Try for consensus and blocks. Facilitator may call for a vote and majority rules.
Sekai: two consensus process and then vote.
Stacey: understands about blocks, but can’t do this without legitimacy. Need to do this over. All come together. Who said what when doesn’t get us anywhere.
Sekai: relieved at the fresh start with candidates. The process was tainted, we can all agree on that. Everyone look prospects. Extending options, itsonly way to move forward.
Tyler: agree with what’s being said. The SC needs to move forward with a single cohesive and not have ridiculous bicker. Feels in regards, but someone has to tell Tom. Reminiscent in a recent email in the interest of preserving democratic process how are where doing that.
Sekai: tom is aware of what is going on. To have democratic upheld, to start afresh. Unfortunate that he is the victim of the taint. I’ll make that call.
Brent: I think the process sucks. But, we talked about this last time and decided that majority ruled.
Sekai: implement stipulations to be clear regarding blocks, chapters, time extension. As you read the notes people weren’t sure about what the votes were. Send an email reiterating the stipulations.
Tyler: Points on procedure, if do it we must say applicants must be male, two members in your chapter. Big question about how we going to get this out on the digest?
Tracey: get on the digest because sam, Sekai and Stacey have been sending stuff out.
Alexis: people said if tom originally elected they would not block, but now the are blocking.
Brent: what about the strategic retreat.
Stacey: PROPOSAL: reopen applicants, strike matt and tom, they have to fulfill what makes up a chapter in the by-laws, two members.
Alexis: Blocks.
Alexis: Block.
Brent: Abstain
Tyler: Abstain.
Alexis: take it to a vote.
Tracey: how many people needed to win the vote.
Tyler: 8 people on the call. Need at least 5 vote in favor.
Tracey: is an abstention a vote. Two people abstain will be a vote.
Stacey: whoever wins majority rules.
Tyler: reads by-law, affirmative may be necessary and sufficient for matters, that means 5 yeas.
Stacey: doesn’t majority mean if one person votes nay and two yeay that’s a majority.
Tyler: needs to be at least 6 people (out of 9) for vote to take place and need 5 people to vote yes.
VOTING ON STACEY’S PROPOSAL
Alexis: abstain
Brent: abstain
Mary: abstain
Sam: yea
Sekai: yea
Stacey: yea
Tracey: abstain
Tyler: abstain
FAILS
Brent: read art IV and section 9
Tyler: last line struck.
Tyler: point of process, since not reopening application process. Needs to be another vote, explicitly qualify, majority will rule and to be as fair as possible, Matt going to be out of town need to email him and ask them to issue paragraph about why the CGs important, like a tie-breaker.
Tracey: open up for one more week. Give chance tyler’s proposal and matt and tom time to response.
Stacey: out of town, in Europe.
Tyler: PROPOSAL: vote again by midnight EST on Oct 25th where majority will rule.
Tracey: qualify blocks.
Tyler: PROPOSALS: all proposals by noon EST.
Stacey: block
Sam: block
Tyler: need vibes watcher.
Tracey: volunteer.
Stacey: going back to the same agenda to the same agenda about completely corrupt is ridiculous. Baffled.
Tracey: need time check. Second of all, abstained because wasn’t ready to make a decision. No decision because need to make a decision about something. Be more leanet.
Brent: we need to deal with Carolyn before this call ends.
Stacey: PROPOSAL: something to talk about the retreat Talk about at the retreat. If other matters to talk about tonight. Adam not on the call and we need him on the call.
Alexis: call for consensus on tyler’s proposal.
Tyler: need stack check. Question for Stacey, did you mean retreat not convention.
Stacey: yes. If vote on process that is corrupted is unsound. Really contentious. Think about at the retreat and deal with at the retreat.
Tyler: FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: tom calls both Stacey and sam to talk about the concerns about the chapter.
Stacey: add that need to stick to call time. Over call time.
Alexis: call for two hours
Sam: thought call lasting for 1.5 and need to go.
Alexis: two proposals, discuss at the retreat and vote on Friday, which is at the retreat.
Tracey: Both are saying we are voting at the retreat.
Sam: restate.
Tyler: incorporating stacey’s, PROPOSAL: that we vote by 12 noon EST Sat Oct 26th between Tom and Matt. Majority rule in affect.
Alexis: tom has a ticket. He will be in NYC. If in NYC do we want to invite him or do Stacey or Sam call him.
Stacey: no comfy with him coming.
Alexis: call him with concerns.
Stacey: concerns with process.
Tyler: we need to have people stay on stack.
Tyler: understands feelings about the process being corrupted. Took vote about new applicants, seems this is like where we are at. Improvise with a similar idea.
Sekai: seems that with either proposal we won’t have people at the retreat. Only seems logical to open up the process. Doesn’t understand why that would be a problem. To vote on the same thing sucks.
Alexis: we just voted on reopening process.
Stacey: different because with tom and matt.
Tracey: half want them to be candidates and half doesn’t. none wants them at the retreat. Trying for middle ground.
Mary: PROPOSAL: Willing to open up application process with the stipulation that Matt and Tom.
Brent: need to talk about bigger stuff.
Alexis: Blocks.
Tyler: Block. No other way to talk. Wonder if people cool with, we meet matt at the convention, if we are the reasons tom went to NYC. It would only be fair for him to stop be for a little awhile. Then remove my block.
Stacey: completely opposed. Effort to bias. Completely inappropriate.
Brent: what’s more inappropriate to bring him to NYC and not be on the SC. We can just drink some beers together.
Tyler: can only stop by for an hour. Assume if opening up application process again because not voting on Sat.
Alexis: was mary proposal open up again with no deadline to revote. Was your proposal to reopen to process, but with no voting date specified.
Mary: reopen process with either of them with the deadline rolling. Would that mean getting consensus with no vote date.
Sekai: mary, willing to add majority stipulation as well with application that Monday of the retreat.
Mary: about going to consensus. Adam bought up that we vote unanimous. I’m a fucking moron. Monday seems soon. Willing to say vote the next Friday. Open up process for a week again and vote Friday the 1st.
Tracey: since matt incommunicable do we keep matt’s application. Don’t see harm with Tom stopping by because he already bought a ticket. Address concerns with Tom.
Tyler: ridiculous to say majority first vote. Strive for consensus then majority rule. Matt’s already gone?
Stacey: wont’ be able to submit anything till Nov 2.
Mary: understand from application process that when I accepted I was stockpiling for future vote.
Stacey: don’t think everyone got a chance to meet matt. Completely unfair to assume that we all meet someone two months and then meet a candidate right before the elections.
Sam: agree with that. Not going to meet any other applicants. Didn’t meet Matt.
Mary: PROPOSAL: reopen the applications to any eligible member, including tom and matt, close the application Oct 31sr and have votes Friday Nov 1st midnight EST.
Stacey: including matt’s application stockpile.
Tyler: Friendly amendment: make midnight on the 30th
Mary: yes.
Alexis: should we add midnight Oct 30th midnight EST.
Tracey: what time? Server time?
Tyler: server time set at CDT.
Mary: use CDT. Means 1200 CDT.
Alexis: blocks.
PASSES
CAROLYN
Brent: PROPOSAL: go up to chi-town, empower a SC member to do so. Meet with a lawyer and go with a court order and get CG resources from Carolyn.
Tracey: agrees with brent. She can’t keep our resources from us. Some of us have lists and some don’t
Stacey: if we are speaking to chapters, told Carolyn we needed them. About the proposal, she has spoken with Carolyn and Matt, the keys are available. She has no legal responsibility to keep those things. Lawsuit fruitless, since there is no legal process. No grievance, no notice. She doesn’t have any responsibility to do anything. Matt’s not going to help out. Need to address firing process first. Getting a lawyer is fruitless.
Tracey: Carolyn was giving a list of grievances at the convention. Listed them on the convention. We gave her notice with severance.
Brent: lawyer would be just consultation. I don’t know if she called tyler or alexis about turning stuff over.
Tyler: just pre-law, the proposal that passed was to offer her a severance agreement under IL, DC and corporate law under those laws we offer a severance agreement and they don’t accept within 21 days. If the take action to get it we can. No one wants to do anything they don’t have. All work complied by CGs staff is property of the CGs non-profit corporation. She could accept severance and turn over or not accept a severance agreement. We weren’t allowed to offer her a severance. Then we take action.
Sekai: the larger issue, as far as I’m concerned she is not required to assist in the transition process. Need to address those issues.
Tracey: clarify we aren’t asking them to assist in transition. We are asking to release password. She is withholding info which is the property of the CGs.
Tyler: she doesn’t have to help in transition. Intellectual property law even refers to passwords are the property of the CGs. Has to hand over what we own.
Brent: empower someone to go up to chi-town consult with a lawyer issue a court order to retrieve all CG resources from Carolyn, if necessary.
Alexis: Blocks?
Stacey: Block
Sam: Block
Alexis: discuss blocking concerns.
Sekai: just went over her’s
Stacey: an official letter hasn’t been issued to Carolyn. Haven’t tried to talk to them. Talking to lawyer premature.
Tracey: tried to contact them. But, they didn’t try to contact. Not hiring a lawyer, consulting.
Brent: Tyler and I went to Chi-town to talk to Carolyn.
Tyler: need to issue a formal notice. Went in terms of a voicemail. Co-chairs need to issue letter to her residence. Consulting and need be legal action.
Alexis: everyone on stack and then consensus.
Sekai: Stacey makes a good point that this is premature. First, its logical to deliver a formal notice, voicemail not formal. Consulting lawyer with legal action will increase hostility.
Sam: our first step to send her a letter. That’s all we need to do.
Alexis: Propsol, blocks?
Sekai: block
Stacey: block
Sam: block
Alexis: move to a vote.
Mary: friendly amendment, in hopes in achieving consensus could we possible put some sort of letter to Carolyn through people she is still speaking and after two day period go through with .
Brent: are we still empowering someone to do this if necessary.
Tracey: 24 hours notice.
Brent: relayed story thinks she knows she is fired.
Tyler: she does knows. Need to follow legal law. Though breaking executive session not a good thing, but we still need to issue a letter. If issue letter tomorrow she has after Tues she would have to contact us by Tues (4 business)
Sekai:
Brent: like to still empower someone to go up there unless this letter not responded to.
Stacey: ridiculous because empower Miranda and DJW to help with the entire process. Not trying to cooperate on process before.
Tyler: Carolyn just needs to correspond with one of the co-chairs about when the info exchange will take place. Trying to bend with the circumstances.
Stacey: do we have quorum
Alexis, Stacey, tracey, tyler, sam, brent, mary
YES- quorum
Tracey: is this vote majority or consensus.
Alexis: consensus. We still need five.
Brent: can you read the friendly amendment again
Tyler: the SC will empower an SC member to go to Chi-town
Sekai back on.
Alexis: friendly amendment to response by mail by tues.
Tyler: empower SC member to go to Chicago and meet with an attorney and determine a correct course of action if we receive pursuant with all DC labor law.
Alexis: using DC? Were where are incorporated?
Someone: yes
Tyler-Y
Al-Y
St-N
Se-N
Tracey-Y
Mary-Y
Sam-N
Brent-Y
Adam (proxy)-Y
6 yeas and 3 yeas
Tracey: ask to Sam, Sekai and Stacey to rescind resignation requests or include myself in those calls. Rescind to form a cohesive group.
Sekai: going behind people backs clear that the letter going out. Reasons for three specific people. Clear beforehand.
Brent: why are you asking us to resign?
Stacey: waiting for us for chapters to response.
Tyler: it is late. Really important. Feel that people are going to do what they are going to do. What’s morally right. We agreed to critique a letter to chapter and they sent one out beforehand.
Mary: request to sam, Sekai and Stacey you forward response of chapters to the list.
Stacey: getting off the call.
- brizzent
1
by nbcbolt9 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:59 am
Busty blonde [url=http://www.trannybossblog.com/]tranny boss[/url] Jessica Host fucking her submissive male slave with intensity. Busty blonde [url=http://www.pee-on-shemales.com/]Pee on Shemales[/url] Jessica Host puts her enormous boobies in the mouth of her submissive male slave, later she grabs the juicy hard cock of her male slut to devour it completely. Then blonde shemale Jessica Host puts her thick hard dick in the mouth of her submissive male slut to receive a great blowjob, before to perforate the tight asshole of her submissive male slut from behind with her thick hard cock.Two sexy teen [url=http://www.shemale-jobs.com/]Shemale Jobs[/url] with juicy big boobies and perfect round asses fucking outdoors. A sexy teen shemale begins to lick the juicy boobies of her teen shemale girlfriend until the juicy shemale cock of her insatiable girlfriend is rock hard, then this licker teen shemale bitch is perforated from behind by her teen [url=http://www.shemales-get-fisted.com/]Shemales Get Fisted[/url] girlfriend while she mounts one leg on a swing. Enjoy these three great teen shemale movies with these beautiful teen [URL=http://www.cream-filled-shemales.com]cream filled shemales[/URL] bitches.
- nbcbolt9
- Regular
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:34 am
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest