The Pacific Green Party is dying, or at best treading water, running on fumes. Since I joined 4 1/2 years ago, its voter #’s have dropped from about 11,000 to 8,000. Something has to be done now to turn it around and get it growing again!
Of my constitution and bylaws proposals for January 9th, this is the most important set: expand our organizational basis from “chapter” to the more general “member group.” We will open the process to the general membership as it should be. We will empower them to create, recognize them as supporting members, and they will energize and restore the party as we rally behind them.
This is simple in concept, if it appears complex in notation. Let’s look at how the party is supposed to be structured, in one of our most important bylaws:
“XV.A: A. Chapters are the primary grassroots organizations of the party. As such, they are the primary catalysts for grassroots political change.”
A clear and surely well-meant declaration. But is it true in fact? We’ve got only two chapters still operating on a visibly formal basis, but many more members associating in informal groups, caucuses, or forums. If we want the party to grow, we need to face the fact that people are more likely to do what they want than what they’re told. That is particularly true when it comes to what group they join. Freedom of association is implicit in bylaw
XV.I: A chapter may set its own membership requirements.
I propose revising it to be explicit:
XV.G. All party members shall have freedom of association within the party. Thus a member group may set its own membership requirements.
And, based on this, freeing up our organizational model:
XV.A. A. Chapters and other member groups are the primary grassroots organizations of the party. As such, they are the primary catalysts for grassroots political change. State party officers shall assist them in good faith.
If it looks like I’m proposing abolishing chapters, relax. If your group says it’s a chapter, then a chapter it is. What we’re doing here is letting other groups into the ballgame.
And what’s the ballgame? Let’s consider the pros and cons of being a “chapter.”
Pros:
- Can create supporting members
- Can raise funds as the PGP and enter revenue-sharing agreements
- recognized by the party
- some explicit protection against top-down interference
Cons:
- must be approved by the SCC
- SCC can dissolve chapter “for cause,” i.e. any reason
- must haggle with overlapping chapters over endorsements
Raising funds as PGP and revenue-sharing is currently done by only one chapter, and I don’t think it’s a big enough deal to propose any changes to it. Likewise members are mostly protected implicitly, as chapters are explicitly, from interference as long as they’re acting as themselves and not in the party name. But supporting membership, our version of a dues card, is a big deal. How do we justify impeding chapterless members from joining our club with this awful hurdle:
XV.B. Any 5 supporting members may apply to form a party chapter, by sending the following information to the party secretary:
Huh? You have to already be a supporting member in the first place, before creating the group that can make you a supporting member? This is so blatantly unfair that I’ve never seen it enforced. And why should they have to ask a central authority for permission? Finally, let it be any sort of group. It should read:
XV.B. Any 5 party members may form a party member group by sending the following information to the party secretary:
Call the group whatever you want, mostly:
B.2. The proposed group’s name. A member group may refer to itself as a “chapter” or by any other label, except those reserved under party rules, such as “committee.”
Form it where — or how- ever you want, if there is no “where:”
B.3. The proposed group’s geographic boundaries, if any;
Next the member faces another top-down hurdle:
C. The coordinating committee shall either accept or reject the chapter application. A rejection shall be for written cause, and if the rejection is not ratified at the next state convention, the chapter application is approved.
which should instead say
C. The coordinating committee shall record the information sent to it and make a party-wide announcement of the group’s formation.
Unlimited “written cause” invites the SCC to interfere politically beyond its proper managerial role. Likewise we need to strike
D. The coordinating committee may revoke an existing chapter for written cause. The revocation is effective immediately, but must be ratified at the next state convention or the chapter becomes reinstated.
A convention may have as few as 7 members present, and so few should never wield such open-ended power. An action so severe needs a good reason, and political attacks won’t do. Let’s tack a good reason onto E (which gets bumped up to D after the strike):
D. 1. The coordinating committee may require member groups that deal with money to form PACs prior to fundraising or receiving contributions. This shall be the full extent of oversight of member groups by party officers, except under mutual arrangements such as revenue sharing agreements. The coordinating committee may provisionally suspend recognition of a member group that refuses this requirement or, through mismanagement of finances, incurs unjust liability to the party treasury. The next statewide convention shall then decide on appropriate action, and the suspension shall expire if no decision is made. Suspension of group recognition shall not affect the supporting member status of any of its members.
Which is to say, the party officers will perform their managerial function, which lately boils down to administering the sole revenue-share with Linn-Benton chapter, and not much other interaction with groups. In the unlikely event that a group’s financial behavior actually ends up costing the party money, sanction from the management may be justified. But that should never be political. Chapters remain the only entity granted the privilege to raise funds in the party name:
XIII.E. Recognized chapters may raise funds as the Pacific Green Party and are to send all funds to the party treasurer to account for and deposit such funds.
Everyone else has to raise funds as whoever they are. And in the extreme case that someone is bad enough to be punished politically, there is still
VII.A. The party has the right to revoke the supporting member status of an individual who demonstrably violates the party principles in a manner so egregious as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to the party’s reputation or function. It shall require a unanimous vote of the coordinating committee or a two-thirds vote of the supporting members present at a convention.
Now, as regards those groups doing things in their own name, I think it’s unfortunately necessary to establish explicitly that what is in their own name is their own:
D.2. Any type of funds or property, including intellectual, donated to or acquired by a member group belong to that group, its political action committee, or its individual members, as they see fit to arrange. Party officers may not attempt to seize, control or use the property of member groups or individuals without express permission, except for the sharing of published intellectual property under common fair use practices.
That’s the most dramatic-looking stuff. Now we’ll edit the obsolete mandatory 2-week deadline to notify the secretary of membership changes:
E. Member groups shall notify the party secretary of any changes to the information listed in Section B of this article, in a timely fashion, upon the secretary’s request.
Strike this trivially obvious one:
H. A person may choose not to be a member of any chapter.
Finally we update “chapter” to “member group” in the verbiage of the remainder of Bylaws XV, Constitution III.A, and last but not least, the supporting member qualification in Bylaws III.A.1
… the equivalent of 30 minutes a month for three months in volunteer time with a local chapter or other member group, …
I hope that wasn’t too complex — but to summarize exactly what this changes:
- party will recognize groups, not just chapters
- all members can form groups
- no top-down permission needed
- any group counts to qualify for supporting membership
- groups don’t have to be tied to a location
- call your group whatever you want, except “committee” etc
- group can lose recognition only for specific reasons.
What it doesn’t change:
- only chapters can raise funds in the party name
- PACs can be required if you deal with money
- the de facto status quo.
This is already how we’re organized now. Caucuses, “Greens for” factions, informal groupings, remnants of defunct chapters, as well as chapters. We’re the people that can solve our problems, if we only let it happen. Free up the process and it WILL happen.