[GPRI] FW: [usgp-dx] Overview of Green Party national planning for 2008

[Greg Gerritt]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Brent McMillan <brent at gp.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:08:45 -0400
To: <natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org>
Subject: [usgp-dx] Overview of Green Party national planning for 2008

Dear NC Delegate:

On Saturday, February 24th I delivered an Overview of Green Party
National Planning for 2008 to the Green Party of California Strategic
Planning Retreat. Several of those that attended asked for a copy.
Following are my notes from the talk.

In Service:

Brent McMillan, Political Director
Green Party of the United States
202-319-7191
brent at gp.org

Overview of Green Party national planning for 2008
Saturday, February 24th
GPCA Strategic Planning Retreat
Delivered by Brent McMillan

What's the political climate in which we'll be operating in 2008?

We will once again be under a lot of pressure to not run a presidential
candidate. It will come from several directions and for different
reasons. Those that want to run a candidate will be accused of being
spoilers by progressive democrats and fetishist by those that want to
run an independent.

Nader will probably run as an independent. I doubt that he'll be seeking
our nomination. Although I will work to keep the door open to him,
something that I have always quietly done since I began as the political
director.

We also have some high profile folks who have expressed interest in
seeking the Green Party's nomination in 2008. We may indeed be facing a
similar situation in 2008 that we faced in 2004.

In many ways 2004 was our first really competitive convention.

As we would probably all agree 2004 was problematic. Before we even got
to the convention approximately 70% of the national party's donor base
either went ABB, Anybody But Bush, or didn't want us to run a candidate
at all for other reasons. We then proceeded to fight over the scraps. In
my opinion we didn't do our work going into the convention and we left
the convention with unfinished business.

I think that we are going to get another chance at reaching the American
public in 2008. There is an immense political vacuum out there that we
are operating in. I see a level of opportunity that we haven't had since
2000. For those of you that were involved in 2000 it's hard to forget
the excitement that the super rallies created. We went from being a
little fringe party to where we were now on the national political map.

(I was the State Facilitator for the Green Party of Washington State in
2000, in essence the chair, and I remember that after the Seattle Super
rally the Seattle Times ran an editorial declaring the Green Party the
second party in Seattle and that the Republicans were now the third
party.)

So what are we going to do differently in 2008 so that we have the best
chance of leaving our convention as a unified party ready to get behind
our candidate? And if we are successful at that, how do we address those
that share our values but not our necessarily our courage of conviction?

I'd like to talk about what some of those changes are that are in the
works and also what yet might be.

1) Combined Calls:
Currently, GPUS Steering Committee member, Jim Coplen (IN) is convening
joint calls between representatives of the Ballot Access Committee
(BAC), the Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC), the Presidential
Campaign Support Committee (PCSC), Bylaws, Rules, Policies and
Procedures Committee (BRPP) and the Annual National Meeting Committee
(ANMC). We meet approximately once every two weeks.

One of the outcomes is that we are working to create a convention
committee separate from the Annual National Meeting Committee that just
oversees the Platform Approval and the Presidential Nomination Process.
Expect a proposal to come forward to the national committee from the
Annual National Meeting Committee.

2) Another outcome is that we are working to make more time for the
Platform approval and Presidential Nomination. We would like to make
more time for the process of approving the platform and for the
presidential nominating process in 2008 than what we did in 2004.
Therefore we will be scaling back competing programs. For example the
CCC had an ambitious campaign school going during the convention with
several tracks. This will be scaled back in 2008.

3) Money:
A. Fundraise at the convention:
Little known to anyone is that in 2004 we did not allow our presidential
nominee to fundraise at the convention. The national party was in dire
financial straits at the time, so what else is new, and it was seen as
competition. This was not made public. We asked our potential candidates
to compete for the nomination, in essence to spend every last dollar
they had to get the nomination and then sent this person away broke. Who
ever our nominee is in 2008 they should be allowed to fundraise at the
convention regardless of the financial state of the national party.

B) Reseed the campaign:
Also, I think that they should walk away with a chunk of cash to reseed
their campaign. What if 100 people donated $100 to a fund so that
whoever walked away from the convention, walked away with $10,000 to
reseed their campaign? I know that this is not a lot of money in the
overall scheme of things, but it would be progress over what we have
done in the past. I think that this money should not go through the
national committee but should be raised independently. We are competing
with so many other programs for the general fund that this wouldn't
stand a chance unless it was an independent effort.

We could use some help with this. This needs to be an effort outside of
the National Committee. There are too many competing interests and
saboteurs on the National Committee for this to be successful.

C) We need to work to get the National Committee more involved with
fundraising. Recently I began circulating a draft of Plan for mobilizing
the National Committee for fundraising. It is part of a plan currently
being developed by the Fundraising Committee. Staff have begun working
on a Wiki site for the development of the Fundraising Plan. Any delegate
that has access to the GPUS Wiki can view the development of this. We do
though ask that unless you are member of the Fundraising Committee that
you not make any changes or comments at the Wiki site but instead send
these to a Fundraising Committee member. The Fundraising Plan also
includes a Case Statement on the front end that basically asks and
answers six questions. It includes questions like: What are we
fundraising for? What resources do we have to accomplish this? What
resources do we need to accomplish this? What markets are we targeting?
Etc.

4) Impeccability in the rules process:
In my opinion representatives of the candidates had too much influence
in the rules process.

We have to have a process that people trust. Not just in fact but also
in perception.

The problem we have is that there are not enough active greens on the
national level to have people work on the rules that aren't working on
some campaign. Do we keep the two separate or do we work to keep a
balance of representation of various interests.


Look at the former Delegate Apportionment Committee (DAC) as an example
of the latter model.

This can be described as the Civil Service Model vs the
Political/Trans-Partisan Model. Trans-Partisan is a word that I would
like to see in the Green Party lexicon. It's not non-partisan, which
denies political identity, it's not bi-partisan, which limits the debate
to two sides, it's trans-partisan which recognizes that it's more
complicated than that. Yes, we have a political identity, but we are
also willing to transcend our ideology in order to find a successful
solution.

I think that people often mean well but don't understand that things are
different when you work at the national level. We often come from groups
at the local level where we are among friends. It may seem harsh to you,
what I am about to say, but when you are working at the national level
you are not among friends. This is a hard thing for people to accept. At
first, when they work at that level they are shocked at the level of
animosity and distrust. They can't believe that that is the way it is.
But it is. This party, at the national level, is still very young. There
is little in the way of traditions to guide us in how to be civil
towards each other. Email, for example, is an impersonal medium.
Perhaps, in time, we will build the traditions, in addition to the ten
key values that will help guide us. In time our ability, as a party, to
engage in civil discourse amongst ourselves does seem to be improving.

5) We need to have better informed Delegates. Many states did not have a
plan in place for what to do after the first round of voting in
Milwaukee. I have suggested a judge and jury model as a solution. The
judge informs the jury of what the legal questions to be answered are
but doesn't dictate to them how they are going to do it. State
Committees need to have a plan in place before they come to the
convention. 

States will have a template to work from.  There are drafts being worked
on now for how to address this. We need help, though. We need people
willing to work on this. We also need to have in written form  an answer
to the question, "how does the nomination process work?"

6) How do we do a better job of communicating with potential candidates?
What's the initial point of contact with a potential candidate? Who is
the initial point of contact with a potential candidate? This is a
problem at both the national and state level that needs to be addressed.
The PCSC recently sent out a survey to all of the state committees in
regards to this. A little over 50% have responded so far.
 
Who does the potential candidate talk to about the ballot access process
for your state? Who can they contact to help them with fundraisers or
hosting an event? Each state party needs to have clearly defined initial
points of contact.

7) In 2006 we created the Green Senatorial Campaign Committee (GSCC). It
became the first Congressional Committee to be recognized by the FEC
since it was formed in 1975. We held off forming the Green House
Campaign Committee so that we could incorporate the lessons learned from
the GSCC in its formation and ultimately FEC approval. Former GPUS
Political Director, Dean Myerson and I were present at the FEC hearing
for the approval of the GSCC. It passed easily with a 6-0 vote.

8) Have the 2008 convention as early as possible, and settle on the
convention site sooner rather than later. The earlier we know this the
more likely we will have a well organized and well attended event.

9) Challenge 2008. In 2004, soon after I arrived at the national office
in February, I began seeing in our press releases and other locations
references to our running 1,000 candidates in 2004. I began asking
around for where was the plan to do that. Nobody could answer the
question, so I went to working on killing any reference to this. So what
if we ran 1,000 candidates in 2008, what would that look like? I did an
exercise in an excel spread sheet where I looked at the last four years
and each state parties record for the actual number of candidates run. I
then developed a formula for this. I didn't let any state off the hook,
so if they hadn't run a candidate before the goal became that they would
run a candidate. 

California runs about 16% of our candidates. The math is simple.
Therefore if we were to do this the expectation for California would be
160 candidates in 2008. If anyone would like a copy of the schedule
please email me and I will send it to you.

Closing:
We have some tough questions before us that we need to have answers to
in order to be effective in 2008. Our next annual national meeting is in
Reading, Pennsylvania in July. I hope that many of you will be able to
make it there to meet with your colleagues from around the country.

http://www.gp.org/

http://www.greenscc.org/




_______________________________________________
Natlcomaffairs mailing list
To send a message to the list, write to:
Natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org
To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomaffairs

You must know your password to do this.

If you can't figure out how to
unsubscribe, as a last resort only,
send a message OFF LIST to
steveh at wagreens.us

If your state delegation changes, please see:
http://gp.org/committees/nc/documents/delegate_change.html

For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see:
http://gp.org/committees/nc/

------ End of Forwarded Message