DRAFT Agenda, GPLAC County Council meeting, March 15, 2020

DRAFT Agenda: GPLAC County Council meeting, March, 2020
Zoom teleconference; call-in number posted to County Council email list
Business meeting 2-5pm (please join call at 1:50 so can start on time @2pm)

Facilitators: Annie Goeke, Ajay Rai
Minutes: Mike Feinstein
Time Keeper:  Linda Piera-Avila
Vibes Watcher: Marla Bernstein

1. Welcome and Introductions - All attendees (five minutes)                                           

Brief introductions, including role with County Council or otherwise with Green Party, or as outside observer

2. Reviewing our process  (two minutes)                                                                          
Presenter: Facilitators

Relevant Bylaw: Section 9.3 Participation
9.3.1 Open Meetings: With the consent of the Council, all members of the Green Party of Los Angeles County may participate in the 'Consensus-seeking Process' but only Council members may hold any 'unresolved concerns' and participate in any vote, should one become necessary.
9.3.2 County Council members shall receive priority in discussions, to ensure that they have time to a) seek clarifications. b) express their concerns and affirmations, and c) take a vote, if necessary. At the discretion of the facilitation

3. Opportunity to amend agenda and/or add emergency items (five minutes)               
Presenter: Facilitators

Relevant By-Law 7.5.2.3 The agenda may be amended by a 3/5 vote of County Councilmember present. Emergency and/or late items may be added to the agenda by a 2/3 vote of County Councilmembers (in the interest of time, suggested amendments and their rationale should be offered on-line before the meeting)

Proposal (Feinstein): That all the items marked with an * below are added to the agenda in the order presented

4. Discussion: Treasurer's Report  (five minutes)*
Sponsor/Presenter: Barnett (Treasurer)

5. Decision: Approval of GPLAC County Council minutes, February 9, 2020 (three minutes)*
Sponsor/Presenter: Feinstein (Secretary)

Background: Draft minutes were posted to the County Council email list on March 7, 2020

Lee was elected in an August 2019 special election to fill the remainder of Englander’s City Council District 12 term until November 2020 when Englander resigned earlier in 2019 to take a job in the private sector.  In that race, the GPLAC supported Loraine Lundquist https://losangeles.cagreens.org/issues/support-loraine-lundquist-2020.  On March 3,2020, elections were held to fill that seat for the 2020 to 2024 term.  Again the GPLAC supported Lundquist vs. Lee.  At this point with 200,000 uncounted ballots still outstanding in Los Angeles County, Lee is ahead of Lundquist 51.05% to 48.95% https://results.lavote.net/text-results/4085#contest-10. However the indictment of Englander was not released by the FBI until **after** the March 3 election, preventing the voters from knowing about Lee’s involvement in the issue.

https://www.dailynews.com/2020/03/10/councilman-lees-possible-connection-to-mitch-englander-scandal-spurs-calls-for-him-to-resign/
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-10/councilman-john-lee-vegas-trip-englander
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-11/column-englander-what-happened-in-vegas-did-not-stay-in-vegas
https://laist.com/2020/03/13/timeline-of-los-angeles-city-hall-fbi-corruption-investigation-englander-huizar.php
https://laist.com/latest/post/20200312/mitch-englander-trial-investigation-city-hall-corruption
https://www.change.org/p/council-member-john-lee-resign-immediately
https://medium.com/@ChangeTheLAUSD/it-didnt-stay-in-vegas-is-councilman-...
https://twitter.com/libdenk/status/1237098730806849536

Proposal: That the GPLAC issue the following statement:

The Green Party of Los Angeles County (GPLAC) believes that all people are presumed legally innocent until proven guilty. However the GPLAC believes that Los Angeles City Councilmember John Lee should resign his City Council District 12 position immediately. Lee’s direct involvement in the affairs leading up to the federal indictment of former Los Angeles City Councilmember Mitch Englander — as referenced in that indictment — and his role in a possible cover-up of it means he can not govern with the confidence of the residents of his district, nor of the City of Los Angeles overall. 

The remainder of Lee’s current term runs only through November 2020, a relatively short time for the seat to remain vacant (unless it is filled by a special election, which under the current health emergency environment, is not clear if that would or could occur.)

Lee chose to run for City Council in 2019 knowing that he had already been questioned by the FBI in 2018 regarding this affair. The GPLAC sees this as an unethical choice, given that the public did not know about this — showing Lee's disdain for the public’s right to know and demonstrating that Lee already does not deserve the public trust.

With over 200,000 uncounted ballots still outstanding in Los Angeles County from the March 3 election as of March 13, Lee is ahead of his opponent Loraine Lundquist 51.05% to 48.95% in a two-way race https://results.lavote.net/text-results/4085#contest-10.

While it is not clear whether Lee will remain ahead in the March 3 election after all the votes are counted, should he prevail in that race, that 2020-2024 term does not begin until new City Councilmembers are seated after the November 2020 general elections.  With Englander’s trial scheduled to begin on May 5 (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.770261/gov.uscourts.cacd.770261.23.0.pdf), Lee will have an opportunity to clear his name before it would be time to assume the 2020-2024 seat. If Lee is unable to clear his name, he must decline to assume the seat and allow CD12 residents to chose a different representative. This action would be preferable to Lee facing an almost certain early recall effort in early 2021, should he chose to assume his seat without clearing his name and reputation.  

6. Decision: Clarification of Mistaken Bylaws Interpretation (ten minutes)*
Sponsors/Presenters: Bernstein, Feinstein, Rai

Background: GPLAC Bylaws 4-1.2 state "The GPLAC may extend GPCA membership to county residents, 14 years old or older, who are not otherwise eligible to register to vote in California, but who affirm in writing the Ten Key Values and the GPCA's and GPLAC's purpose, and that they would register Green if legally permitted to do so. Preferably such individuals are also active in the work of the GPLAC and/or with Active Green Locals. Such members may participate in all functions of the Party, except as County Council Officer or County Council alternate."

GPCA Bylaws 3-1 state: "GPCA members are those who are legally registered to vote in California as members of the Green Party. County Organizations may also extend GPCA membership to county residents who are not otherwise eligible to register to vote in California, but who affirm in writing the Ten Key Values and the GPCA's purpose, and meet other criteria established by the GPCA and/or the county organization. For such membership to be valid within the parameters defined in these bylaws, the County Organization must forward minutes to the Coordinating Committee of the meeting at which such membership was extended."

On November 11, 2018 the GPLAC mistakenly made a bylaws interpretation based only upon GPCA Bylaws 3-1 when the correct application of the bylaws would have been GPCA Bylaws 3-1 in conjuntion with GPLAC Bylaws 4-1.2.  As a result Diana Brown was interpreted to be appointed as a County Council member, when she was not in fact eligible under GPLAC Bylaws 4-1.2. 

8.  Decision: Bylaws Interpretation on status of Diana Brown as a GPCA member and her County Council membership
Presenter: Mike Feinstein

Proposal (Feinstein): That the GPLAC approve the following bylaws interpretation

Bylaws Interpretation:

- Whereas the GPLAC appointed Diana Brown to the County Council on October 3, 2018 thinking she was a regisered Green Party member in Los Angeles County; and 

- Whereas Diana Brown is not legally able to register Green in California; and - Whereas under GPCA Bylaws Membership "GPCA members are those who are legally registered to vote in California as members of the Green Party. County Organizations may also extend GPCA membership to county residents who are not otherwise eligible to register to vote in California, but who affirm in writing the Ten Key Values and the GPCA's purpose, and meet other criteria established by the GPCA and/or the county organization” 

- Whereas Diana Brown states for the purposes of recording in writing in the minutes of this meeting, that she affirms the Ten Key Values and the GPCA’s Purpose; 

- Therefore on a one time basis, with no intention of setting a future precedent, the GPLAC simultaneous appoints Diana Brown as a GPCA member under Article III Membership, and retroactively considers her earlier appointment valid to the County Council when she was not yet a GPCA member.
  Approved by consensus

Proposal (Feinstein, Rai): That for the purposes of clarifying the record and not setting a precedent for appointment to future County Counci vacancies, Diana Brown was not eligible for appointment to the County Council when the County Council voted on the above Bylaws Interpretation on November 11, 2018 and therefore the Bylaws Interpretation was not valid.

7. Discussion: Status of Green voter registration data base from LA County Registrar (ten minutes)*
Presenters: Feinstein, Rai

Background: Under the California Elections Code, ballot status political parties are entitled to a free copy of the registered voters in the county, one time for the primary election and one time for the general election.

8: Decision: Authorize Email Blast to GPLAC members (ten minutes)*
Sponsors/Presenters: Barnett, Bernstein

Background: GPLAC Rules and Procedures Article V specify that the County Council shall determine how the GPLAC Green voter registration contacts data base is used. On Friday, April 10 Green Party member Mike Feinstein is scheduled to make a presentation "The Green Party and prospects for a multi-party democracy in California and the United States" at LA Eco-Village, described as "People across California and across the country are fighting for more political representation than offered by the two-party duopoly. How can we get to a multi-party democracy?  What does the experience of the Green Party in the U.S. and around the world tell us about this challenge? How would politics in California and the United States be  different under a multi-party democracy, that included proportional representation, ranked choice voting and public financing of elections?"

However since the meeting date was set, the onsite of an emergency public health crisis resulting from the spread of the COVID-19 virus has meant that many such events and gatherings have been cancelled. At this point the hosts have neither cancelled, postponed nor re-scheduled the event. However it it likely that this will be the case; and unless there is a drastic change in the health crisis, it would not be appropriate for the Green Party to be promoting an event that could endanger the health of others

Proposal (Barnett, Bernstein): That the GPLAC authorize an email blast to GPLAC members promoting an event at the LA Eco-Village featuring Feinstein's talk "The Green Party and prospects for a multi-party democracy in California and the United States" on a future date not yet scheduled because of the public health crisis resulting from the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

9. Discussion: Outreach for 2020-2024 County Council appointments (twenty minutes)*
Sponsor/Presenter: Bernstein, Feinstein, Piera-Avila

Background: Five Greens in State Senate District 26 obtained enough signatures to qualify for the March 2020 County Council ballot, in a district with six seats.  Because their seats are uncontested, they will be automatically be elected next county council. No other Greens in Los Angeles County qualified for the ballot. That leaves 39 of the 44 potential County Council seats vacant to start the 2020-2024 County Council term.  The GPLAC just approved the following bylaws change for 8-3.1 to

8-3.1 Nominees must be registered Greens within the District they wish to represent, and must also gather as many signatures of registered Greens in the district on a petition as defined in 8.4, as would be normally required by the County Registrar to appear on the ballot in that district, for the purposes of being elected to the Los Angeles County Green Party County Council; or for the two regular County Council meetings in April or May 2020, if they have attended at least one prior County Council meeting within the previous six months, may gather five signatures of registered Greens in the district on a petition as defined in 8.4 and to be appointed, would need 80% approval from the County Council

And that after May 2020, the language “or for the two regular County Council meetings in April or May 2020, if they have attended at least one prior County Council meeting within the previous six months, may gather five signatures of registered Greens in the district on a petition as defined in 8.4 and to be appointed, would need 80% approval from the County Council” would be removed from the bylaws.

To help enable this attendance requirement, the Council approved email and social media outreach to registered Greens to let them known of the duties and responsibilities of the County Council, and to attend the last meeting of the outgoing County Council on March 15, 2020, and/or the April 5 meeting to present their interest in apply to the new County Council at the regular County Council meetings of April or May 2020, with time on the March 15 and April 5 agendas would be dedicated to hearing from these individuals as potential applicants. 

This agenda item is an opportunity to review and continue that outreach.

10. Decision: Schedule County Council meetings in response to COVID-19 public health crisis (fifteen minutes)*
Sponsors/Presenters: Bernstein, Feinstein, Rai

Background: At its February 9 meeting, the County Council approved a meeting schedule for the remainder of 2020.  Locations were provided for the April 5 and August 15 meetings, but not for May 17. Since then the public health crisis arising from the onset of the COVID-19 virus have caused the cancellation and/or postponement of many meetings and events, while some meetings have gone to teleconference and livestream. This agenda item is to set that meeting location and/or direct the co-coordinators to secure a location and report back to the County Council. 

Proposal: Change the April 5 meeting to a teleconference and re-visit the May 17 meeting's location at the April 5 meeting after more information is known about the public health crisis. 

11. Decision: Planning April 5 County Council meeting (fifteen minutes)*
Sponsors/Presenters: Bernstein, Feinstein, Rai

Background: The first meeting of a new County Council often includes a series of special agenda items. Here is the agenda from the first meeting of the 2016-2020 County Council as reference http://losangeles.cagreens.org/county-council/agenda/2016-07-10

This agenda item provides an opportunity to plan for the April 5th meeting of the new County Council, as the submission deadline for on-time agenda items is March 15.

12. Discussion:  Review of proposed bylaws and rules and procedures changes (forty minutes)*
Sponsors/Presenters: Feinstein, Piera-Avila

Background: The following draft bylaw change http://losangeles.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/gplac_vote/propdetail?pid=17 was posted to the County Council email list on February 24, 2020, in keeping with the thirty-day notice to post draft bylaws amendments.  The text of the draft changes are on this page https://losangeles.cagreens.org/county-council/agenda/2020-03-15/draft-b..., and the associated changes in the Rules and Procedures on this page https://losangeles.cagreens.org/county-council/agenda/2020-03-15/draft-r...

This agenda item is to provide the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments and potentially amend them before it goes to an on-line vote between March 26 and April 1.

13.  Discussion/Decision (executive decision): Joining potential lawsuit to overturn Top Two elections (fifteen minutes) - Executive Session, Legal Matter*
County Councilmembers only
Sponsors: Bernstein, Feinstein, Rai

Background: Now that the state of California has conducted a March primary, time is ripe for a challenge based upon this earlier Ninth Circuit opinion. Moving the primary for Congress and partisan state office to March will have profound consequences for the top-two system. The Ninth Circuit, in a Washington state case, already ruled that forcing minor parties to run only in August instead of November is only a “slight” burden, because, the Ninth Circuit said, August is near the peak of voter interest. The Ninth Circuit said it would be a far different matter if minor party candidates for Congress and partisan state office were confined to running in March, which is far from November.