DRAFT Green Party of Los Angeles County, County Council Meeting Agenda, May 18, 2024

DRAFT Green Party of Los Angeles County, County Council Meeting Agenda, Sunday, May 18, 2024
Teleconference information shared via County Council email list
Check in/socializing: 1:30 pm to 2pm
Business meeting: 2pm to 4:30pm

Facilitators: Timeka Drew, Ajay Rai
Minutes: Mike Feinstein
Time Keeper:  Doug Barnett
Vibes Watcher: Ava Kermani

Agenda

1. Welcome and Introductions - All attendees (five minutes)
Very brief introductions, including role with the GPLAC County Council and/or otherwise with Green Party, or as outside observer.

2. Reviewing our process (three minutes)
Presenter: Facilitators
• Relevant Bylaw: Section 11-2 Participation
11-2.1 All GPLAC members may participate in the 'Consensus-seeking Process'. Participation is based upon the premise that people participant in order build the Green Party and advance the Ten Key Values. Disagreement over issues and ideas should be honored as an expected part this process, and is not to be considered a disruption or impediment. Participants are encouraged to state their views, inform one another, and discuss issues in depth, in a manner that enables energy to be focused on productive work.
11-2.2 Only County Council members can hold 'unresolved concerns' and participate in any vote, should one become necessary.
11-2.3 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 team, non-Council members may also participate in these discussions.
11-2.4 A County Council member, when recognized by the facilitation team, may yield the floor to a non-County Council member rather than speaking themselves, and in do doing, forego his/her turn on the item.

3. Decision: 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): Items marked *below were published after the two week deadline and thereby need to be added to the agenda by a 2/3 vote

4. Discussion: Treasurer's Report, FPPC Compliance Letter, outstanding debts  (twenty minutes) *
Sponsor/Presenter: Doug Barnett, Outgoing GPLAC Treasurer; Ajay Rai, GPLAC Co-Coordinator

Background:  At the GPLAC’s April meeting, the County Council voted to send a letter to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).  However the FPPC sent the following letter to the GPLAC first, obviating the need for the GPLAC’s letter.  This is an opportunity to discuss the significance of the letter.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/greenpartylacounty/pages/1/attachments/...

Next, Feinstein will present an update on what is owed to him regarding him paying for the GPLAC's Nationbuilder website.

Also a discussion of efforts to identify a new GPLAC Treasurer

5.  Election: Election of GPLAC Treasurer (ten minutes)

Sponsor/Presenters: Timeka Drew, Ajay Rai, GPLAC Co-Coordinators

6. Approval of GPLAC minutes April 22, 2024 (three minutes)
Sponsor/Presenter: Mike Feinstein, GPLAC Secretary

Background: These draft minutes were posted to the GPLAC County Council email list on April 27.  No amendments have been proposed since then.

Proposal: Approve minutes

http://losangeles.cagreens.org/county-council/minutes/2024-04-22

7. Decision: Set next GPLAC meeting dates (fifteen minutes)
Sponsors/Presenters: Feinstein, Rai

Background: At its April 22 meeting, the County Council approved the following meeting schedule, with a tentative location for the June 23 meeting. 

https://losangeles.cagreens.org/county-council/meetings-2024

Sunday, August 4 (in person, location TBD): agenda
Sunday, June 23 (tentative location park area @ East LA Library)
Sunday, May 19 (virtual)

In addition, there was to have been wide outreach for this May 19 meeting, to give those interested in attending a County Council meeting.  But this outreach did not occur. 

Here is the logistical information for the East LA Library, 4837 E 3rd St, Los Angeles, CA 90022 https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=4837+E+3rd+St%2C+East+Los+Angeles%2C+CA+...

Proposal: That the East LA Library location be confirmed for June 23 and that an addition virtual meeting be held on June 9 or June 16, with the primary objective to be an introduction to the GPLAC for interested Greens in LA County, and that the meeting not count towards attendance requirements for County Council members.

8. Decision: GPLAC response to GPCA Bylaws Proposal (fifteen minutes)
Sponsor/Presenter: Mike Feinstein

Background: There is a bylaws amendment proposal at the upcoming GPCA General Assembly that would shorten the GA discussion period from six weeks to four weeks.   This is a link to that proposal:  https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cagreens/pages/1705/attachments/original/1715910273/General_Assembly_Decision_Proposal_re__Bylaws_Amendments.pdf

The following letter is proposed as the GPCA’s response.

Proposal:  Send the following letter of opposition to General Assembly proposed bylaws change to short SGA discussion period from six weeks to four weeks, with posting to the GPCA CC, Bylaws Committee, the gpca-forum@cagreens.org, and gpca_members_forum@riseup.net.

Dear GPCA

The GPLAC County Council unequivocally opposes the proposed bylaws change to shorten the SGA discussion period from six weeks to four weeks.  There are several reasons for this:

(1) One of the original reasons for having an SGA discussion period of six weeks was to allow most county Green Parties to meet during the discussion period at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, as most meet monthly or less frequently.  

Empowering GPCA county parties to meet and  discuss state party agenda items in a collective manner, before their SGA delegates vote to represent that county Green Party, is a key aspect of grassroots democracy, one of the GPCA Ten Key Values.   Shortening the SGA discussion period by 1/3 only disempowers bottom-up, grassroots process at the county level in the Green Party of California.

(2) Not coincidentally, a similar reasoning about empowering county Green Party discussion is behind the existing six weeks publishing requirement for agenda items to General Assemblies in GPCA Bylaws 7-5.1 “Draft Agenda “(a) The Coordinating Committee shall establish a Draft Agenda for all General Assembly meetings, distribute it at least 42 days in advance to each County Organization and submit it for approval at the beginning of each General Assembly.”

(3) Having an SGA discussion period of six weeks gives time for county Green Parties who meet once a month to meet and then offer/accept amendments after their meetings, and still have enough time for discussion of those amendments at the SGA level.  Cutting that time back from six weeks to four weeks will needlessly restrict the ability for county parties to offer amendments and have those amendments themselves receive suffice time for debate. Only a small number of party insiders may be as up-to-date and online all the time, to act within shorter timelines. If the GPCA wants the SGA process to be more broadly based in the Green Party, shortening the time for delegates and county parties to consider amendment is not a way to do it.

(4) For county parties that have a large number of delegates, especially LA County, some of those seats are best filled by Greens who may not have the time to be everyday party activists, and don’t have the time to be on GPCA email lists every day, because they have families and full time jobs. However, they may otherwise be highly qualified in terms of their understanding of the issue and their individual background.

Unnecessarily shortening the SGA discussion period as proposed would make it more difficult for such Greens to participate, and therefore have the effect of narrowing the pool of qualified Greens willing to serve; with a particularly disproportionate negative affect on Los Angeles County, because of the number of LA County delegates.
Again, this bylaw change would have the affect of lowering participation and lessening internal democracy.

(5) Speaking of lowering participation and lessening internal democracy, we note with irony that this bylaws amendment could have been discussed during the current SGA, where a far larger number of county party delegates could participate than only those that can show up at the specific one hour, heavily moderated discussion and vote.
And we note again that unnecessarily limiting party participation in this way has a particularly negative disproportionate affect on Los Angeles County, because of the number of its delegates.  We start to wonder if we are seeing a pattern.

(6)  We also note with irony that a justification for this proposed bylaws amendment is the ‘burden on volunteers who currently manage the online SGA and the lack of volunteers to assist with this work’, when it has been the centralization of power and shrinking democracy in the GPCA that has led so many formerly active and capable GPCA members to no longer participate on the state party level.  All of these attempts to squeeze down on internal party democracy are death by a thousand cuts to our state party.  That is why there is no one left to run the infrastructure. The anemic upcoming one day General Assembly agenda is just another example of the self-inflicted deterioration of the GPCA, when for over 20 years the state party was more than busy enough to merit two full days of party business, plus a Saturday night party event.

(7) Finally we note with alarm that the proposed bylaw removes specific mention of the SGA in the section online voting section of the bylaws, and only mentions GPCA Coordinating Committee (CC) control of online voting. There is no written justification for eliminating specific motion of the SGA made in the background of the proposal and there is no reason to eliminate specific motion of the SGA in the language of the bylaws in the first place — unless the intent is to lay the groundwork to continue to de-emphasize the role of the SGA and/or to give the CC the ability to conduct its own online voting independently of the SGA, which is how the proposed language could be read.

(8) The GPLAC believes that basing party actions upon Green Party Key Values like grassroots democracy is the way to grow the party.  This proposed bylaws change would go in the other direction in many way. So for all these reasons, we recommend a no vote.

9. Discussion: GPLAC SGA voting for GPCA Coordinating Committee (ten minutes)

Background: According to Green Party of California (GPCA) Bylaws 8-2.1 "The Coordinating Committee shall be composed of up to 24 voting members, with 12 men and 12 women. Six women and six of any gender shall be elected each year to serve staggered, two year terms”

This election is for twelve two-year seats for vacancies on the GPCA Coordinating Committee (http://www.cagreens.org/committees/coordinating ) for two-year terms running from July 1 2024 to June 30 2026 and seven one-year seats for one-year terms running from July 1 2024 to June 30 2025. The Coordinating Committee's Duties and Authority are found in Section 8-1 of the bylaws. Ranked Choice Voting is explained here:   https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ • https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#how-r...

Candidates: Meg Buckingham, Susan Chunco,  Charisse Cordero, Sean Dougherty, Ann Garrison, Jane Jarlsberg, Susan Lamont, James Lauderdale, Don Manro, James McFadden, Shannel Pittman, Rohan Sabnis, John Schmit , Chris Specker, Audra Walton, Laura Wells, No other candidate

Candidate applications:  https://int-cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_id_248     

10. Discussion: GPLAC SGA voting for GPUS Delegation (ten minutes)

Background: Election to fill 12 Delegate seats and 12 Alternate seats on the California Delegation to the Green Party of the United States for two-year terms running from July 1 2024 to June 30 2026 and 3 Delegate seats and 9 Alternate seats for one-year terms running from July 1 2024 to June 30 2025.The candidates receiving the top 15 highest rankings will be elected as Delegates. After the top 15 are seated as Delegates the next 21 elected will fill Alternate seats. If one or more of the candidates who were elected as Delegates prefer to be Alternates the Delegates can change their position during the week immediately following the announcement of the results. The elected Delegate in question would be made an Alternate and the highest ranked willing Alternate would be made a Delegate.The discussion period is six weeks from Monday May 6 through Sunday June 16 2024 followed by a one-week voting period beginning June 17.

According to the Delegate Apportionment Formula in Section 8-6 of GPUS Rules and Procedures Article VIII National Committee Size and Delegate Allocation (http://gpus.org/rules-procedures/#08 ) the Green Party of California (GPCA) is entitled to 24 delegates on the 150 member National Committee of the Green Party of the United States.

According to GPCA bylaws the GPCA elects its GPUS delegates and alternates to staggered two-year terms via the Standing General Assembly during the same time period as elections to the GPCA Coordinating Committee in Section 11-4 ( https://www.cagreens.org/bylaws-green-party-california#Section_11-4._Ele... ).

This election is for 24 seats on the GPUS Delegation for two-year terms running from July 1 2024 to June 30 2026 and for 12 seats for one-year terms running from July 1 2024 to June 30 2025. The election is conducted by Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting is explained here:  https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ • https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#how-r...

Candidates: Bill Balderston, Gary Blenner, Sean Dougherty , Richard Gomez, David Han, Tarik Kanaana, Ava Kermani , Peggy Koteen, Jared Laiti, Susan Lamont, Don Macleay, Ken Mandel, Don Manro, James McFadden, Nadia Nouri, Donna Pulling, Justin Richardson, Josefina Santiago, Pam Spevack, Rich Stone, Lindsay Vurek, No other candidate
Their applications are here:  https://int-cagreens.nationbuilder.com/sga_id_249   

11. Decision: Report on GPLAC efforts to promote proportional representation and a substantially larger city council for Los Angeles (fifteen minutes)
Sponsor/Presenter: Feinstein

Background: Going back to November 2016, the GPLAC has called for a substantially larger Los Angeles City Council losangeles.cagreens.org/issues/los-angeles-city-council-size, elected with the use of ranked-choice voting losangeles.cagreens.org/issues/los-angeles-elections-ranked-choice-voting.  In late 2022, the Los Angeles City Council voted to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Reform to explore establishing an independent redistricting commission to draw district lines for the Los Angeles City Council and to consider a larger city council to reflect an increases in population.

The GPLAC took the position that a Charter Reform Commission should have been established at that time to consider city council enlargement and elections from multi-seat districts by proportional ranked choice voting (PRCV) - and sent in comment comment to that effect to the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Reform  https://losangeles.cagreens.org/issues/gplac-concerns-limited-scope-los-....

Subsequently Feinstein had the following opinion pieces published in:

Opinion: Time for a Civic Assembly for Los Angeles charter reform. By Michael Feinstein. Los Angeles Daily News. April 17 2024
https://www.dailynews.com/2024/04/17/time-for-a-civic-assembly-for-los-angeles-charter-reform/

Opinion: LA City Council poised to strong-arm local democracy. Why a ‘democracy package’ of charter amendments needs to be considered independent of elected officials. By Michael Feinstein. LA Daily News. May 13, 2024 https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/13/la-city-council-poised-to-strong-arm-local-democracy/

The Scope of Ad Hoc Committee on LA City Governance Reform is Insufficient. By Michael Feinstein CityWatchLA. May 04 2023
https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/cw/la-election-2022/26895-the-scope-of-ad-hoc-committee-on-la-city-governance-reform-is-insufficient

and sent in this request for a presentation on PRCV

LA needs to consider using Proportional Representation for city council elections. June 28, 2023. https://democracysos.substack.com/p/la-needs-to-consider-using-proportional

A strong background document was prepared by Fair Representation LA www.fairrepla.com/expansion.

At its April 18th meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee voted to recommend a politician-appointed Charter Reform Commission, mostly along these lines, with a few small modifications.

At its April 22 meeting, the GPLAC County Council voted to take the following position:

(1) That the GPLAC position be that in establishing the Charter Reform Commission, that the City Council should specifically include as part of the Commission's scope, that the study of council enlargement include studying electing the LA City Council from multi-seat districts by proportional ranked-choice voting, and provide reasoning as in this document LA needs to consider using Proportional Representation for city council elections.

(2) The GPLAC do an email blast letting all Greens in Los Angeles County about the GPLAC position and ask for letters of support, to forward information about the Charter Review Commission to GPLAC members, both now and during the Charter Review Commission process.  (This did not occur)

(3) The GPLAC do an email blasts to LA Neighborhood Councils with the GPLAC position and background material, both now and during the Charter Review Commission process  (This did not occur)

On May 14, the LA City Council voted to establish the Charter Review Commission recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee.  See these links for media coverage by the LA Time and LA Daily News, and by Common Cause CA and UnrigLA.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-05-15/los-angeles-city-counci...

https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/14/los-angeles-city-council-advances-e...

https://www.commoncause.org/california/press-release/breaking-l-a-ethics...

https://twitter.com/UnrigLA/status/1790524582732120539

Here were the accepted amendments to the Charter Reform Commission process

https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-1027_misc_12A_05-14-24.pdf
https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-1027_misc_12B_05-14-24.pdf

The final vote was 15-0
https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-1027_caf_05-14-24.pdf

What are the next steps?  The proposal stated that both the Ad Hoc Committee and the City Council can give direction for scope to the Charter Reform Commission

Have sent in this letter, https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-1027_PC_PM_05-17-2024.pdf, making these arguments:

As part of developing the scope for the LA Charter Reform Process, the Ad Hoc Committee should direct the Charter Reform Commission to explicitly study electing the City Council from multi-seat districts elected by proportional representation (called proportional ranked choice voting, or PRCV), as part if its consideration of Council enlargement, as argued in this letter send to Ad Hoc Committee Chair Krekorian in June 2023. https://democracysos.substack.com/p/la-needs-to-consider-using-proportional


- Under PRCV, the threshold to get elected is lower than a majority. This enables multiple winners, and broader and more proportional representation from within each multi-seat district.
- By empowering voters to rank their choices, PRCV eliminates vote-splitting and the ‘spoiler issue’ that is inherent in single-seat, winner-take-all elections.
- In a city as diverse as Los Angeles, PRCV would mean far better realization of the goals of the federal and California Voting Rights Acts.
- Relevant to Los Angeles’ redistricting process, it would substantially lower the stakes of drawing district lines, because elections and issues of representation would no longer be winner-take-all.
- By moving to a single PRCV general election and eliminating Los Angeles’ two-round, contingent run-off system, it would place the choice of who represents Los Angeles before the greatest and most diverse number of voters, compared to lower-turnout and less diverse primaries.
- And by holding a single PRCV general election, limited public financing funds could apply to a single election, rather than being spread over two elections, increasing the sustainability of the program

Proposal: That it continue that the following continue to be the GPLAC’s position:

(1) That the GPLAC position be that in establishing the Charter Reform Commission, that the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform and/or the City Council should specifically include as part of the Commission's scope, that the study of council enlargement include studying electing the LA City Council from multi-seat districts by proportional ranked-choice voting, and provide reasoning as in this document LA needs to consider using Proportional Representation for city council elections.

(2) The GPLAC do an email blast letting all Greens in Los Angeles County about the GPLAC position and ask for letters of support, to forward information about the Charter Review Commission to GPLAC members, both now and during the Charter Review Commission process. 

(3) The GPLAC do an email blasts to LA Neighborhood Councils with the GPLAC position and background material, both now and during the Charter Review Commission process 

12. Decision: Create group of present and past Green Neighborhood Council members in Los Angeles to advice on LA Charter Reform vis-a-vis Neighborhood Councils (fifteen minutes)
Sponsor/Presenter: Feinstein

Background: As part of its Charter Reform Process, Los Angeles will be considering Charter Amendments regarding Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles. The initial set of conceptual proposals has been published by LA’s Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE)

https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2023/23-1027_rpt_DONE_01-22-24.pdf

Additionally Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is conducting a review of the Neighborhood Councils and just appointed a new General Manager to DONE. 

As a form of bottom-up local advisory government, Neighborhood Councils are a model fitting in with Green Party key values. At least 77 Greens have been elected to Neighborhood Councils since they are first established in the early 2000s.

Proposal: Establish a working group of present and past Green Neighborhood Council members in Los Angeles to track the Charter Review process and the Mayor’s review, make recommendations on GPLAC positions, and provide public input into the process. Seek present and past Green Neighborhood Council members to take the lead on organizing the effort.