Subject: [GPCA-bylaws] Policy v. Business Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 10:50:39 -0400 From: Jinfresno@aol.com Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: Gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At last night's CC teleconference, a decision was made to ask the bylaws committee to clarify the distinction between business and procedural questions on the one hand and policy questions on the other. With regard to decision-making by the General Assembly at a plenary, Section 5-8.1 states that a 2/3rd majority is needed for business and procedural questions and that an 80% majority is needed to change the bylaws or make policy decisions. Section 7-1.1(e) states that the CC may not make policy. Section 7-1.3 then states that all decisions made at a special meeting (like the one held on 4/30) shall be treated as policy decisions for voting purposes. This seems to imply fairly clearly that CC decisions should typically require only a 2/3 majority unless the the decision takes place at a special meeting, in which case it will require 80%. The question then becomes, "What is a business or procedural decision (and thus fair game for CC consideration) and what is a policy decision (and thus verboten for CC consideration). Having ruminated on this long into the night, my opinion at this time is that our lowly committee is not the proper arbiter of this question. Section 7-3.2 is the relevant provision in this instance. While we can assist with the interpretation of the bylaws, it is stated very clearly that "In cases of bylaw ambiguity or procedural disagreement, the General Assembly shall decide FOR ITSELF the meaning of its bylaws." There is a fallback that allows the CC to decide the question SUBJECT TO REVIEW at the NEXT General Assembly. My suggestion would be for the CC to take a stab at more precisely defining terms like "business", "procedure" and "policy" and then bring it to the San Diego plenary for final resolution. To the extent that the bylaws committee can assist the CC in this task, we would happily do so. Perhaps we can work on throwing some ideas together for consideration by the CC, but I do not think it is the place of the bylaws committee to opine definitively on this issue. Jeff Eisinger, Fresno _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] Policy v. Business Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:07:18 -0700 From: Jonathan Lundell Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 1:44 PM -0700 6/3/03, Ricardo Newbery wrote: >Of course none of this gets us out of defining what we mean >precisely by policy vs. business but it needs to be fixed before >these definitions can be enforced. > >I've actually taken a few stabs at defining policy vs. business in >the past. It's somewhere in my notes but I've got to run off to a >meeting right now so I'll look it up later and post some suggestions >when I find it. The bylaws don't address the issue, unfortunately. I hope it's something we'll be able to correct sooner rather than later. I'd locate the difference in the degree to which the decision tends to determine future related decisions. "We're going to print the next batch of platforms at XYZ Printing" is a business decision. "We're going to require the use of recycled paper and soy ink for all future printing" is a policy decision. As a practical matter, I think a better approach is to allow the CC to make policy decisions if required for timely action, and to make those decisions subject to GA review. Alternatively, one could interpret the bylaws to say, by definition, no CC decision *is* a policy decision. That is, it doesn't have a binding effect on future decisions until it's endorsed by the GA. -- /Jonathan Lundell. _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] Policy v. Business Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:38:43 -0700 From: Ricardo Newbery Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 3:07 PM -0700 6/3/03, Jonathan Lundell wrote: >I'd locate the difference in the degree to which the decision tends >to determine future related decisions. > >"We're going to print the next batch of platforms at XYZ Printing" >is a business decision. > >"We're going to require the use of recycled paper and soy ink for >all future printing" is a policy decision. Interesting. I would approach it from the other direction. Instead of defining policy decisions directly, I would start with a definition of business decisions and declare all others to be policy (or bylaw). How about defining business decisions as those that are... - not specifically designated as a policy decision by existing policy or bylaw AND that are either... - specifically authorized by existing policy or bylaw, OR - are obviously "routine" decisions necessary to administer a specific policy or bylaw or to perform a general function authorized by policy or bylaw. This is more or less what I remember from my previous attempts. The issue is a bit more complicated than this having to do with the confusing dual roles that this policy vs. business idea actually plays in the bylaws. I did some research and quite a bit more thinking on this, but this was a couple of years ago -- I'll look it up tomorrow. Ric _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] Policy v. Business Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:21:21 -0700 From: Jim Stauffer To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org I don't think it's possible to definitively define 'procedure' vs 'policy.' Hence the catch-all phrase of letting the GA figure out disagreements. These are more like concepts that can have a lot of grey area. But we and the CC could come up with a guidance document that describes some typical characteristics of a procedure and a policy decison. Something like... A Policy question typically addresses: + A statement of position, advocacy or endorsement of a public issue. + All substantive changes to the official bylaws and platform. + ???? + ???? A Procedure or Business question typically addresses: + Allocation of resources for approved projects. + The methods and processes by which an approved project is implemented. + ???? + ???? -- Jim Jinfresno@aol.com wrote: > > At last night's CC teleconference, a decision was made to ask the bylaws committee to clarify the distinction between business and procedural questions on the one hand and policy questions on the other. > With regard to decision-making by the General Assembly at a plenary, Section 5-8.1 states that a 2/3rd majority is needed for business and procedural questions and that an 80% majority is needed to change the bylaws or make policy decisions. > Section 7-1.1(e) states that the CC may not make policy. Section 7-1.3 then states that all decisions made at a special meeting (like the one held on 4/30) shall be treated as policy decisions for voting purposes. This seems to imply fairly clearly that CC decisions should typically require only a 2/3 majority unless the the decision takes place at a special meeting, in which case it will require 80%. > The question then becomes, "What is a business or procedural decision (and thus fair game for CC consideration) and what is a policy decision (and thus verboten for CC consideration). > Having ruminated on this long into the night, my opinion at this time is that our lowly committee is not the proper arbiter of this question. Section 7-3.2 is the relevant provision in this instance. While we can assist with the interpretation of the bylaws, it is stated very clearly that "In cases of bylaw ambiguity or procedural disagreement, the General Assembly shall decide FOR ITSELF the meaning of its bylaws." There is a fallback that allows the CC to decide the question SUBJECT TO REVIEW at the NEXT General Assembly. > My suggestion would be for the CC to take a stab at more precisely defining terms like "business", "procedure" and "policy" and then bring it to the San Diego plenary for final resolution. > To the extent that the bylaws committee can assist the CC in this task, we would happily do so. Perhaps we can work on throwing some ideas together for consideration by the CC, but I do not think it is the place of the bylaws committee to opine definitively on this issue. > > Jeff Eisinger, > Fresno > > _______________________________________________ > gpca-bylaws mailing list > gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws > http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] policy vs. business Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:02:20 -0700 From: Jonathan Lundell Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 3:02am -0700 7/14/03, Ricardo Newbery wrote: >The third definition was last advocated by Jonathan (I'm assuming >this is still the case) and is certainly simpler but, in my opinion, >this definition just blurs the separation of powers between the GA >and CC with a bit of semantic sleight-of-hand. I don't think the distinction is entirely semantic. As we've seen again and again, there's no easy (or perhaps even difficult) way of distinguishing between business and policy decisions, at least not at the boundary. Consequently, as I think Ric has suggested, in these marginal cases, the minority position will tend to assert that we're talking policy rather than business. What do we mean by policy? I'll offer one criterion: a decision is a policy decision if it sets a binding precedent for subsequent decisions. The decision to hold the next plenary in McCloud is a business decision (albeit a peculiar one). The decision to hold all spring plenaries in Sacramento is a policy decision. I don't claim that it's a clear-cut distinction. A decision to allow formal support for non-Green-registered candidates is clearly a policy decision. A decision to endorse an individual candidate is ... what? Business or policy? It has some precedential implications, at least for the duration of the campaign. But it says nothing about future endorsements. (And we've all seen that the GA doesn't meet frequently enough to be able to make all the endorsement decisions we'd like to make.) In defining the problem away by saying that the CC doesn't make policy decisions, I'm simply suggesting that CC decisions don't set a binding precedent. If a CC decision is to become policy (that is, have a continuing effect beyond the immediate decision), it has to be affirmed by the GA. As a side matter, but no less important, I observe that there appears to be a growing factionalism in GPCA. I find that troublesome, and so should we all, since factionalism will be the death of consensus decision-making. I hope we'll get over it. -- /Jonathan Lundell. _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] policy vs. business Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:44:26 -0700 From: Ricardo Newbery Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 8:02 AM -0700 7/14/03, Jonathan Lundell wrote: >What do we mean by policy? I'll offer one criterion: a decision is a >policy decision if it sets a binding precedent for subsequent >decisions. I offer another definition. It appears that the original intent of this distinction was to reserve "certain" decisions to the GA. So why don't we just make this the definition. And since this is supposed to be restrictive then define ALL decisions to be one of policy UNLESS defined otherwise. This functional definition gets facilitators and coordinators out of the murky business of determining when a proposal is likely to constrain or govern later decisions or actions. I've suggested something similar previously. Here it is again. ---------------------------------------------- All decisions are policy decisions unless... 1. designated otherwise by existing policy or bylaw or 2. are obviously "routine business decisions" necessary to perform or administer a specific function authorized by existing policy, bylaw, or directive from the GA ---------------------------------------------- Routine business decisions would be defined, in general, as those that can reasonably be inferred as included within the understandings and expectations of the body which approved the relevant policy, bylaw, or directive. Granted, this doesn't get us out of the semantic woods completely but it clears it up significantly and places the burden appropriately. With this definition, a reasonable case must be made in order to lower the threshold (or to allow the CC to consider the proposal) instead of the other way around, where a case must be made in order to raise the threshold. Ric _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] policy vs. business Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:35:27 -0700 From: Alex Brideau III Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org All, On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 08:02 AM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > a decision is a policy decision if it sets a binding precedent for > subsequent decisions I agree with Jonathan's definition of policy here. I think this definition makes sense and would be relatively easy to follow 99% of the time. I think this is the easiest-to-comprehend solution I've heard so far and could provide some decent guidance to the CC. What does the rest of the committee think? Is this sentence something we could submit to the CC as our interpretation? Alex _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] policy vs. business Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:54:05 -0700 From: Jonathan Lundell Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 11:44am -0700 7/14/03, Ricardo Newbery wrote: >All decisions are policy decisions unless... > > 1. designated otherwise by existing policy or bylaw > >or > > 2. are obviously "routine business decisions" necessary to perform > or administer a specific function authorized by existing policy, > bylaw, or directive from the GA I'd feel better about this approach if the GA had continuous existence, and had the ability to make decisions between plenary meetings. GPUS accomplishes this in a somewhat clumsy way with the SC/CC distinction. That's basically our CC/GA, except that the SC isn't as representative as our CC, and their CC (the equivalent of our GA) can make online decisions any time. However, I really doubt that our GA would be very effective at reaching consensus online. It's not an environment that seems very conducive to compromise and consensus; rather the opposite, in my experience. -- /Jonathan Lundell. _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] policy vs. business Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:11:22 -0700 From: Ricardo Newbery Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 1:35 PM -0700 7/14/03, Alex Brideau III wrote: >All, > >On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 08:02 AM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >>a decision is a policy decision if it sets a binding precedent for >>subsequent decisions > >I agree with Jonathan's definition of policy here. I think this >definition makes sense and would be relatively easy to follow 99% of >the time. I think this is the easiest-to-comprehend solution I've >heard so far and could provide some decent guidance to the CC. Some examples of decisions that that the GA might NOT want the CC to make unilaterally... - an official endorsement of a presidential candidate. - creating a new standing committee - temporarily suspending the bylaws - appointing new or additional members to the CC I'm sure if I thought about it a bit more, I can come up with others. Note that none of these decisions are technically "binding" on subsequent decisions. But the GA may still wish to restrain the CC from making them. This definition assumes that we can succinctly define a clean division of powers between the GA and the CC. I don't think this is practical. The list of exceptions to this rule may get quite long. And this approach is not likely to solve the original problem. Again, the word "precedent" is imprecise in this context. Precedent can always be set regardless of the intent of the decision. If you intend to go this route, it's clearer to define policy decisions as those that are intended to constrain or govern later decisions or actions. This may be a reasonable definition for matters before the GA since the GA can always legitimately change it's mind. But I'm not so sure that that this definition would clear up the CC mess. You can always get around this policy rule by just declaring, with a wink and a nod, that the decision is a one time exception and not binding on later decisions. It seems obvious to me that the GA is likely to want to reserve to itself more powers than this simple definition clearly defines. That's why I'm suggesting that, at least for CC process, we just define policy as the default case and ask the GA to explicitly list which decisions are those that may made by the CC. Ric _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] policy vs. business Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:04:54 -0400 From: Jinfresno@aol.com Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org My preference would be that the CC not make policy decisions at all and that it then have one voting threshold for the business decisions that it is allowed to make....maybe 75%. As to a definition, I am not comfortable with Jonathan's suggestion because, to me, that would allow the CC to decide almost anything on its own by saying "it does not set a BINDING precedent." This gives the CC too much power I think. Jeff _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: [GPCA-bylaws] policy vs business Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:01:39 -0700 From: Jonathan Lundell Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 8:11am -0700 9/18/03, basd wrote: >That's a bit of a end run to watering down the basic 80% rule. Since >we can't decide what is a business decision and what is a policy >decision, let's reduce the rights of the "minority" altogether. It's reasonable to ask what the best number might be. We've agreed that it's not 100%, and most agree that it's not 50% (except for candidate elections). It would certainly simplify things to have a single threshold, whatever it happened to be. I've been talking about "operational" definitions of business vs policy. Try this on for size. We have two bodies of decisions, never mind whether they're bylaws or policies or procedures or business decisions. Call them the 2/3 decisions and the 4/5 decisions. Any proposal that's approved by 4/5 becomes a 4/5 decision (this isn't rocket science). If it's approved by between 2/3 and 4/5, it becomes a 2/3 decision. 4/5 decisions have the force of bylaws, and can amend bylaws. 2/3 decisions must conform to all extant 4/5 decisions, but can override previous 2/3 decisions. That's what I mean by an operational definition. -- /Jonathan Lundell. _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] Fwd: [GPCAL CC] San Diego's concern aboutBylaws proposal Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:14:23 -0700 From: Jim Stauffer Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org I can see the advantage of describing just business decisions and defaulting all others to policy. But it is somewhat ambiguous since it offers no description of policy desicions except "everyting that isn't business." I'm not locked into this, but I would prefer to have some description of policy decisions. Even if it's just the two examples I noted below, plus "everything that is not clearly a business decision." We really need to move this forward, so does everyone like this idea of providing guidelines rather than trying to come up with definitions? If so let's concentrate on the description of business decisions, then see if want to pursue a description of policy. Any suggestions for a business decision description? I have one more possibility: + Internal decisions that do not affect public positions of the GPCA or relationships with other organizations. -- Jim Jonathan Lundell wrote: > > At 4:37pm -0700 9/17/03, Jim Stauffer wrote: > >I don't think it's possible to definitively define 'procedure' vs 'policy.' > >Hence the catch-all phrase of letting the GA figure out > >disagreements. These are > >more like concepts that can have a lot of grey area. > > > >But we and the CC could come up with a guidance document that describes some > >typical characteristics of a procedure and a policy decison. Something like... > > > >A Policy question typically addresses: > > > >+ A statement of position, advocacy or endorsement of a public issue. > >+ All substantive changes to the official bylaws and platform. > >+ ???? > >+ ???? > > > >A Procedure or Business question typically addresses: > > > >+ Allocation of resources for approved projects. > >+ The methods and processes by which an approved project is implemented. > >+ ???? > >+ ???? > > Specific language aside, it might be better to try to specify > business/procedure questions, and let everything else fall into > policy. Less chance of something coming up that doesn't fall into > either camp. Or at least specify that policy is the default. > > To take an example, according to Jim's suggested guidelines: > > 1. policy decision: GPCA may endorse statewide candidates > 2. procedure: method by which endorsement is achieved (ie endorsement > procedure) > 3. policy: any endorsement under that procedure would have to be > treated as a policy decision > > So when the GA approves a procedure (2) that contradicts (3), as they > did in San Diego, then what? Is that OK, as long as the procedure > approval is done to the policy threshold? > -- > /Jonathan Lundell. > _______________________________________________ > gpca-bylaws mailing list > gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws > http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: [GPCA-bylaws] Fwd: [GPCAL CC] San Diego's concern aboutBylaws proposal Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:41:09 -0700 From: Jonathan Lundell Reply-To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org To: gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org At 6:14pm -0700 9/22/03, Jim Stauffer wrote: >Any suggestions for a business decision description? I have one more >possibility: > >+ Internal decisions that do not affect public positions of the GPCA or >relationships with other organizations. It might also be useful to list decisions that are explicitly called out in the bylaws as one or the other, either by name or by threshold. Off the top of my head, bylaws amendments are policy; CC recall is business. I rather suspect there are others. -- /Jonathan Lundell. _______________________________________________ gpca-bylaws mailing list gpca-bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-bylaws http://cagreens.org/bylaws/ Subject: Re: Procedure/policy definition- Draft? Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:17:08 -0800 From: Jonathan Lundell To: Michael Borenstein , Alex Brideau , Chris Page , Jim Stauffer , Jeff Eisinger At 1:00 AM -0800 2/6/04, Michael Borenstein wrote: >????? > >Procedure: >That rule, or order of function, that facilitates the administration of the >operation and functioning of the party apparatus. > >Policy: >That which sets criteria of relationship between bodies of the GPCA, and >between the GPCA and outside bodies over a continuos period of time. I don't think this is the direction we need to go. The fact is, you can't really have a procedure that doesn't in some sense set policy. The endorsement procedure is a case in point. It's entirely appropriate for it to be a procedure, but it undeniably sets policy, if at a kind of detail level. My suggestion is to try to get away from that distinction (those words), and say that rules & procedures implement policies and directions in the bylaws. Example: the bylaws authorize the party to make endorsements, but don't give any more details. The endorsement procedure fleshes out the bylaws skeleton. Some policy-making is necessary in doing that (such as a policy for not endorsing in primaries, at least not normally), but it's policy in the service of the umbrella policy in the bylaws. I think we need to get away from seeing the problem as rooted in the definitions of policy vs procedure (or business). -- /Jonathan Lundell. Subject: Re: Procedure/policy definition- Draft? Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:44:59 -0800 From: Alex Brideau III To: Jonathan Lundell CC: Jeff Eisinger , Jim Stauffer , Michael Borenstein , Chris Page How about this then... POLICY: Documented statements which officially define the direction and priorities of the GPCA. PROCEDURE: A method by which a policy (as defined above) of the GPCA is enacted. Thoughts? Alex On 6 Feb 2004, at 12:17 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > At 1:00 AM -0800 2/6/04, Michael Borenstein wrote: >> ????? >> >> Procedure: >> That rule, or order of function, that facilitates the administration >> of the >> operation and functioning of the party apparatus. >> >> Policy: >> That which sets criteria of relationship between bodies of the GPCA, >> and >> between the GPCA and outside bodies over a continuos period of time. > > I don't think this is the direction we need to go. The fact is, you > can't really have a procedure that doesn't in some sense set policy. > The endorsement procedure is a case in point. It's entirely > appropriate for it to be a procedure, but it undeniably sets policy, > if at a kind of detail level. > > My suggestion is to try to get away from that distinction (those > words), and say that rules & procedures implement policies and > directions in the bylaws. > > Example: the bylaws authorize the party to make endorsements, but > don't give any more details. The endorsement procedure fleshes out the > bylaws skeleton. Some policy-making is necessary in doing that (such > as a policy for not endorsing in primaries, at least not normally), > but it's policy in the service of the umbrella policy in the bylaws. > > I think we need to get away from seeing the problem as rooted in the > definitions of policy vs procedure (or business). > -- > /Jonathan Lundell. > Subject: Re: Procedure/policy definition- Draft? Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:50:20 -0800 From: Jonathan Lundell To: Alex Brideau III CC: Jeff Eisinger , Jim Stauffer , Michael Borenstein , Chris Page At 12:44 PM -0800 2/9/04, Alex Brideau III wrote: >How about this then... > >POLICY: Documented statements which officially define the direction >and priorities of the GPCA. > >PROCEDURE: A method by which a policy (as defined above) of the GPCA >is enacted. > >Thoughts? That's better, I think. But "documented statements" could be clearer. What do we include, besides bylaws and platform? >Alex > > > > >On 6 Feb 2004, at 12:17 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >>At 1:00 AM -0800 2/6/04, Michael Borenstein wrote: >>>????? >>> >>>Procedure: >>>That rule, or order of function, that facilitates the administration of the >>>operation and functioning of the party apparatus. >>> >>>Policy: >>>That which sets criteria of relationship between bodies of the GPCA, and >>>between the GPCA and outside bodies over a continuos period of time. >> >>I don't think this is the direction we need to go. The fact is, you >>can't really have a procedure that doesn't in some sense set >>policy. The endorsement procedure is a case in point. It's entirely >>appropriate for it to be a procedure, but it undeniably sets >>policy, if at a kind of detail level. >> >>My suggestion is to try to get away from that distinction (those >>words), and say that rules & procedures implement policies and >>directions in the bylaws. >> >>Example: the bylaws authorize the party to make endorsements, but >>don't give any more details. The endorsement procedure fleshes out >>the bylaws skeleton. Some policy-making is necessary in doing that >>(such as a policy for not endorsing in primaries, at least not >>normally), but it's policy in the service of the umbrella policy in >>the bylaws. >> >>I think we need to get away from seeing the problem as rooted in >>the definitions of policy vs procedure (or business). >>-- >>/Jonathan Lundell. -- /Jonathan Lundell. Subject: Re: Procedure/policy definition- Draft? Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:31:31 -0800 From: Jonathan Lundell To: Alex Brideau III CC: Jeff Eisinger , Jim Stauffer , Michael Borenstein , Chris Page At 2:29 PM -0800 2/9/04, Alex Brideau III wrote: >Other than bylaws and platform, what would you find advisable to >include? The bylaws and platform are really the GPCA's only major >policy documents, right? I think so. If we can specify those instead of "documented statement", it's a lot more concrete and easy to understand. >Alex > > > >On 9 Feb 2004, at 12:50 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >>At 12:44 PM -0800 2/9/04, Alex Brideau III wrote: >>>How about this then... >>> >>>POLICY: Documented statements which officially define the >>>direction and priorities of the GPCA. >>> >>>PROCEDURE: A method by which a policy (as defined above) of the >>>GPCA is enacted. >>> >>>Thoughts? >> >>That's better, I think. But "documented statements" could be >>clearer. What do we include, besides bylaws and platform? >> >>>Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 6 Feb 2004, at 12:17 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: >>> >>>>At 1:00 AM -0800 2/6/04, Michael Borenstein wrote: >>>>>????? >>>>> >>>>>Procedure: >>>>>That rule, or order of function, that facilitates the >>>>>administration of the >>>>>operation and functioning of the party apparatus. >>>>> >>>>>Policy: >>>>>That which sets criteria of relationship between bodies of the GPCA, and >>>>>between the GPCA and outside bodies over a continuos period of time. >>>> >>>>I don't think this is the direction we need to go. The fact is, >>>>you can't really have a procedure that doesn't in some sense set >>>>policy. The endorsement procedure is a case in point. It's >>>>entirely appropriate for it to be a procedure, but it undeniably >>>>sets policy, if at a kind of detail level. >>>> >>>>My suggestion is to try to get away from that distinction (those >>>>words), and say that rules & procedures implement policies and >>>>directions in the bylaws. >>>> >>>>Example: the bylaws authorize the party to make endorsements, but >>>>don't give any more details. The endorsement procedure fleshes >>>>out the bylaws skeleton. Some policy-making is necessary in doing >>>>that (such as a policy for not endorsing in primaries, at least >>>>not normally), but it's policy in the service of the umbrella >>>>policy in the bylaws. >>>> >>>>I think we need to get away from seeing the problem as rooted in >>>>the definitions of policy vs procedure (or business). >>>>-- >>>>/Jonathan Lundell. >> >> >>-- >>/Jonathan Lundell. -- /Jonathan Lundell. Subject: Re: Policy/procedure models Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:33:44 -0800 From: Alex Brideau III To: Michael Borenstein CC: Jeff Eisinger , Chris Page , Jim Stauffer , Jonathan Lundell Thanks, Michael. Here is some revised text, taking into account Jonathan's and Chris's suggestions: POLICY: The content of the GPCA Bylaws and the GPCA Platform shall be considered policy. These documents officially define the direction and priorities of the GPCA. PROCEDURE: A method by which a policy (as defined above) of the GPCA is implemented shall be considered a procedure. I hope this clarifies and cleans up the language somewhat. And let's be sure to get Bylaws Committee approval before bringing this to the GA. Also, since this idea was not submitted in the plenary packet, let's consider this a discussion item only. Perhaps this can be considered as a proposal for the June nominating convention / plenary. --Alex Subject: Re: Policy/procedure models Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:51:39 -0800 From: Jim Stauffer To: Alex Brideau III CC: Michael Borenstein , Jeff Eisinger , Chris Page , Jonathan Lundell Yes, I like these definitions, but they don't answer the eternal question, "what's a policy and what's a procedure?" The definition of, "officially define the direction and priorities" does not give sufficient definition. Also, will all procedures have a corresponding policy? This could cause us to write bylaws where none are really needed. My original argument was that absolute definitions of bylaw v. procedure (or business v. policy) are not possible for all circumstances. Hopefully, in most cases it will be obvious. But in other cases a guidance document that describes the typical characteristics of bylaws and procedures would allow for case-by-case decisions. Here's what I suggested... A Policy question typically addresses: + A statement of position, advocacy or endorsement of a public issue. + All substantive changes to the official bylaws and platform. + ???? + ???? A Procedure or Business question typically addresses: + Allocation of resources for approved projects. + The methods and processes by which an approved project is implemented. + Internal decisions that do not affect public positions of the GPCA or relationships with other organizations. + ???? + ???? -- Jim Alex Brideau III wrote: > > Thanks, Michael. Here is some revised text, taking into account > Jonathan's and Chris's suggestions: > > POLICY: The content of the GPCA Bylaws and the GPCA Platform shall be > considered policy. These documents officially define the direction and > priorities of the GPCA. > > PROCEDURE: A method by which a policy (as defined above) of the GPCA is > implemented shall be considered a procedure. > > I hope this clarifies and cleans up the language somewhat. And let's be > sure to get Bylaws Committee approval before bringing this to the GA. > Also, since this idea was not submitted in the plenary packet, let's > consider this a discussion item only. Perhaps this can be considered as > a proposal for the June nominating convention / plenary. > > --Alex Subject: Re: [bylaws] definitional conundrum Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:50:49 -0700 From: "Ann" Reply-To: bylaws@cagreens.org To: OK. I'm a newcomer, so, although I do not know what has gone gefore in the working group, I guess I start by jumping in! If you have guidance to give me, or minutes I should read, or other wisdom, please send it. My dictionary... policy - 1) a way of management, a plan of action 2) practical wisdom; prudence 3) political skill or shrewdness I think we dare not venture as a working group in to claiming either 2) or 3)! We can hope, but the first is our guideline for "policy" as distinct from "rules and procedures". rule - 1) a statement of what to do and what not to do; principle governing conduct, action, or arrangement (I'm not bothering with the other 8 definitions...unrelated, in my opinion.) procedure - 1)a way of proceeding; method of doing things 2) the customary manners or ways of conducting some business: parliamentary procedure, legal procedure So, I suggest that the Ten Key Values and the Platform determine the policies in general, and then there may be more detailed writing of those policies in various resolutions, planks, etc. But a policy will be general, will point the direction, will cover a longer period of time or many instances (usually). Rules and Procedures, in my view, should be specific, telling how to get the work done, and generally should be left up to the group that is doing the task. There may be a need to have organization wide rules and procedures so that all groups adhere to one set of general rules and procedure, e.g., "transparency in operations", I would say, is a policy that should be (has been?) adopted by the Green Party at each level, and another policy refining/defining "transparency" might be that "every working group, every entity, will keep minutes of all decisions, and every entity will submit receipts for expenses". But the procedures/rules for carrying that out should be specif:ic: e.g., "Submit minutes to xxx by the first of each month", or "Reimbursements will be available only upon use of FORM 321 with receipts attached." I think that there is no "Great Wall" dividing a policy from a procedure ... nothing that will make it obvious which is which for all circumstances. But we should not get hung up in proceeding with the obvious because we are trying to define the most obscure possibilities! Quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes and qualitative changes bring a new set of quantitative changes! Would somebody forward the material we are trying to work on, so I may make more specific sense than the above? I meana to be helping, but am groping in the dark! I like Johnathon's reply, but there is also something to what Don wrote! Regards to all, Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Lundell" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [bylaws] definitional conundrum > At 6:01 PM -0700 4/6/04, Don Eichelberger wrote: > >How about, "A policy is anything that exists outside of space and > >time, and a procedure exists three dimensionally."? > > Sure. God makes policy; man makes procedures. > -- > /Jonathan Lundell. > _______________________________________________ > bylaws mailing list > bylaws@cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws > > _______________________________________________ bylaws mailing list bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws Subject: Re: [bylaws] definitional conundrum Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:43:45 EDT From: DBrayDee@aol.com Reply-To: bylaws@cagreens.org To: bylaws@cagreens.org Subject: Re: [bylaws] definitional conundrum Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:54:35 -0700 From: Don Eichelberger Reply-To: bylaws@cagreens.org To: bylaws@cagreens.org Policy is somewhat analogous to theory- it is a theoretical framework for cooperating in making decisions. It is based in the key values, and can be modified, proven or abandoned, based on experience utilizing it to make decisions. Like the theory of evolution, policy helps define the reality around us. Using the theory to show the progression of apes to humans would be analogous to a procedure, albeit complicated. Procedures "exist three dimensionally" because they give shape to the policy. I guess the point I am trying to get at, if opaquely, is the theoretical nature of policies and the concrete nature of procedures. Am I too esoteric? Just trying to get outside the proverbial box, Don At 09:52 AM 4/7/04 -0400, Jinfresno@aol.com wrote: >Don: > Can you give examples of each? > >Jeff > > >In a message dated 4/6/2004 9:01:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >done@greens.org writes: > > > > > > > How about, "A policy is anything that exists outside of space and time, > and > > a procedure exists three dimensionally."? > > > > Don > > > > > > > > At 04:28 PM 4/5/04 -0400, you wrote: > > > Well, the time of basking in our glory is past and its time to get > > > down to work on some definitions to present to the next GA about policy > > > and procedure. > > > We all know where we have been on this issue. Anyone want to get the > > > ball rolling with a fresh starting point? Paul???? > > > > > >Jeff > > >_______________________________________________ > > >bylaws mailing list > > >bylaws@cagreens.org > > >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws > > > > "><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>" > > > > Organizing is > > Sorting in to smaller piles, > > Then dealing with them. > > > > > > Don Eichelberger > > Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse > > http://www.energy-net.org > > San Francisco Green Party > > http://www.sfgreenparty.org > > California State Green Party Issues Working Group Co-coordinator > > http://cagreens.org/giwg/ > > Green Community/GreenWorks project for sustainable small > > businesses > > http://www.sfgreenworks.org > > 2940 16th St., #309 > > San Francisco, CA 94103 > > phone 415-861-0592 > > done@energy-net.org > > done@greens.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bylaws mailing list > > bylaws@cagreens.org > > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws >_______________________________________________ >bylaws mailing list >bylaws@cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws "><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>" Organizing is Sorting in to smaller piles, Then dealing with them. Don Eichelberger Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse http://www.energy-net.org San Francisco Green Party http://www.sfgreenparty.org California State Green Party Issues Working Group Co-coordinator http://cagreens.org/giwg/ Green Community/GreenWorks project for sustainable small businesses http://www.sfgreenworks.org 2940 16th St., #309 San Francisco, CA 94103 phone 415-861-0592 done@energy-net.org done@greens.org _______________________________________________ bylaws mailing list bylaws@cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws