PO Box 408316
Chicago, IL 60640
Donate Join Structure Organize Publications

Congress Proposals:

Prepared by: Starlene Rankin, Secretary, G/GPUSA
June 8, 2001

Below are the Proposals that will be on the agenda of the 2001 GPUSA Congress. The Agenda is being drafted and will be sent out before the Congress meets July 20-23 in Carbondale, Illinois. Late proposals can still be submitted (though their inclusion on the agenda is not guaranteed). Send them to Starlene Rankin at starlene@greens.org and to Sue Nelson at suebnelson@aol.com Registration information for the Congress in included in Part 9.

The Greens and Grassroots Democracy:

The Greens/Green Party USA is committed to strong principles of democratic participation and accountability. At all levels of the organization, affirmative action is recommended, seeking diverse participation and representation, and encouraging paired delegations with both a woman and a man. Green delegates are accountable to the bodies that elect them and subject to recall. Rotation of delegates is encouraged as is an agreement-seeking process in which all points of view are heard. Greens who are in the minority on decisions have the right to speak out and organize around their views. G/GPUSA follows the principle of democratic decentralism: policies reflect the decisions of a 2/3 majority of the Green Congress or Green National Committee, but are only binding on leadership and staff responsible for implementing them, not on state or local affiliates or individual members, who are free to abstain from implementation and to publicly disagree. The Greens encourage a full range of non-violent strategies and tactics including rallies, direct action, building alternative institutions, and independent electoral politics. (Bylaws Article II)

The Green Congress
Held annually, the Green Congress is the highest authority in G/GPUSA. It is composed of delegates from locals, state parties, and state caucuses. The Congress is responsible for national Green actions and campaigns, platform and policy statements, and amending the bylaws. This is a great way to meet other Greens, to learn about Green activity around the country and around the world, and to influence the direction of the national Green movement. (Bylaws Articles III.1 and III.2)

The Green National Committee (GNC)
Between Congresses, G/GPUSA is governed by the GNC, composed of delegates from state parties, state caucuses, anti-oppression caucuses, and three delegates elected by the Green Congress. The GNC is responsible for all oversight of G/GPUSA, including budget and finance, coordination of projects and campaigns, staff hiring and supervision, media relations, etc. The GNC meets 2-3 times a year and appoints working groups and a coordinating committee to carry out its work. The GNC is scheduled to meet on Monday afternoon, July 23. (Articles III.3 and III.4)


-- Delegates must be GPUSA members and elected by GPUSA members.

-- Local Affiliates are entitled to 1 vote for every 10 GPUSA members or major fraction thereof (i.e., 0-4=0 votes, 5-14=1 vote, 15-24=2 votes, and so on)

-- State affiliates choose on of three criteria to determine the number of votes to which they are entitled:

1. 1 vote for every 10 GPUSA members or major fraction thereof (i.e., 0-4=0 votes, 5-14=1 vote, 15-24=2 votes, and so on)

2. 1 vote for every 100 "signed-up members" in the state party or major fraction thereof (i.e., 0-49=0 votes, 50-149=1 vote, 15-249=2 votes, and so on)

"Signed-up members" are people who sign a card or sheet with a written affirmation indicating that the people signing are joining the state Green Party. (Mailing list sign-up sheets, without such an affirmation, do not count.) The person who recorded the signature must be a dues-paid member of the GPUSA and the recorder must sign a statement affirming validity of the signatures and the month and year they were obtained. The following will be used to validate "signed-up members" to be counted toward delegation at a national meeting (Green Congress or Green National Committee):
i. Signatures or validations must have been recorded within 12 months prior to the national meeting;
ii. Signatures on lists or cards (or photo-copies) for "signed-up members" must be sent to the Clearinghouse 90 days prior to the national meeting for which they'd first be counted.
iii. Every year the Clearinghouse shall send a letter to everyone whose name appears on a card or list asking if s/he would like to (1) be a "signed-up member" of the State Green Party and be represented at national GPUSA meetings, or (2) pay dues to the GPUSA. (The Clearinghouse shall inform delegates from State Green Parties if they would receive more representation based on dues-paid members.)
iv. The Clearinghouse must receive a card from the "signed-up member" affirming her/his desire to be represented at least 14 days before the national meeting.

3. 1 vote for every 5000 enrolled members in the state party or major fraction thereof (i.e., 0-2499=0 votes, 2500- 7499=1 vote, 7500-1249 votes=3 votes, and so on). "Enrolled members" are defined as people on the party enrollment (or party registration) lists.

-- At-large GPUSA members may participate in the Green Congress through an At- Large Caucus at the Green Congress which will have 1 vote plus 1 additional vote for every 10 additional members or major fraction thereof (i.e., 0-4=1 vote, 5-14=2 votes, 15-24=3 votes, and so on).

-- Delegates may carry proxy votes only from their own local or state affiliate.

The Green Program Revisions:

The Green Program sets out the GPUSA vision of an ecological democratic society, the short term policies and long term structural changes GPUSA proposes, and serves as a policy framework with which the statements and actions of the National Committee, Coordinating Committee, staff, and national working groups must be consonant. This year the Green Program is being revised. The Program Working Group has posted the current draft of the revised Green Program on www.greenparty.org. They will post an updated draft before the Congress meets.



Congress 2001-1: Restoring Caucus Integrity
Submitted by: Chicago North Branch Greens and the Chicago Greens
Congress 2001-2: Organizational Development Proposal
Submitted by: Chicago North Branch Greens and the Chicago Greens
Congress 2001-3: Proposal to Disaffiliate the Gateway Green Alliance/Green
Party of St. Louis
Submitted by Eric Prindle (G/GPUSA member)
Congress 2001-4: Resolution on a General Unity Initiative
Submitted by: Missouri Green Party in Columbia, Missouri
Congress 2001-5: Proposal to Simplify GPUSA Bylaws on the Annual
Submitted by: St. Louis Green Party
Congress 2001-6: Three Proposals for a Simplified Dues Structure
Submitted by: Green Party of St. Louis/Gateway Green Alliance
Congress 2001-7: Proposal for Changing GPUSA Bylaws Sections V.3. AND V.4.
Submitted by the Green Party of St. Louis
Congress 2001-8: Proposal for Police Accountability GAN Project
Submitted by Robert Sharpe, Police Accountability GAN Coordinator & G/GPUSA
Congress 2001-9: Bylaws Amendments
Submitted by: the Green Caucus of Louisiana
Congress 2001-10: Resolution: Manifesto for a New Green Movement
Submitted by: Walt Sheasby, Howie Hawkins and Joel Kovel, G/GPUSA members
Congress 2001-11: Resolution in Support of the Boston Proposal
Submitted by the Syracuse Greens
Congress 2001-12: Bylaws Proposal (Bylaws text in Parts 6-9)
Submitted by the Syracuse Greens
Congress 2001-13: Festival Proposal
Submitted by: The G/GPUSA Organizing Working Group
Congress 2001-14: Proposal for Statement of Opposition to Food Irradiation
Submitted by: The Edgewater-Uptown Greens, Chicago, IL
Congress 2001-15: Time Limits on GNC Mail Votes Submitted by the Centre County Greens
Congress 2001-16: Postmark on GNC Mail Votes Submitted by the Centre County Greens
Congress 2001-17: Mail Referendum Changes Submitted by the Centre County Greens
Congress 2001-18: GNC shall Appoint Officers Submitted by the Centre County Greens

Congress 2001-19: CC have same Powers as GNC Submitted by the Centre County Greens
Congress 2001-20: Prohibits Recalling a portion of CC Submitted by the Centre County Greens
Congress 2001-21: Clearing up Contradictions in Bylaws Submitted by the Centre County Greens


Congress 2001-1: Restoring Caucus Integrity
Submitted by: Chicago North Branch Greens and the Chicago Greens

Whereas, Election Process for Caucuses Election in 2000 has proven to be extremely unsuccessful and in fact decreased the number of Caucus Representatives, and Whereas, the 2000 Caucuses Election Process was discouraged by all of the current Caucus Representatives at the time of its enactment , and Whereas, the 2000 Caucus Election Process was costly ,and Whereas, the 2000 Caucus Election Process proved to be a disadvantage to the constituencies to be represented, and Whereas, the 2000 Caucus Election Process is patriarchal and patronizing to the members of the constituencies, and Therefore It Be Resolved, The Chicago Green Party and the North Branch Chicago Greens call for a rescinding of the 2000 Election Process, and delete number 3. of changes from 2000 Green changes, and that the election of Caucus Representatives will revert to the 17-year tradition of G/GPUSA that respects and empowers the constituencies.


Congress 2001-2: Organizational Development Proposal
Submitted by: Chicago North Branch Greens and the Chicago Greens

Whereas, the membership and activity of G/GPUSA has increased over the past three years, and Whereas, over 1 million people in America have voted for the Green Party in 1996 and 2000 making the Green Party the major grassroots political electoral party in America, and Whereas, the number of State Affiliates with G/GPUSA have increased, and Whereas, the number of G/GPUSA members running for office and being elected has increased, and Whereas, the purpose of Caucus' is to provide encouragement and give organizational support for G/GPUSA, and Therefore It Be Resolved, The North Branch Chicago Greens call for the formation of the following G/GPUSA form the following Caucus' amend the bylaws section III Section 4 part I add:
8. Elected Officials Caucus with the same representation on the GNC on the same basis as the constituencies.
A. The Greens shall encourage and give organizational support and encouragement of Greens to seek Elected Office.
B. Greens who are Elected Officials or Candidates of public office upon notifying the Greens Clearinghouse.
C. The Elected Officials Caucus is entitled to representation on the Greens National Committee on the same as the other constituencies.
9. Appointed Officials Caucus with the same representation on the GNC on the same basis as the constituencies.
A. The Greens shall encourage and give organizational support and encouragement of Greens to seek Appointed Officials.
B. Greens who are Appointed Public Office upon notifying the Greens Clearinghouse.
C. The Appointed Officials Caucus is entitled to representation on the Greens National Committee on the same as the other constituencies.
10. State Affiliates Caucus with the same representation on the GNC on the same basis as the constituencies.
A. The Greens shall encourage and give organizational support and encouragement of Greens to Affiliation of State Green Organizations.
B. Green State Organizations shall have representatives in this Caucus upon notifying the Greens Clearinghouse.
C. The State Affiliates Caucus is entitled to representation on the Greens National Committee on the same as the other constituencies.
11. Local Affiliates Caucus with the same representation on the GNC on the same basis as the constituencies.
A. The Greens shall encourage and give organizational support and encouragement of Greens to seek Local Affiliates Organizations.
B. Green Local Organizations shall have representatives in this Caucus upon notifying the Greens Clearinghouse.
C. The Local Affiliates Caucus is entitled to representation on the Greens National Committee on the same as the other constituencies.


Congress 2001-3: Proposal to Disaffiliate the Gateway Green Alliance/Green Party of St. Louis
Submitted by Eric Prindle (G/GPUSA member)

WHEREAS the Gathering Committee was directed by the Coordinating Committee to notify members of The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) about the 2001 Green Congress by mailing them a publication to be called "Green Tidings;" and WHEREAS the task of producing and distributing said publication was apparently delegated to the Gateway Green Alliance/Green Party of St. Louis (GGA); and WHEREAS the GGA went beyond its mandate and included in said publication one-sided opinion articles detailing their particular point of view on contentious issues that were to come before the Congress; and WHEREAS the inclusion of such content constituted an abuse of the mailing list granted to the GGA for distribution of information about the 2001 Green Congress and a disruption of the privacy rights of individuals on that mailing list; and furthermore WHEREAS said publication, in direct violation of the G/GPUSA bylaws (Article II, Section 8, Paragraph E), published the names of four G/GPUSA members against whom charges had been brought by another member; and finally WHEREAS all said actions constitute flagrant abuse of the G/GPUSA's grassroots democratic procedures; therefore, let it be RESOLVED that the Gateway Green Alliance/Green Party of St. Louis is hereby disaffiliated from The Greens/Green Party USA, effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution.


Submitted by: Missouri Green Party in Columbia, Missouri

REASON. Negotiations for unity between the Greens/Green Party USA (GPUSA) and Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) have broken down. The document negotiated October 1-2, 2000, which is known as the "Boston Proposal," is no longer a possibility for consideration. That document required the ASGP to amend its bylaws by December, 2000, which it failed to do. This means that a call for a mail ballot on the "Boston Proposal" would not be valid; that there would be no reason to include it on the agenda for the 2001 Green Congress; and, that Congress delegates could not be legitimately mandated to vote for or against it.

The GPUSA negotiators did not succeed in their tasks, as mandated by the 2000 Green Congress "Proposal for Genuine Unity." Instead of outlining a plan for merger between the GPUSA and ASGP, the "Boston Proposal" would have maintained two national Green organizations. It did not uphold principles of grassroots democracy outlined by the Green Congress. Since the document negotiated October 1-2, 2000 did not carry out the mandate of the Proposal for Genuine Unity and was voided by failure of the ASGP to modify its bylaws, it is necessary to initiate a renewed effort for Green unity.

PROPOSAL The 2001 Green Congress shall elect 3 members and 3 alternate members to a negotiating committee as described in the "Proposal to Establish an Alliance Building and Negotiating Committee for General Unity" approved by the February 2001 Green National Committee. This negotiating committee will have responsibility for discussing and establishing joint action networks and electoral projects with the ASGP which may form the basis for merger between the GPUSA and ASGP. The Green Congress mandates the negotiating committee to advocate the points below when discussing organizational merger with the ASGP. The negotiating committee must bring departures from the points to the Green National Council for approval.
1. The GPUSA and ASGP should jointly support Green electoral campaigns.
2. The Clearinghouse in Lawrence MA will continue to function in its current capacity in the merged organization.
3. In the merged organization, state Green Parties (or state Green Caucuses) will be able to choose between representation based on dues-paying members (who pay a single time for membership in the local, state and national organization) or by proportional state dues based on the number of Green registered votes (such that state dues would equal the sum of individual membership dues for the same number of delegates on national Green bodies). *
4. The Green Party will strive for representation of women, people of color, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual/queers, and people with disabilities/seniors caucuses in proportions no less than the population at the local or state jurisdiction represented.
5. The US Greens Abroad will have representation on all national bodies of the merged organization.
6. In the merged organization, each dues paying member will receive a copy of newspapers published by both the GPUSA and ASGP (until they merge by including all current Editorial Board members of both publications and guaranteeing the expression of the full range of views currently published in both papers) and Synthesis/Regeneration magazine.
7. Organized local parties will be the grassroots base of the Green Party with membership assemblies in which every member has voting rights.
8. State parties will have written democratic bylaws and at least one convention a year (whether it be a general membership assembly or a delegate assembly elected by locals).
9. There will be proportional representation of organized Greens representing dissenting viewpoints to state and national decision-making bodies.
10. There will be a national convention of the Green Party every year.
11. The Green Party will guarantee the right of delegates to decision-making bodies to make motions and speak to any motion.
* In point 3, the phrase "proportional state dues" assumes that the Green Party determines a ratio for equating a certain number of registered Greens to a dues paying member. If the Green Party decided that 100 registered Greens should be represented equivalently to or be "proportional do" one dues paying member, then a state with 20,000 registered Green voters would be entitled to the same number of delegates as a state with 200 dues paying members. If dues were $30 per member, then 200 members would pay at total of $6000 dues for the state to receive its delegates to national decision-making bodies. In order to be "proportional," the state with 20,000 registered Greens would also pay $6000 in state-wide (rather than individual) dues and would receive the same number of delegates as the state paying $6000 in individual dues.


Submitted by: St. Louis Green Party

REASON. The bylaws of the Greens/Green Party USA (GPUSA) are unnecessarily complex and need to be shortened tremendously. This proposal would shorten sections on the ANNUAL GATHERING by making annual conferences optional, eliminating some cumbersome language, and eliminating some language for activities which are good, but should not be required in the bylaws.

PROPOSAL. The section of the bylaws on "III. NATIONAL STRUCTURE, 1. ANNUAL GATHERING" shall be changed as follows:
Delete "a. The Annual Gathering is the highest decision-making body for The Greens as a national organization. It shall convene annually."
Replace it with "a. The annual Congress is the highest decision-making body of The Greens/Green Party USA."
Delete "b. In even numbered years, there shall be two components to the Annual Gathering: a non-decision-making Conference, for community building, networking, education, and debate, and a decision-making Congress. In odd numbered years, G/GPUSA will host a decision-making Congress. In 1999 and 2000 no conference is required. In years when only national Congress is to be held, regions will be encouraged to have conferences."
Replace it with "b. The Gathering Committee may plan an educational and networking conference to coincide with the annual Congress."
Delete "a. All interested individuals and sympathetic organizations may be invited to the Conference."
Delete "b. The Congress shall be composed of mandated delegates and proxies from locals, state parties, the at-large members caucus, and state caucuses in good standing, proportionally represented as specified in the current Working Guidelines.."
Replace with "a. The Congress shall be composed of delegates from locals, state parties, state caucuses and the at-large members caucus who are in good standing."
Replace with "b. Delegates shall proportionally represent their constituencies, which may mandate their votes."
C. CHARGE (no change in "a,", "b," "c," or "d.")
a. The Green Congress shall review, amend, and ratify platform, principles, and policy statements for The Greens;
b. Review and amend the Green Bylaws;
c. Review, initiate and set strategic and policy parameters for national Green actions and campaigns;
d. Review and (if needed) amend the actions and decisions of the Greens National Committee.
Delete "a. The Congress shall seek unanimous agreement on proposals, endeavoring to hear all views in full."
Replace it with "a. The Congress shall seek unanimous agreement on proposals."
Delete "b. When agreement cannot be reached, the Green Congress shall move to a vote."
Delete "c. Votes shall be passed as specified in the current Working Guidelines."
Replace them with "b. When agreement cannot be reached, the Congress shall vote as specified in the Working Guidelines."
Delete "a. Regional and state caucuses may meet for various purposes including selecting representatives to functional bodies as specified in the Working Guidelines."

Delete "b. Other caucuses may meet and present reports to the Congress. Caucus meetings during the Annual Gathering will be scheduled in advance of the Gathering and will not conflict with other scheduled caucus meetings or workshops. A caucus shall have the opportunity to present reports to the Green Congress."
Replace them with "a. Meetings of state parties and caucuses (including state, regional, and anti-oppression caucuses) may be scheduled ahead of the Congress and shall not conflict with Congress meetings."
Delete (and do not replace): "c. The Annual Gathering shall start with the Women's Caucus meeting with simultaneous unlearning sexism workshops for men." Delete "d. The Green Congress shall hear reports from and review the work of the various functional and geographic bodies."
Replace "d" with "b. The Congress shall hear reports from and review the work of committees, working groups, state parties, state and regional caucuses, and anti-oppression caucuses."
Delete (and do not replace): "e. Community building and recreation shall be an integral part of all Annual Gatherings."
Delete (and do not replace): "f. An appropriate action in support of local organizing efforts shall be organized in conjunction with the Gathering, if possible."
Delete (and do not replace): "g. Child care, responsible supervision, and
developmentally-appropriate activities based on Green values and children's activities shall be provided at the Annual Gathering."


Submitted by: Green Party of St. Louis/Gateway Green Alliance

REASON. The Greens/Green Party USA (GPUSA) currently has annual dues of $30 per $12,000 income. This system has an unrealistic expectation that some will pay hundred of dollars in dues.

DUES PROPOSAL 1. Individual GPUSA dues shall be based on income as follows: $15 per year for very low income members (under $10,000);
$30 per year for low income members (under $20,000);
$60 per year for medium income members ($20,000 or more, but under $40,000);
$90 per year for high income members ($40,000 or more).


REASON. The division between proportions of dues currently going to national, state and local levels of the Green Party fails to acknowledge that at least half of all dues collected should stay at the local level, which is the basis of Green organizing.

PROPOSAL 2: For all individual dues, shall be retained by the local Green group, 1/3 shall go to the national Green Party, and 1/6 shall go to the state Green Party. Dues may be collected by any local, state or national organization which sends the appropriate proportion of dues to the other levels. If there is no local Green group, its proportion of dues shall go to the state Green Party. If there is no state Green Party, its proportion of dues shall go to the local Green group. If there is neither a local Green group nor a state Green Party, the national Green Party shall retain all dues for the at-large member.

Submitted by: Green Party of St. Louis

REASON. State Green Parties which choose to receive representation based on registered votes should share in the financial independence of the Green Party by paying dues in the same proportion as states with representation based on individual dues.

PROPOSAL 3. State Green Parties which choose to receive delegations based on registered voters must pay state dues to the national organization in the same proportion as medium income dues for delegations based on individual dues. [For example, a state with 100 members pays dues of $20 each (1/3 of $60 medium income dues), for total dues of $2000. If the representation ratio of registered voters to individual members were 100 to 1, then a state with 10,000 registered Green Party voters would pay $2000 state dues for the same number of delegates as state with 100 individual members.]


Submitted by the Green Party of St. Louis

Explanation. Since changes concerning dues approved by the 2000 Green Congress do not appear in the most current version of the GPUSA Bylaws, the current dues structure of the GPUSA is not clear. Therefore, rather than listing clauses to be struck and added to the bylaws, this resolution proposes to strike all of Section "V.3. Dues" and Section "V.4. Supporting Members" (whatever they may be) and replace them with the text below. This text includes much of what appeared in the January 2000 version of the bylaws.

Delete all of bylaws section "V.3. Dues" and section "V.4. Supporting Members" (whatever they may be).
Replace them with the following section "V.3. Dues:"
A. Individual dues shall be $15 per year for very low income members (under $10,000 income); $30 per year for low income members (under $20,000 income); $60 per year for medium income members ($20,000 or more, but under $40,000 income); and, $90 per year for high income members ($40,000 or more income).
B. For all dues, shall be retained by the local Green group, 1/3 shall go to the GPUSA, and 1/6 shall go to the state Green Party or caucus. Dues may be collected by the local, state or national organization if it sends the appropriate portion of dues to the other levels. If there is no local Green group, its proportion of dues shall go to the state Green Party or caucus. If there is no state Green Party or caucus, its proportion of dues shall go to the local Green group. If there is neither a local Green group nor a state Green Party, the GPUSA shall retain all dues for the at-large member.
C. Individual dues-paying members of the GPUSA shall receive Green Politics and Synthesis/Regeneration.
D. State Green Parties which choose to receive delegations based on registered voters must pay state dues to the national organization in the same proportion as medium income dues for delegations based on individual dues and shall receive Green Politics and Synthesis/Regeneration in the same proportion.
E. Representation to the national organization for locals and state parties/caucuses shall be based on individual dues-paying members or state dues.
F. Dues-paying members shall receive a copy of the GPUSA bylaws upon request.


Congress 2001-8: Proposal for Police Accountability GAN Project
Submitted by Robert Sharpe (Police Accountability GAN Coordinator & G/GPUSA member)

That the G/GPUSA or combined organization with the ASGP approve a project for the Police Accountability Green Action Network (Police Brutality and Harassment), coordinated by Robert Sharpe, for the purpose of assisting Copwatch/Policewatch organizations around the country. Its individual members or locals be encouraged to support their efforts.

And that the Police Accountability GAN assist in establishing a national association and unifying conference in so far as such groups approve and cooperate in such a project.


Congress 2001-9: Bylaws Amendments
Submitted by: the Green Caucus of Louisiana

Revised edition: January 2000
Current: Article lV. AMENDMENTS

A. This Green Bylaws, and Article 8 Vlll of the Working Guidelines, may only be amended by the approval of written draft amendment by 66 2/3% support of the delegates to the Green Congress [:OR
B.66 2/3% support of active locals responding to a mail referendum. ...]

The Green Caucus of Louisiana proposes retaining only point A. to the left bracket and deleting point B and all implementing instructions referring to point B , including points C, D,E, AND F. And further deleting in full, Point 2 Local Referendums under IV. AMENDMENTS

The reason for this proposal is the belief that changes to the bylaws should only be made at a Congress, since the Bylaws were originally adopted at a Congress, and further that a referendum does not provide for full and fair discussion before a vote under the current bylaws.


Submitted by: Walt Sheasby, Howie Hawkins and Joel Kovelj, G/GPUSA members

Growing the Green movement and party as the alternative to the politics of capitalist abuse of humanity and nature is the highest priority we face. Green politics are different from traditional politics to the extent that our ballot-line party is in a fruitful relationship with a radical movement from below. In this dialectic, the party is vitalized by the movement, while the movement is connected to the mainstream by the party. Neither is absorbed into the other; both work in conjunction to build the vibrancy of radical green democracy.

We envision the destiny of the Greens/Green Party USA as the organizational focus of the green movement within this relationship We reject the traditional strategy of piecemeal reform and permeation of the capitalist power structure as a formula for deradicalizing and co-opting movements. We wish to challenge the system itself and not
merely its current policy or personnel.

We believe that theory and action must grow in concert, that open debate of ideas is essential if knowledge is to grow, that theory must serve as a compass to guide our practice. Our measure of achievement must be the growth and advancement of the self-emancipation of our particular social groups and the unified community of liberation.

We believe that unity can only be built by a way of organizing that affirms the value of those most oppressed and least represented in capitalist society. We seek an organization in which the leadership is disproportionately assumed by representatives of those groups who are specially oppressed and have the most to gain from liberation and transformation of the capitalist social regime.

We join with those who say we must focus on grassroots organizing among our constituencies on the local level, building a deep as well as broad base. People of color must play a central leadership role in building progressive independent politics.

We believe that the politics we project must go beyond liberalism and populism and openly embrace radical solutions. We must strongly affirm a commitment to radical economic democracy and not simply a negative rejection of corporate capitalism. Criticism must point the way toward a genuine solution of extremely vexing problems, and not simply move the focus from one issue to another without illuminating the totality. In our method of bringing change about and constructing a new world within the shell of the old, we must strive for a movement that is sustainable and that grows, and not one that rises and deflates with each protest against a specific outrage. Action must be based on a clear conception of what needs to be done, not on isolated gestures of discontent. Nihilism and cynicism feed off of each other, leading from disillusion to despair. If we are to succeed, we will be known for the vision that we believe in, not for what we reject.

We wish to re-enkindle and sustain the radical spirit of the popular movements of the twentieth century, from the CIO sitdowns, to the ban-the-bomb marches, to the civil rights movement, the anti-war mobilizations, and the revolutionary feminism and student radicalism of the 1960s and 70s. On the other hand, we reject the left tendency toward sectarianism, dividing groups over terminology that often seems arcane to the outside world.

We wish to rally all radicals to our cause, whether they identify most closely with anti-racism, feminism, anti-colonialism, anarchism, socialism, social ecology, municipalism, or economic democracy. The young Marx once noted that to be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. The common term used for all these movements is radical, for they all seek fundamental change, and we suggest that - often abused but still inspiring - word as a theme to unite the many into one.

For all these reasons we propose that the Greens/Green Party USA change its name to the Green Movement, and take steps to build a reinvigorated base which will strive for grass roots organizing as the key to creating a new world based on a radical economic democracy. We hope to recruit all those who see themselves not as dividers but as growers of the overall movement for social change.

The new Green Movement, however, will have its own identity and strive for recognition as an important social force for change. It will be self-financed by membership dues so that our members, not outside corporate funders, own and control the organization democratically.

The new Green Movement will be an independent membership organization for Green Party activists that organizes alongside and works within a unified national Green Party and the ballot-line Green Party organizations of each state and county. It will work to have its perspectives adopted by the Green Party, while reserving the right to speak and act independently on behalf of its own members. We will not measure success on achieving a narrow victory of one faction against another, but on the growth of the radical green movement.

We envison the new Green Movement as a model of democracy for the Green Party, with a mass membership of activists, organized into grassroots affiliates that finance and control the organization democratically from below.

We reject liberal conceptions of the Green Party that imply the logic of top-down decision- making, where elite cadres of corporate funders and politicians dictate acceptable options in plebiscitory party primaries to an atomized mass of unorganized party voters.

We seek nothing less than a radical movement from below; not an end to politics, but an end to politics as usual. Not an end to parties, but the unification of all who want to end the partisanship of undistributed wealth and power. For the security of the earth and all its species, we can demand no less than a new and powerful Green Movement, for the radical transformation of the nature of politics and the polis, and for the flourishing of the Greens here and everywhere.

Congress 2001-11: Resolution in Support of the Boston Proposal
Submitted by the Syracuse Greens


1. Negotiating Committees of the ASGP and GPUSA have made a joint proposal known as the Boston Proposal (full text appended below) to form a united Green Party of the United States;

2. The Boston Proposal enables GPUSA to continue, using a non-"party" name, as a direct membership organization for Green Party activists parallel to the unified Green Party;

3. The Boston Proposal sufficiently provides that the future GP-US will have a fundamentally democratic structure, especially considering that, within that unified party, the affiliated state parties will be able to propose and make further improvements in the structure;

4. The structural provisions of the Boston Proposal create a unified Green Party that incorporates important GPUSA concerns, including: - democratic funding through paid "sustaining members," - autonomy for state parties on state party dues, - state party democracy, including written bylaws and membership conventions, as a condition of affiliation, - evidence of good faith efforts by state parties to proportionally represent oppressed groups in party leadership and representation as a condition of affiliation, - proportional representation of state parties on the national committee, - local representation on the national committee, and - representation for caucuses of oppressed groups on the national committee;

5. The Boston Proposal enables the Greens to present a unified Green Party to movement activists, the general public, and the media, demonstrating that the Greens are serious and mature enough to debate their differences internally and to act in solidarity in elections and other public activities;

6. GPUSA (under a new name) should continue as an organization of Green Party activists, funded by the dues and controlled by the decisions of its direct members, and should continue to do its work, including its publications, program, policy statements, action campaigns, and grassroots Green organization-building;

7. GPUSA (under a new name) should continue to provide a political home for Greens who believe that freedom and equality, peace and justice, and an ecologically sustainable society and environment require that the capitalist system be replaced with grassroots political and economic democracy;

8. ASGP endorsed the Boston Proposal in principle at the December 2-3, 2000 meeting of its Coordinating Committee and will consider, at or before the July 27-29 meeting in Santa Barbara CA of its Coordinating Committee, bylaws changes that have been drafted and circulated in ASGP and which must be adopted to change ASGP into the Green Party of the United States in accordance with the Boston Proposal;


1. GPUSA endorses the Boston Proposal,

2. In accordance with the Boston Proposal, GPUSA will change its name to Green Movement, Green Action, Greens USA, or another name by instant run-off voting by this Green Congress immediately following adoption of this resolution,

3. In accordance with the Boston Proposal, GPUSA will support the Advisory Opinion Request by the unified Green Party of the United States to the Federal Election Commission for recognition as the National Committee of the Green Party.

4. In accordance with the Boston Proposal, GPUSA will give its world wide web domain name,www.greenparty.org, to the unified Green Party of the United States and request that web site to include a link back to the web site of the successor organization of GPUSA.

5. This resolution will be null and void if ASGP, at its Coordinating Committee meeting in Santa Barbara CA, July 27-29, 2001, fails to adopt the changes to its bylaws required by the Boston Proposal to create the unified Green Party of the United States .

The "Boston Proposal:"


The Negotiating Committees of the Association of State Green Parties and the Greens/Green Party USA, meeting on October 1 2, 2000, have agreed unanimously to recommend to their respective organizations the following proposal for the creation of a new national Green Party, to be called "Green Party of the United States," and a National Committee of the Green Party, which will apply to the Federal Election Commission for official recognition as a national political party.

1. The Greens/Green Party USA may continue as an independent organization but will cease functioning as a political party and will adopt a new name that will omit the word, "party." It will relinquish the domain name, "www.greenparty.org" to the new party.

2. The Green Party shall leave the question of state dues entirely to the state parties and shall neither encourage state parties to collect dues nor discourage state parties from collecting dues.

3. The new Green Party shall have a paid "sustaining members" category of membership and shall encourage members of all state parties to become sustaining members of the national organization.

4. State parties in the new Green Party shall have written democratic by-laws and at least one convention a year (whether it be a general membership assembly or a delegate assembly elected by locals and members-at-large).

5. State Green Parties shall make a good faith effort, where reasonable, to have delegates to the National Committee elected by clusters of local groups. The basis of representation to the National Committee shall be one person, one vote, and in the United States, Congressional Districts are a reasonable approximation of equal population areas. Local groups within a Congressional District or Districts shall come together for the purpose of electing delegates. (Statement of intent: The exact number of delegates and the size of the areas to be used for selecting these delegates is currently under study and will be determined by the ASGP.)

6. Representation to the National Committee shall be based on the principle of one delegate per specified number of Congressional Districts, provided that there is a requisite level of Green Party activity, electoral and/or non-electoral, being conducted in those Congressional Districts.

7. The Accreditation Criteria of the Green Party National Committee shall include the following in addition to the criteria currently used by the ASGP:

a. Evidence of commitment to, and good faith efforts to achieve, gender balance in party leadership and representation.

b. Evidence of good faith efforts to empower individuals and groups from oppressed communities, through, for example, leadership responsibilities, identity caucuses and alliances with community-based organizations, and endorsements of issues and policies.

8. The Green Party National Committee shall reserve seats for representatives of nationally organized caucuses for traditionally disempowered groups, provided that each caucus shall demonstrate a total membership of at least 100 people, from at least 15 member states, use democratic procedures and choose to send representatives to the National Committee.

9. The G/GPUSA Negotiating Committee recommends to the affiliates of G/GPUSA that a mail referendum of the Green Congress be initiated. The referendum shall ask the Congress to authorize the G/GPUSA National Committee to certify whether the ASGP, at its December 2000 meeting, amends its bylaws to reflect the terms of this joint proposal. The mail referendum will also authorize the G/GPUSA National Committee to (a) adopt a new name that will omit the word "party"; (b) relinquish the domain name "www.greenparty.org" to the new party; and (c) support the request of the ASGP for an advisory opinion on the national committee status of the new party, provided that it does in fact certify that the ASGP has amended its bylaws in accordance with this proposal.

For the Association of State Green Parties:

Anne Goeke
Stephen Herrick
Tom Sevigny
Greg Gerritt
Robert Franklin
Tony Affigne

For the Greens/Green Party USA:

Richard J. Whitney
Starlene Rankin
Julia Willebrand
Jeff Sutter
Steve Welzer

Congress 2001-12: Bylaws Proposal
Submitted by the Syracuse Greens


The present GPUSA Bylaws are too convoluted, self-contradictory, and filled with gaps to be fixed by piecemeal amendments. The attached Bylaws proposal is offered as a complete substitute for the existing bylaws. They are presented with the name left blank, so that no matter what is decided with respect to the Boston Proposal, these Bylaws could serve our organization.

What follows is a non-legalese summary of highlights, with discussion of some reasons for different provisions in these proposed bylaws:


This is taken from the Preamble to the Platform adopted at last year's Green Congress. It would serve to give a general statement of our political perspective linking social and ecological problems and solutions.

Article 1: Name

Left blank until the Boston Proposal is dealt with.

Article 2: Purpose

To organize people to promote Green principles and policies through electoral and extra-electoral action.

Article 3: Ethics, Values, and Principles

Section 1: Ethics

This is adapted from the preface of the statutes of the First International. It was written by Marx at the insistence of other founders of the 1st International. Marx later wrote to Engels that he didn't particularly like it because its universalism was detached from the class struggle, but that it didn't much harm in the preface. In our case, its affirmation of civility in our treatment of each other seems relevant given the recent acrimony around the Boston Proposal. And its invocation of the relationship between rights and duties in a serious organization seems appropriate in the Green Party movement where some sections of it want a Party without dues or any obligation to participate in order to have voting rights in the party.

Section 2: Values

The 10 Key Values are subject to wide interpretation. But to leave them out would be like a Judeo-Christian organization leaving out the 10 Commandments. It would open us up to easy, sleazy attack. Section 3: Principles of Unity

The purpose of these Principles of Unity are to define our position on key questions that we have resolved among ourselves and don't want to constantly re-open for debate. We debate these with the broader movement and public: things like polititical independence from the corporate parties, economic democracy, proportional representation, and being a for a movement party, not a strictly electoral machine. These are important issues that justify the need for a Green Party and serve, in the Bylaws, as the basis for membership and affiliation.

Article 4: Structure and Governance

Sections of this article are repeated later, but the article serves to give an overview of the structure.

Article 5: Membership

This article clarifies the basis for membership and who acts upon applications for individual membership.

Article 6: Dues and Revenue Sharing

This article sets up one standard dues rate and shares the $60 equally between the local, county, and national levels. This ends the problem of different levels all asking each member for dues, with members picking and choosing between them and being irritated by too frequent dues requests. It also creates incentives for at-large members to get organized into locals and for locals to organize state organizations.

Dues are collected locally where locals are organized. Otherwise, at-large members send their dues to the national. This means a local has to meet a minimum level of organization before it can affiliate and receive its share of revenue from at-large members who send their dues directly to the national.

Article 7: Affiliate Organizations

This article provides for local and state organizations to meet higher minimum levels of members to be affiliated and receive votes in the Green Council and Green Congress. Our current thresholds are so low or non-existent that in many cases we have delegates representing little more than themselves, not real organizations. This creates higher expectations for our affiliates to recruit and organize members and it creates a Green Council and Green Congress composed of representatives of real organizations.

It provides for chartering one organization from each state and county. This will require different political tendencies to work together in the same communities in one organization rather than splitting. It will make it easier for the clearinghouse to refer inquiries to their nearest locals. There is provision for densely populated counties to break down into smaller units or sparsely populared contiguous counties to combine.

It also provides for other organizations such as unions and movemenet organizations to affiliate and receive representation proportional to their representation. This is a traditional structure for socialist parties, but in this version, the affiliates are represented in proportion to the direct members in our national organization, not the indirect members of the affiliate's organizations. This averts the problem, in the UK Labor Party, for example, of bloc voting by large unions for example representing indirect members who often have little say in what their leaders are doing in the party.

Article 8: Anti-Oppression Caucuses

This article provides for representation of Anti-Oppression Caucuses that have a minimum number of members enrolled in the caucus. This will prevent the same problem we have had with some geographical affiliates of a couple of people representing little more than themselves. It also requires the national organization to budget resources to help these caucuses become viable organizations.

Article 9: Green Congress

This article goes back to representing state and local affiliates strictly on the basis of paid members, not state partes based their party enrollment with their state.

The delegations are raised from 1 vote for 10 members to 1 vote for 25 members in keeping with the idea that we want real organizations represented.

Credentialling, including documentation that the delegates were elected by the members, not just those who showed up from the state, is spelled out.

Proxy voting, which has been controversial and raised issues of trust, is eliminated. Instead, with 1 vote for 25 members, it should be easier for affiliates to support delegates expenses. Also, it provides for travel cost sharing to minimize disparities in the financial costs of participating for delegates near and far.

County organizations are permitted to separate from the state delegation and send their own proportional delegates.

Article 10: Green Council

"Green Council" goes back to the older term for this body which never really stopped being used. It remains a council of representatives of the state affiliates and anti-oppression caucuses. In addition, other organizational affiliates with 100 members or more can send representatives. What is different here is that the Coordinating Committee is elected by the Green Congress and its members sit as voting members of the Green Council. This will prevent the 1991-96 problem of the CC defying the the Green Council by saying it was independently elected by and mandated by the higher body, the Green Congress. It will be part of the Green Council.

What is also different is there is no weighted or proxy voting. The higher ratio of 1 delegate for 100 members and the provision of travel-cost sharing should alleviate the need for weighted voting.

Article 11: Coordinating Committee

This provides for an 8 member committee (meaning at least a 5-3 vote to move on any question). Three are elected by the Green Congress to serve as political leadership, the Co-Chairs. They are spokespeople and head up the Political Committee many want us to be responsive to current events. The Green Congress also elects a President and Vice-President, to provide administrative leadership. These five elected officers are responsible for appointing or preferably hiring (funds permitting) a Treasurer, Secretary, and Organizer. These are ongoing jobs that we should hire people to do, not elect at a Green Congress. The President, VP, Treasurer, and Secretary are given the responsibilities our corporate charter expects of such people.

Article 12: Officers

The article spells out these elected and appointed officers' responsibilities. The Treasurer is responsible for the books and government filings. The Secretary has the duties of a recording and corresponding secretary. The Organizer is the CEO of the organization and runs the clearinghouse.

Article 13: Committees

This article spells out the composition and responsibilities of our committees. GPUSA's committees/working groups in the past have mostly been non-functioning. This article gives the CC responsibility for appointing responsible people to get them going and gives state, caucus, and organizational affiliates the right to name additional members. This will help prevent the packing of committees and individual national "busy bodies" from floating up to the top without any work at and accountability to the base.

The article spells out the responsibilities of each Standing Committee: finance, political, publicity (media and more), membership, action (including Green Action Networks), legal, Green Politics. The CC can establish Temporary Committees.

Article 14: Administration

Commits us to maintaining a clearinghouse, Green Bulletin, Green Politics, and a Green journal (Synthesis/Regeneration).

Article 15: Political Action Committee

This article is only relevant if the Boston Proposal is adopted. It assumes the successor to GPUSA would become a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization with affiliated PACs (527 organizations) for electoral work.

Article 16: Fund for Ecological Democracy

This article is also only relevant if the Boston Proposal is adopted. It assumes the successor to GPUSA would become a 501(c)(4) organization with an affiliated 510(c)(3) for educational projects using tax deductible donations. A Party cannot set up an affiliated 501(c)(3).

Article 17: Finance and Accounting

No corporate funding. Policies to govern accounting, financial reporting, budgeting and fundraising, disbursements, unbudgeted expenditures, and borrowing. Things GPUSA has never spelled out.

Article 18: Parliamentary Authority

Roberts Rules governs our process except where we adopt special rules. That means majority rule (not a 2/3 supermajority) on proposals. An end to minority vetoes and parliamentary games. For example, if the Green Congress is divided 60% for and 40% against the Boston Proposal, then the proponents could pose the question as a resolution to reject the Boston Proposal and it would fail with only 40% in favor of the resolution, meaning that GPUSA accepts the Boston Proposal because the motion to reject it failed. Majority rule gets around that kind of game. Roberts Rules also provides for protection of minorities through 2/3 votes on certain procedural motions, such as to "call the question" (i.e., close debate and vote). Above all, it gives us a comprehensive, accessible, and time-tested set of rules to which we can refer instead of making up rules on the spot. We can also make special rules to deal with our own special needs if the need arises.

Article 19: Severability

Legal boilerplate to preserve the rest of bylaws if one of them is thrown out by a court.

Article 20: Interpretation

The CC interprets the bylaws where they are ambiguous and silent on a question.

Article 21: Equal Opportunity

We don't discriminate.

Article 22: Conflict of Interest

Requires officers and Green Council members to not vote where they have a conflict of interest. The "Corporation" refered to is GPUSA or its successor organization. GPUSA is a non-profit corporation incorporated in Missouri under the meaning of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (the section granting tax exemption to the electoral expenditures of political parties and PACs).

Article 23: Preservation of Status as an Exempt Organization

Says no officer, employee, or representative of our Corporation has the right to do anything that commits our organization to things that are not permitted under our tax exempt status. This article should refer to the exact Internal Revenue Code section (527 or 510c4) once the Boston Proposal question is settled.

Article 24: Amendment

2/3 vote in a Green Congress.

Congress 2001-13: Festival Proposal
Submitted by: The G/GPUSA Organizing Working Group

We, the Organizing Working Group, propose our GPUSA support and promote the concept of our members organizing and promoting "Progressive Music & Thought" festivals on the same day in September in different sections of the United States.

The purpose of these festivals will be to reach out and expose non-GREENS to the ideals of our Green Party. We can have Green Party candidates speak at these events along with speakers from groups working on animal protection, disability rights, environmental issues, etc.

The Organizing WG will provide organizing packets for the Locals participating in "Green Festival Day." Included in the packet will be a detailed handout on the logistics of putting on a small-scale outdoor festival, as well as, tabling literature on specific issues being developed by the Organizing WG.

We believe this coordinated day of "Festivals" hosted by our Greens could bring attention (maybe national) to our fall election candidates and issue action campaigns, plus show America a well coordinated network of Green Locals working and playing together.

We commit to raising funds to supplement the Clearinghouse budget to pay for any materials and staff time allocated to this project.


Congress 2001-14: Proposal for Statement of Opposition to Food Irradiation
Submitted by: The Edgewater-Uptown Greens, Chicago, IL

We propose that The Greens/Green Party USA issue a statement of opposition to food irradiation. Food irradiation is the industrial process of applying ionizing radiation to food in order to destroy harmful pathogens. Two sources of ionizing radiation are used the food irradiation industry: radioactive materials (primarily radioactive cesium and cobalt) and linear accelerators. Food irradiation is advertised as a safe method to make food safer, but has many problems some of which are listed below.

Reasons for the G/GPUSA to be opposed to food irradiation: - some food irradiation facilities use radioactive materials that are by-products of nuclear weapon production and/or nuclear power production - food irradiation destroys vitamins in food, and destroys beneficial microorganisms in food - food irradiation creates harmful new chemicals in food that have never been found in non-irradiated food - food irradiation is approved by the FDA for meat, fruits, vegetables, spices, sprouts, wheat, eggs, and other foods - safer, non-radioactive alternatives exist to cleaning up our food supply, including more humane treatment of animals, organic farming processes, steam treatment, hay-based instead of grain-based diets for animals, and better sanitation in production and shipment of our nation's food supply - irradiation is forbidden under most if not all organic standards - some currently-operating food irradiation companies have histories of radioactive spills/leakage and worker over-exposure - members of the Edgewater-Uptown Greens and Rogers Park Greens have founded the Illinois Food Safety Coalition (www.illinoisfoodsafety.org) in order to educate the public about food irradiation - the following groups have signed on to the Public Citizen statement as being opposed to food irradiation
* Edgewater-Uptown Greens of Chicago IL
* Blue Island Greens, Blue Island, IL
* Miami Greens, Miami Beach, FL
* Maine Green Party, Augusta, ME
* New Hampshire Greens, Rye, NH
* Green Party of Texas, Houston, TX
* NYS Greens, Chestnut Ridge, NY
* U.S. Greens Abroad Japan, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan
* Cancer Prevention Coalition
* Greenpeace USA
* Public Citizen
* many others...

We propose that the GPUSA sign on to Public Citizen's Statement on Food Irradiation which can be found on their website at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/rad-food/Statementonfoodirrad.htm and is included at the end of this proposal. If this proposal passes, we would request that the CC contact Noel Petrie at Public Citizen to inform them of this decision, or allow us to do this on behalf of the GPUSA with the contact information of the CC for verification. (If that fails, we propose that the GPUSA make a general statement in opposition to food irradiation.)

Statement on Food Irradiation (from Public Citizen)

The food industry and its allies in the federal government are promoting the use of high levels of radiation to "sterilize" the filth that contaminates our food. Rather than ensuring clean, wholesome, high-quality food by cleaning up the food industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have legalized the irradiation of food, a technological fix that hides the real cause of food-borne illness: filthy food produced by factory farms and processed at slaughterhouses.

The emergence of new bacteria like deadly strains of deadly E. coli are a direct result of industrialized farming practices. Food irradiation is a short-term, unproven fix for a long-term problem.

Many kinds of food can now be irradiated, including fruits, vegetables, beef, poultry, lamb, pork, and spices. The government legalized food irradiation based on studies conducted before 1980 modern toxicological studies on the safety of irradiated food have not been performed.

Irradiation creates new chemicals in food, called unique radiolytic products (URPs), many of which have not been identified, much less tested for safety. Enough scientific evidence exists to cause concern, including evidence of chromosomal damage. Irradiation also destroys vitamins, enzymes, and beneficial bacteria.

According to FDA and USDA regulations, irradiated food has to be labeled if sold in retail stores such as supermarkets. However, labeling is not required in restaurants, schools, hospitals, or by food caterers or food service providers. Under pressure from the food industry, the FDA is considering eliminating labeling altogether.

Since no one knows the effects of feeding growing youngsters irradiated food, parents should be especially concerned. Processed foods, such as baby food, do not have to be labeled if irradiated. Schools are not required to tell parents that they are serving irradiated food. The government has shown no concern for the health impacts on children (or the elderly, or low-income people) that may end up eating food made less nutritious from exposure to radiation.

Most irradiation facilities use the radioactive isotopes Cobalt 60 or Cesium 137. If food irradiation becomes economically feasible, hundreds of new irradiation facilities will be built across the North American continent, creating risks for workers and increasing radioactive waste disposal and transport problems.

Finally, food irradiation will help facilitate increased command and control of our world food supply by large, well-financed multinational corporations. This will result in fewer good jobs, greater loss of family farms, increased environmental destruction, destroyed indigenous economies and worse living conditions in the developing world.


- The FDA should continue requiring the labeling of irradiated food. People have a right to know whether their food has been exposed to an amount of radiation equal to between 10 million and 70 million chest x-rays. - Congress should strengthen food-labeling laws so consumers know in all circumstances whether their food has been irradiated.
- Corporations that plan to sell irradiated food products should honor a consumer's right-to-know by voluntarily providing easy-to-read labels for all processed foods.
- Those corporations that plan to sell irradiated foods should inform customers that the food product could still contain fecal matter and that irradiation destroys vitamins and creates untested chemicals, this is especially true when selling irradiated meat and other products at a premium.
- Restaurants, schools, airlines, hospitals and food service providers should voluntarily label food as irradiated so that people know what they are eating.
- Congress should fund new and unbiased research on the toxicological effects of food irradiation. These studies should determine the health impacts from eating unique radiolytic products (URPs), which are created by exposing food to radiation. Studies should also look at the safety impacts caused by the irradiation of various food additives and contaminants, such as pesticides, chlorine, dyes, bacteria, and viruses.
- Federal and state agencies that allow food irradiation should be required to perform an environmental impact statement regarding the environmental danger associated with the increased use, handling, transporting, and disposal of radioactive materials.
- Congress should require the FDA and the USDA to address the root causes of food borne disease: factory farms and filthy slaughterhouses. (Please endorse by calling, faxing or e-mailing Public Citizen, 202-546-4996 phone, 202-547-7392 fax, npetrie@citizen.org)


Congress 2001-15: Time Limits on GNC Mail Votes Submitted by the Centre County Greens

In many places in our bylaws, time limits are not set for action. This enables our Clearinghouse or our Coordinating Committee to delay required actions indefinitely without consequence. There needs to be back-up scenarios so that the Clearinghouse and Coordinating Committee will get their required jobs done.

PROPOSAL: Require that when a proposal for a GNC mail vote is made, the Coordinating Committee must distribute the proposal to all GNC delegates within ten days. If the Coordinating Committee fails to do so, the GNC delegates making the proposal may administer the distribution and the remainder of the process.

(I have not written this proposal in specific bylaws language because the Green Congress has not adopted a revised edition of the bylaws since 1999, when the GNC mail vote procedure was passed by the Congress.)


Congress 2001-16: Postmark on GNC Mail Votes Submitted by the Centre County Greens

Our current bylaws are not specific about whether ballots for a mail vote must be received within 60 days, or simply postmarked in 60 days. In the interests of our friends from far-flung Green affiliates, I propose that a postmark is good enough.

PROPOSAL: Amend IV.2.D to read "Ballots must be postmarked or returned to the Greens Clearinghouse no less than 60 days from the date that the ballot is sent."


Congress 2001-17: Mail Referendum Changes Submitted by the Centre County Greens

(a) A mail referendum was called by nine affiliated state Green Parties in early April 2001. Though these states all agreed to the call finally drafted by the Michigan Green Party, the state parties did not all pass the exact same text at their own meeting.

Our current bylaws do not require the affiliates calling a mail referendum to all pass the same text at their meetings. Our bylaws allow a group of affiliates to "initiate" a mail referendum without any further rules. But our Coordinating Committee this April illegally added this requirement to our rules (which they do not have the power to do) and instructed the Clearinghouse not to administer the mail referendum. This act constituted a breakdown in the rule of law within Greens/Green Party USA.

Ironically, I have no problem with the principle the Coordinating Committee believes in. If this rule had already been in the G/GPUSA Bylaws, I'm sure the nine state parties would have taken the time to write the specific text before approving the mail referendum, instead of waiting to do it afterwards. Thus I'm proposing that the Congress legally add this very rule that the Coordinating Committee illegally added this April.

(b) Article IV nowhere gives any power to the Green National Committee or the Coordinating Committee to interfere in the administration of a mail referenda. It simply says that the Clearinghouse shall mail and receive the ballots. In April 2001 the Coordinating Committee argued that it was not appropriate for the Clearinghouse to run this process. The Coordinating Committee illegally stopped the Clearinghouse from administering the mail referendum, which our Clearinghouse Coordinator could not resist because the Coordinating Committee claimed the right to fire her.

Once again, the Coordinating Committee had the right principle, but should not have implemented it without the Green Congress passing it first. I am happy to propose giving the power of administering mail referenda to the Green National Committee, and elsewhere I am proposing that all the powers of the Green National Committee should be held by the Coordinating Committee as well. This would empower the Coordinating Committee to make sure the mail referenda process is run correctly.

(c) Until 1997 state parties could not vote in the Green Congress. When state-party votes were added in 1997, Article IV was not amended to allow them to vote in mail referenda. Mail referenda are to use the same voting system as the Green Congress, as stated in IV.2.B. So I am proposing that we clarify that all affiliates that are empowered in the Green Congress, not just locals, are to vote in mail referenda.

(d) This proposal clarifies that the at-large members caucus would not vote in a mail referenda, since no one can use the G/GPUSA membership list to organize such a caucus by mail anyway, and accrediting such a caucus would problematic. It also establishes when the membership is counted to distribute votes.


-- Amend IV.1.B to read "66 2/3% support of the body of active affiliates responding to a mail referendum on a written bylaws amendment called for and approved verbatim by:"

-- Amend IV.2.A to read "When a call for referendum is received by the Clearinghouse, it shall send a ballot within ten days to each Local, State Party, and State Caucus in good standing. If the Clearinghouse fails to do so, the group of affiliates calling the mail referendum may prepare and mail their own ballots to the affiliates."

-- Amend IV.2.B to read "The number of votes which each Local, State Party, and State Caucus is allocated shall use the same method specified in the Bylaws for a Green Congress, except that the at-large members caucus shall not receive votes. An affiliate's vote count shall be based on the number of members current on the day the mail referendum call is received by the Clearinghouse. The Green National Committee shall control all aspects of a mail referendum unless otherwise specified, including the accreditation of affiliates' current delegates and the counting of votes."


Congress 2001-18: GNC shall Appoint Officers Submitted by the Centre County Greens

The Greens/Green Party USA is an domestic nonprofit incorporated in the state of Missouri. Under Missouri law we must register officers - such as President and Vice-President, with the state. Yet we have no process of electing these officers. That our Bylaws don't even mention these officers could, once again, invalidate our bylaws in a court of law.

I propose that the Green National Committee shall appoint our officers for the purposes of our incorporation.

PROPOSAL: Add III.3.C.dd to read "Appoint the legal officers of The Greens as dictated by the state where The Greens are incorporated."


Congress 2001-19: CC have same Powers as GNC Submitted by the Centre County Greens

Over the past many years, our members have spent thousands of volunteer hours arguing over what the Coordinating Committee (CC) can and cannot do. Our current bylaws allow the Green National Committee to elect a Coordinating Committee, but do not say what powers the CC has. Technically, the CC should only be following GNC instructions formally passed by the GNC at its past meetings. However, no one has kept a running list of these decisions. Thus CC members have no idea what the GNC's past instructions have been. They tend to wing it instead. This has led to chaos.

This proposal makes the CC a week-by-week continuation of the GNC meeting itself. It would even allow the CC to overturn a recent GNC meeting - the powers of the bodies would be equal. G/GPUSA currently has three bureaucratic layers - the Congress, GNC, and CC - all with different confusing abilities and powers. This proposal practically makes the GNC and the CC the same thing, taking us to a more sane two organizational layers.

PROPOSAL: Add to the end of III.3.A.c: "The Coordinating Committee shall have all the same powers as the Green National Committee, except for the power to elect itself."


Congress 2001-20: Prohibits Recalling a portion of CC Submitted by the Centre County Greens

Section II.1.B of our Bylaws says, "Representatives at every level shall always be immediately recallable by the bodies that choose them, as provided for in the current Bylaws."

In April 2001, three GNC members proposed a GNC mail vote to recall two members of the Coordinating Committee, Nancy Oden and Marc Loveless. The rules for GNC mail vote passed at the 1999 Congress do not limit the topic of a GNC mail vote. Yet Nancy Oden and Marc Loveless voted to have the Coordinating Committee block its own recall, because it was not appropriate to re-elect just some members of the Coordinating Committee when the entire group had originally been elected by the GNC using a cumulative voting system.

Yet again, the Coordinating Committee's arguments were right, though they had no power to change the G/GPUSA Bylaws and block this vote. This proposal prohibits such a GNC proposal in the future.

PROPOSAL: Add III.3.A.d to read "The GNC may not vote to recall or re-elect only some of the members of the Coordinating Committee. If a mail vote on recalling the entire Coordinating Committee passes the GNC, the Clearinghouse shall within two weeks record all nominations forwarded to the Clearinghouse and publicly accredit affiliates' current delegates, then within one week prepare and mail ballots to all GNC delegates, then count all votes returned or postmarked within three weeks of the Clearinghouse mailing of the ballots. If the Clearinghouse fails to complete any step, the GNC members who originally proposed the mail vote on recall may administer the remainder of the process.


Congress 2001-21: Clearing up Contradictions in Bylaws Submitted by the Centre County Greens

We used to have two different documents - the "Charter" and the "Working Guidelines." My understanding is that the Charter was to be very tough to change, and only could by changed by the Congress, whereas the Working Guidelines were less important rules that could be changed by the Green National Committee. The name "Charter" was apparently changed to "Bylaws" at some poing.

Over the years G/GPUSA leaders have spent hundreds of our own volunteer hours arguing about which rules can be changed by which body. Very few G/GPUSA members understand our rules any more, partially because of this distinction between "bylaws" and "working guidelines."

I have been told that it was decided some years ago to combine these documents. It looks like this was attempted by whoever wrote the July 1998 Revised Edition of the Bylaws. Whoever wrote the July 1998 edition really screwed it up, by maintaining different sections within Article III, so that we have "Green National Committee" section but also a confusingly duplicative "Green National Committee Working Guidelines" section. The July 1998 edition also bewilderingly changes the word Article VIII from being how to amend the Working Guidelines to how to amend the Bylaws, even though Article IV already describes how to amend the Bylaws!

Please, let's clear this up. I wonder if our current document would ever stand up in court given these root contradictions.

PROPOSAL: Renumber III.2.A as III.1.B.c, renumber III.2.B as III.1.F, renumber III.2.C and III.1.G, renumber III.2.D. as III.1.H, renumber III.2.E as III.1.I., renumber III.4.A as III.3.B.e, renumber III.4.B as III.3.G, renumber III.4.C as III.3.H, renumber III.4.D as III.3.I, renumber III.4.E as III.3.J, renumber III.4.F as III.3.K, renumber III.4.G as III.3.L, renumber III.4.H as III.3.M, renumber III.4.I as III.3.N, eliminate Section VIII, and replace every instance of the words "working guidelines" with the word "bylaws."


Congress Proposal 2001-22: Form an Iraq Green Action Network
Submitted by: Windy Cooler, member of G/GPUSA (not late)

The Alabama Green Party has formed a task force to focus on the sanctions against Iraq. We would like to form a GAN to continue our work nationally and to aid our main allies in this en devour, Voices in The Wilderness. During August, Voices will travel from Chicago to New York for one month to fast and demonstrate in opposition to the sanctions. Kathy Kelly, the founder of VitW has been invited to speak at the Campus Greens' founding convention this Summer.

Whatever public support and solidarity we can show these dedicated activists at this strategic moment would be mutually beneficial for them and for us in our continued fight for peace and justice on this planet.

Dennis Halliday, former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, referred to the economic sanctions placed on Iraq genocide. According to UNICEF, 5,000 children under the age of five die each month because of the sanctions.

The Green Party platform calls for international solidarity and an end to; economic Blockades of Cuba, Iraq, and Yugoslavia; The platform also calls for support (for) international, multilateral peacekeeping to stop aggression and genocide.

For these reasons, it is appropriate, reasonable, and essential for the GPUSA to approve a GAN on this issue. The Alabama Green Party asks the membership of the GP/GPUSA to consider this proposal.

Prepared by Heather Porter (member of coordinating committee for the Alabama task force opposing the sanctions) and Windy Cooler (coordinator/ Montgomery County Greens).


Congress Proposal 2001-23: Bylaws Changes (not late)
Submitted by Nancy Oden, CC member, Chair of Structure Working Group

1. In Ten Key Values, where it says "Community-Based Economics," make it read "Cooperative, Community-Based Economics."
2. The next Key Value, Feminism, isn't clear to most people. I believe what we mean is something like female values, which put the health and welfare of Earths creatures ahead of accumulating money. If someone could come up with a better 1-3 word description that actually says what we mean here, we could better explain to people what we mean ourselves.
3. On l.D.a. under Grassroots Democracy, where it says "may publicly dissent," strike the word "publicly." I believe dissent should stay within the G/GPUSA, which I think is what was meant here.
4. Under 2.D., add to D., "so long as the Key Values are observed."
5. Under 4., add "and decisions are made democratically."
6. Under 2.5, it is unclear as to what "level" means, so that the entire paragraph becomes unclear. Needs re-writing.
7. Under III.2.A.a.b.c., eliminate the entire a. section and b. section and c. section. Members are members, not mere registered voters.
8. Under III.3.B.a. is hard to follow and needs re-writing. We need to decide what we actually mean here and then write that rather than this mishmash.
9. Under III.3.C., entire section needs re-writing. It contains redundancies and mixups of responsibilities, as well as being hard to follow.
Should be cleaned up and I will attempt to do this before the Congress for people to look at and decide upon.
10. Under III.3.F., Add to that sentence on child care that it will be provided if necessary.
11. Under III.4.B.b..c.d., should be eliminated as too confusing and we want members to vote, not mere registered voters.
12. Under III.4.H.a., should read "Uncorrected GNC Minutes will first be sent to GNC members present at the GNC meeting for corrections, then published in the Green Bulletin, which is a public document."
13. III.4.H.g., add at end "Staff may not be members of committees or working groups."
14. Under IV.2.D, reads as if the phrase "no less than" should be "no more than."
15. Under V.2., change to read ".a State party or State Caucus, or" 16. Under V.3.F should be eliminated. No more waivers. Anyone can come up with $2.00 a month.
17. Under VI.B first sentence should read "of the Greens they shall:" instead of "a local shall."