We opposed by consensus the GPVA bylaw change regarding "Local Representation", for the following reasons:
The timing indicates that the motivation is fear-based rather than growth-based.
Most Greens would be denied the opportunity to directly participate in contested nominations for statewide office, an important incentive for individuals to join a political party. (One remedy would be online voting.)
Failure to list responsibilities of the representatives would prevent assessment of their performance.
A delegation of one or two people may be insufficient to represent the diversity of opinion within a local.
In defiance of the "one person, one vote" standard, the number of Greens per representative would vary by
a ratio of 22 to 1 between Greens of Virginia at-large and Fredericksburg.
We opposed by consensus the GPVA bylaw change regarding the "Interim Committee", for the following reasons:
Lowering the standard for approval to "75% of Interim Committee members present" would
tend to give policy-making capacity to a housekeeping committee, allowing it too much independence from the party; and
promote arbitrary and convenient termination of votes by recognizing a meaningless distinction between presence and absence in cyberspace.
We accepted by consensus the GPVA bylaw change requiring locals to have bylaws as a condition of affiliation.
We accepted by consensus the GPVA bylaw change requiring current locals to have bylaws.
We accepted by consensus the GPVA bylaw change regarding "Membership Review Process".
Participants questioned the GPVA decision to hold a meeting in a location that requires the shortest travel at the easiest time of year to make long trips (in the long days and mild temperatures of May). Because meeting locations are rotated, this decision would tend to push long trips at the edges of the state into seasons that are less conducive to travel. No action was taken.