Timely CMD GMs and Ratification for "Official Proposals"
- Introductory Statement
- Clear expectations for timely ratification of CMD official proposals.
- Emergency Motion Statement
- That Continuous Motion Development General Meetings are scheduled at least 3 times a year, or within 2 months of a threshold of 10 official proposals, workshopped on WeDecide and through informal policy discussion meetings. If the General Meeting runs out of time to address all in queue, the remaining will be prioritized in the following Continuous Motion Development General Meeting.
- Type of Emergency Motion
- A directive to ask the party’s Federal Council to consider an action
- Benefit
- We have ran out of time during AGMs to pass workshopped policy and without some defining criteria the CMD proposals may not be ratified in a timely/dependable manner. I've put in a threshold of 10, I think we said 20 minutes max per proposal discussion in the meeting, so that 3 discussed per hour max. Between reaching threshold of 10 and formalizing the meeting, more policies may be finalized as "Official Proposals" so there may be more than 10 in the meeting. This is also to ensure we have regularly scheduled meeting even without a threshold met, and also that the meetings aren't too long; if we have many in queue that we process them sooner. I don't see expected timelines currently addressed: G23-C006 Continuous motion development process for constitution and bylaws
- Who does this motion impact?
- Impact on exisiting GPC policy.
- Amends an existing policy.
- Green Values
-
Social JusticeParticipatory Democracy
- Supporting Evidence
- Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
- Unsure or Not applicable (e.g. directives and constitutional changes)
- Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
- English
This proposal has been rejected because:
This motion failed to meet the 66.6% threshold of support needed to be considered as an emergency motion. Therefore, this motion was not presented for consideration by membership.
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Vaalea Darkke
Pretty much had been my assumption, so what did the slideshow say to steer me otherwise?
In this proposal it's seems clear that online functions would replace GM. G23-C006 Continuous motion development process for constitution and bylaws This could be resolved if we could view the slideshow outside the meeting.
ok there is this text in the package : Although policy proposals were included in the general meeting notice, a motion to adopt a continuous motion development process in which policy proposals are submitted, debated,
amended and adopted in a vote open to all members _outside of a general meeting_ will be
presented at the 19thAnnualGeneral Meeting
and G23-C006 says As things stand, while motions concerning GPC policies do not have to be approved at a general meeting, Directives and Constitutional Amendments do. Removing this requirement from our constitution will make it easier for members to amend bylaws and constitution and remove processing bottlenecks associated with general meetings.
So was that slide show bit as to what happens without G23-C006 passing? If I could re-read the slideshow I could see where I may have misunderstood the first time.
Loading comments ...