From davidquinley at aol.com Thu Jan 7 23:19:10 2010 From: davidquinley at aol.com (davidquinley at aol.com) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Marin-d] Send Emails to Marin Planning C. to postpone approving new development in streamside habitat by Friday>Fwd: **ACTION ALERT** Letters to Marin County Needed Immediately. In-Reply-To: <97cccfec4bb844cc0ced178d6bbe592daf0.20100107224256@mcsv120.net> References: <97cccfec4bb844cc0ced178d6bbe592daf0.20100107224256@mcsv120.net> Message-ID: <8CC5E4A01D35167-1508-8E05@webmail-d079.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Paola Bouley, SPAWN To: davidquinley at aol.com Sent: Thu, Jan 7, 2010 2:43 pm Subject: **ACTION ALERT** Letters to Marin County Needed Immediately. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. **ACTION ALERT for LAGUNITAS COHO** Dear Friends, Please ACT NOW to help save coho salmon. Click HERE to send an urgent email to the Marin County Planning Commission asking them to postpone approving new development in critical streamside habitat. The deadline for submissions is TOMORROW, Friday, January 8 Thank you! Paola Bouley, Conservation Director p.s. Thanks to you, last Sunday's Marin IJ poll logged a total of over 1,500 voters who overwhelmingly (92%) supported more protections for coho. Now, we need to send a clear message to the County that we will not stand by and allow Lagunitas coho to slide into extinction! Check out Sunday's Marin IJ poll below and listen to a short radio interview with Charlotte Ambrose, recovery coordinator for the National Marine Fisheries Services at http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201001041730. You are receiving our emails because you signed up with us at www.SpawnUSA.org or at one of our community events. Unsubscribe davidquinley at aol.com from this list. Our mailing address is: Salmon Protection And Watershed Network, SPAWN POB 370 Forest Knolls, California 94933 Add us to your address book Copyright (C) 2009 Salmon Protection And Watershed Network, SPAWN All rights reserved. Forward this email to a friend Update your profile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidquinley at aol.com Thu Jan 7 23:24:46 2010 From: davidquinley at aol.com (davidquinley at aol.com) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:24:46 -0500 Subject: [Marin-d] we need to have meet jan. or feb. for the marin green party council Message-ID: <8CC5E4AC9FA72B0-1508-8E54@webmail-d079.sysops.aol.com> The next State Geen party General Assembly is planned for the Mar. 6-7, 2010 in San Jose we need to choose our 2 delegates http://cagreens.org/plenary/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_quinley at yahoo.com Tue Jan 12 10:12:29 2010 From: david_quinley at yahoo.com (david quinley) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:12:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marin-d] Fw: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes Deadline!!! Message-ID: <928763.26231.qm@web53902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: david quinley To: northbaygreens at lists.riseup.net Cc: marincg at groups.aol.com Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:10:27 AM Subject: Fw: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes Deadline!!! ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: County Contacts To: County Contacts Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 4:11:30 PM Subject: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes Deadline!!! GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions stated in the email. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ January 10, 2010 To: GPCA County Councils, Co-Coordinators, and Activists From: County Polling Coordinators Re: Early 2010 County Polling; Ballot Measures for June 2010 Election At the October 2009 Plenary, the General Assembly of Delegates directed County Polling for two proposals that were in development for later petition signatures regarding a possible future California Constitutional Convention. It was expected that there would be one proposal to authorize California voters to call a Constitutional Convention and another actually doing so. The idea was that the GPCA should express its position as early in this process as possible once the content of the proposals had been established for a petition campaign. Typically, County Polling deals with proposals that have been certified for the ballot. At this time, there are three initiatives that are certified for voter decision at the June 8, 2010 election. The County Polling process begins with an invitation for persons interested in writing reports about ballot measures to identify themselves and, if possible, collaborate on reports and recommendations for one or more items. A request for such reports was published on the County Contacts, CCWG and Green Cal Forum email lists approximately December 10, 2009. Responses to those requests are published below. No write up was received regarding the anticipated Constitutional Convention proposals. Accordingly, those items are not included in this County Polling. At the time of writing this report, the ballot measures had not been assigned ballot numbers. INTRODUCTION TO COUNTY POLLING INSTRUCTIONS Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations to report County GP positions on the three ballot measures that the California legislature placed for consideration of the voters as part of the June 8, 2010 Primary Election. Abel Maldonado?s so-Ccalled ?Open Primary? proposal was included as part of the February 2009 budget negotiations to get his vote in the State Senate. Immediately following those instructions, you will find reports that have been written by Green Party activists. These reports are simply the opinions of those who wrote them and DO NOT constitute GPCA positions. GPCA positions on ballot measures occur in two ways: By decision of the delegates at a General Assembly or by County Polling. The next General Assembly of Delegates is scheduled for March 6th-7th in Santa Clara County. Having County Polling at this time allows the GPCA to take positions earlier than has been usual practice concerning June Primary ballot measures. If GPCA positions are not decided by County Polling before the Plenary, the undecided items will be placed on the Plenary Agenda by previously adopted procedures. To the extent decisions on these ballot measures can be made by County Polling, agenda time will be created for other items. As in previous years, special thanks to everyone who contributed to the reports and to Greg Jan for collecting them. Any questions about these comments should be addressed to Warner Bloomberg at wsb3attyca at aol.com or (408) 295-9353. Any questions about the following instructions should be addressed to Warner Bloomberg and Richard Gomez -- County Polling Coordinators. All County Polling Reports should be submitted to both County Polling Coordinators. PLEASE NOTE: As recipients on the County Contacts list YOU have the responsibility to communicate this information to other members in your local County GP organization. You are to use whatever process you use in your County GP to make decisions of this kind ? but each County needs to instruct its delegates on these issues in the event they need to be decided at the Plenary. A copy of these instructions and the following reports will be posted on the Plenary agenda page as a supplement to the Agenda Packet. INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized County Green Parties to determine GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those decisions at a state meeting. Three measures have been put on the ballot by the State Legislature for consideration of the voters as part of the June 8, 2010 Primary Election. Please be sure that your county participates by submitting votes by Wednesday, March 3, 2010 (also the last day to register and submit delegate lists for the Plenary). THE POLL: This poll contains a list of Legislative ballot measures that will be voted on as part of the June 8, 2010 Primary Election. Reports on these measures written by volunteers from the Green Party grassroots who have reviewed the measures follow below. Of course, counties are free to agree or disagree with the recommended positions. The full text of the initiatives can be located by going to the webpage for the California Secretary of State www.ss.ca.gov and following the applicable links. PROCESS: Please provide both Poll Coordinators (Warner Bloomberg and Richard Gomez) with vote results from your county in the following form for each ballot measure: "Yes" for the GPCA to support the measure "No" for the GPCA to oppose the measure "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately remain neutral on the measure Votes may also be cast as "Abstain" if they do not wish to participate in the poll. Abstentions will be counted toward quorum. Vote on each ballot measure itself, not the recommendation. For example, if the report has recommended a position of "No," and your county wishes to agree and vote "No" on the initiative, then your county should vote "No" on the initiative, and not "Yes" on the recommended "No" position. PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (SAN JOSE) PLENARY. That list is published in the agenda packet for that state meeting to be held MARCH 6-7, 2010. For example, if your county has 2 delegates, you would submit 2 votes in any combination of positions. (Votes from counties with more than one delegate vote need not be unanimous and ?half votes? may be reported.) If you have any questions about the total number of votes that can be cast for any measure, contact the GPCA Coordinating Committee member(s) who represent your region. Your county should rely on its own internal processes to arrive at its positions. The poll has an 80% threshold and requires at least 50% or active California County Green Parties to participate. The default where the threshold or quorum is not met is ?No Position?. VOTES MUST BE REPORTED BY A COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER. TIMELINE: The voting period begins on January 12, 2010, and ends on March 3, 2010 (11:59 PM PST). Votes received after the closing date and time will not be counted. There will not be an extension of this voting period because the Plenary convenes three days later. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinators at the following email addresses: Warner Bloomberg wsb3attyca at aol.com Richard Gomez nate136_66 at yahoo.com Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same email addresses. BALLOT MEASURES APPEARING ON THE JUNE 8, 2010 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT The list of statewide measures qualified for the June 2010 Primary Election ballot is as follows: Constitutional Amendment SCA 4. (Resolution Chapter 115, 2008), Ashburn. *Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.* Statute AB 583. (Chapter 735, 2008). Hancock. *Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.* Constitutional Amendment SCA 4. (Resolution Chapter 2, 2009). Maldonado. *Elections: open primaries.* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The full text of each of these measures can be found by going to the California Secretary of State website www.ss.ca.gov , clicking the Ballot Measures link, then the Qualified for 2010 Primary link, and then each individual ballot measure. Report #1 [As forwarded by Greg Jan] Below is some initial quick analysis on SCA4, which will be on the upcoming statewide June ballot! Vote "Yes" on SCA4 (property tax exemption for seismic retrofits): SCA4 modifies the State constitution to allow the legislature to create specific rules that encourage seismic retrofits of older buildings. Currently, such retrofits might cause the assessed valuation to rise considerably, as the retrofit is considered "new construction". Thus owners may have a disincentive to improve the seismic safety of their property, as it would make their taxes increase. Since many residences and offices in California are at high risk for damage and consequent injury of occupants, it is probably a good idea to encourage safety retrofits. While many cities and counties may need additional tax revenue, taxing seismic safety improvements is a bad way to go about it. SCA4 should be supported. Report #2 California Fair Elections Act of 2008; AB 583; Hancock Background: This is the third proposal over a number of years for public financing of partisan office elections to be considered or passed by the California Legislature. All have been advocated by ?Clean Money? activists and sponsored in the California State Assembly by Lonnie Hancock (D-Oakland). The 2004 proposal included both statewide and legislative offices, but was so discriminatory against smaller political parties that it was opposed in hearings by Green Party representatives and was not approved out of committee. A 2006 version of the proposal met GPCA criticisms enough that it was supported by the Electoral Reform Working Group and was endorsed in advance of introduction by the December 2005 General Assembly of Delegates. The legislation passed, but was vetoed. The current ballot measure is self-described as a ?pilot project? and, if approved by the voters in the June 8, 2010, Primary Election would apply only to candidates for Secretary of State. Its claimed purposes are to eliminate the corrupting influences of large campaign donations both for candidates and incumbents. The Fair Elections Fund (FEF) would be financed from $700 fees paid every two years by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and their employers (although $25 would go to the General Fund), by qualifying donations obtained by Primary Elections and Independent candidates, by taxpayer donations, Details: Similar to the second version, Secretary of State candidates from political parties whose last previous candidate in the General Election received at least 10% of the vote (read: Democratic and Republican Party candidates) would qualify for public financing by collecting 7,500 nominating signatures combined with a $5 donation ($37,500 total). Candidates of other political parties could qualify for partial campaign funding by collecting at least 3,750 signatures and $5 donations ($10,750 total) and could become a ?performance qualified? candidate by collecting 15,000 signatures and $5 donations ($75,000 total). An independent candidate would have to meet this latter threshold to qualify for public financing. The qualifying period for candidates in primaries would run from nine months before the primary election and end three months before the primary election (the last day to file nomination papers and also the last day to submit signatures and donations to qualify for public financing). However, there also would be an ?exploratory period? starting 18 months before the primary and ending on the qualifying deadline during which there could be up to 750 $100 contributions made as ?seed money? to fund the signatures and small donations efforts. Unspent seed money could not be used during the campaign and would be turned over to the FEF. A registered voter would be allowed to sign only one candidate?s qualifying petition accompanied by a $5 donation. An ?Office Qualified? candidate would be allotted One Million Dollars for the primary election. The text of the ballot measure seems unclear, but since Primary Election funding may not be used by the General Election candidates, the ?big party? nominees would presumably received at least the same amount for the General Election campaign. ?Eligible Qualified? candidates would receive $200,000. Smaller party nominees would receive either $1.3 Million if they had obtained the highest number of qualifying signatures and $5 contributions, or would receive $325,000 if they had qualified by the lesser minimum. Unspent primary election funds would be returned to the FEF. Political parties could not ?nominate? a candidate, but could support or oppose a primary candidate. State political parties would be allowed spend 5% of a candidate?s allotment as an independent expenditure (i.e., separate from the candidate?s campaign). Candidates participating in the public financing would not be allowed to accept campaign contributions from any other source, would be barred from contributing to other candidates? campaigns or to independent committees, would be required to make complete financial reports to the Fair Political Practices Commission, would have to maintain a single campaign account, could use the funds only for campaign related expenses, and could not use funds for self or family compensation. Funding also would be tracked because disbursements would be through a candidate specific debit card. Rules violations by participating candidates could result in administrative fine, criminal prosecution, barring a candidate from future elections, and a demand for refund of part or all public funds distributed to the candidate. If a nonparticipating candidate spent $5,000 more than the highest allotment, participating candidates? public financing would be increased by each $5,000 increment. Participating candidates would be required to participate in at least one primary election debate and two general election debates. Independent Committees would be subject to reporting requirements if they spent $2,500 or more supporting or opposing a candidate. Candidate advertising would be required to include a statement of candidate approval. Participating candidates would be allowed a 250 word candidate statement in the statewide ballot pamphlet; nonparticipating candidates would have to pay the pro rata expense of the pamphlet for their statement. Participating candidates would be identified as such on the ballot and on the Secretary of State web page listing candidates. Comments: The GPCA Platform endorses public financing of political campaigns to reduce the corrupting influence of money on our political system. Getting a proposal to the ballot has involved numerous compromises by public financing advocates in response to opposition about the expenses of such a system and arguments that public money should only be provided to candidates who can demonstrate significant backing. The question for GPCA activists is whether the provisions in this proposal are too discriminatory to small party candidates to allow a principled endorsement of the ballot measure or whether this step towards public financing in California politics is important enough that the state party should endorse it. If it is approved by the voters, qualifying GPCA primary candidates for Secretary of State would have more campaign funds than anytime previously. The GPCA nominee also would have more campaign money than ever before. Even though those funds could only be used for those candidates, their campaigning in the Primary Election and General Election would raise Green Party visibility and presence in the election cycle. One could also envision using the signature and $5 donations gathering as a basis for party organizing and outreach ? particularly since the qualifying petitions and donations could be from any registered voter. Recommendation: Endorse to vote Yes for this ballot measure, even if there are reservations. Written by Warner S. Bloomberg III Co-Signor: Kendra Gonzales Co-Signor: Jim Stauffer ? with the following reservations: Continuing to treat minor parties as second-class participants creates a burden that, in turn, relegates us to second-class status. It's a vicious circle, but the best we can get. Not exactly the basis for an enthusiastic endorsement. The two-tiered structure will cause a tremendous burden if we accomplish implementing proportional representation. PR creates a level electoral playing field, but second-class public financing would then be a significant hurdle to minor party candidates. Report #3 No on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 (written by Michael Rubin, GPAC) [Bracketed portion indicates edited text.] Vote "No" on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 -- The so-called "open primary" This is the legislative counsel?s digest of SCA 4 (Maldonado is the author): ?Existing provisions of the California Constitution require the Legislature to provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary election, as specified.... ?This measure, which would be known as the "Top Two Primaries Act,? would provide for a "voter-nominated primary election? for each state elective office and congressional office in California, in which a voter may vote at the primary election for any candidate for a congressional or state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter. The measure would further provide that a candidate for a congressional or state elective office generally may choose whether to have his or her political party preference indicated upon the ballot for that office in the manner to be provided by statute. The measure would prohibit a political party or party central committee from nominating a candidate for a congressional or state elective office at the primary, but the measure would permit a political party or party central committee to endorse, support, or oppose a candidate for congressional or state elective office. The 2 candidates receiving the 2 highest vote totals for each office at a primary election, regardless of party preference, would then compete for the office at the ensuing general election. This measure would require the Legislature to provide for partisan elections for Presidential candidates, political party committees, and party central steering committees. ?This measure would designate the Superintendent of Public Instruction as a non-partisan office. ?If the measure is approved by the voters it would become operative on January 1, 2011.? [The Green Party of California previously vigorously opposed a proposal similar to this proposition.] We are opposed both to the practical effects of this proposition and also to its underlying political philosophy. On the practical level, this proposition would seriously interfere with the ability of the smaller parties to participate in the marketplace of ideas. It is entirely possible that the passage of this proposition would mortally wound one or more of the small parties. Contrary to the high-minded phraseology such as ?the act is hereby adopted by the people of California to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice,? passage would severely limit choice. The two choices permitted would be well-funded mainstream candidates, thus reinforcing the widespread view that we have the best government money can buy. We also disagree with the philosophic underpinnings of this proposition. We disagree with the notion that political parties are bad; that there is something wrong with like-minded people organized in a political party having candidates of their choice competing in a general election. In fact, we believe it?s their political right to do so. The supporters of this proposition are trying to use the dysfunction of state government as an argument for it. They say that the problems are due to the current electoral process, which produces few moderates and is responsible for the excessive partisanship in Sacramento. The Green Party disagrees with both of these arguments. We believe that the current system, if anything, produces too many moderates. If diversity of opinion in state government is the goal, proportional representation would be a far superior remedy. As to partisanship, we believe that the blame falls on the actions and policies of the Republican and Democratic parties, not in the concept of political parties in the abstract. ###-------- Original Message -------- Subject: CfER's position on Top Two "Open Primary" Act Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Chessin To: gpca at cagreens.org Californians for Electoral Reform The CfER Board wanted to make sure that all of the ballot-qualified political parties knew of our opposition. Your email addresses were obtained from the Secretary of State's website (and links therefrom, if necessary). --Steve Chessin President, Californians for Electoral Reform www.cfer.org steve.chessin at cfer.org (650)-786-6200(w), (650)-962-8412(h) Short statement from Californians for Electoral Reform explaining our opposition to the so-called Top Two Candidates "Open Primary" Act. On November 21, 2009, the Board of Directors of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER) voted to oppose the so-called Top Two Candidates "Open Primary" Act that will be on the June 8, 2010 ballot. We're in the process of preparing a longer statement explaining our position in detail. Briefly, our opposition is based on the conclusion that Top Two will limit voters' choices, not expand them, and this is in direct conflict with CfER's stated belief that all citizens must have equal and satisfactory representation in government. (We put "Open Primary" in quotes because this proposal would not establish open primaries. Rather, it would establish non-partisan primaries with some similarities to the blanket primary system of 1998-2000. It would be even more accurate to say that there would be no primaries at all because the first round of voting wouldn't select nominees of political parties.) Top Two will virtually eliminate minor parties from the ballot, not only in the November election, but even as a "party preference" that candidates could specify on the primary ballot. The proposal creates conditions for maintaining ballot-qualified status that no group other than the two major parties will be able to meet. It also eliminates the safety-valve of write-in candidacies in the November runoff elections. Top Two is being advertised as a way to encourage the election of more moderate candidates. While there is no proof that it will do so, even if it could it would be at the cost of limiting voter choice and weakening political parties. There are much better ways to ensure the election of moderates, such as a system of proportional representation. In addition, Top Two is in direct conflict with the Fair Elections Act of 2008, which establishes public funding for candidates for Secretary of State, that will also appear on the June 8 ballot. CfER has no position on the Fair Elections proposal; some of our members support it and some oppose it, so an as organization we remain neutral. But those who do support it should be aware that, should both measures pass in June, there is no telling what the courts will do to resolve the conflict. --Steve Chessin President, Californians for Electoral Reform www.cfer.org steve.chessin at cfer.org (650)-786-6200(w), (650)-962-8412(h) _______________________________________________ Contacts2006 mailing list Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 _______________________________________________ gpca-cc mailing list gpca-cc at cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidquinley at aol.com Tue Jan 12 11:26:51 2010 From: davidquinley at aol.com (davidquinley at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:26:51 -0500 Subject: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party Message-ID: <8CC61D45370A94C-8BA0-DC5@webmail-m055.sysops.aol.com> I think weshould resolve that the Marin Green Party Council or Party (how ever you mightwant put it), does not Support Marin Clean Energy Authority choosing Shell, astheir provider. Picking it for its bid, is wrong, since Shell has shown it willdo just anything for profit, including concluding with governments over an executionof an activist, or participating in murder, whether said they directly involvedor not. My thoughts All though I am fullsupported of local control, and like idea of low energy bills, I don?t want getthem, over the bodies of people in other countries, and that?s what Shell hasbeen will to do, to get at Oil. People are tellingme, it?s choice over PG&E and Local Control. But I can also see it as choice ofShell over PG&E, as bad as they are, they are not even close as bad asShell. True we can move from Shell in 5 years to another provider, but I will notsupport an organization (especially a public government 1) that does businesswith company like Shell, in the 1st place, why start with the wrongchoice to start out with. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidquinley at aol.com Tue Jan 12 22:47:09 2010 From: davidquinley at aol.com (davidquinley at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:47:09 -0500 Subject: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party In-Reply-To: <1489606976.8883581263338304843.JavaMail.root@sz0146a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <8CC62335CB71DEB-8BA0-A3A9@webmail-m055.sysops.aol.com> somewhat figure, PG and E would buy energy from Shell , I don't have any influence on who they buy there energy from, I do have on Marin Energy, who ever small it might be, but isn't a subsidiary still run by Shell? and a part of it? you seem done a lot research, and I value your input, and as a city council member I'm sure have more info on this that i do, and I will take it under advisement, and you make good points, but still not entirely convinced by subsidiary argument, after all , isn't that same argument, Shell used when those native Americans where murdered in South Amer. First of all, MCE would be purchasing energy from Shell Energy North America, a subsidiary of Shell Oil. The Management of SENA has no part in or input into Shell Oil's international activities, any more than the guy who owns the local gas station does. Secondly, you are already buying energy from SENA, through PG&E. Thirdly, MCE has to choose an energy company that can guarantee three things: 1) A reliable source of energy that is 25 to 100% certified renewable 2) The ability and willingness to accept a declining load that will be replaced by locally generated energy and energy efficiency 3 The ability to provide electricity at a cost that is at or below PG&E Of the three full service providers who submitted bids, SENA was the only one who could guarantee all three and was most supportive of MCE's goal to be self reliant in 5 years. Lew -----Original Message----- From: Lew Tremaine To: davidquinley at aol.com Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party First of all, MCE would be purchasing energy from Shell Energy North America, a subsidiary of Shell Oil. The Management of SENA has no part in or input into Shell Oil's international activities, any more than the guy who owns the local gas station does. Secondly, you are already buying energy from SENA, through PG&E. Thirdly, MCE has to choose an energy company that can guarantee three things: 1) A reliable source of energy that is 25 to 100% certified renewable 2) The ability and willingness to accept a declining load that will be replaced by locally generated energy and energy efficiency 3 The ability to provide electricity at a cost that is at or below PG&E Of the three full service providers who submitted bids, SENA was the only one who could guarantee all three and was most supportive of MCE's goal to be self reliant in 5 years. Lew ----- Original Message ----- From: davidquinley at aol.com To: marin-d at cagreens.org Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:26:51 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party I think weshould resolve that the Marin Green Party Council or Party (how ever you mightwant put it), does not Support Marin Clean Energy Authority choosing Shell, astheir provider. Picking it for its bid, is wrong, since Shell has shown it willdo just anything for profit, including concluding with governments over an executionof an activist, or participating in murder, whether said they directly involvedor not. My thoughts All though I am fullsupported of local control, and like idea of low energy bills, I don?t want getthem, over the bodies of people in other countries, and that?s what Shell hasbeen will to do, to get at Oil. People are tellingme, it?s choice over PG&E and Local Control. But I can also see it as choice ofShell over PG&E, as bad as they are, they are not even close as bad asShell. True we can move from Shell in 5 years to another provider, but I will notsupport an organization (especially a public government 1) that does businesswith company like Shell, in the 1st place, why start with the wrongchoice to start out with. _______________________________________________marin-d mailing listmarin-d at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/marin-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_quinley at yahoo.com Tue Jan 12 23:00:39 2010 From: david_quinley at yahoo.com (david quinley) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:00:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party In-Reply-To: <8CC62335CB71DEB-8BA0-A3A9@webmail-m055.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CC62335CB71DEB-8BA0-A3A9@webmail-m055.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <346625.92142.qm@web53908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> i how ever will look into the independence of Shell Energy North America when i can, but since they bare the Shell name, it will take a lot convincing, for me anyway ________________________________ From: "davidquinley at aol.com" To: marin-d at cagreens.org Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:47:09 PM Subject: Re: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party somewhat figure, PG and E would buy energy from Shell , I don't have any influence on who they buy there energy from, I do have on Marin Energy, who ever small it might be, but isn't a subsidiarystill run by Shell? and a part of it? you seem done a lot research, and I value your input, and as a city council member I'm sure have more info on this that i do, and I will take it under advisement, and you make good points, but still not entirely convinced by subsidiary argument, after all , isn't that same argument, Shell used when those native Americans where murdered in South Amer. First of all, MCE would be purchasing energy from Shell Energy North America, a subsidiary of Shell Oil. The Management of SENA has no part in or input into Shell Oil's international activities, any more than the guy who owns the local gas station does. > > >Secondly, you are already buying energy from SENA, through PG&E. > > >Thirdly, MCE has to choose an energy company that can guarantee three things: > > >1) A reliable source of energy that is 25 to 100% certified renewable >2) The ability and willingness to accept a declining load that will be replaced by locally generated energy and energy efficiency >3 The ability to provide electricity at a cost that is at or below PG&E > > >Of the three full service providers who submitted bids, SENA was the only one who could guarantee all three and was most supportive of MCE's goal to be self reliant in 5 years. > > >Lew -----Original Message----- From: Lew Tremaine To: davidquinley at aol.com Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party First of all, MCE would be purchasing energy from Shell Energy North America, a subsidiary of Shell Oil. The Management of SENA has no part in or input into Shell Oil's international activities, any more than the guy who owns the local gas station does. Secondly, you are already buying energy from SENA, through PG&E. Thirdly, MCE has to choose an energy company that can guarantee three things: 1) A reliable source of energy that is 25 to 100% certified renewable 2) The ability and willingness to accept a declining load that will be replaced by locally generated energy and energy efficiency 3 The ability to provide electricity at a cost that is at or below PG&E Of the three full service providers who submitted bids, SENA was the only one who could guarantee all three and was most supportive of MCE's goal to be self reliant in 5 years. Lew ----- Original Message ----- From: davidquinley at aol.com To: marin-d at cagreens.org Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:26:51 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [Marin-d] Marin Energy Authority should not pick Shell-Marin Green Party I think we should resolve that the Marin Green Party Council or Party (how ever you might want put it), does not Support Marin Clean Energy Authority choosing Shell, as their provider. Picking it for its bid, is wrong, since Shell has shown it will do just anything for profit, including concluding with governments over an execution of an activist, or participating in murder, whether said they directly involved or not. My thoughts All though I am full supported of local control, and like idea of low energy bills, I don?t want get them, over the bodies of people in other countries, and that?s what Shell has been will to do, to get at Oil. People are telling me, it?s choice over PG&E and Local Control. But Ican also see it as choice of Shell over PG&E, as bad as they are, they are not even close as bad as Shell. True we can move from Shell in 5 years to another provider, but I will not support an organization (especially a public government 1) that does business with company like Shell, in the 1st place, why start with the wrong choice to start out with. _______________________________________________ marin-d mailing list marin-d at cagreens.orghttp://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/marin-d = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marnie at greenchange.com Thu Jan 14 22:49:58 2010 From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:49:58 -0800 Subject: [Marin-d] Scheduling Marin GP party meeting Message-ID: <572A3699-F020-4941-A0EE-9E0F05622E19@greenchange.org> Hi folks, It's time for another wonderful Marin GP meeting. We need to talk about: 1) 2010 elections for statewide ballot measures and candidates. What are the campaigns to watch? 2) 2010 elections for Marin County ballot mesures and candidates. What are the campaigns to watch? 3) 2010 elections for Marin Green Green Party County Council. Can we ask Pam to join us? 4) State of the GPUS - Marnie and Gary have joined the GPUS Platform Committee. The 2004 platform needs a major update. Can anyone review sections? Are there Green issue experts/writers we can consult in Marin and CA? 5) State of the GPCA - Who is going to represent our county party at the next plenary? The 30th anniversary celebration for GPCA will be in Berkeley from 12pm - 9pm on 2/6. We'd offer our house, but we're still doing our remodeling. It's a mess. The first date I want to suggest is Sunday February 7th. We're free all day between 9am and 5pm. My goal would be to get all our work done in an efficient 90 minute business meeting. Please email me directly to tell me if you're available on Sunday February 7th. Best wishes, Marnie From david_quinley at yahoo.com Sat Jan 16 20:28:19 2010 From: david_quinley at yahoo.com (david quinley) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:28:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marin-d] Scheduling Marin GP party meeting In-Reply-To: <572A3699-F020-4941-A0EE-9E0F05622E19@greenchange.org> References: <572A3699-F020-4941-A0EE-9E0F05622E19@greenchange.org> Message-ID: <506489.60068.qm@web53904.mail.re2.yahoo.com> i think that would work for me - i already ask pam join to us, she said yes - far im concerned we have a open position for her and 1 more - since only 5 of us(if im doing math right in my head) have made any of the meets since our 1st meet as new council since the summer before last im willing to be 1 of the 2 to the plenary, but it help if had 1 more since i take public transit and its really long commute, so i could get a ride ________________________________ From: Marnie Glickman To: marin-d at cagreens.org Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 10:49:58 PM Subject: [Marin-d] Scheduling Marin GP party meeting Hi folks, It's time for another wonderful Marin GP meeting. We need to talk about: 1) 2010 elections for statewide ballot measures and candidates. What are the campaigns to watch? 2) 2010 elections for Marin County ballot mesures and candidates. What are the campaigns to watch? 3) 2010 elections for Marin Green Green Party County Council. Can we ask Pam to join us? 4) State of the GPUS - Marnie and Gary have joined the GPUS Platform Committee. The 2004 platform needs a major update. Can anyone review sections? Are there Green issue experts/writers we can consult in Marin and CA? 5) State of the GPCA - Who is going to represent our county party at the next plenary? The 30th anniversary celebration for GPCA will be in Berkeley from 12pm - 9pm on 2/6. We'd offer our house, but we're still doing our remodeling. It's a mess. The first date I want to suggest is Sunday February 7th. We're free all day between 9am and 5pm. My goal would be to get all our work done in an efficient 90 minute business meeting. Please email me directly to tell me if you're available on Sunday February 7th. Best wishes, Marnie _______________________________________________ marin-d mailing list marin-d at cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/marin-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidquinley at aol.com Thu Jan 21 13:33:28 2010 From: davidquinley at aol.com (davidquinley at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Marin-d] Tonight 7pm Lagunitas School> LAGUNITAS COHO SURVIVE IN MARIN COUNTY+ Petition >San Geronimo Valley Community Gov. Plan Meeting Message-ID: <8CC68F88188E1C7-2348-1D88@webmail-m063.sysops.aol.com> cant go because of lack of bus service back North Bay / Marin | Environment & Forest Defense | Government & Elections View other events for the week of 1/21/2010 Title: LAGUNITAS COHO SURVIVE IN MARIN COUNTY>San Geronimo Valley Community Gov. Plan Meeting START DATE: Thursday January 21 TIME: 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Location Details: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/SysApps/Calendar/pub/EventDisplay.cfm?event=13687 Event Type: Meeting Contact Name Email Address Phone Number Address Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. YOUR VOICE is needed to ensure that LAGUNITAS COHO SURVIVE IN MARIN COUNTY **Please Take Action Today- Due Jan 25** Visit our online ACTION CENTER TODAY and take these 5 simple steps: 1. Sign the online petition http://www.spawnusa.org/actions/number-19to the Marin Board of Supervisors and then send a handwritten letter,fax, or electronic submission by Jan 25. SHARE the online petition with10 of your friends. Central California Coast coho salmon are a stateand national biological treasure... you do not have to be a Marinresident to take action! 2. Give a generous donation so we canorganize massive grassroots support to ensure Marin Supervisors takeaction before it's too late. Click HERE to make a secure donation toour campaign. 3. Print the petition and join our volunteer teams to secure signatures in your own neighborhood! Download a copy HERE. 4. ATTEND the County's PUBLIC HEARING this THURS Jan 21 from 7-9PM.JOIN US in making sure the salmons' needs and voices are heard! Themeeting will be held at the Lagunitas School Multipurpose Room - fordirections visit http://lagunitas.marin.k12.ca.us/directions.HTM. Contact Paola [at] Tirn.Net for more info. 5. Call us (415.663.8590 X111) if you can volunteer your time to helpus with this campaign at our office, in your local neighborhood and atevents. Your past support has got us this far in our struggleto protect and restore critical habitat, but now we need your help morethan ever to keep the pressure on to succeed in making sure Lagunitascoho survive. For more background info: Listen to the recent KQED piece at http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201001041730 and read the recent Marin IJ article at http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_14113750 and Bay Nature article at http://baynature.org/articles/web-only-articles/california-coho-salmon-in-dire-straits declaring a "coho extinction crisis" if we dont' take immediate actions. Photo by Susan Farrar, SPAWN Naturalist & Susan Farrar Photography You are receiving our emails because you signed up with us at http://www.SpawnUSA.org or at one of our community events. Unsubscribe davidquinley [at] aol.com from this list | Forward to a friend | Update your profile Our mailing address is: Salmon Protection And Watershed Network, SPAWN POB 370 Forest Knolls, California 94933 Add us to your address book Copyright (C) 2010 Salmon Protection And Watershed Network, SPAWN All rights reserved. put up by http://twitter.com/davidaquinley mostly outisde bay area mostly events + news http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000031433391&ref=mf#/profile.php?ref=profile&id=100000031433391 http://digitaldaq.deviantart.com/gallery/ mostly inside sf bay area events + news http://www.facebook.com/david.quinley?ref=... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidquinley at aol.com Mon Jan 25 11:54:37 2010 From: davidquinley at aol.com (davidquinley at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:54:37 -0500 Subject: [Marin-d] tonight Monday, 6-9:30 PM MPJC Pot Luck Speaker Series: The California State Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CC6C0F5BDCE4F8-3758-481@webmail-d036.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Marin Peace & Justice Coalition To: MPJC Bulletin Sent: Mon, Jan 25, 2010 10:56 am Subject: [MPJC_Weekly_Bulletin] SPECIAL! Marin Peace and Justice Coalition Special Announcment Monday, January 25, 6 PM MPJC Pot Luck Speaker Series: The California State Budget 6:00 PM Pot Luck.... 7:15 PM Event A People's Budget Forum Lenny Goldberg from the California Tax Reform Institute will present alternaive ways to find revenue without destroying the safety net, and exploiting programs for students, disabled and parks. Do we really need to reduce the state workers salary by 14%? What about the loopholes designed for big business... ...Are they getting their ?fair share? of the cuts? Panelists include - Lenny Goldberg Executive Director of California Tax Reform Association, Norman Solomon, author, War Made Easy, co-chair of National Healthcare not Warfare Campaign, State Representative Jared Huffman Susan Kirsch, moderator First United Methodist Church 9 Ross Valley Drive San Rafael, CA Free..... Basket Donations encouraged. . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_quinley at yahoo.com Sat Jan 30 14:07:34 2010 From: david_quinley at yahoo.com (david quinley) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:07:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marin-d] Fw: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] Agenda Packet for March State Meeting Message-ID: <580327.33910.qm@web53905.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: County Contacts To: County Contacts Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 1:35:31 PM Subject: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] Agenda Packet for March State Meeting GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions stated in the email. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The proposal packet for the March 6-7 General Assembly in San Jose is now available for downloading from the plenary web site: http://www.cagreens.org/plenary/ This packet contains proposals, meeting schedule and county delegate allocation. Please read it ASAP. If you have concerns about any proposal, please send them to the people listed as the contact persons and/or sponsors *before* the meeting begins. You will need the common password for access to the proposal packet. Please contact your County Council or Regional Representative if you don't have it. The logistics packet will be available within one week. The logistics packet contains information on the meeting site, housing, registration and host contacts. Contact the Agenda Team (agenda-team at cagreens.org) with any questions. Online registration and delegate pages will open when the logistics packet is released. Counties are required to submit their list of General Assembly delegates online. Use the Delegates link on the plenary page cited above. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT: All delegate names must be submitted before the meeting. Due to past problems, the Accreditation Committee will no longer accept delegate name submissions at the meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Online registration and delegate submission pages will close on Wednesday Mar. 3. You may participate in this important event in a number of ways: At the General Assembly -- as a delegate or a observer in the decision-making plenary sessions and/or =- as participant in working group, standing committee and/or caucus meetings Before the General Assembly -- with a working group or standing committee that is generating a proposal -- discussing the agenda proposals in your county and on-line. We hope to see you in San Jose! _______________________________________________ Contacts2006 mailing list Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 _______________________________________________ gpca-cc mailing list gpca-cc at cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: