[Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: [GPCA Official Notice] GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR FEBRUARY 5TH BALLOT MEASURES

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/13/2007 12:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org writes:

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.
GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR  FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT MEASURES

To: GPCA County Contacts List From:  Warner Bloomberg Campaigns and
Candidates Working Group Coordinator   Subject: County Polling for
Initiatives on the February 5, 2008 Election  Ballot

Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations  to report
County GP positions on  the three initiatives that have  been certified to
appear on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 election.  Immediately
following those instructions, you will find reports that have  been compiled
describing those measures and suggesting positions. The  recommendations are
simply those of the people who wrote or compiled 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 plenary is not scheduled until after the  election, so County Polling is
the only method for the GPCA to take  a  position on these issues. As in
previous years, special thanks to  everyone who  contributed to the reports
and to Greg Jan for  collecting them; and thanks to  Matthew Leslie for
serving as the  County Polling administrator and to Michael  Borenstein for
serving  as his assistant. Any questions about the instructions  should  be
addressed to Matthew as-indicated. Any other related questions can  be
directed to me via _wsb3attyca at aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3attyca at aol.com)  .

Warner Bloomberg CCWG Coordinator


INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA  STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES INITIATIVES APPEARING ON
THE FEBRUARY 5, 2008  ELECTION BALLOT

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 initiatives have  qualified for the next
state election on February 5, 2008 (these do not  include four referenda on
Indian Casino Compacts that are still  undergoing review for certification).
Please be sure that your county  participates by submitting votes by Sunday
December 28, 2007.

THE  POLL: This poll contains a list of all initiatives that have  qualified
for the February 5, 2008 Election.  Each initiative title  is followed by a
recommendation made by volunteers from the Green Party  grassroots who have
reviewed the measures. Of course, counties are free  to agree or disagree
with the recommended positions. Following the list  of initiatives is an
extensive list of arguments and resources for  research about each.

PROCESS: Please provide the Poll Coordinator  (Matthew Leslie) and his
assistant (Michael Borenstein) with vote results  from your county in the
following form for each ballot  initiative:

"Yes" for the GPCA to support the initiative "No" for the  GPCA to oppose the
initiative "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately  remain neutral on the
initiative

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 the initiative itself, not the  recommendation. For example, if CCWG
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 RIVERSIDE
PLENARY.
That list was published in  the agenda packet for that state meeting
held September 8-9, 2007. For  example, if your county had 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.) 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. The default where the threshold or
quorum is  not met is “No Position”.

TIMELINE: The voting period begins on  November 13, 2007, and ends on
December 28, 2007 (11:59 PM PST). Votes  received after the closing date and
time will not be counted. Submit all  votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinator and
the Assistant Poll Coordinator at  the following email addresses: Matthew
Leslie mrl at greens.org , Michael  Borenstein thebor at greens.org . Please submit
any questions about the  process of the poll to the same addresses.

FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT  INITIATIVES REPORTS
Dear Greens, Below are the recommendations and  reports (write-ups) on the 
three state propositions which will be on the  February, 2008 ballot. (Note: 
There is a possibility that four referenda  having to do with Indian Gaming 
may also qualify, but signature counting  has not yet been completed on 
those.). As you will see, we are currently  divided about Prop. 92, funding 
for community colleges. One write-up  recommends that we endorse Prop. 92, 
while the other write-up recommends  that we do not take a position on that 
initiative. (Note: Neither  write-up recommends that we oppose Prop. 92). 
Also, I want to take a  moment here to thank the Greens who worked on 
analyzing and authoring  the write-ups for these propositions! We hope that 
you will find them  informative and helpful.
Sincerely, Greg Jan Oakland,  CA

Recommendations for the February, 2008 ballot:
Prop. 91 --  Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO
Prop. 92 -- Funding  of Community Colleges . . . Either "YES" or
"No position"
Prop. 93 -- Term Limits . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO

Note: The text of these propositions  are available via the Secretary of
State's website, at:  http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
The draft voter pamphlet  "pro and con" arguments and rebuttals will be
available through Nov. 13,  and perhaps after that date,  via:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig_02052008.htm

**************  Reports (Write-ups):

Prop. 91 -- Transportation Recommendation: NO  Write-up author: Jan Arnold,
Alameda County

This proposal has an  unusual history. The "Transportation Funding Protection
Act" (TFPA) was  an initiative circulated by an alliance of construction
companies and  building trades unions who were frustrated by years of
diversions (by the  State legislature) of transportation money set aside
under Proposition 42  (which passed in 2002). That measure dedicated most of
the gas tax  revenue to improving streets, highways, and transit systems.  The
proponents paid for about a million signatures. Legislative leaders  got the
message and placed Proposition 1A on the November 2006 ballot,  covering the
same issues, where it passed easily. The proponents of the  TFPA turned in
some, but not all, of their signatures, while they were  keeping the
conversation going with legislative leaders, but they were  not intending to
actually qualify the measure. Because of a higher than  expected signature
validity rate, the initiative  qualified.

Meanwhile, its proponents had decided Proposition 1A was  good enough to
support. In the space where we would expect to see an  argument FOR Prop 91,
there's a request that we vote No, as the TFPA is  no longer needed. (Nobody
submitted an argument against it.) But  sometimes the original proponents are
settling for less than an ideal  solution and we Greens (who take our stand
based on future focus) might  actually want to pick up the banner that they
have dropped. Could this be  one of those times?

The official Ballot Label says this measure, if  passed, "increases stability
of state funding for highways, streets, and  roads and may decrease stability
of state funding for public transit. May  reduce stability of certain local
funds for public transit." That  suggests Greens and other advocates of
transit funding should vote No.  There's a general question about keeping
some public funds in a  "lockbox." In this case, both the existing law (1A)
and this proposal  allow for emergency exceptions, which is something we
should accept. (If  a family member had a serious emergency, you might raid
your retirement  fund despite your original plans.)  Since transportation
money is  mostly going for roads, how serious are we about keeping it in a
lockbox?  (But it seems that when transportation money is raided, the FIRST
to be  raided is NOT the roads, but the transit stuff that we are really
trying  to get more of.)

Although these issues are complex, one  progressive non-profit
transportation group that we are in touch with has  told us they will likely
be opposing it, and we have not heard of any  progressive groups or
individuals who are inclined to support it. In  fact, we haven't heard of any
significant organizations at all who are  supporting Prop. 91. Therefore, in
view of all of the above, we recommend  a "No" vote on Prop. 91


Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges  Recommendation: Either "YES" or
"No position"
Write-up author for "No  position": Bill Balderston, Alameda County Write-up
author for "YES":  Information compiled by Susan Schacher, Alameda County

Write-up for  "No position" recommendation on Prop. 92: As the co-chair of
the Green  Party Caucus of the California Teachers Association (CTA) and as  a
long-time representative to CTA State Council (specifically sitting on  the
Financing Public Education Committee), I have great difficulty  arguing
either side for this proposition (Prop 92). On first glance it  would appear
to be an obvious advance as regards the rebuilding of our  community college
system and its student bodies. The more than doubling  of student fees (from
$11 to $26 per credit) in 2004 and the loss of  considerable enrollment in
this decade (over 300,000) would seem to  mandate support for a law which
would lower student fees and buuildup the  system. Moreover, the proponents
of 92 argue that this will be money well  spent, both as regards the
long-term income for individuals and the state  (in the form of higher income
taxes); students will also find this a more  financially reasonable avenue
than attending CSU or UC schools for the  full four years (and will require
less state subsidy at those  schools).

However, the coalition of which CTA is a part (and I have  rarely hesitated
to differ with CTA positions when I consider them  misguided or even
unprincipled) are opposing Prop 92 for both strong as  well as less
progressive reasons.

First, there is the matter of  the actual costs for implementation; this is
estimated at $500,000,000.  CTA always obsesses on any measure's impact on
Prop 98 monies (which do  also include most funding for community colleges as
well as K-12); if you  read Section 17 of the initiative, it says clearly
that any increases in  costs at specific community college sites that are not
covered by local  property taxes and student fees, will come out of the
general fund (to  which Prop 98 applies). There is no provision for
progressive taxation  (split roll or higher income taxes for the rich) which
could, in part, be  designated for this worthy goal (CTA and their allies
don't mention this  possibility in their arguements, but simply warn of
additional taxation,  which I think is a poor arguement, for like Prop 98,
the question arises  "for what are resources being designated?".

Second, there is little  specificity on how additional funds will be applied
and/or accountability  for the funds (by way of an audit or similiar means).
Finally, the  provision (in Section 19) that would require a 4/5ths vote in
both houses  of the State Legislature to amend the main features of the law
is a very  dangerous precedent.

In conclusion, I cannot recommend support of  this measure, but feel that a
stance of neither supporting or opposing  (with explanatory language) would
be best. It is usually reckless to  mandate a significant cost item (no
matter how progressive) without even  addressing the need for more resources.
The question of the supermajority  vote to alter the law may seem secondary
to the substance involved, but  it is also very serious and this alone could
negate our supporting the  initiative.


Write-up for "YES" recommendation on Prop.  92:

“YES” ON PROP 92 — THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE INITIATIVE  What  does Prop 92 Do?
(1) Lowers community college student fees to $15 a unit  & limits increases
to the cost of living (2) Guarantees minimum  funding for community college
growth (3) Does not hurt K-12 funding   (4) Does not raise taxes  (5)
Guarantees a system of independent  community college districts

Why Prop 92? Community College funding is  currently based on K-12 enrollment
under Prop 98, passed by voters 20  years ago. While K-12 enrollments are in
decline, demand for community  colleges is projected to increase—by some
100,000 students in the next  three years alone. Prop 92 funds growth for
these expected new students,  opens access, and protects students from
prohibitive fee increases. Under  current Prop 98 funding formulas, 60% of
these students will be shut out.  Moreover, when there is a budget crunch in
California, Sacramento always  balances its budgets on the backs of college
students and the poor. In  2004 and 2005 community college fees were
increased by over 150%. The  result— between 250,000 and 300,000 students
were priced out of the  system. Instead of a single funding stream for K-12
and community  colleges, which is then “split” between the two segments, Prop
92  provides each segment its own minimum funding guarantee.

Passage of  Prop 92 is the best opportunity to guarantee that all
Californians will  have access to an affordable and quality college education
and be able to  get ahead. This is the unmet promise of the State’s Master
Plan for  Higher Education. Who attends community colleges?  2.5  million
students, mainly working class and low-income youth and adults.  The average
student is 28 year old. 60% of the student population is  female. 30% of all
Latinos in the U.S. who are attending college today  are enrolled in a
California Community College. And there are 90,000 more  African American
students in community colleges than in both the CSU and  UC systems combined.
250,000 Californians from Asian and Pacific Islander  backgrounds are
enrolled in the Community Colleges. Community colleges  give students who did
not finish high school a second chance. 2/3rds of  CSU graduates and 1/3rd of
UC graduates begin their college careers at a  community college. Prop 92
offers low-income and working class people  access to education and a route
to a decent standard of  living.

Prop 92 is a good investment of public dollars
Community  college students who earned an Associate degree or vocational
certificate  saw their wages jump from $25,600 to $47,571 three years  after
graduating. Research shows that for every dollar spent on community  college
education, California gets $3 back in taxes. The State spends  much less in a
year to educate a community college student than it spends  in any of the
other sectors: $8,133 per student in K-12 schools; $11,624  in the Cal State
system, $18,203 in the UC system, compared to a mere  $4,500 per student in
the community colleges. The money needed to roll  back student fees and
provide a gateway to the middle class will continue  to come from the state’s
general fund. But Prop 92 does not call for new  taxes or cause any other
sector to suffer. The  money to fund this  proposition will come from the
future growth in state  revenue,  including increased taxes paid by a more
educated workforce.

Prop  92 assures local governance of the community colleges
Prop 92 guarantees  local control of the community colleges -- to keep the
"community" in  community colleges – by maintaining the governance structure
administered  by local elected Boards of Trustees. Prop 92 establishes the
community  colleges as a third higher education system in the California.  The
community colleges will no longer be an appendage of the K-12 system.  The
California Community Colleges system will finally have its own  funding
method, as do the Cal State and the UC systems. Endorsers  include: (partial
list, additions to be made)  Peralta Federation of  Teachers, California
Federation of Teachers, Faculty Association of the  California Community
Colleges, California Community College Independents,  Community Colleges
Association of the CTA, California Federation of  Labor, State Building and
Construction Trades, Nicky Gonzales Yuen, etc.,  other Peralta Bd Members,
etc., Wellstone Democratic Renewal  Club

Responding to ballot arguments against Prop 92
The ballot  arguments against Prop 92 are signed by officers of the
California  Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Action Committee, the
California  Taxpayers’ Association, the California Roundtable, and the
California  Teachers Association.

The ballot arguments against Prop 92 use  familiar scare tactics to dissuade
voters. They say Prop 92 will cause  more problems than it solves. They say
Prop 92 will lock in spending  increases for community colleges which could
lead to funding cuts for  K-12 schools, state colleges and universities,
health and public safety;  and could result in higher taxes. Proponents say
that these concerns are  short-sighted. Funding for community college
education is a crucial  investment in our future. For each dollar the
community colleges spend,  the state eventually gets $3 back in taxes paid by
a more educated  workforce. Our community colleges provide vocational
training and  academic education for more than 2.5 million students per year,
compared  to 180,000 students at UC’s and 380,000 at CSU’s. Two-thirds of all
CSU  graduates and one-third of all UC grads began at community  colleges.
Under-funding and restricting access to community colleges  is
self-defeating. We must protect this vital investment in the future of  our
state and its people.

Prop 92 goes a long way toward solving  the problem of access to public
higher education for every Californian,  fulfilling the promise of the
State’s Master Plan for Higher Education.  If voters pass Prop 92, we'll be
opening the doors to better economic  prospects for more people and for the
society as a whole. A better  educated workforce is key.

Prop 92 is the only current initiative to  address the looming shortage of
educated workers. The consequences of NOT  assuring access to the education
and job preparation provided by the  community colleges will be dire for
upcoming generations and California’s  economy.

Prop 92 is consistent with Green values of equity, fairness,  and access.
Greens will continue to call for more state resources for  K-12 schools,
state colleges and universities, healthcare, public safety,  social services,
AND community colleges. If increased state revenues are  needed, all human
services sectors must unite in advocating for a just  tax system. Greens have
always called for a just and progressive tax  structure, and will continue to
do so. Reasonable approaches include  reinstating higher income tax rates
(10% and 11%) for wealthier taxpayers  and ending corporate tax breaks under
Prop 13. Rather than implement tax  increases which require a 2/3 majority
vote, the legislature has – by  simple majority votes -- increased community
college “ fees” (which  technically are not “taxes”) and cut community
college funding. By  passing Prop 92 we can end the legislature’s practice of
balancing the  state budget at the expense of the community colleges and
their students.  Prop 92 will protect the Community College system and its
students  against this corrupt and opportunistic budgeting.

Proponents are  concerned about CTA’s opposition to Prop 92 when its
community college  section, the Community College Association, is in support.
Proponents are  also concerned about the alliance between the CTA  and
business/conservative tax-payer interests. Proponents are surprised  that the
opponents appear not to recognize the value of the community  colleges for
the state’s economic growth. The community colleges train  nurses, diesel
mechanics, childcare workers, construction workers,  computer technicians.
They are the first step for thousands of students  who go on to become
teachers, physicians, engineers, social workers,  planners, and business
professionals. They prepare people for work in the  expanding sector of green
industry. The community colleges retrain  workers experiencing job loss from
injury, down-sizing, plant closures,  export of jobs. The community colleges
are an important alternative to  the military’s economic draft.

The opposing ballot argument claims  that Prop 92 gives community colleges
preferential treatment. But while  Prop 98 (passed in1988) mandates that
10.93% of the K-14 education budget  should go to community colleges, every
year the legislature has suspended  that requirement and cut the funding to
an average of about 10.4%. Far  from being “preferential treatment,” this has
resulted in funding cuts of  almost $5 billion over the past 15 years.
Community colleges are funded  at a significantly lower rate than the other
systems of higher education  in the state: at a little more than one-third of
what CSUs receive per  student and at about one-fourth of what the UCs
receive. The time is now  to finally start investing in our community 
colleges.

Prop 92 will  enable the community colleges to have their own funding stream,
and get  away from the "Prop 98 split"  entirely.  Using another  scare
tactic, the opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 does not  include
audits, independent oversight, or measures to ensure money will  ever get to
college classrooms. Proponents point out that Prop 92 funds  would be subject
to the same controls that now apply to the community  colleges. By law the
community colleges must spend at least 50% of every  dollar for classroom
instruction. There is no need to duplicate existing  controls with redundant
laws that take dollars out of the classroom.  Community colleges consistently
get high marks for stretching their  meager dollars very far. New funds will
be invested wisely in our most  precious resource -- the people of California.

Opponents say that  there are better ways to improve our community colleges.
What are they?  Advocates have been trying unsuccessfully for many years to
address the  under-funding of the community colleges. Generally, those
opposed to Prop  92 support the mission and goals of the community colleges
but they do  not offer any way to finance them that will allow them to
function  effectively. Passage of Prop 92 will guarantee the community
college  system the resources it needs. The real issue is whether we will
have a  thriving community college system that successfully serves millions
of  youth and adults.


Prop. 93 -- Term Limits Recommendation: NO  Write-up author: Bob Marsh,
Alameda County
Proposition 93 -- The “Keep  Perata and Nunez in Office” Initiative: NO! NO! 
NO!

This initiative  is one of the most cynical ones to hit our ballot in years.
The current  President pro-tem of the California Senate, Don Perata, and
Speaker of  the Assembly, Fabian Núñez, are both “termed-out” next year. They
and  their legislative cronies have created an extremely clever and  deceptive
plan to keep themselves in office for another four years. This  measure
masquerades as a way to shorten term limits, but in reality would  allow both
Senators and Assembly to stay in office for from four to six  years longer!

The legislature put this measure on the Presidential  Primary ballot,
cleverly taking advantage of our unusual 3-election year  in 2008. If the
measure passes in February, then all the legislators who  would otherwise be
at the end of their terms will be able to run in  the
certain-to-be-a-very-low turnout June State Primary. If it fails,  they can’t
run.

If this initiative passes, term limits will only  be shorter for those
legislators who might be lucky enough to hold seats  in both the Assembly and
Senate. An Assembymember who stays in their  completely safe seat (due to our
totally corrupt and jerrymandered  election system) will be able to stay in
office twice as long, twelve  years instead of the six now allowed.

We find the proponents  arguments flawed. They claim that studies have shown
that legislators are  now more likely to be fiscally irresponsible with
shorter terms, but can  anyone remember a time when our
Demopublican/Republicrat legislature was  responsible? They claim it takes
many terms for legislators to understand  how the system works… are our
representatives so stupid that it takes  longer than one year (let alone six)
to learn how to do a job they’ve  worked for years to get?

In any case, virtually all research and  voting decisions are determined by
the Party caucuses and staff, and  forced on legislature members by Party
leadership. Looking at roll call  votes on virtually any measure, there is
very little sign of independent  action or  thinking by any individual member
of either Party. Most  vote results strictly follow Party lines.

Perata and Núñez are behind  the dangerous and deceptive mandatory health
insurance proposal that is  the Democrats' plan to sabotage true universal
health care. Perata was  the author of the bill that re-categorized
publicly-owned Oakland  shoreline to make it available to his greedy
developer buddies. Perata  has been under investigation by the FBI for some
time for campaign  practices and financing irregularities.

Put Perata out to pasture.  Nip Núñez's need for new power. Vote NO on  93!





_______________________________________________
Contacts2006  mailing  list
Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006
________________


 



 



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20071115/b37cc657/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com
Subject: Fwd: [gpca-cocos] [GPCA Official Notice] GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR	FEBRUARY 5, ...
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:22:30 EST
Size: 87952
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20071115/b37cc657/attachment.mht>