[GPSCC-chat] Comments sent to GIWG re Pending Ballot Measures Plenary Agenda Item

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

February  28. 2010 
To:  Hally DiCarion, Green Issues Working  Group Co-Coordinator;   Bert 
Heuer. GIWG  Co-Coordinator;  Wes Rolley; Will Yeager 
From:  Warner Bloomberg  wb4d23 at aol.com 
Subject:  Santa Clara County GP Activists Comments  re GIWG Plenary Agenda 
Item ”Pending Ballot Measures” 
The  Santa Clara County Green Party uses a meeting of Plenary delegates and 
 alternates and other interested GPSCC members to review Agenda Packet 
items and  consense, where possible, on recommendations to take to a general 
membership  meeting, where positions and instructions are made.  The review 
group met last Sunday  (February 21, 2010) and consensed on the following 
regarding the GIWG Pending  Ballot Measures proposal. 
We  do not think that these items should be considered as a single agenda 
item.  Each ballot measure or possible ballot  proposal should be considered 
separately. 
The  first two on the list have qualified for the June Ballot and are part 
of current  County Polling and will be dealt with either by County Polling 
or as part of the  March Plenary Agenda, so they should be withdrawn from the 
 list. 
In  general, the descriptions of the ballot measures are all inadequate.  
Many of them do not in any way describe  what the measure, if enacted, would 
do.  Those descriptions should have been part of the proposal in the Agenda  
Packet.  Reference to a website is  not an adequate substitute.  
We  have concerns that our time and energies are being taken up with 
matters that  may not receive enough signatures to be put before the voters.  We 
also do not like the idea of a  tentative or advisory position.  Either the 
GPCA should take a position on a matter or not.  Again, because the proposal 
suggests any  number of decisions might not be the final say, we feel this 
is an unfair  misdirection of our time and energies to have to take a 
position on all of these  different items. 
We  do affirm the concept of trying to establish earlier-rather-than-later 
GPCA  positions on items where there is, or should be, a clear GPCA 
position.  Therefore, we suggest that the GIWG  modify its proposal to prioritize 
the items on the list and take them in order  to the extent that time is 
allowed on the agenda March 7th to obtain  GPCA positions.  In particular, we  
would support the Marijuana Legislation item {because it appears enough  
signatures have been collected so that it will appear on the November 2010  
ballot) and the New Prop 187 item (because the GPCA has twice taken positions  
opposing similar initiatives).  Our  concerns remain as to the other items on 
the GIWG list. 
These  will be our recommendations to the GPSCC general meeting scheduled 
for  Wednesday, March 3rd.  This information is being sent to you to consider 
in connection with how  the GIWG will or will not modify its  proposal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100228/3b6fdbac/attachment.html>