[GPSCC-chat] Draft Agenda for Thursday April 26 GPSCC Meeting

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

GREEN  PARTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 
Draft  Agenda for Monthly General Membership Meeting April 26, 2012 (4th  
Thursday) 
San  Jose Peace and Justice Center, 48 South 7th Street, San Jose,  CA 
(Near  7th and San Fernando Streets) 
7:00  pm – Eat and chat 
7:30  pm – Begin meeting 
Select  Facilitator, Notetaker, Timekeeper, and Vibeswatcher(s), Select 
Agenda Preparer  for next meeting; Affirm or modify draft agenda (5 Minutes)   
Introductions  and Announcements (10 Minutes) 
Treasurer’s  Report – Jim Doyle (5 minutes)  
PROPOSAL  TO FILL COUNTY COUNCIL VACANCY:  At last month’s GPSCC meeting, 
it was  proposed that John Thielkin be appointed to fill a vacancy on the 
GPSCC County  Council.  We have three CC members  where there can be up to 
seven positions.  The proposal was postponed to the April meeting because there 
had not  been advance notice.  NOTE:  There were no filings for election to  
the County Council for the two year period beginning June 2012.  We need 
additional volunteers to be  County Council members!!! 
– County Council (10  Minutes) 
Speaker  from Project 350 – Presenter Gerry Gras (10 Minutes) 
County  Polling on Propositions 28 and 29 – Tian Harter (20 minutes)  There 
are two ballot measures that have  been presented for GPCA approval or 
opposition by County Polling (see summaries  below).  The deadline for our  
County’s positions (4 votes) is due by April  28th. 
General  Assembly (May 12-13 in San Francisco) Preparation – Warner 
Bloomberg   
(30  Minutes)     At the  March GPSCC meeting, Warner Bloomberg, Merriam 
Music and Tian Harter were  affirmed as delegates for the upcoming Plenary.  
We need one more delegate and some  alternates.  We also need to discuss  our 
positions for proposals to significantly revise the GPCA Bylaws and to  
modify a 2006 proposal for GPCA Elections Code sections.  Also note that a 
Green Party  presidential candidates forum is planned for Saturday evening.  For 
more details about the agenda go to  cagreens.org/ga 
Movies  Night – Proposals -- Merriam and John Thielkin (5 Minutes) 
Discussion  of status of tabling supplies --          (10 Minutes) 
Plan  for Spring Tabling --              (5 Minutes) 
Berryessa  Arts & Wine Festiveal Saturday May 12th 
Others??? 
(1  Hour 50 Minutes Estimated Cumulative Times.  Goal:  Adjourn by 9:30  
pm) 
Tabling Events  Addenda – Needed for each item (not necessarily all at this 
 meeting): 
Confirm date and  location; Approval of fee payment (as applicable); 
Designation of coordinator(s)  and other volunteers 
May 12  Barryessa Arts and Wine Festival 
###   
[From  GPSCC Bylaws] ARTICLE 2 COUNTY COUNCIL  
2.1  Purposes  
2.1.1  The County Council will fulfill the legal requirement for a liaison 
between the  California Green Party and Santa Clara County officials. As 
used in these  Bylaws, the term "County Council" shall have the same meaning as 
the term  "Central Committee" as that term is used by the Office of the 
Registrar of  Voters for Santa Clara County, California.  
2.1.2  The Council shall select a secretary and a treasurer from among its 
members, or  may ratify the selection of these officers made at a General 
County Meeting. The  Council and/or its officers will be responsible for 
complying with the financial  reporting requirements of the Fair Political  
Practices  Commission (FPPC). The Council or its officers shall be 
responsible for  obtaining an FPPC number for financial reporting. The Council may 
create such  committees or initiate such inquiries as it considers necessary 
and appropriate  to perform its collective  
responsibilities  as described in these Bylaws.  
2.1.3  Internal to the Green Party, the Council's primary duties include 
serving as a  coordinating or steering committee to:  
a) Facilitate  communications between Green Party members within the  
county, at  county meetings, and between locals within the county.  
b) Facilitate  communications between the county Green Party and the State 
Green Party.   
c) Assist Green  Party involvement in elections in the county (including  
recruiting,  advising and assisting Green Party candidates, co-ordinating   
voter  registration efforts and tabling, and supporting ballot issues   
effecting issues  of concern to the state or county Green Party).  
d) Enhance  communications between the county Green Party and other Green   
Parties and/or  other local organizations which support the principals and  
 
objectives set  forth in the Green Party Platform.  
e) Oversee and  assist the work of committees formed by the Council, or  
outside the  Council by the Party's members, to help carry out the above   
duties, or other  duties considered necessary that are not in conflict with 
 
these ByLaws;  such as an electoral reform committee, an environmental  
issues  committee, etc.  
2.1.4  The County Council shall act as the designated contact persons for 
the Green  Party of Santa Clara County, and refer interested people to 
persons who may be  designated as spokespeople for the Party at a General County 
Meeting.   
2.1.5  The County Council, by agreement of eighty percent (80%) of its 
members, may  authorize the use of the name of the Green Party of Santa Clara 
County as an  endorser or co-sponsor of an event or public statement 
consistent with the  principals and objectives set forth in the Green Party Platform 
if time issues  make the decision necessary before it can be brought before 
the next general  meeting.  Any such County Council  authorization shall be 
reported to those present at the next monthly  meeting.  [Adopted July 1,  
2003] 
2.2 Membership in  the Council  
2.2.1 All County  Council members must be residents of Santa Clara County 
and registered to vote  with the Green Party.  
2.2.2 The County  Council is designated by the State Green Party bylaws to 
consist of seven  members elected at large from the county's Green Party 
constituency. Additional  members may be appointed by the Council. Vacancies on 
the Council that reduce  the membership to less than seven will be filled 
by appointment by the remaining  County Council member(s) within 30 days of 
the vacancy. The State Green Party  Coordinating Committee and the Santa 
Clara Registrar of Voters shall be informed  of all appointed members within two 
working days of the appointment. It shall be  an objective of the Green 
Party of Santa Clara County that its County Council  reflect the diversity of 
the general population in the county and likewise  reflect Green Party 
values.  
From:  marnie at cagreens.org
To: wsb3attyca at aol.com
Sent: 4/5/2012 1:08:36 P.M.  Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Prop 28 and Prop 29 
Hi  County Council members and GPCA leaders. 
Below  is an analysis of Propositions 28 and 29 by several active members 
of the Green  Party of Alameda County. Thank you Alameda Greens. 
We  are asking all county councils to discuss and vote yes, no, no position 
or  abstain on these propositions. 
THE  DEADLINE TO SEND US YOUR POSITIONS IS APRIL 30.

Thank you to the county  councils that have already sent your positions to 
us: San Diego, Tulare, Alameda  and Marin. 
Please  contact us if you have any questions. 
Best  wishes,
Marnie Glicmkan, 415.259.7121
Richard Gomez, Fresno County,  nate136_66 at yahoo.com 
*** 
Proposition  28 (Changes to term limits) -- Yes (with reservations) 
Proposition  28 reduces the number of years persons elected after June 5, 
2012 can serve in  the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years total in a 
lifetime. At the same time  it increases the number of years persons can serve in 
either House (Assembly or  State Senate) to a maximum of 12 years. 
Proponents  of Proposition 28 include the League of Women Voters, Common 
Cause, the Congress  of California Seniors, the Democratic Party, and Dan 
Schnur, Chair of the  California Fair Political Practices Commission. Opponents 
include U.S. Term  Limits, Parents In Charge, the National Tax Limitation 
Committee, and Americans  for Prosperity. 
The  virtue of this proposition is that it is a small change for the 
better. It is a  tacit admission that term limits, which went into effect in 
November 1990, have  been a fiasco for public policy. (The effect of term limits 
has been  strengthening the hand of corporate lobbyists in dealing with a 
revolving door  of legislators.) But we have two reservations. First, this is 
a very small  improvement. It will not undo the damage done by term limits. 
(We are totally  opposed to term limits. Term limits are an assault on the 
process of democracy,  in which the voters decide whom they want to represent 
them.) Second, this  measure does not address the real problems of the 
Legislature; the lack of  responsiveness to the 99% caused by the exclusive 
dominance by the two corporate  parties. As Ralph Nader says, “We need more 
voices and choices.” To this end, in  the short term, we propose ranked choice 
voting,as is now used for city council  elections in Oakland, Berkeley, and 
San Leandro. In the longer term, we favor  moving to a system of proportional 
representation, as is now used in most  countries in the world, including 
Japan, Brazil, Venezuela, and in almost all  European nations. 
The  Green Party’s position on Proposition 28 should be: “Yes (with 
reservations)”.   
Proposition  29 (Tobacco tax) -- Either "No position", or "No"

Proposition  29 is largely another example of blaming and punishing the 
victim. Nicotine is a  drug that is addicting. Those who are unfortunate enough 
to smoke are currently  paying 87 cents in excise taxto the state for every 
pack of cigarettes,  accounting for 905 million dollars annually, and by 
adding one dollar per pack,  Prop. 29 would more than double that. The same 
people who would pay this tax are  generally people who are already suffering 
from the effects of tobacco. It's  doubtful we can ever succeed in getting 
everyone to quit smoking and another tax  on cigarettes and all tobacco 
products will only serve to put more stress and  burden on those who smoke -- 
almost all of whom are part of the  99%. 
Proposition  29 would create another politically-appointed bureaucratic 
entity to administer  these funds without any real accountability. One of the 
most chilling things  about Proposition 29 is the fact that if this tax goes 
into effect it has built  in immunity to any changes for the next 15 years. 
While  it's probably true (as the proponents argue), that increasing the 
cost of  cigarettes by about 25% would somewhat discourage teenagers from 
starting to  smoke, it should be noted that only a small portion of the funds 
that are raised  would actually go to prevent people from (or help them to 
stop) smoking.  Instead, the bulk of the money will mostly subsidize highly 
paid researchers. If  Prop. 29 were truly serious about helping to prevent 
smoking, then the bulk of  the money would instead have been used for prevention 
 programs. 
Finally,  voters should be aware that the notorious Don Perata (formerly 
leader of the  State Senate) used this ballot measure as one of the main 
vehicles to raise  money to help him (indirectly) with his 2010 campaign for 
Oakland Mayor. For  example, in early 2010, Perata's state initiative campaign 
fund already had  $700,000 in its accounts and it was sharing an office with 
his Mayor's campaign  -- and "the Don" was using some of that initiative 
money on consultants who were  also working on his Mayoral campaign, and on 
mailers which publicized himself to  Oakland voters, as well as on fancy hotels 
and meals, etc. (See:  
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/the-cancer-in-the-oakland-mayors-race/Content?oid=1600133.  And after Perata lost the Mayor's 
race to Jean Quan, he then paid his friend,  city council member Ignacio 
DeLaFuente, $12,000 to be a "consultant" on the  initiative campaign, etc.). 
Of  course, Perata calculated that it would be very unlikely that any major 
group  would (sympathetically) defend addicted smokers from a tax increase 
on tobacco,  and that (probably) only tobacco companies would contribute 
much money to defeat  it (which so far is the case), so for the solid majority 
of voters, the  "politically correct" position is going to be to approve 
this proposition. Which  means that this could easily become a "hot potato" for 
the state Green Party.  Therefore, despite all of the reasons cited above 
for defeating this  proposition, "politically", it may well be smarter for 
the state Green Party to  just "stay out of it" -- and have "No position" on 
Prop. 29.   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120422/5c4d9e5c/attachment.html>