[GPSCC-chat] Draft2 Agenda for Thursday April 26 GPSCC Meeting
WB4D23 at aol.com
WB4D23 at aol.com
Tue Apr 24 21:40:32 PDT 2012
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; Two Speakers -- Lynne Huidekuper and seven minute
video and comments (15 minutes); John Filretta / Citizen's Climate Lobby
(_www.citizensclimatelobby.org_ (http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org) ) (15
minutes) Note: Times need to be pro-rated for starting late so meeting can
start on time.
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 Thielking 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)
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 Thielking (5 Minutes)
Proposal to endorse HR 1342 -- Gerry Gras (10 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.
_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120425/beaf7d81/attachment.html>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list