[GPSCC-chat] Draft2 Agenda for Thursday April 26 GPSCC Meeting

Wed Apr 25 17:19:58 PDT 2012

After reading the bylaws excerpt regarding the responsibilities of the County Council members, I must reiterate my concern about not being qualified to handle financial matters.  If I take on the job of treasurer or otherwise assume resposibilities regarding reporting finances to the Fair Political Practices Commission I would prefer to delegate the details of the job to an outside accounting firm or if we have a nonprofit such as the Collins Foundation that is acting as our fisical sponsor we could pay them to handle the paperwork. I could contribute up to $100 per month for this purpose. Thanks.

Sincerely,

John Thielking

--- On Tue, 4/24/12, WB4D23 at aol.com <WB4D23 at aol.com> wrote:

From: WB4D23 at aol.com <WB4D23 at aol.com>
Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Draft2 Agenda for Thursday April 26 GPSCC Meeting
To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 9:40 PM

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) (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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20120425/54885f42/attachment.html>