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

[Spencer Graves]

One more proposed agenda item:


       * Might the Santa Clara Greens be interested in supporting an 
initiative regarding foreclosures?


BACKGROUND:


       Various groups have been fighting foreclosures with limited 
success so far.  I've been working with Occupy San José (OSJ) and the 
Association of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) on this 
issue and have considered contacting others such as People Acting in 
Community Together (PACT) and Project Sentinel.  CJ Holmes, a real 
estate agent in Santa Rosa, has founded an organization called Home 
Owners for Justice (hofj.org) to fight this.  CJ was interviewed on 
Flashpoints in KPFA about her work.  She is offering to do free two-hour 
workshops in San José and elsewhere.  I suggested to her that I might be 
able to get the Peace Center for such an event with (partial?) 
sponsorship from the Santa Clara Greens.


       However, it occurs to me that a more effective approach may be to 
organize a project under the supervision of an attorney that would 
create a web portal to make it easier for people to fight the banks 
successfully -- a higher success rate with lower legal fees, achieved in 
part by combining the wisdom of a good legal team with tech folks who 
can create a web portal making it easier for people concerned about this 
issue to do constructive things -- like leveraging the work of the 
recent San Francisco foreclosure audit 
(http://www.sfassessor.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1018) to 
increased effectiveness in fighting foreclosures.  Warner suggested I 
ask Thomas Speilbauer (www.spielbauer.com/testimonials.htm 
<http://www.spielbauer.com/testimonials.htm>) if he might like to 
support a project like this.  He would donate some of his time with the 
anticipation that he would get some other paid work directly and 
indirectly from this project while people facing foreclosures could 
achieve more success at a lower cost.  However, before I contact 
Spielbauer, I want to try to contact the attorneys who have been 
associated with OSJ, ACCE, PACT, etc., because we might find one who 
could be a better fit for this kind of project.


       I'd like guidance in the following terms:


             1.  Does the Santa Clara Green Party want to support such a 
project as long as it does not require money from the party?


OR:


             2.  Would the Santa Clara Green Party want to hear more 
details on each event or project proposal before making a commitment?


       Of course, I would also be pleased to have other people 
volunteering time to help make something like this happen.


       Thanks,
       Spencer


On 4/22/2012 3:16 PM, WB4D23 at aol.com wrote:
>
> *GREEN PARTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY*
>
> Draft Agenda for Monthly General Membership Meeting April 26, 2012 
> (4^th 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 28^th .
>
> 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 12^th
>
> 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


-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120425/68b4cf15/attachment.html>