[GPSCC-chat] Second Draft Agenda GPSCC General Meeting Thursday August 23rd

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

GREEN PARTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 
Draft Agenda for Monthly General Membership Meeting August 23, 2012 
San  Jose Peace and Justice Center, 48 South 7th Street, San Jose, CA  
(Near 7th and San Fernando) 
7:00 pm – Eat and chat / Possible speaker (unconfirmed as  of 8/22) 
David  Merritt on his personal lawsuits against big banks for predatory  
practices 
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) 
County  Council Reports – Discussions and actions taken since last month’s 
General  Membership meeting (10 minutes)  
Status  Report on Foreclosures Program – Spencer Graves (10 minutes) 
September  15th at 
County  Polling Discussions – Warner Bloomberg (30 minutes) See summary of 
ballot measures following the  draft agenda/Also report(s) from County 
Council Members re discussions on the  Standing General Assembly email lists 
Report  on local Health Care for All (HCA) meeting – Caroline and and 
Merriam (15  Minutes) 
Discussion of status of tabling supplies -- (15 Minutes) Ballot Measures 
Positions  Leaflets?  Jill Stein  Literature?  Reconsider T-shirts  purchase 
(new price info); Other items?  
Plans  for Fall Tabling --          (15 Minutes) Foreclosures Program; 
Rumored Jill  Stein appearance at Stanford?? 
Request  for GPSCC endorsement by Rob Means, Milpitas mayor candidate – No 
GPSCC sponsor  (5 Minutes 
Anti-War  Resolution for other GP groups – John Thielking (15 Minutes)  NO 
PROPOSAL TEXT SUBMITTED as of writing  this draft agenda.  Also no  
information about existing GPUS action(s), if  any.

(2  Hours Estimated Cumulative Times. Goal: Adjourn by 9:30 pm) 
The  GPSCC did not organize a study session regarding the November ballot 
measures  between last month’s meeting and this month’s meeting.  Below is a 
copy of an email posted to  the CCWG email list from the GPLAC study group. 
>Date:  Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:23:38 -0400 (EDT)
>From:  denise at panix.com
>Subject: Please Read - Our Endorsements re the November  election
>
>This is from our endorsement committee and our voting  members will 
>be making the final decision at our next meeting.  Please read:
>
>July 21,  2012 12-5pm LA GREENS ENDORSEMENT MEETING
>The following is the  recommendations of our endorsement committee. 
>The next step is the full  vote of the LA Greens membership at our 
>next meeting in order to  finalize the recommendations and publish 
>them on our website. We may  also produce flyers to hand out at 
>neighborhood  events.
>Attending: Derek Iversen, Kamran Ghasri, Linda Piera-Avila, Bruce  
>Campbell and Denise Robb. At 2pm Lisa Taylor joined us. Jennifer  
>Epps arrived from SAFE to give us information about Prop  34. 

>PROP  30 Education Taxes YES WITH RESERVATIONS unanimous.
>We decided to endorse  both Prop 30 and Prop 38. Prop 30 is 
>Governors Browns tax on the wealthy  as well as a one-quarter percent 
>additional sales tax to fund education  and public safety. Our 
>reservations was that Prop 30 lumps in other  things besides 
>education like public safety. We dont dislike cops in  general 
>(except the ones that brutalize people). We just generally  prefer 
>more education funding to police funding. (However under prison  
>re-alignment, there are serious safety concerns unless the state can  
>provide some funds to counties and other localities to watch over  
>the 38,000 felons who will be transferred or released from state  
>prison in coming months.) Also, the regressive sales tax was a  
>concern. But it funds K-12 as well as community colleges and would  
>prevent the state from hurtling off a fiscal cliff. (Education is  
>in dire straits with furloughs, layoffs and community college  
>classes being cut left and right.)
>Proposition 38 is wealthy  Pasadena attorney (and human rights 
>advocate) Molly Mungers education  proposition that uses a 
>progressive income tax to fund only education.  It increases money 
>for poor and disabled children as well. While Mungers  will bring in 
>$10 billion, Browns will bring in only $8 billion. Our  reservations 
>with Mungers initiative are that the progressive income tax  begins 
>with individuals who make only $7,000 a year (approximately $28  
>more), as well as the argument by many state political observers  
>that California voters simply will not vote for more than one tax  
increase.
>
>PROPOSITION 31 STATE BUDGET We didnt completely  understand 
>it. The organizations that support it such as Common Cause  are good 
>groups and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes it,  which 
>would indicate it is likely to be a good reform measure. But we  
>couldnt wrap our brains around it. Kamran gave an in depth analysis  
>but we dont know what to do. The parts about decentralization,  
>shifting balance of power sound good. The parts about hamstringing  
>the legislature in terms of budget decisions may slow the budgeting  
>process down even further. It gives the Governor a lot of power to  
>declare a fiscal emergency and cut the budget unilaterally. The  
>unilateral power to the governor is our biggest concern. We say  NO. 

>Prop  32 NO. Union - Prohibits Political Contributions We hated 
>this  initiative. It is another nail in the coffin for unions. The 
>funders are  sketchy organizations and the opposition is every union 
>you could  imagine. 

>Prop  33 Auto Insurance. Instead of good driver discounts on car 
>insurance it  offers discounts to good payers meaning that if you 
>have already had car  insurance you will get a discount. But for 
>those who are poor or for  some reason had a lapse in coverage, their 
>rates will be higher. There  is an exemption for those who serve in 
>military or an exemption for 18  months within five years of 
>unemployment. It punishes people who have  had trouble 
>obtaining/affording car insurance by making them pay more  when they 
>finally can afford it again. We hate this one. They act like  
>they’re doing us a favor with this initiative but its another  
>corporate sponsored piece of crap where insurance companies are  
>trying to use this law to make more money for themselves. Please vote  NO. 

>PROP  34 Repeal Death Penalty: UNANIMOUS YES! 

>Prop  35 Human Trafficking Vote: 5 yesses, and 1 abstain til 
>further  information is obtained.
>
>There are 27 million slaves in the world  today, many of whom are sex 
>slaves. Los Angeles is a big hub for human  sex trafficking. The 
>internet is one easy way the criminals lure women.  It prevents the 
>person trafficked from being victimized for their past,  protects 
>minors and many other positive changes. The arguments made  against 
>this proposition were with regard to civil liberties and  concerns 
>that this involves the monitoring of traffickers internet  activity.
>
>Prop. 36 Amend Three Strikes You’re Out. Can’t be  thrown in jail for 
>a non-violent third strike. Unanimous. YES YES  YES.
>
>Prop 37 Genetically modified foods. A woman in Chico,  California 
>had a dream to put an initiative to label genetically  engineered 
>food in California. She got Organic Consumers Association and  
>Center for Food Safety and others to work out the wording and put  
>this on the ballot. Requires labeling on raw or processed foods  
>offered for retail sale (including g.e. animals) which are entirely  
>or partially genetically engineered using recombinant DNA  
>technology. Restaurants and bars are exempt from the ordinance which  
>would take effect on July 1st, 2014. Enthusiastic  YES! 

>PROP  38 Education Taxes YES WITH RESERVATIONS 3 said yes with 
>reservations, 1  said neutral/abstain and another said no. vote:
>
>Prop 39 Tax  Treatment Multistate business. No one has formed to 
>oppose this at the  time of this writing.
>There was not an historic tax break for these  multi-state companies, 
>but the GOP extracted the break during budget  negotiations between 
>the Legislature and Arnold back in the '00s.  Passing Prop. 39 will 
>add $550 million for energy efficiency and clean  energy jobs in 
>California for each of the first 5 years, while that same  amount 
>would go toward the battered state budget. (All proceeds relating  
>to closing the corporate tax loophole would go to the state budget  
>after the 5-year period). Due to the Prop. 98 state budget formula,  
>about $225 million of the $550 million going to the state budget  
>would go to fund K-Community College education in the first 5 years  
>(with the education funding increasing to about $500 million after  
2017-2018).
>This closes the out-of-state corporate tax loophole. We  recommend 
>YES (unanimous).
>
>Prop 40.  Redistricting
>YES. Boy, is this complicated. But we will try to explain  it here. 
>Initially, this was a proposition that would have undone the  good 
>work done by the independent citizens redistricting commission who  
>got rid of the gerrymandered districts and redrew the boundaries for  
>state legislature and California congressional seats. The  
>Republican Party was very unhappy with the results of the redrawing  
>of the districts so they put this on the ballot. After it qualified  
>for the ballot, the California Supreme Court upheld the state senate  
>districts and said the lines were fine and it was done in compliance  
>with the Voting Rights Act. But it’s still on the ballot so in order  
>to keep the maps, we have to vote YES. Heres why: Since this is a  
>referendum, its a little different than your average  
>proposition. Its the reverse of an initiative in terms of  
>voting. A referendum means you are undoing a piece of legislation.  
>Voters are asked to either enact legislation or a constitutional  
>amendment (that has already been voted on by the voters or by the  
>legislature) in which case you would say YES keep the  
>legislation. This is even odder, however, because you are asked to  
>uphold not legislation but MAPS drawn by the commission. If you  
>want to repeal the maps you would vote NO. We do not recommend  
>repealing the work of the independent commission, so you need to  
>vote YES to uphold the maps that were already drawn by the  
>commission. Hanging in the balance are a few seats that may switch  
>from Republican to Democratic. Not because of politics but because  
>the independent commission determined the actual boundaries and they  
>happened to include more Democrats than Republicans. This could give  
>Democrats the 2/3 majority they have long sought in order to pass a  
>tax increase. Please vote  YES.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120822/91a286de/attachment.html>