<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=4>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=4>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 11/13/2007 12:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>GREEN
PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE<BR><BR>This is an announcement from the GPCA
Contact List. For more information, or questions related to the topic
of the posting, please do not hit reply. Follow the contact
directions<BR>stated in the email.<BR> GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR
FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT MEASURES<BR><BR>To: GPCA County Contacts List From:
Warner Bloomberg Campaigns and<BR>Candidates Working Group Coordinator
Subject: County Polling for<BR>Initiatives on the February 5, 2008 Election
Ballot<BR><BR>Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations
to report<BR>County GP positions on the three initiatives that have
been certified to<BR>appear on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 election.
Immediately<BR>following those instructions, you will find reports that have
been compiled<BR>describing those measures and suggesting positions. The
recommendations are<BR>simply those of the people who wrote or compiled them
and DO NOT constitute<BR>GPCA positions. GPCA positions on ballot measures
occur in two ways: By<BR>decision of the delegates at a General Assembly or
by County Polling. The<BR>next plenary is not scheduled until after the
election, so County Polling is<BR>the only method for the GPCA to take
a position on these issues. As in<BR>previous years, special thanks to
everyone who contributed to the reports<BR>and to Greg Jan for
collecting them; and thanks to Matthew Leslie for<BR>serving as the
County Polling administrator and to Michael Borenstein for<BR>serving
as his assistant. Any questions about the instructions should
be<BR>addressed to Matthew as-indicated. Any other related questions can
be<BR>directed to me via _wsb3attyca@aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com)
.<BR><BR>Warner Bloomberg CCWG Coordinator<BR><BR><BR>INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA
STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES INITIATIVES APPEARING ON<BR>THE FEBRUARY 5, 2008
ELECTION BALLOT<BR><BR>The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized county Green
Parties to determine<BR>GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative
to making those<BR>decisions at a state meeting. Three initiatives have
qualified for the next<BR>state election on February 5, 2008 (these do not
include four referenda on<BR>Indian Casino Compacts that are still
undergoing review for certification).<BR>Please be sure that your county
participates by submitting votes by Sunday<BR>December 28, 2007.<BR><BR>THE
POLL: This poll contains a list of all initiatives that have
qualified<BR>for the February 5, 2008 Election. Each initiative title
is followed by a<BR>recommendation made by volunteers from the Green Party
grassroots who have<BR>reviewed the measures. Of course, counties are free
to agree or disagree<BR>with the recommended positions. Following the list
of initiatives is an<BR>extensive list of arguments and resources for
research about each.<BR><BR>PROCESS: Please provide the Poll Coordinator
(Matthew Leslie) and his<BR>assistant (Michael Borenstein) with vote results
from your county in the<BR>following form for each ballot
initiative:<BR><BR>"Yes" for the GPCA to support the initiative "No" for the
GPCA to oppose the<BR>initiative "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately
remain neutral on the<BR>initiative<BR><BR>Votes may also be cast as
"Abstain" if they do not wish to participate in<BR>the poll. Abstentions
will be counted toward quorum.<BR><BR>Vote on the initiative itself, not the
recommendation. For example, if CCWG<BR>has recommended a position of "No,"
and your county wishes to agree and vote<BR>"No" on the initiative, then
your county should vote "No" on the initiative,<BR>and not "Yes" on the
recommended "No" position.<BR><BR>PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTED
TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE RIVERSIDE<BR>PLENARY.<BR>That list was published in
the agenda packet for that state meeting<BR>held September 8-9, 2007. For
example, if your county had 2 delegates, you<BR>would submit 2 votes in any
combination of positions. (Votes from counties<BR>with more than one
delegate vote need not be unanimous.) If you have any<BR>questions about the
total number of votes that can be cast for any measure,<BR>contact the GPCA
Coordinating Committee member(s) who represent your region.<BR>Your county
should rely on its own internal processes to arrive at its<BR>positions. The
poll has an 80% threshold. The default where the threshold or<BR>quorum is
not met is “No Position”.<BR><BR>TIMELINE: The voting period begins on
November 13, 2007, and ends on<BR>December 28, 2007 (11:59 PM PST). Votes
received after the closing date and<BR>time will not be counted. Submit all
votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinator and<BR>the Assistant Poll Coordinator at
the following email addresses: Matthew<BR>Leslie mrl@greens.org , Michael
Borenstein thebor@greens.org . Please submit<BR>any questions about the
process of the poll to the same addresses.<BR><BR>FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT
INITIATIVES REPORTS<BR>Dear Greens, Below are the recommendations and
reports (write-ups) on the <BR>three state propositions which will be on the
February, 2008 ballot. (Note: <BR>There is a possibility that four referenda
having to do with Indian Gaming <BR>may also qualify, but signature counting
has not yet been completed on <BR>those.). As you will see, we are currently
divided about Prop. 92, funding <BR>for community colleges. One write-up
recommends that we endorse Prop. 92, <BR>while the other write-up recommends
that we do not take a position on that <BR>initiative. (Note: Neither
write-up recommends that we oppose Prop. 92). <BR>Also, I want to take a
moment here to thank the Greens who worked on <BR>analyzing and authoring
the write-ups for these propositions! We hope that <BR>you will find them
informative and helpful.<BR>Sincerely, Greg Jan Oakland,
CA<BR><BR>Recommendations for the February, 2008 ballot:<BR>Prop. 91 --
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO<BR>Prop. 92 -- Funding
of Community Colleges . . . Either "YES" or<BR>
"No position"<BR>Prop. 93 -- Term Limits . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO<BR><BR>Note: The text of these propositions
are available via the Secretary of<BR>State's website, at:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm<BR>The draft voter pamphlet
"pro and con" arguments and rebuttals will be<BR>available through Nov. 13,
and perhaps after that date,
via:<BR>http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig_02052008.htm<BR><BR>**************
Reports (Write-ups):<BR><BR>Prop. 91 -- Transportation Recommendation: NO
Write-up author: Jan Arnold,<BR>Alameda County<BR><BR>This proposal has an
unusual history. The "Transportation Funding Protection<BR>Act" (TFPA) was
an initiative circulated by an alliance of construction<BR>companies and
building trades unions who were frustrated by years of<BR>diversions (by the
State legislature) of transportation money set aside<BR>under Proposition 42
(which passed in 2002). That measure dedicated most of<BR>the gas tax
revenue to improving streets, highways, and transit systems.
The<BR>proponents paid for about a million signatures. Legislative leaders
got the<BR>message and placed Proposition 1A on the November 2006 ballot,
covering the<BR>same issues, where it passed easily. The proponents of the
TFPA turned in<BR>some, but not all, of their signatures, while they were
keeping the<BR>conversation going with legislative leaders, but they were
not intending to<BR>actually qualify the measure. Because of a higher than
expected signature<BR>validity rate, the initiative
qualified.<BR><BR>Meanwhile, its proponents had decided Proposition 1A was
good enough to<BR>support. In the space where we would expect to see an
argument FOR Prop 91,<BR>there's a request that we vote No, as the TFPA is
no longer needed. (Nobody<BR>submitted an argument against it.) But
sometimes the original proponents are<BR>settling for less than an ideal
solution and we Greens (who take our stand<BR>based on future focus) might
actually want to pick up the banner that they<BR>have dropped. Could this be
one of those times?<BR><BR>The official Ballot Label says this measure, if
passed, "increases stability<BR>of state funding for highways, streets, and
roads and may decrease stability<BR>of state funding for public transit. May
reduce stability of certain local<BR>funds for public transit." That
suggests Greens and other advocates of<BR>transit funding should vote No.
There's a general question about keeping<BR>some public funds in a
"lockbox." In this case, both the existing law (1A)<BR>and this proposal
allow for emergency exceptions, which is something we<BR>should accept. (If
a family member had a serious emergency, you might raid<BR>your retirement
fund despite your original plans.) Since transportation<BR>money is
mostly going for roads, how serious are we about keeping it in a<BR>lockbox?
(But it seems that when transportation money is raided, the FIRST<BR>to be
raided is NOT the roads, but the transit stuff that we are really<BR>trying
to get more of.)<BR><BR> Although these issues are complex, one
progressive non-profit<BR>transportation group that we are in touch with has
told us they will likely<BR>be opposing it, and we have not heard of any
progressive groups or<BR>individuals who are inclined to support it. In
fact, we haven't heard of any<BR>significant organizations at all who are
supporting Prop. 91. Therefore, in<BR>view of all of the above, we recommend
a "No" vote on Prop. 91<BR><BR><BR>Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges
Recommendation: Either "YES" or<BR>"No position"<BR>Write-up author for "No
position": Bill Balderston, Alameda County Write-up<BR>author for "YES":
Information compiled by Susan Schacher, Alameda County<BR><BR>Write-up for
"No position" recommendation on Prop. 92: As the co-chair of<BR>the Green
Party Caucus of the California Teachers Association (CTA) and as
a<BR>long-time representative to CTA State Council (specifically sitting on
the<BR>Financing Public Education Committee), I have great difficulty
arguing<BR>either side for this proposition (Prop 92). On first glance it
would appear<BR>to be an obvious advance as regards the rebuilding of our
community college<BR>system and its student bodies. The more than doubling
of student fees (from<BR>$11 to $26 per credit) in 2004 and the loss of
considerable enrollment in<BR>this decade (over 300,000) would seem to
mandate support for a law which<BR>would lower student fees and buuildup the
system. Moreover, the proponents<BR>of 92 argue that this will be money well
spent, both as regards the<BR>long-term income for individuals and the state
(in the form of higher income<BR>taxes); students will also find this a more
financially reasonable avenue<BR>than attending CSU or UC schools for the
full four years (and will require<BR>less state subsidy at those
schools).<BR><BR>However, the coalition of which CTA is a part (and I have
rarely hesitated<BR>to differ with CTA positions when I consider them
misguided or even<BR>unprincipled) are opposing Prop 92 for both strong as
well as less<BR>progressive reasons.<BR><BR>First, there is the matter of
the actual costs for implementation; this is<BR>estimated at $500,000,000.
CTA always obsesses on any measure's impact on<BR>Prop 98 monies (which do
also include most funding for community colleges as<BR>well as K-12); if you
read Section 17 of the initiative, it says clearly<BR>that any increases in
costs at specific community college sites that are not<BR>covered by local
property taxes and student fees, will come out of the<BR>general fund (to
which Prop 98 applies). There is no provision for<BR>progressive taxation
(split roll or higher income taxes for the rich) which<BR>could, in part, be
designated for this worthy goal (CTA and their allies<BR>don't mention this
possibility in their arguements, but simply warn of<BR>additional taxation,
which I think is a poor arguement, for like Prop 98,<BR>the question arises
"for what are resources being designated?".<BR><BR>Second, there is little
specificity on how additional funds will be applied<BR>and/or accountability
for the funds (by way of an audit or similiar means).<BR>Finally, the
provision (in Section 19) that would require a 4/5ths vote in<BR>both houses
of the State Legislature to amend the main features of the law<BR>is a very
dangerous precedent.<BR><BR>In conclusion, I cannot recommend support of
this measure, but feel that a<BR>stance of neither supporting or opposing
(with explanatory language) would<BR>be best. It is usually reckless to
mandate a significant cost item (no<BR>matter how progressive) without even
addressing the need for more resources.<BR>The question of the supermajority
vote to alter the law may seem secondary<BR>to the substance involved, but
it is also very serious and this alone could<BR>negate our supporting the
initiative.<BR><BR><BR>Write-up for "YES" recommendation on Prop.
92:<BR><BR>“YES” ON PROP 92 — THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE INITIATIVE What
does Prop 92 Do?<BR>(1) Lowers community college student fees to $15 a unit
& limits increases<BR>to the cost of living (2) Guarantees minimum
funding for community college<BR>growth (3) Does not hurt K-12 funding
(4) Does not raise taxes (5)<BR>Guarantees a system of independent
community college districts<BR><BR>Why Prop 92? Community College funding is
currently based on K-12 enrollment<BR>under Prop 98, passed by voters 20
years ago. While K-12 enrollments are in<BR>decline, demand for community
colleges is projected to increase—by some<BR>100,000 students in the next
three years alone. Prop 92 funds growth for<BR>these expected new students,
opens access, and protects students from<BR>prohibitive fee increases. Under
current Prop 98 funding formulas, 60% of<BR>these students will be shut out.
Moreover, when there is a budget crunch in<BR>California, Sacramento always
balances its budgets on the backs of college<BR>students and the poor. In
2004 and 2005 community college fees were<BR>increased by over 150%. The
result— between 250,000 and 300,000 students<BR>were priced out of the
system. Instead of a single funding stream for K-12<BR>and community
colleges, which is then “split” between the two segments, Prop<BR>92
provides each segment its own minimum funding guarantee.<BR><BR>Passage of
Prop 92 is the best opportunity to guarantee that all<BR>Californians will
have access to an affordable and quality college education<BR>and be able to
get ahead. This is the unmet promise of the State’s Master<BR>Plan for
Higher Education. Who attends community colleges? 2.5
million<BR>students, mainly working class and low-income youth and adults.
The average<BR>student is 28 year old. 60% of the student population is
female. 30% of all<BR>Latinos in the U.S. who are attending college today
are enrolled in a<BR>California Community College. And there are 90,000 more
African American<BR>students in community colleges than in both the CSU and
UC systems combined.<BR>250,000 Californians from Asian and Pacific Islander
backgrounds are<BR>enrolled in the Community Colleges. Community colleges
give students who did<BR>not finish high school a second chance. 2/3rds of
CSU graduates and 1/3rd of<BR>UC graduates begin their college careers at a
community college. Prop 92<BR>offers low-income and working class people
access to education and a route<BR>to a decent standard of
living.<BR><BR>Prop 92 is a good investment of public dollars<BR>Community
college students who earned an Associate degree or vocational<BR>certificate
saw their wages jump from $25,600 to $47,571 three years
after<BR>graduating. Research shows that for every dollar spent on community
college<BR>education, California gets $3 back in taxes. The State spends
much less in a<BR>year to educate a community college student than it spends
in any of the<BR>other sectors: $8,133 per student in K-12 schools; $11,624
in the Cal State<BR>system, $18,203 in the UC system, compared to a mere
$4,500 per student in<BR>the community colleges. The money needed to roll
back student fees and<BR>provide a gateway to the middle class will continue
to come from the state’s<BR>general fund. But Prop 92 does not call for new
taxes or cause any other<BR>sector to suffer. The money to fund this
proposition will come from the<BR>future growth in state revenue,
including increased taxes paid by a more<BR>educated workforce.<BR><BR>Prop
92 assures local governance of the community colleges<BR>Prop 92 guarantees
local control of the community colleges -- to keep the<BR>"community" in
community colleges – by maintaining the governance structure<BR>administered
by local elected Boards of Trustees. Prop 92 establishes the<BR>community
colleges as a third higher education system in the California.
The<BR>community colleges will no longer be an appendage of the K-12 system.
The<BR>California Community Colleges system will finally have its own
funding<BR>method, as do the Cal State and the UC systems. Endorsers
include: (partial<BR>list, additions to be made) Peralta Federation of
Teachers, California<BR>Federation of Teachers, Faculty Association of the
California Community<BR>Colleges, California Community College Independents,
Community Colleges<BR>Association of the CTA, California Federation of
Labor, State Building and<BR>Construction Trades, Nicky Gonzales Yuen, etc.,
other Peralta Bd Members,<BR>etc., Wellstone Democratic Renewal
Club<BR><BR>Responding to ballot arguments against Prop 92<BR>The ballot
arguments against Prop 92 are signed by officers of the<BR>California
Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Action Committee, the<BR>California
Taxpayers’ Association, the California Roundtable, and the<BR>California
Teachers Association.<BR><BR>The ballot arguments against Prop 92 use
familiar scare tactics to dissuade<BR>voters. They say Prop 92 will cause
more problems than it solves. They say<BR>Prop 92 will lock in spending
increases for community colleges which could<BR>lead to funding cuts for
K-12 schools, state colleges and universities,<BR>health and public safety;
and could result in higher taxes. Proponents say<BR>that these concerns are
short-sighted. Funding for community college<BR>education is a crucial
investment in our future. For each dollar the<BR>community colleges spend,
the state eventually gets $3 back in taxes paid by<BR>a more educated
workforce. Our community colleges provide vocational<BR>training and
academic education for more than 2.5 million students per year,<BR>compared
to 180,000 students at UC’s and 380,000 at CSU’s. Two-thirds of all<BR>CSU
graduates and one-third of all UC grads began at community
colleges.<BR>Under-funding and restricting access to community colleges
is<BR>self-defeating. We must protect this vital investment in the future of
our<BR>state and its people.<BR><BR>Prop 92 goes a long way toward solving
the problem of access to public<BR>higher education for every Californian,
fulfilling the promise of the<BR>State’s Master Plan for Higher Education.
If voters pass Prop 92, we'll be<BR>opening the doors to better economic
prospects for more people and for the<BR>society as a whole. A better
educated workforce is key.<BR><BR>Prop 92 is the only current initiative to
address the looming shortage of<BR>educated workers. The consequences of NOT
assuring access to the education<BR>and job preparation provided by the
community colleges will be dire for<BR>upcoming generations and California’s
economy.<BR><BR>Prop 92 is consistent with Green values of equity, fairness,
and access.<BR>Greens will continue to call for more state resources for
K-12 schools,<BR>state colleges and universities, healthcare, public safety,
social services,<BR>AND community colleges. If increased state revenues are
needed, all human<BR>services sectors must unite in advocating for a just
tax system. Greens have<BR>always called for a just and progressive tax
structure, and will continue to<BR>do so. Reasonable approaches include
reinstating higher income tax rates<BR>(10% and 11%) for wealthier taxpayers
and ending corporate tax breaks under<BR>Prop 13. Rather than implement tax
increases which require a 2/3 majority<BR>vote, the legislature has – by
simple majority votes -- increased community<BR>college “ fees” (which
technically are not “taxes”) and cut community<BR>college funding. By
passing Prop 92 we can end the legislature’s practice of<BR>balancing the
state budget at the expense of the community colleges and<BR>their students.
Prop 92 will protect the Community College system and its<BR>students
against this corrupt and opportunistic budgeting.<BR><BR>Proponents are
concerned about CTA’s opposition to Prop 92 when its<BR>community college
section, the Community College Association, is in support.<BR>Proponents are
also concerned about the alliance between the CTA
and<BR>business/conservative tax-payer interests. Proponents are surprised
that the<BR>opponents appear not to recognize the value of the community
colleges for<BR>the state’s economic growth. The community colleges train
nurses, diesel<BR>mechanics, childcare workers, construction workers,
computer technicians.<BR>They are the first step for thousands of students
who go on to become<BR>teachers, physicians, engineers, social workers,
planners, and business<BR>professionals. They prepare people for work in the
expanding sector of green<BR>industry. The community colleges retrain
workers experiencing job loss from<BR>injury, down-sizing, plant closures,
export of jobs. The community colleges<BR>are an important alternative to
the military’s economic draft.<BR><BR>The opposing ballot argument claims
that Prop 92 gives community colleges<BR>preferential treatment. But while
Prop 98 (passed in1988) mandates that<BR>10.93% of the K-14 education budget
should go to community colleges, every<BR>year the legislature has suspended
that requirement and cut the funding to<BR>an average of about 10.4%. Far
from being “preferential treatment,” this has<BR>resulted in funding cuts of
almost $5 billion over the past 15 years.<BR>Community colleges are funded
at a significantly lower rate than the other<BR>systems of higher education
in the state: at a little more than one-third of<BR>what CSUs receive per
student and at about one-fourth of what the UCs<BR>receive. The time is now
to finally start investing in our community colleges.<BR><BR>Prop 92 will
enable the community colleges to have their own funding stream,<BR>and get
away from the "Prop 98 split" entirely. Using another
scare<BR>tactic, the opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 does not
include<BR>audits, independent oversight, or measures to ensure money will
ever get to<BR>college classrooms. Proponents point out that Prop 92 funds
would be subject<BR>to the same controls that now apply to the community
colleges. By law the<BR>community colleges must spend at least 50% of every
dollar for classroom<BR>instruction. There is no need to duplicate existing
controls with redundant<BR>laws that take dollars out of the classroom.
Community colleges consistently<BR>get high marks for stretching their
meager dollars very far. New funds will<BR>be invested wisely in our most
precious resource -- the people of California.<BR><BR>Opponents say that
there are better ways to improve our community colleges.<BR>What are they?
Advocates have been trying unsuccessfully for many years to<BR>address the
under-funding of the community colleges. Generally, those<BR>opposed to Prop
92 support the mission and goals of the community colleges<BR>but they do
not offer any way to finance them that will allow them to<BR>function
effectively. Passage of Prop 92 will guarantee the community<BR>college
system the resources it needs. The real issue is whether we will<BR>have a
thriving community college system that successfully serves millions<BR>of
youth and adults.<BR><BR><BR>Prop. 93 -- Term Limits Recommendation: NO
Write-up author: Bob Marsh,<BR>Alameda County<BR>Proposition 93 -- The “Keep
Perata and Nunez in Office” Initiative: NO! NO! NO!<BR><BR>This initiative
is one of the most cynical ones to hit our ballot in years.<BR>The current
President pro-tem of the California Senate, Don Perata, and<BR>Speaker of
the Assembly, Fabian Núñez, are both “termed-out” next year. They<BR>and
their legislative cronies have created an extremely clever and
deceptive<BR>plan to keep themselves in office for another four years. This
measure<BR>masquerades as a way to shorten term limits, but in reality would
allow both<BR>Senators and Assembly to stay in office for from four to six
years longer!<BR><BR>The legislature put this measure on the Presidential
Primary ballot,<BR>cleverly taking advantage of our unusual 3-election year
in 2008. If the<BR>measure passes in February, then all the legislators who
would otherwise be<BR>at the end of their terms will be able to run in
the<BR>certain-to-be-a-very-low turnout June State Primary. If it fails,
they can’t<BR>run.<BR><BR>If this initiative passes, term limits will only
be shorter for those<BR>legislators who might be lucky enough to hold seats
in both the Assembly and<BR>Senate. An Assembymember who stays in their
completely safe seat (due to our<BR>totally corrupt and jerrymandered
election system) will be able to stay in<BR>office twice as long, twelve
years instead of the six now allowed.<BR><BR>We find the proponents
arguments flawed. They claim that studies have shown<BR>that legislators are
now more likely to be fiscally irresponsible with<BR>shorter terms, but can
anyone remember a time when our<BR>Demopublican/Republicrat legislature was
responsible? They claim it takes<BR>many terms for legislators to understand
how the system works… are our<BR>representatives so stupid that it takes
longer than one year (let alone six)<BR>to learn how to do a job they’ve
worked for years to get?<BR><BR>In any case, virtually all research and
voting decisions are determined by<BR>the Party caucuses and staff, and
forced on legislature members by Party<BR>leadership. Looking at roll call
votes on virtually any measure, there is<BR>very little sign of independent
action or thinking by any individual member<BR>of either Party. Most
vote results strictly follow Party lines.<BR><BR>Perata and Núñez are behind
the dangerous and deceptive mandatory health<BR>insurance proposal that is
the Democrats' plan to sabotage true universal<BR>health care. Perata was
the author of the bill that re-categorized<BR>publicly-owned Oakland
shoreline to make it available to his greedy<BR>developer buddies. Perata
has been under investigation by the FBI for some<BR>time for campaign
practices and financing irregularities.<BR><BR>Put Perata out to pasture.
Nip Núñez's need for new power. Vote NO on
93!<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Contacts2006
mailing
list<BR>Contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org<BR>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006<BR>________________</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See what's new at <A title="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" href="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" target="_blank">AOL.com</A> and <A title="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169" href="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169" target="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage</A>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>