[From nobody Sun Oct 7 19:23:49 2018 Return-path: <WSB3ATTYCA@aol.com> From: WSB3ATTYCA@aol.com Full-name: WSB3ATTYCA Message-ID: <cf3.1f095c0a.346ceb46@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:22:30 EST Subject: Fwd: [gpca-cocos] [GPCA Official Notice] GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR FEBRUARY 5, ... To: WB4D23@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_d53.1a7747c5.346ceb46_boundary" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5044 --part2_d53.1a7747c5.346ceb46_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1195086150" -------------------------------1195086150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en =20 In a message dated 11/13/2007 12:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, =20 contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org writes: GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information,=20 or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply.=20= =20 Follow the contact directions stated in the email. GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT MEASURES To: GPCA County Contacts List From: Warner Bloomberg Campaigns and Candidates Working Group Coordinator Subject: County Polling for Initiatives on the February 5, 2008 Election Ballot Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations to report County GP positions on the three initiatives that have been certified to appear on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 election. Immediately following those instructions, you will find reports that have been compiled describing those measures and suggesting positions. The recommendations are simply those of the people who wrote or compiled them and DO NOT constitute GPCA positions. GPCA positions on ballot measures occur in two ways: By decision of the delegates at a General Assembly or by County Polling. The next plenary is not scheduled until after the election, so County Polling i= s the only method for the GPCA to take a position on these issues. As in previous years, special thanks to everyone who contributed to the reports and to Greg Jan for collecting them; and thanks to Matthew Leslie for serving as the County Polling administrator and to Michael Borenstein for serving as his assistant. Any questions about the instructions should be addressed to Matthew as-indicated. Any other related questions can be directed to me via _wsb3attyca@aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com) . Warner Bloomberg CCWG Coordinator INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES INITIATIVES APPEARING ON THE FEBRUARY 5, 2008 ELECTION BALLOT The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized county Green Parties to determine GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those decisions at a state meeting. Three initiatives have qualified for the next state election on February 5, 2008 (these do not include four referenda on Indian Casino Compacts that are still undergoing review for certification). Please be sure that your county participates by submitting votes by Sunday December 28, 2007. THE POLL: This poll contains a list of all initiatives that have qualified for the February 5, 2008 Election. Each initiative title is followed by a recommendation made by volunteers from the Green Party grassroots who have reviewed the measures. Of course, counties are free to agree or disagree with the recommended positions. Following the list of initiatives is an extensive list of arguments and resources for research about each. PROCESS: Please provide the Poll Coordinator (Matthew Leslie) and his assistant (Michael Borenstein) with vote results from your county in the following form for each ballot initiative: "Yes" for the GPCA to support the initiative "No" for the GPCA to oppose th= e initiative "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately remain neutral on the initiative Votes may also be cast as "Abstain" if they do not wish to participate in the poll. Abstentions will be counted toward quorum. Vote on the initiative itself, not the recommendation. For example, if CCWG has recommended a position of "No," and your county wishes to agree and vot= e "No" on the initiative, then your county should vote "No" on the initiative= , and not "Yes" on the recommended "No" position. PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE RIVERSIDE PLENARY. That list was published in the agenda packet for that state meeting held September 8-9, 2007. For example, if your county had 2 delegates, you would submit 2 votes in any combination of positions. (Votes from counties with more than one delegate vote need not be unanimous.) If you have any questions about the total number of votes that can be cast for any measure, contact the GPCA Coordinating Committee member(s) who represent your region= . Your county should rely on its own internal processes to arrive at its positions. The poll has an 80% threshold. The default where the threshold o= r quorum is not met is =E2=80=9CNo Position=E2=80=9D. TIMELINE: The voting period begins on November 13, 2007, and ends on December 28, 2007 (11:59 PM PST). Votes received after the closing date and time will not be counted. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinator and the Assistant Poll Coordinator at the following email addresses: Matthew Leslie mrl@greens.org , Michael Borenstein thebor@greens.org . Please submi= t any questions about the process of the poll to the same addresses. FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT INITIATIVES REPORTS Dear Greens, Below are the recommendations and reports (write-ups) on the=20 three state propositions which will be on the February, 2008 ballot. (Note:= =20 There is a possibility that four referenda having to do with Indian Gaming=20 may also qualify, but signature counting has not yet been completed on=20 those.). As you will see, we are currently divided about Prop. 92, funding=20 for community colleges. One write-up recommends that we endorse Prop. 92,=20 while the other write-up recommends that we do not take a position on that=20 initiative. (Note: Neither write-up recommends that we oppose Prop. 92).=20 Also, I want to take a moment here to thank the Greens who worked on=20 analyzing and authoring the write-ups for these propositions! We hope that=20 you will find them informative and helpful. Sincerely, Greg Jan Oakland, CA Recommendations for the February, 2008 ballot: Prop. 91 -- Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges . . . Either "YES" or "No position" Prop. 93 -- Term Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO Note: The text of these propositions are available via the Secretary of State's website, at: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm The draft voter pamphlet "pro and con" arguments and rebuttals will be available through Nov. 13, and perhaps after that date, via: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig_02052008.htm ************** Reports (Write-ups): Prop. 91 -- Transportation Recommendation: NO Write-up author: Jan Arnold, Alameda County This proposal has an unusual history. The "Transportation Funding Protectio= n Act" (TFPA) was an initiative circulated by an alliance of construction companies and building trades unions who were frustrated by years of diversions (by the State legislature) of transportation money set aside under Proposition 42 (which passed in 2002). That measure dedicated most of the gas tax revenue to improving streets, highways, and transit systems. Th= e proponents paid for about a million signatures. Legislative leaders got the message and placed Proposition 1A on the November 2006 ballot, covering the same issues, where it passed easily. The proponents of the TFPA turned in some, but not all, of their signatures, while they were keeping the conversation going with legislative leaders, but they were not intending to actually qualify the measure. Because of a higher than expected signature validity rate, the initiative qualified. Meanwhile, its proponents had decided Proposition 1A was good enough to support. In the space where we would expect to see an argument FOR Prop 91, there's a request that we vote No, as the TFPA is no longer needed. (Nobody submitted an argument against it.) But sometimes the original proponents ar= e settling for less than an ideal solution and we Greens (who take our stand based on future focus) might actually want to pick up the banner that they have dropped. Could this be one of those times? The official Ballot Label says this measure, if passed, "increases stabilit= y of state funding for highways, streets, and roads and may decrease stabilit= y of state funding for public transit. May reduce stability of certain local funds for public transit." That suggests Greens and other advocates of transit funding should vote No. There's a general question about keeping some public funds in a "lockbox." In this case, both the existing law (1A) and this proposal allow for emergency exceptions, which is something we should accept. (If a family member had a serious emergency, you might raid your retirement fund despite your original plans.) Since transportation money is mostly going for roads, how serious are we about keeping it in a lockbox? (But it seems that when transportation money is raided, the FIRST to be raided is NOT the roads, but the transit stuff that we are really trying to get more of.) Although these issues are complex, one progressive non-profit transportation group that we are in touch with has told us they will likely be opposing it, and we have not heard of any progressive groups or individuals who are inclined to support it. In fact, we haven't heard of an= y significant organizations at all who are supporting Prop. 91. Therefore, in view of all of the above, we recommend a "No" vote on Prop. 91 Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges Recommendation: Either "YES" or "No position" Write-up author for "No position": Bill Balderston, Alameda County Write-up author for "YES": Information compiled by Susan Schacher, Alameda County Write-up for "No position" recommendation on Prop. 92: As the co-chair of the Green Party Caucus of the California Teachers Association (CTA) and as=20= a long-time representative to CTA State Council (specifically sitting on the Financing Public Education Committee), I have great difficulty arguing either side for this proposition (Prop 92). On first glance it would appear to be an obvious advance as regards the rebuilding of our community college system and its student bodies. The more than doubling of student fees (from $11 to $26 per credit) in 2004 and the loss of considerable enrollment in this decade (over 300,000) would seem to mandate support for a law which would lower student fees and buuildup the system. Moreover, the proponents of 92 argue that this will be money well spent, both as regards the long-term income for individuals and the state (in the form of higher incom= e taxes); students will also find this a more financially reasonable avenue than attending CSU or UC schools for the full four years (and will require less state subsidy at those schools). However, the coalition of which CTA is a part (and I have rarely hesitated to differ with CTA positions when I consider them misguided or even unprincipled) are opposing Prop 92 for both strong as well as less progressive reasons. First, there is the matter of the actual costs for implementation; this is estimated at $500,000,000. CTA always obsesses on any measure's impact on Prop 98 monies (which do also include most funding for community colleges a= s well as K-12); if you read Section 17 of the initiative, it says clearly that any increases in costs at specific community college sites that are no= t covered by local property taxes and student fees, will come out of the general fund (to which Prop 98 applies). There is no provision for progressive taxation (split roll or higher income taxes for the rich) which could, in part, be designated for this worthy goal (CTA and their allies don't mention this possibility in their arguements, but simply warn of additional taxation, which I think is a poor arguement, for like Prop 98, the question arises "for what are resources being designated?". Second, there is little specificity on how additional funds will be applied and/or accountability for the funds (by way of an audit or similiar means). Finally, the provision (in Section 19) that would require a 4/5ths vote in both houses of the State Legislature to amend the main features of the law is a very dangerous precedent. In conclusion, I cannot recommend support of this measure, but feel that a stance of neither supporting or opposing (with explanatory language) would be best. It is usually reckless to mandate a significant cost item (no matter how progressive) without even addressing the need for more resources= . The question of the supermajority vote to alter the law may seem secondary to the substance involved, but it is also very serious and this alone could negate our supporting the initiative. Write-up for "YES" recommendation on Prop. 92: =E2=80=9CYES=E2=80=9D ON PROP 92 =E2=80=94 THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE INITIATIVE=20= What does Prop 92 Do? (1) Lowers community college student fees to $15 a unit & limits increases to the cost of living (2) Guarantees minimum funding for community college growth (3) Does not hurt K-12 funding (4) Does not raise taxes (5) Guarantees a system of independent community college districts Why Prop 92? Community College funding is currently based on K-12 enrollmen= t under Prop 98, passed by voters 20 years ago. While K-12 enrollments are in decline, demand for community colleges is projected to increase=E2=80=94by=20= some 100,000 students in the next three years alone. Prop 92 funds growth for these expected new students, opens access, and protects students from prohibitive fee increases. Under current Prop 98 funding formulas, 60% of these students will be shut out. Moreover, when there is a budget crunch in California, Sacramento always balances its budgets on the backs of college students and the poor. In 2004 and 2005 community college fees were increased by over 150%. The result=E2=80=94 between 250,000 and 300,000 stu= dents were priced out of the system. Instead of a single funding stream for K-12 and community colleges, which is then =E2=80=9Csplit=E2=80=9D between the tw= o segments, Prop 92 provides each segment its own minimum funding guarantee. Passage of Prop 92 is the best opportunity to guarantee that all Californians will have access to an affordable and quality college educatio= n and be able to get ahead. This is the unmet promise of the State=E2=80=99s=20= Master Plan for Higher Education. Who attends community colleges? 2.5 million students, mainly working class and low-income youth and adults. The average student is 28 year old. 60% of the student population is female. 30% of all Latinos in the U.S. who are attending college today are enrolled in a California Community College. And there are 90,000 more African American students in community colleges than in both the CSU and UC systems combined= . 250,000 Californians from Asian and Pacific Islander backgrounds are enrolled in the Community Colleges. Community colleges give students who di= d not finish high school a second chance. 2/3rds of CSU graduates and 1/3rd o= f UC graduates begin their college careers at a community college. Prop 92 offers low-income and working class people access to education and a route to a decent standard of living. Prop 92 is a good investment of public dollars Community college students who earned an Associate degree or vocational certificate saw their wages jump from $25,600 to $47,571 three years after graduating. Research shows that for every dollar spent on community college education, California gets $3 back in taxes. The State spends much less in=20= a year to educate a community college student than it spends in any of the other sectors: $8,133 per student in K-12 schools; $11,624 in the Cal Stat= e system, $18,203 in the UC system, compared to a mere $4,500 per student in the community colleges. The money needed to roll back student fees and provide a gateway to the middle class will continue to come from the state= =E2=80=99s general fund. But Prop 92 does not call for new taxes or cause any other sector to suffer. The money to fund this proposition will come from the future growth in state revenue, including increased taxes paid by a more educated workforce. Prop 92 assures local governance of the community colleges Prop 92 guarantees local control of the community colleges -- to keep the "community" in community colleges =E2=80=93 by maintaining the governance s= tructure administered by local elected Boards of Trustees. Prop 92 establishes the community colleges as a third higher education system in the California. Th= e community colleges will no longer be an appendage of the K-12 system. The California Community Colleges system will finally have its own funding method, as do the Cal State and the UC systems. Endorsers include: (partial list, additions to be made) Peralta Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers, Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, California Community College Independents, Community Colleges Association of the CTA, California Federation of Labor, State Building and Construction Trades, Nicky Gonzales Yuen, etc., other Peralta Bd Members, etc., Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club Responding to ballot arguments against Prop 92 The ballot arguments against Prop 92 are signed by officers of the California Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Action Committee, the California Taxpayers=E2=80=99 Association, the California Roundtable, and t= he California Teachers Association. The ballot arguments against Prop 92 use familiar scare tactics to dissuade voters. They say Prop 92 will cause more problems than it solves. They say Prop 92 will lock in spending increases for community colleges which could lead to funding cuts for K-12 schools, state colleges and universities, health and public safety; and could result in higher taxes. Proponents say that these concerns are short-sighted. Funding for community college education is a crucial investment in our future. For each dollar the community colleges spend, the state eventually gets $3 back in taxes paid b= y a more educated workforce. Our community colleges provide vocational training and academic education for more than 2.5 million students per year= , compared to 180,000 students at UC=E2=80=99s and 380,000 at CSU=E2=80=99s.=20= Two-thirds of all CSU graduates and one-third of all UC grads began at community colleges. Under-funding and restricting access to community colleges is self-defeating. We must protect this vital investment in the future of our state and its people. Prop 92 goes a long way toward solving the problem of access to public higher education for every Californian, fulfilling the promise of the State=E2=80=99s Master Plan for Higher Education. If voters pass Prop 92, we= 'll be opening the doors to better economic prospects for more people and for the society as a whole. A better educated workforce is key. Prop 92 is the only current initiative to address the looming shortage of educated workers. The consequences of NOT assuring access to the education and job preparation provided by the community colleges will be dire for upcoming generations and California=E2=80=99s economy. Prop 92 is consistent with Green values of equity, fairness, and access. Greens will continue to call for more state resources for K-12 schools, state colleges and universities, healthcare, public safety, social services= , AND community colleges. If increased state revenues are needed, all human services sectors must unite in advocating for a just tax system. Greens hav= e always called for a just and progressive tax structure, and will continue t= o do so. Reasonable approaches include reinstating higher income tax rates (10% and 11%) for wealthier taxpayers and ending corporate tax breaks under Prop 13. Rather than implement tax increases which require a 2/3 majority vote, the legislature has =E2=80=93 by simple majority votes -- increased c= ommunity college =E2=80=9C fees=E2=80=9D (which technically are not =E2=80=9Ctaxes= =E2=80=9D) and cut community college funding. By passing Prop 92 we can end the legislature=E2=80=99s pr= actice of balancing the state budget at the expense of the community colleges and their students. Prop 92 will protect the Community College system and its students against this corrupt and opportunistic budgeting. Proponents are concerned about CTA=E2=80=99s opposition to Prop 92 when its community college section, the Community College Association, is in support= . Proponents are also concerned about the alliance between the CTA and business/conservative tax-payer interests. Proponents are surprised that th= e opponents appear not to recognize the value of the community colleges for the state=E2=80=99s economic growth. The community colleges train nurses, d= iesel mechanics, childcare workers, construction workers, computer technicians. They are the first step for thousands of students who go on to become teachers, physicians, engineers, social workers, planners, and business professionals. They prepare people for work in the expanding sector of gree= n industry. The community colleges retrain workers experiencing job loss from injury, down-sizing, plant closures, export of jobs. The community colleges are an important alternative to the military=E2=80=99s economic draft. The opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 gives community colleges preferential treatment. But while Prop 98 (passed in1988) mandates that 10.93% of the K-14 education budget should go to community colleges, every year the legislature has suspended that requirement and cut the funding to an average of about 10.4%. Far from being =E2=80=9Cpreferential treatment,= =E2=80=9D this has resulted in funding cuts of almost $5 billion over the past 15 years. Community colleges are funded at a significantly lower rate than the other systems of higher education in the state: at a little more than one-third o= f what CSUs receive per student and at about one-fourth of what the UCs receive. The time is now to finally start investing in our community=20 colleges. Prop 92 will enable the community colleges to have their own funding stream= , and get away from the "Prop 98 split" entirely. Using another scare tactic, the opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 does not include audits, independent oversight, or measures to ensure money will ever get to college classrooms. Proponents point out that Prop 92 funds would be subjec= t to the same controls that now apply to the community colleges. By law the community colleges must spend at least 50% of every dollar for classroom instruction. There is no need to duplicate existing controls with redundant laws that take dollars out of the classroom. Community colleges consistentl= y get high marks for stretching their meager dollars very far. New funds will be invested wisely in our most precious resource -- the people of Californi= a. Opponents say that there are better ways to improve our community colleges. What are they? Advocates have been trying unsuccessfully for many years to address the under-funding of the community colleges. Generally, those opposed to Prop 92 support the mission and goals of the community colleges but they do not offer any way to finance them that will allow them to function effectively. Passage of Prop 92 will guarantee the community college system the resources it needs. The real issue is whether we will have a thriving community college system that successfully serves millions of youth and adults. Prop. 93 -- Term Limits Recommendation: NO Write-up author: Bob Marsh, Alameda County Proposition 93 -- The =E2=80=9CKeep Perata and Nunez in Office=E2=80=9D Init= iative: NO! NO!=20 NO! This initiative is one of the most cynical ones to hit our ballot in years. The current President pro-tem of the California Senate, Don Perata, and Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian N=C3=BA=C3=B1ez, are both =E2=80=9Ctermed-o= ut=E2=80=9D next year. They and their legislative cronies have created an extremely clever and deceptiv= e plan to keep themselves in office for another four years. This measure masquerades as a way to shorten term limits, but in reality would allow bot= h Senators and Assembly to stay in office for from four to six years longer! The legislature put this measure on the Presidential Primary ballot, cleverly taking advantage of our unusual 3-election year in 2008. If the measure passes in February, then all the legislators who would otherwise be at the end of their terms will be able to run in the certain-to-be-a-very-low turnout June State Primary. If it fails, they can= =E2=80=99t run. If this initiative passes, term limits will only be shorter for those legislators who might be lucky enough to hold seats in both the Assembly an= d Senate. An Assembymember who stays in their completely safe seat (due to ou= r totally corrupt and jerrymandered election system) will be able to stay in office twice as long, twelve years instead of the six now allowed. We find the proponents arguments flawed. They claim that studies have shown that legislators are now more likely to be fiscally irresponsible with shorter terms, but can anyone remember a time when our Demopublican/Republicrat legislature was responsible? They claim it takes many terms for legislators to understand how the system works=E2=80=A6 are=20= our representatives so stupid that it takes longer than one year (let alone six= ) to learn how to do a job they=E2=80=99ve worked for years to get? In any case, virtually all research and voting decisions are determined by the Party caucuses and staff, and forced on legislature members by Party leadership. Looking at roll call votes on virtually any measure, there is very little sign of independent action or thinking by any individual membe= r of either Party. Most vote results strictly follow Party lines. Perata and N=C3=BA=C3=B1ez are behind the dangerous and deceptive mandatory= health insurance proposal that is the Democrats' plan to sabotage true universal health care. Perata was the author of the bill that re-categorized publicly-owned Oakland shoreline to make it available to his greedy developer buddies. Perata has been under investigation by the FBI for some time for campaign practices and financing irregularities. Put Perata out to pasture. Nip N=C3=BA=C3=B1ez's need for new power. Vote N= O on 93! _______________________________________________ Contacts2006 mailing list Contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 ________________ =20 ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com -------------------------------1195086150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=3Drole_body=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"=20 bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol= e_document=20 face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#000000 size=3D4> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 11/13/2007 12:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,=20 contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>GREEN=20 PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE<BR><BR>This is an announcement from the GPCA= =20 Contact List.  For more information, or questions related to the topi= c of=20 the posting, please do not hit reply.  Follow the contact=20 directions<BR>stated in the email.<BR>  GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR FEBRU= ARY=20 5, 2008 BALLOT MEASURES<BR><BR>To: GPCA County Contacts List From: Warner=20 Bloomberg Campaigns and<BR>Candidates Working Group Coordinator  Subj= ect:=20 County Polling for<BR>Initiatives on the February 5, 2008 Election=20 Ballot<BR><BR>Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizatio= ns=20 to report<BR>County GP positions on  the three initiatives that have=20= been=20 certified to<BR>appear on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 election.=20 Immediately<BR>following those instructions, you will find reports that ha= ve=20 been compiled<BR>describing those measures and suggesting positions. The=20 recommendations are<BR>simply those of the people who wrote or compiled th= em=20 and DO NOT constitute<BR>GPCA positions. GPCA positions on ballot measures= =20 occur in two ways: By<BR>decision of the delegates at a General Assembly o= r by=20 County Polling. The<BR>next plenary is not scheduled until after the elect= ion,=20 so County Polling is<BR>the only method for the GPCA to take a  posit= ion=20 on these issues. As in<BR>previous years, special thanks to everyone who&n= bsp;=20 contributed to the reports<BR>and to Greg Jan for collecting them; and tha= nks=20 to  Matthew Leslie for<BR>serving as the County Polling administrator= and=20 to Michael  Borenstein for<BR>serving as his assistant. Any questions= =20 about the instructions  should be<BR>addressed to Matthew as-indicate= d.=20 Any other related questions can be<BR>directed to me via _wsb3attyca@aol.c= om_=20 (mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com) .<BR><BR>Warner Bloomberg CCWG=20 Coordinator<BR><BR><BR>INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES=20 INITIATIVES APPEARING ON<BR>THE FEBRUARY 5, 2008 ELECTION BALLOT<BR><BR>Th= e=20 GPCA uses a poll of all recognized county Green Parties to determine<BR>GP= CA=20 positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those<BR>decision= s at=20 a state meeting. Three initiatives have qualified for the next<BR>state=20 election on February 5, 2008 (these do not include four referenda on<BR>In= dian=20 Casino Compacts that are still undergoing review for certification).<BR>Pl= ease=20 be sure that your county participates by submitting votes by=20 Sunday<BR>December 28, 2007.<BR><BR>THE POLL: This poll contains a list of= all=20 initiatives that have qualified<BR>for the February 5, 2008 Election.&nbsp= ;=20 Each initiative title is followed by a<BR>recommendation made by volunteer= s=20 from the Green Party grassroots who have<BR>reviewed the measures. Of cour= se,=20 counties are free to agree or disagree<BR>with the recommended positions.=20 Following the list of initiatives is an<BR>extensive list of arguments and= =20 resources for research about each.<BR><BR>PROCESS: Please provide the Poll= =20 Coordinator (Matthew Leslie) and his<BR>assistant (Michael Borenstein) wit= h=20 vote results from your county in the<BR>following form for each ballot=20 initiative:<BR><BR>"Yes" for the GPCA to support the initiative "No" for t= he=20 GPCA to oppose the<BR>initiative "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberatel= y=20 remain neutral on the<BR>initiative<BR><BR>Votes may also be cast as "Abst= ain"=20 if they do not wish to participate in<BR>the poll. Abstentions will be cou= nted=20 toward quorum.<BR><BR>Vote on the initiative itself, not the recommendatio= n.=20 For example, if CCWG<BR>has recommended a position of "No," and your count= y=20 wishes to agree and vote<BR>"No" on the initiative, then your county shoul= d=20 vote "No" on the initiative,<BR>and not "Yes" on the recommended "No"=20 position.<BR><BR>PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTED TO YOUR COUNTY=20= FOR=20 THE RIVERSIDE<BR>PLENARY.<BR>That list was published in the agenda packet=20= for=20 that state meeting<BR>held September 8-9, 2007. For example, if your count= y=20 had 2 delegates, you<BR>would submit 2 votes in any combination of positio= ns.=20 (Votes from counties<BR>with more than one delegate vote need not be=20 unanimous.) If you have any<BR>questions about the total number of votes t= hat=20 can be cast for any measure,<BR>contact the GPCA Coordinating Committee=20 member(s) who represent your region.<BR>Your county should rely on its own= =20 internal processes to arrive at its<BR>positions. The poll has an 80%=20 threshold. The default where the threshold or<BR>quorum is not met is =E2= =80=9CNo=20 Position=E2=80=9D.<BR><BR>TIMELINE: The voting period begins on November 1= 3, 2007, and=20 ends on<BR>December 28, 2007 (11:59 PM PST). Votes received after the clos= ing=20 date and<BR>time will not be counted. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll=20 Coordinator and<BR>the Assistant Poll Coordinator at the following email=20 addresses: Matthew<BR>Leslie mrl@greens.org , Michael Borenstein=20 thebor@greens.org . Please submit<BR>any questions about the process of th= e=20 poll to the same addresses.<BR><BR>FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT INITIATIVES=20 REPORTS<BR>Dear Greens, Below are the recommendations and reports (write-u= ps)=20 on the <BR>three state propositions which will be on the February, 2008=20 ballot. (Note: <BR>There is a possibility that four referenda having to do= =20 with Indian Gaming <BR>may also qualify, but signature counting has not ye= t=20 been completed on <BR>those.). As you will see, we are currently divided a= bout=20 Prop. 92, funding <BR>for community colleges. One write-up recommends that= we=20 endorse Prop. 92, <BR>while the other write-up recommends that we do not t= ake=20 a position on that <BR>initiative. (Note: Neither write-up recommends that= we=20 oppose Prop. 92). <BR>Also, I want to take a moment here to thank the Gree= ns=20 who worked on <BR>analyzing and authoring the write-ups for these=20 propositions! We hope that <BR>you will find them informative and=20 helpful.<BR>Sincerely, Greg Jan Oakland, CA<BR><BR>Recommendations for the= =20 February, 2008 ballot:<BR>Prop. 91 -- Transportation . . . . . . . . . . .= . .=20 . . . . NO<BR>Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges . . . Either "YES"= =20 or<BR>                "No=20 position"<BR>Prop. 93 -- Term Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=20 NO<BR><BR>Note: The text of these propositions are available via the Secre= tary=20 of<BR>State's website, at:=20 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm<BR>The draft voter pamphle= t=20 "pro and con" arguments and rebuttals will be<BR>available through Nov. 13= ,=20 and perhaps after that date,=20 via:<BR>http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig_02052008.htm<BR><BR>**********= ****=20 Reports (Write-ups):<BR><BR>Prop. 91 -- Transportation Recommendation: NO=20 Write-up author: Jan Arnold,<BR>Alameda County<BR><BR>This proposal has an= =20 unusual history. The "Transportation Funding Protection<BR>Act" (TFPA) was= an=20 initiative circulated by an alliance of construction<BR>companies and buil= ding=20 trades unions who were frustrated by years of<BR>diversions (by the State=20 legislature) of transportation money set aside<BR>under Proposition 42 (wh= ich=20 passed in 2002). That measure dedicated most of<BR>the gas tax revenue to=20 improving streets, highways, and transit systems. The<BR>proponents paid f= or=20 about a million signatures. Legislative leaders got the<BR>message and pla= ced=20 Proposition 1A on the November 2006 ballot, covering the<BR>same issues, w= here=20 it passed easily. The proponents of the TFPA turned in<BR>some, but not al= l,=20 of their signatures, while they were keeping the<BR>conversation going wit= h=20 legislative leaders, but they were not intending to<BR>actually qualify th= e=20 measure. Because of a higher than expected signature<BR>validity rate, the= =20 initiative qualified.<BR><BR>Meanwhile, its proponents had decided Proposi= tion=20 1A was good enough to<BR>support. In the space where we would expect to se= e an=20 argument FOR Prop 91,<BR>there's a request that we vote No, as the TFPA is= no=20 longer needed. (Nobody<BR>submitted an argument against it.) But sometimes= the=20 original proponents are<BR>settling for less than an ideal solution and we= =20 Greens (who take our stand<BR>based on future focus) might actually want t= o=20 pick up the banner that they<BR>have dropped. Could this be one of those=20 times?<BR><BR>The official Ballot Label says this measure, if passed,=20 "increases stability<BR>of state funding for highways, streets, and roads=20= and=20 may decrease stability<BR>of state funding for public transit. May reduce=20 stability of certain local<BR>funds for public transit." That suggests Gre= ens=20 and other advocates of<BR>transit funding should vote No. There's a genera= l=20 question about keeping<BR>some public funds in a "lockbox." In this case,=20= both=20 the existing law (1A)<BR>and this proposal allow for emergency exceptions,= =20 which is something we<BR>should accept. (If a family member had a serious=20 emergency, you might raid<BR>your retirement fund despite your original=20 plans.)  Since transportation<BR>money is mostly going for roads, how= =20 serious are we about keeping it in a<BR>lockbox? (But it seems that when=20 transportation money is raided, the FIRST<BR>to be raided is NOT the roads= ,=20 but the transit stuff that we are really<BR>trying to get more=20 of.)<BR><BR>  Although these issues are complex, one progressive=20 non-profit<BR>transportation group that we are in touch with has told us t= hey=20 will likely<BR>be opposing it, and we have not heard of any progressive gr= oups=20 or<BR>individuals who are inclined to support it. In fact, we haven't hear= d of=20 any<BR>significant organizations at all who are supporting Prop. 91.=20 Therefore, in<BR>view of all of the above, we recommend a "No" vote on Pro= p.=20 91<BR><BR><BR>Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges Recommendation: Ei= ther=20 "YES" or<BR>"No position"<BR>Write-up author for "No position": Bill=20 Balderston, Alameda County Write-up<BR>author for "YES": Information compi= led=20 by Susan Schacher, Alameda County<BR><BR>Write-up for "No position"=20 recommendation on Prop. 92: As the co-chair of<BR>the Green Party Caucus o= f=20 the California Teachers Association (CTA) and as a<BR>long-time representa= tive=20 to CTA State Council (specifically sitting on the<BR>Financing Public=20 Education Committee), I have great difficulty arguing<BR>either side for t= his=20 proposition (Prop 92). On first glance it would appear<BR>to be an obvious= =20 advance as regards the rebuilding of our community college<BR>system and i= ts=20 student bodies. The more than doubling of student fees (from<BR>$11 to $26= per=20 credit) in 2004 and the loss of considerable enrollment in<BR>this decade=20 (over 300,000) would seem to mandate support for a law which<BR>would lowe= r=20 student fees and buuildup the system. Moreover, the proponents<BR>of 92 ar= gue=20 that this will be money well spent, both as regards the<BR>long-term incom= e=20 for individuals and the state (in the form of higher income<BR>taxes);=20 students will also find this a more financially reasonable avenue<BR>than=20 attending CSU or UC schools for the full four years (and will require<BR>l= ess=20 state subsidy at those schools).<BR><BR>However, the coalition of which CT= A is=20 a part (and I have rarely hesitated<BR>to differ with CTA positions when I= =20 consider them misguided or even<BR>unprincipled) are opposing Prop 92 for=20= both=20 strong as well as less<BR>progressive reasons.<BR><BR>First, there is the=20 matter of the actual costs for implementation; this is<BR>estimated at=20 $500,000,000. CTA always obsesses on any measure's impact on<BR>Prop 98 mo= nies=20 (which do also include most funding for community colleges as<BR>well as=20 K-12); if you read Section 17 of the initiative, it says clearly<BR>that a= ny=20 increases in costs at specific community college sites that are not<BR>cov= ered=20 by local property taxes and student fees, will come out of the<BR>general=20= fund=20 (to which Prop 98 applies). There is no provision for<BR>progressive taxat= ion=20 (split roll or higher income taxes for the rich) which<BR>could, in part,=20= be=20 designated for this worthy goal (CTA and their allies<BR>don't mention thi= s=20 possibility in their arguements, but simply warn of<BR>additional taxation= ,=20 which I think is a poor arguement, for like Prop 98,<BR>the question arise= s=20 "for what are resources being designated?".<BR><BR>Second, there is little= =20 specificity on how additional funds will be applied<BR>and/or accountabili= ty=20 for the funds (by way of an audit or similiar means).<BR>Finally, the=20 provision (in Section 19) that would require a 4/5ths vote in<BR>both hous= es=20 of the State Legislature to amend the main features of the law<BR>is a ver= y=20 dangerous precedent.<BR><BR>In conclusion, I cannot recommend support of t= his=20 measure, but feel that a<BR>stance of neither supporting or opposing (with= =20 explanatory language) would<BR>be best. It is usually reckless to mandate=20= a=20 significant cost item (no<BR>matter how progressive) without even addressi= ng=20 the need for more resources.<BR>The question of the supermajority vote to=20 alter the law may seem secondary<BR>to the substance involved, but it is a= lso=20 very serious and this alone could<BR>negate our supporting the=20 initiative.<BR><BR><BR>Write-up for "YES" recommendation on Prop.=20 92:<BR><BR>=E2=80=9CYES=E2=80=9D ON PROP 92 =E2=80=94 THE COMMUNITY COLLEG= E INITIATIVE  What does=20 Prop 92 Do?<BR>(1) Lowers community college student fees to $15 a unit &am= p;=20 limits increases<BR>to the cost of living (2) Guarantees minimum funding f= or=20 community college<BR>growth (3) Does not hurt K-12 funding  (4) Does=20= not=20 raise taxes  (5)<BR>Guarantees a system of independent community coll= ege=20 districts<BR><BR>Why Prop 92? Community College funding is currently based= on=20 K-12 enrollment<BR>under Prop 98, passed by voters 20 years ago. While K-1= 2=20 enrollments are in<BR>decline, demand for community colleges is projected=20= to=20 increase=E2=80=94by some<BR>100,000 students in the next three years alone= . Prop 92=20 funds growth for<BR>these expected new students, opens access, and protect= s=20 students from<BR>prohibitive fee increases. Under current Prop 98 funding=20 formulas, 60% of<BR>these students will be shut out. Moreover, when there=20= is a=20 budget crunch in<BR>California, Sacramento always balances its budgets on=20= the=20 backs of college<BR>students and the poor. In 2004 and 2005 community coll= ege=20 fees were<BR>increased by over 150%. The result=E2=80=94 between 250,000 a= nd 300,000=20 students<BR>were priced out of the system. Instead of a single funding str= eam=20 for K-12<BR>and community colleges, which is then =E2=80=9Csplit=E2=80=9D=20= between the two=20 segments, Prop<BR>92 provides each segment its own minimum funding=20 guarantee.<BR><BR>Passage of Prop 92 is the best opportunity to guarantee=20= that=20 all<BR>Californians will have access to an affordable and quality college=20 education<BR>and be able to get ahead. This is the unmet promise of the=20 State=E2=80=99s Master<BR>Plan for Higher Education. Who attends community= =20 colleges?  2.5 million<BR>students, mainly working class and low-inco= me=20 youth and adults. The average<BR>student is 28 year old. 60% of the studen= t=20 population is female. 30% of all<BR>Latinos in the U.S. who are attending=20 college today are enrolled in a<BR>California Community College. And there= are=20 90,000 more African American<BR>students in community colleges than in bot= h=20 the CSU and UC systems combined.<BR>250,000 Californians from Asian and=20 Pacific Islander backgrounds are<BR>enrolled in the Community Colleges.=20 Community colleges give students who did<BR>not finish high school a secon= d=20 chance. 2/3rds of CSU graduates and 1/3rd of<BR>UC graduates begin their=20 college careers at a community college. Prop 92<BR>offers low-income and=20 working class people access to education and a route<BR>to a decent standa= rd=20 of living.<BR><BR>Prop 92 is a good investment of public dollars<BR>Commun= ity=20 college students who earned an Associate degree or vocational<BR>certifica= te=20 saw their wages jump from $25,600 to $47,571 three years after<BR>graduati= ng.=20 Research shows that for every dollar spent on community college<BR>educati= on,=20 California gets $3 back in taxes. The State spends much less in a<BR>year=20= to=20 educate a community college student than it spends in any of the<BR>other=20 sectors: $8,133 per student in K-12 schools; $11,624 in the Cal=20 State<BR>system, $18,203 in the UC system, compared to a mere $4,500 per=20 student in<BR>the community colleges. The money needed to roll back studen= t=20 fees and<BR>provide a gateway to the middle class will continue to come fr= om=20 the state=E2=80=99s<BR>general fund. But Prop 92 does not call for new tax= es or cause=20 any other<BR>sector to suffer. The  money to fund this proposition wi= ll=20 come from the<BR>future growth in state  revenue, including increased= =20 taxes paid by a more<BR>educated workforce.<BR><BR>Prop 92 assures local=20 governance of the community colleges<BR>Prop 92 guarantees local control o= f=20 the community colleges -- to keep the<BR>"community" in community colleges= =E2=80=93=20 by maintaining the governance structure<BR>administered by local elected=20 Boards of Trustees. Prop 92 establishes the<BR>community colleges as a thi= rd=20 higher education system in the California. The<BR>community colleges will=20= no=20 longer be an appendage of the K-12 system. The<BR>California Community=20 Colleges system will finally have its own funding<BR>method, as do the Cal= =20 State and the UC systems. Endorsers include: (partial<BR>list, additions t= o be=20 made)  Peralta Federation of Teachers, California<BR>Federation of=20 Teachers, Faculty Association of the California Community<BR>Colleges,=20 California Community College Independents, Community Colleges<BR>Associati= on=20 of the CTA, California Federation of Labor, State Building and<BR>Construc= tion=20 Trades, Nicky Gonzales Yuen, etc., other Peralta Bd Members,<BR>etc.,=20 Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club<BR><BR>Responding to ballot arguments=20 against Prop 92<BR>The ballot arguments against Prop 92 are signed by offi= cers=20 of the<BR>California Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Action Commit= tee,=20 the<BR>California Taxpayers=E2=80=99 Association, the California Roundtabl= e, and=20 the<BR>California Teachers Association.<BR><BR>The ballot arguments agains= t=20 Prop 92 use familiar scare tactics to dissuade<BR>voters. They say Prop 92= =20 will cause more problems than it solves. They say<BR>Prop 92 will lock in=20 spending increases for community colleges which could<BR>lead to funding c= uts=20 for K-12 schools, state colleges and universities,<BR>health and public=20 safety; and could result in higher taxes. Proponents say<BR>that these=20 concerns are short-sighted. Funding for community college<BR>education is=20= a=20 crucial investment in our future. For each dollar the<BR>community college= s=20 spend, the state eventually gets $3 back in taxes paid by<BR>a more educat= ed=20 workforce. Our community colleges provide vocational<BR>training and acade= mic=20 education for more than 2.5 million students per year,<BR>compared to 180,= 000=20 students at UC=E2=80=99s and 380,000 at CSU=E2=80=99s. Two-thirds of all<B= R>CSU graduates and=20 one-third of all UC grads began at community colleges.<BR>Under-funding an= d=20 restricting access to community colleges is<BR>self-defeating. We must pro= tect=20 this vital investment in the future of our<BR>state and its=20 people.<BR><BR>Prop 92 goes a long way toward solving the problem of acces= s to=20 public<BR>higher education for every Californian, fulfilling the promise o= f=20 the<BR>State=E2=80=99s Master Plan for Higher Education. If voters pass Pr= op 92, we'll=20 be<BR>opening the doors to better economic prospects for more people and f= or=20 the<BR>society as a whole. A better educated workforce is key.<BR><BR>Prop= 92=20 is the only current initiative to address the looming shortage of<BR>educa= ted=20 workers. The consequences of NOT assuring access to the education<BR>and j= ob=20 preparation provided by the community colleges will be dire for<BR>upcomin= g=20 generations and California=E2=80=99s economy.<BR><BR>Prop 92 is consistent= with Green=20 values of equity, fairness, and access.<BR>Greens will continue to call fo= r=20 more state resources for K-12 schools,<BR>state colleges and universities,= =20 healthcare, public safety, social services,<BR>AND community colleges. If=20 increased state revenues are needed, all human<BR>services sectors must un= ite=20 in advocating for a just tax system. Greens have<BR>always called for a ju= st=20 and progressive tax structure, and will continue to<BR>do so. Reasonable=20 approaches include reinstating higher income tax rates<BR>(10% and 11%) fo= r=20 wealthier taxpayers and ending corporate tax breaks under<BR>Prop 13. Rath= er=20 than implement tax increases which require a 2/3 majority<BR>vote, the=20 legislature has =E2=80=93 by simple majority votes -- increased community<= BR>college =E2=80=9C=20 fees=E2=80=9D (which technically are not =E2=80=9Ctaxes=E2=80=9D) and cut=20= community<BR>college=20 funding. By passing Prop 92 we can end the legislature=E2=80=99s practice=20 of<BR>balancing the state budget at the expense of the community colleges=20 and<BR>their students. Prop 92 will protect the Community College system a= nd=20 its<BR>students against this corrupt and opportunistic=20 budgeting.<BR><BR>Proponents are concerned about CTA=E2=80=99s opposition=20= to Prop 92=20 when its<BR>community college section, the Community College Association,=20= is=20 in support.<BR>Proponents are also concerned about the alliance between th= e=20 CTA and<BR>business/conservative tax-payer interests. Proponents are surpr= ised=20 that the<BR>opponents appear not to recognize the value of the community=20 colleges for<BR>the state=E2=80=99s economic growth. The community college= s train=20 nurses, diesel<BR>mechanics, childcare workers, construction workers, comp= uter=20 technicians.<BR>They are the first step for thousands of students who go o= n to=20 become<BR>teachers, physicians, engineers, social workers, planners, and=20 business<BR>professionals. They prepare people for work in the expanding=20 sector of green<BR>industry. The community colleges retrain workers=20 experiencing job loss from<BR>injury, down-sizing, plant closures, export=20= of=20 jobs. The community colleges<BR>are an important alternative to the milita= ry=E2=80=99s=20 economic draft.<BR><BR>The opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 gi= ves=20 community colleges<BR>preferential treatment. But while Prop 98 (passed=20 in1988) mandates that<BR>10.93% of the K-14 education budget should go to=20 community colleges, every<BR>year the legislature has suspended that=20 requirement and cut the funding to<BR>an average of about 10.4%. Far from=20 being =E2=80=9Cpreferential treatment,=E2=80=9D this has<BR>resulted in fu= nding cuts of almost=20 $5 billion over the past 15 years.<BR>Community colleges are funded at a=20 significantly lower rate than the other<BR>systems of higher education in=20= the=20 state: at a little more than one-third of<BR>what CSUs receive per student= and=20 at about one-fourth of what the UCs<BR>receive. The time is now to finally= =20 start investing in our community colleges.<BR><BR>Prop 92 will enable the=20 community colleges to have their own funding stream,<BR>and get away from=20= the=20 "Prop 98 split"  entirely.  Using another scare<BR>tactic, the=20 opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 does not include<BR>audits,=20 independent oversight, or measures to ensure money will ever get to<BR>col= lege=20 classrooms. Proponents point out that Prop 92 funds would be subject<BR>to= the=20 same controls that now apply to the community colleges. By law=20 the<BR>community colleges must spend at least 50% of every dollar for=20 classroom<BR>instruction. There is no need to duplicate existing controls=20= with=20 redundant<BR>laws that take dollars out of the classroom. Community colleg= es=20 consistently<BR>get high marks for stretching their meager dollars very fa= r.=20 New funds will<BR>be invested wisely in our most precious resource -- the=20 people of California.<BR><BR>Opponents say that there are better ways to=20 improve our community colleges.<BR>What are they? Advocates have been tryi= ng=20 unsuccessfully for many years to<BR>address the under-funding of the commu= nity=20 colleges. Generally, those<BR>opposed to Prop 92 support the mission and g= oals=20 of the community colleges<BR>but they do not offer any way to finance them= =20 that will allow them to<BR>function effectively. Passage of Prop 92 will=20 guarantee the community<BR>college system the resources it needs. The real= =20 issue is whether we will<BR>have a thriving community college system that=20 successfully serves millions<BR>of youth and adults.<BR><BR><BR>Prop. 93 -= -=20 Term Limits Recommendation: NO Write-up author: Bob Marsh,<BR>Alameda=20 County<BR>Proposition 93 -- The =E2=80=9CKeep Perata and Nunez in Office= =E2=80=9D Initiative:=20 NO! NO! NO!<BR><BR>This initiative is one of the most cynical ones to hit=20= our=20 ballot in years.<BR>The current President pro-tem of the California Senate= ,=20 Don Perata, and<BR>Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian N=C3=BA=C3=B1ez, are bo= th=20 =E2=80=9Ctermed-out=E2=80=9D next year. They<BR>and their legislative cron= ies have created an=20 extremely clever and deceptive<BR>plan to keep themselves in office for=20 another four years. This measure<BR>masquerades as a way to shorten term=20 limits, but in reality would allow both<BR>Senators and Assembly to stay i= n=20 office for from four to six years longer!<BR><BR>The legislature put this=20 measure on the Presidential Primary ballot,<BR>cleverly taking advantage o= f=20 our unusual 3-election year in 2008. If the<BR>measure passes in February,= =20 then all the legislators who would otherwise be<BR>at the end of their ter= ms=20 will be able to run in the<BR>certain-to-be-a-very-low turnout June State=20 Primary. If it fails, they can=E2=80=99t<BR>run.<BR><BR>If this initiative= passes,=20 term limits will only be shorter for those<BR>legislators who might be luc= ky=20 enough to hold seats in both the Assembly and<BR>Senate. An Assembymember=20= who=20 stays in their completely safe seat (due to our<BR>totally corrupt and=20 jerrymandered election system) will be able to stay in<BR>office twice as=20 long, twelve years instead of the six now allowed.<BR><BR>We find the=20 proponents arguments flawed. They claim that studies have shown<BR>that=20 legislators are now more likely to be fiscally irresponsible with<BR>short= er=20 terms, but can anyone remember a time when our<BR>Demopublican/Republicrat= =20 legislature was responsible? They claim it takes<BR>many terms for legisla= tors=20 to understand how the system works=E2=80=A6 are our<BR>representatives so=20= stupid that=20 it takes longer than one year (let alone six)<BR>to learn how to do a job=20 they=E2=80=99ve worked for years to get?<BR><BR>In any case, virtually all= research=20 and voting decisions are determined by<BR>the Party caucuses and staff, an= d=20 forced on legislature members by Party<BR>leadership. Looking at roll call= =20 votes on virtually any measure, there is<BR>very little sign of independen= t=20 action or  thinking by any individual member<BR>of either Party. Most= =20 vote results strictly follow Party lines.<BR><BR>Perata and N=C3=BA=C3=B1e= z are behind=20 the dangerous and deceptive mandatory health<BR>insurance proposal that is= the=20 Democrats' plan to sabotage true universal<BR>health care. Perata was the=20 author of the bill that re-categorized<BR>publicly-owned Oakland shoreline= to=20 make it available to his greedy<BR>developer buddies. Perata has been unde= r=20 investigation by the FBI for some<BR>time for campaign practices and finan= cing=20 irregularities.<BR><BR>Put Perata out to pasture. Nip N=C3=BA=C3=B1ez's ne= ed for new=20 power. Vote NO on=20 93!<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________= <BR>Contacts2006=20 mailing=20 list<BR>Contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org<BR>http://lists.cagreens.org/mailm= an/listinfo/contacts2006<BR>________________</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style=3D"color: black; font:=20= normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See what's new= at <A title=3D"http://www.aol.com?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001170" href=3D"http= ://www.aol.com?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001170" target=3D"_blank">AOL.com</A> an= d <A title=3D"http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001169" h= ref=3D"http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001169" target= =3D"_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage</A>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> -------------------------------1195086150-- --part2_d53.1a7747c5.346ceb46_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <gpca-cocos-bounces@lists.cagreens.org> Received: from rly-da08.mx.aol.com (rly-da08.mail.aol.com [172.19.129.82]) by air-da02.mail.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILINDA021-a81473a0abf1ca; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:36:40 -0400 Received: from marla.cagreens.org (marla.cagreens.org [64.142.114.98]) by rly-da08.mx.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDA081-a81473a0abf1ca; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:36:16 -0400 Received: from marla.cagreens.org (marla.cagreens.org [127.0.0.1]) by marla.cagreens.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EA0412258; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:36:15 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: gpca-cocos@cagreens.org Delivered-To: gpca-cocos@cagreens.org Received: from marla.cagreens.org (marla.cagreens.org [127.0.0.1]) by marla.cagreens.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C218412241; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:12:19 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: Contacts2006@cagreens.org Delivered-To: Contacts2006@cagreens.org Received: from smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.204]) by marla.cagreens.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A19CE41223D for <Contacts2006@cagreens.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 32524 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2007 06:12:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?69.110.7.102?) (jimstauffer@sbcglobal.net@69.110.7.102 with plain) by smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2007 06:12:15 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 9w.WdbcVM1lpYqGSYHLcD4ST51cGDo7uMwWOLNQYzQBWZ5uWnl4vIOpCS9_B7tZuyvoGsaSaxabrJsINQnKmQNnljSu.tkwHfHDELiTAyb.Mm_XGX_o03_ygAMl8ow-- Message-ID: <4739401C.1060704@greens.org> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:11:40 -0800 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: County Contacts <Contacts2006@cagreens.org> From: County Contacts <contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org> X-BeenThere: contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:36:13 -0800 Subject: [gpca-cocos] [GPCA Official Notice] GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT MEASURES X-BeenThere: gpca-cocos@lists.cagreens.org Reply-To: contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org List-Id: GP of Cal Co-Coords <gpca-cocos.lists.cagreens.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos>, <mailto:gpca-cocos-request@lists.cagreens.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/gpca-cocos> List-Post: <mailto:gpca-cocos@lists.cagreens.org> List-Help: <mailto:gpca-cocos-request@lists.cagreens.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos>, <mailto:gpca-cocos-request@lists.cagreens.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: gpca-cocos-bounces@lists.cagreens.org Errors-To: gpca-cocos-bounces@lists.cagreens.org X-AOL-IP: 64.142.114.98 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : n X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : n X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more information, o= r questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit reply. F= ollow the contact directions stated in the email. GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT MEASURES To: GPCA County Contacts List From: Warner Bloomberg Campaigns and Candidates Working Group Coordinator Subject: County Polling for Initiatives on the February 5, 2008 Election Ballot Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations to report County GP positions on the three initiatives that have been certified to appear on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 election. Immediately following those instructions, you will find reports that have been compiled describing those measures and suggesting positions. The recommendations are simply those of the people who wrote or compiled them and DO NOT constitute GPCA positions. GPCA positions on ballot measures occur in two ways: By decision of the delegates at a General Assembly or by County Polling. The next plenary is not scheduled until after the election, so County Polling is the only method for the GPCA to take a position on these issues. As in previous years, special thanks to everyone who contributed to the reports and to Greg Jan for collecting them; and thanks to Matthew Leslie for serving as the County Polling administrator and to Michael Borenstein for serving as his assistant. Any questions about the instructions should be addressed to Matthew as-indicated. Any other related questions can be directed to me via _wsb3attyca@aol.com_ (mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com) . Warner Bloomberg CCWG Coordinator INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES INITIATIVES APPEARING ON THE FEBRUARY 5, 2008 ELECTION BALLOT The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized county Green Parties to determine GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those decisions at a state meeting. Three initiatives have qualified for the next state election on February 5, 2008 (these do not include four referenda on Indian Casino Compacts that are still undergoing review for certification). Please be sure that your county participates by submitting votes by Sunday December 28, 2007. THE POLL: This poll contains a list of all initiatives that have qualified for the February 5, 2008 Election. Each initiative title is followed by a recommendation made by volunteers from the Green Party grassroots who have reviewed the measures. Of course, counties are free to agree or disagree with the recommended positions. Following the list of initiatives is an extensive list of arguments and resources for research about each. PROCESS: Please provide the Poll Coordinator (Matthew Leslie) and his assistant (Michael Borenstein) with vote results from your county in the following form for each ballot initiative: "Yes" for the GPCA to support the initiative "No" for the GPCA to oppose the initiative "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately remain neutral on the initiative Votes may also be cast as "Abstain" if they do not wish to participate in the poll. Abstentions will be counted toward quorum. Vote on the initiative itself, not the recommendation. For example, if CCWG has recommended a position of "No," and your county wishes to agree and vote "No" on the initiative, then your county should vote "No" on the initiative, and not "Yes" on the recommended "No" position. PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE RIVERSIDE PLENARY. That list was published in the agenda packet for that state meeting held September 8-9, 2007. For example, if your county had 2 delegates, you would submit 2 votes in any combination of positions. (Votes from counties with more than one delegate vote need not be unanimous.) If you have any questions about the total number of votes that can be cast for any measure, contact the GPCA Coordinating Committee member(s) who represent your region. Your county should rely on its own internal processes to arrive at its positions. The poll has an 80% threshold. The default where the threshold or quorum is not met is =93No Position=94. TIMELINE: The voting period begins on November 13, 2007, and ends on December 28, 2007 (11:59 PM PST). Votes received after the closing date and time will not be counted. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinator and the Assistant Poll Coordinator at the following email addresses: Matthew Leslie mrl@greens.org , Michael Borenstein thebor@greens.org . Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same addresses. FEBRUARY 5, 2008 BALLOT INITIATIVES REPORTS Dear Greens, Below are the recommendations and reports (write-ups) on the=20 three state propositions which will be on the February, 2008 ballot. (Note:=20 There is a possibility that four referenda having to do with Indian Gaming=20 may also qualify, but signature counting has not yet been completed on=20 those.). As you will see, we are currently divided about Prop. 92, funding=20 for community colleges. One write-up recommends that we endorse Prop. 92,=20 while the other write-up recommends that we do not take a position on that=20 initiative. (Note: Neither write-up recommends that we oppose Prop. 92).=20 Also, I want to take a moment here to thank the Greens who worked on=20 analyzing and authoring the write-ups for these propositions! We hope that=20 you will find them informative and helpful. Sincerely, Greg Jan Oakland, CA Recommendations for the February, 2008 ballot: Prop. 91 -- Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges . . . Either "YES" or "No position" Prop. 93 -- Term Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO Note: The text of these propositions are available via the Secretary of State's website, at: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm The draft voter pamphlet "pro and con" arguments and rebuttals will be available through Nov. 13, and perhaps after that date, via: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig_02052008.htm ************** Reports (Write-ups): Prop. 91 -- Transportation Recommendation: NO Write-up author: Jan Arnold, Alameda County This proposal has an unusual history. The "Transportation Funding Protection Act" (TFPA) was an initiative circulated by an alliance of construction companies and building trades unions who were frustrated by years of diversions (by the State legislature) of transportation money set aside under Proposition 42 (which passed in 2002). That measure dedicated most of the gas tax revenue to improving streets, highways, and transit systems. The proponents paid for about a million signatures. Legislative leaders got the message and placed Proposition 1A on the November 2006 ballot, covering the same issues, where it passed easily. The proponents of the TFPA turned in some, but not all, of their signatures, while they were keeping the conversation going with legislative leaders, but they were not intending to actually qualify the measure. Because of a higher than expected signature validity rate, the initiative qualified. Meanwhile, its proponents had decided Proposition 1A was good enough to support. In the space where we would expect to see an argument FOR Prop 91, there's a request that we vote No, as the TFPA is no longer needed. (Nobody submitted an argument against it.) But sometimes the original proponents are settling for less than an ideal solution and we Greens (who take our stand based on future focus) might actually want to pick up the banner that they have dropped. Could this be one of those times? The official Ballot Label says this measure, if passed, "increases stability of state funding for highways, streets, and roads and may decrease stability of state funding for public transit. May reduce stability of certain local funds for public transit." That suggests Greens and other advocates of transit funding should vote No. There's a general question about keeping some public funds in a "lockbox." In this case, both the existing law (1A) and this proposal allow for emergency exceptions, which is something we should accept. (If a family member had a serious emergency, you might raid your retirement fund despite your original plans.) Since transportation money is mostly going for roads, how serious are we about keeping it in a lockbox? (But it seems that when transportation money is raided, the FIRST to be raided is NOT the roads, but the transit stuff that we are really trying to get more of.) Although these issues are complex, one progressive non-profit transportation group that we are in touch with has told us they will likely be opposing it, and we have not heard of any progressive groups or individuals who are inclined to support it. In fact, we haven't heard of any significant organizations at all who are supporting Prop. 91. Therefore, in view of all of the above, we recommend a "No" vote on Prop. 91 Prop. 92 -- Funding of Community Colleges Recommendation: Either "YES" or "No position" Write-up author for "No position": Bill Balderston, Alameda County Write-up author for "YES": Information compiled by Susan Schacher, Alameda County Write-up for "No position" recommendation on Prop. 92: As the co-chair of the Green Party Caucus of the California Teachers Association (CTA) and as a long-time representative to CTA State Council (specifically sitting on the Financing Public Education Committee), I have great difficulty arguing either side for this proposition (Prop 92). On first glance it would appear to be an obvious advance as regards the rebuilding of our community college system and its student bodies. The more than doubling of student fees (from $11 to $26 per credit) in 2004 and the loss of considerable enrollment in this decade (over 300,000) would seem to mandate support for a law which would lower student fees and buuildup the system. Moreover, the proponents of 92 argue that this will be money well spent, both as regards the long-term income for individuals and the state (in the form of higher income taxes); students will also find this a more financially reasonable avenue than attending CSU or UC schools for the full four years (and will require less state subsidy at those schools). However, the coalition of which CTA is a part (and I have rarely hesitated to differ with CTA positions when I consider them misguided or even unprincipled) are opposing Prop 92 for both strong as well as less progressive reasons. First, there is the matter of the actual costs for implementation; this is estimated at $500,000,000. CTA always obsesses on any measure's impact on Prop 98 monies (which do also include most funding for community colleges as well as K-12); if you read Section 17 of the initiative, it says clearly that any increases in costs at specific community college sites that are not covered by local property taxes and student fees, will come out of the general fund (to which Prop 98 applies). There is no provision for progressive taxation (split roll or higher income taxes for the rich) which could, in part, be designated for this worthy goal (CTA and their allies don't mention this possibility in their arguements, but simply warn of additional taxation, which I think is a poor arguement, for like Prop 98, the question arises "for what are resources being designated?". Second, there is little specificity on how additional funds will be applied and/or accountability for the funds (by way of an audit or similiar means). Finally, the provision (in Section 19) that would require a 4/5ths vote in both houses of the State Legislature to amend the main features of the law is a very dangerous precedent. In conclusion, I cannot recommend support of this measure, but feel that a stance of neither supporting or opposing (with explanatory language) would be best. It is usually reckless to mandate a significant cost item (no matter how progressive) without even addressing the need for more resources. The question of the supermajority vote to alter the law may seem secondary to the substance involved, but it is also very serious and this alone could negate our supporting the initiative. Write-up for "YES" recommendation on Prop. 92: =93YES=94 ON PROP 92 =97 THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE INITIATIVE What does Prop 92= Do? (1) Lowers community college student fees to $15 a unit & limits increases to the cost of living (2) Guarantees minimum funding for community college growth (3) Does not hurt K-12 funding (4) Does not raise taxes (5) Guarantees a system of independent community college districts Why Prop 92? Community College funding is currently based on K-12 enrollment under Prop 98, passed by voters 20 years ago. While K-12 enrollments are in decline, demand for community colleges is projected to increase=97by some 100,000 students in the next three years alone. Prop 92 funds growth for these expected new students, opens access, and protects students from prohibitive fee increases. Under current Prop 98 funding formulas, 60% of these students will be shut out. Moreover, when there is a budget crunch in California, Sacramento always balances its budgets on the backs of college students and the poor. In 2004 and 2005 community college fees were increased by over 150%. The result=97 between 250,000 and 300,000 students were priced out of the system. Instead of a single funding stream for K-12 and community colleges, which is then =93split=94 between the two segments,=20= Prop 92 provides each segment its own minimum funding guarantee. Passage of Prop 92 is the best opportunity to guarantee that all Californians will have access to an affordable and quality college education and be able to get ahead. This is the unmet promise of the State=92s Master Plan for Higher Education. Who attends community colleges? 2.5 million students, mainly working class and low-income youth and adults. The average student is 28 year old. 60% of the student population is female. 30% of all Latinos in the U.S. who are attending college today are enrolled in a California Community College. And there are 90,000 more African American students in community colleges than in both the CSU and UC systems combined. 250,000 Californians from Asian and Pacific Islander backgrounds are enrolled in the Community Colleges. Community colleges give students who did not finish high school a second chance. 2/3rds of CSU graduates and 1/3rd of UC graduates begin their college careers at a community college. Prop 92 offers low-income and working class people access to education and a route to a decent standard of living. Prop 92 is a good investment of public dollars Community college students who earned an Associate degree or vocational certificate saw their wages jump from $25,600 to $47,571 three years after graduating. Research shows that for every dollar spent on community college education, California gets $3 back in taxes. The State spends much less in a year to educate a community college student than it spends in any of the other sectors: $8,133 per student in K-12 schools; $11,624 in the Cal State system, $18,203 in the UC system, compared to a mere $4,500 per student in the community colleges. The money needed to roll back student fees and provide a gateway to the middle class will continue to come from the state= =92s general fund. But Prop 92 does not call for new taxes or cause any other sector to suffer. The money to fund this proposition will come from the future growth in state revenue, including increased taxes paid by a more educated workforce. Prop 92 assures local governance of the community colleges Prop 92 guarantees local control of the community colleges -- to keep the "community" in community colleges =96 by maintaining the governance structur= e administered by local elected Boards of Trustees. Prop 92 establishes the community colleges as a third higher education system in the California. The community colleges will no longer be an appendage of the K-12 system. The California Community Colleges system will finally have its own funding method, as do the Cal State and the UC systems. Endorsers include: (partial list, additions to be made) Peralta Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers, Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, California Community College Independents, Community Colleges Association of the CTA, California Federation of Labor, State Building and Construction Trades, Nicky Gonzales Yuen, etc., other Peralta Bd Members, etc., Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club Responding to ballot arguments against Prop 92 The ballot arguments against Prop 92 are signed by officers of the California Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Action Committee, the California Taxpayers=92 Association, the California Roundtable, and the California Teachers Association. The ballot arguments against Prop 92 use familiar scare tactics to dissuade voters. They say Prop 92 will cause more problems than it solves. They say Prop 92 will lock in spending increases for community colleges which could lead to funding cuts for K-12 schools, state colleges and universities, health and public safety; and could result in higher taxes. Proponents say that these concerns are short-sighted. Funding for community college education is a crucial investment in our future. For each dollar the community colleges spend, the state eventually gets $3 back in taxes paid by a more educated workforce. Our community colleges provide vocational training and academic education for more than 2.5 million students per year, compared to 180,000 students at UC=92s and 380,000 at CSU=92s. Two-thirds of= all CSU graduates and one-third of all UC grads began at community colleges. Under-funding and restricting access to community colleges is self-defeating. We must protect this vital investment in the future of our state and its people. Prop 92 goes a long way toward solving the problem of access to public higher education for every Californian, fulfilling the promise of the State=92s Master Plan for Higher Education. If voters pass Prop 92, we'll be opening the doors to better economic prospects for more people and for the society as a whole. A better educated workforce is key. Prop 92 is the only current initiative to address the looming shortage of educated workers. The consequences of NOT assuring access to the education and job preparation provided by the community colleges will be dire for upcoming generations and California=92s economy. Prop 92 is consistent with Green values of equity, fairness, and access. Greens will continue to call for more state resources for K-12 schools, state colleges and universities, healthcare, public safety, social services, AND community colleges. If increased state revenues are needed, all human services sectors must unite in advocating for a just tax system. Greens have always called for a just and progressive tax structure, and will continue to do so. Reasonable approaches include reinstating higher income tax rates (10% and 11%) for wealthier taxpayers and ending corporate tax breaks under Prop 13. Rather than implement tax increases which require a 2/3 majority vote, the legislature has =96 by simple majority votes -- increased communit= y college =93 fees=94 (which technically are not =93taxes=94) and cut communit= y college funding. By passing Prop 92 we can end the legislature=92s practice=20= of balancing the state budget at the expense of the community colleges and their students. Prop 92 will protect the Community College system and its students against this corrupt and opportunistic budgeting. Proponents are concerned about CTA=92s opposition to Prop 92 when its community college section, the Community College Association, is in support. Proponents are also concerned about the alliance between the CTA and business/conservative tax-payer interests. Proponents are surprised that the opponents appear not to recognize the value of the community colleges for the state=92s economic growth. The community colleges train nurses, diesel mechanics, childcare workers, construction workers, computer technicians. They are the first step for thousands of students who go on to become teachers, physicians, engineers, social workers, planners, and business professionals. They prepare people for work in the expanding sector of green industry. The community colleges retrain workers experiencing job loss from injury, down-sizing, plant closures, export of jobs. The community colleges are an important alternative to the military=92s economic draft. The opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 gives community colleges preferential treatment. But while Prop 98 (passed in1988) mandates that 10.93% of the K-14 education budget should go to community colleges, every year the legislature has suspended that requirement and cut the funding to an average of about 10.4%. Far from being =93preferential treatment,=94 this= has resulted in funding cuts of almost $5 billion over the past 15 years. Community colleges are funded at a significantly lower rate than the other systems of higher education in the state: at a little more than one-third of what CSUs receive per student and at about one-fourth of what the UCs receive. The time is now to finally start investing in our community college= s. Prop 92 will enable the community colleges to have their own funding stream, and get away from the "Prop 98 split" entirely. Using another scare tactic, the opposing ballot argument claims that Prop 92 does not include audits, independent oversight, or measures to ensure money will ever get to college classrooms. Proponents point out that Prop 92 funds would be subject to the same controls that now apply to the community colleges. By law the community colleges must spend at least 50% of every dollar for classroom instruction. There is no need to duplicate existing controls with redundant laws that take dollars out of the classroom. Community colleges consistently get high marks for stretching their meager dollars very far. New funds will be invested wisely in our most precious resource -- the people of California= . Opponents say that there are better ways to improve our community colleges. What are they? Advocates have been trying unsuccessfully for many years to address the under-funding of the community colleges. Generally, those opposed to Prop 92 support the mission and goals of the community colleges but they do not offer any way to finance them that will allow them to function effectively. Passage of Prop 92 will guarantee the community college system the resources it needs. The real issue is whether we will have a thriving community college system that successfully serves millions of youth and adults. Prop. 93 -- Term Limits Recommendation: NO Write-up author: Bob Marsh, Alameda County Proposition 93 -- The =93Keep Perata and Nunez in Office=94 Initiative: NO!=20= NO! NO! This initiative is one of the most cynical ones to hit our ballot in years. The current President pro-tem of the California Senate, Don Perata, and Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian N=FA=F1ez, are both =93termed-out=94 next ye= ar. They and their legislative cronies have created an extremely clever and deceptive plan to keep themselves in office for another four years. This measure masquerades as a way to shorten term limits, but in reality would allow both Senators and Assembly to stay in office for from four to six years longer! The legislature put this measure on the Presidential Primary ballot, cleverly taking advantage of our unusual 3-election year in 2008. If the measure passes in February, then all the legislators who would otherwise be at the end of their terms will be able to run in the certain-to-be-a-very-low turnout June State Primary. If it fails, they can= =92t run. If this initiative passes, term limits will only be shorter for those legislators who might be lucky enough to hold seats in both the Assembly and Senate. An Assembymember who stays in their completely safe seat (due to our totally corrupt and jerrymandered election system) will be able to stay in office twice as long, twelve years instead of the six now allowed. We find the proponents arguments flawed. They claim that studies have shown that legislators are now more likely to be fiscally irresponsible with shorter terms, but can anyone remember a time when our Demopublican/Republicrat legislature was responsible? They claim it takes many terms for legislators to understand how the system works=85 are our representatives so stupid that it takes longer than one year (let alone six) to learn how to do a job they=92ve worked for years to get? In any case, virtually all research and voting decisions are determined by the Party caucuses and staff, and forced on legislature members by Party leadership. Looking at roll call votes on virtually any measure, there is very little sign of independent action or thinking by any individual member of either Party. Most vote results strictly follow Party lines. Perata and N=FA=F1ez are behind the dangerous and deceptive mandatory health insurance proposal that is the Democrats' plan to sabotage true universal health care. Perata was the author of the bill that re-categorized publicly-owned Oakland shoreline to make it available to his greedy developer buddies. Perata has been under investigation by the FBI for some time for campaign practices and financing irregularities. Put Perata out to pasture. Nip N=FA=F1ez's need for new power. Vote NO on 93= ! _______________________________________________ Contacts2006 mailing list Contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 _______________________________________________ gpca-cocos mailing list gpca-cocos@lists.cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cocos --part2_d53.1a7747c5.346ceb46_boundary-- ]