Have your say!
Join us for San Francisco Green Party endorsement meetings 8/16, 9/13, and
9/20.
All Green Party members are invited to attend our endorsement meetings, which
are scheduled for 8/16, 9/13, and 9/20. The schedule for the 8/16 meeting is
below. Green Party members who participate in the work of the party ("active
greens" as defined by our bylaws) are eligible to fully participate in making
endorsements and other policy decisions. Decisions are made using a modified
consensus process (consensus, with a fallback vote).
NOTE SPECIAL START TIME: 7:00. Endorsements won't start until 7:30.
Facil: JM Chandonia and Susan King; Notes: Sue Vaughan.
7:00-7:30, internal business:
Consensus process - 2 min
Accreditation of new members - 3 min
Agenda approval - 5 min
New CC nominees - Christina Olague, Jazzie Collins, Charlene Smythe,
Micheas Herman (pending their agreeing to it).- 10
Mediation & Arbitration Cte nominees - Terry Baum, Erika McDonald, and
Joe Lynn (Pat Villano if Joe doesn't agree to do it) - 5
Bylaws - 2nd reading for: - 5 min
a) renumber bylaws to arabic (not Roman) index - consent calendar, text below
b) require CC attendance at CC meetings. Text below.
*7:30- 9:30: Endorsements
1) Clean Money Act, State Prop 89- Outside Presenter arriving at 7:30
(10-20 min)
2) Candidates (60 min)
Kim Knox for SF School Board- attending
Todd Chretien for US Senate- invited
Peter Camejo for CA Governor- invited
3) Initiatives- local and state
LOCAL: Impeachment Resolution- consent calendar
LOCAL: Mayoral chat sessions- consent calendar LOCAL: Sick Pay- consent or 10
min if discussion needed
STATE: 1A: TWG recommends yes 5 min (see below)
STATE: 1B: TWG recommends no 5 min (see below)
STATE: 87: TWG recommends yes 10 min (see below)
STATE: 1C: HLU Presentation 20 min
STATE: 83: Sex Offender 10 min
STATE 86: Cig tax, Nancy Lewis presenting 10 min
* NOTE: the agenda is longer than 2 hours, we may get some items done
quicker than the time alloted. If not, we may need to defer some of
the issues to a later endorsement meeting.
Upcoming Endorsement Meetings:
SPECIAL CC meeting (rescheduled from Sept 13 to make room for endorse
meeting): Mon, Sept 11
SPECIAL GM Endorsement meeting, Weds, Sept 13
Regular GM/Endorsement meeting, Weds, Sept 20
Issues to be Endorsed at upcoming meetings:
LOCAL Endorsements:
School Bond (outside presenter, TBA)
Elected official salary increase
Small Business Protection Act (outside presenter, TBA)
STATE Initiatives and Bonds:
1D: Education funding- need presenter
1E: Disaster funding, need presenter
84: Water Quality- need presenter
88: Education funding- need presenter
CANDIDATES:
SF Board of Supervisors, Districts 2, 4, 8, 10 - need questionnaires
SF School Board-
SF Community College Board-
Assessor
Text of proposed bylaws amendments:
a) Renumber bylaws using Arabic numeral index rather than Roman
numbers. Section I would be come section 1. The first paragraph in
section 1 would become 1.1, etc. This will allow us to refer to
specific bylaws more easily. Consent item.
b) Require CC attendance at CC meetings:
A member will be automatically removed from the Council in the event
that the member:
a) Moves out of the county; or
b) Registers with another political party or Decline to State; or
c) Is absent from at least three out of any six consecutive regularly
scheduled County Council meetings, without being excused by the
CC. Absences may be excused by the CC (business decision) in advance
of a scheduled absence or at the next CC meeting following an absence.
Transpo Working Group notes on 3 transpo-related State measures:
87 - lukewarm consensus on endorsement. $4B in bonds to promote
petroleum alternatives. Backed not by general fund, but by windfall
tax on oil companies (only CA producers). 9 member committee appointed
by various elected/appointed officials. Not necessarily the best use
of the money (some would be corporate welfare) but no obvious red
flags.
1A - consensus on endorsement. Would prevent Governor from stealing
transportation money that's going to the cities (mostly for public
transit and pothole repair). Was big loss for SF last time. Should
endorse because of our support for decentralization.
1B - lukewarm consensus on opposition. ~41% of $20B pork-fest bond
goes to good things, 59% to bad things. We might want to support it if
we thought this is the best deal we can get, but I suspect we want to
oppose it on principle. Too much highway construction.
Here are some summaries of the STATE initiatives we will vote on:
Propositions that are on the
November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot
Legislative Constitutional Amendment
??? Proposition 1A
SCA 7 (Resolution Chapter 49, 2006). Torlakson.
Transportation Investment Fund
Legislative Bond Act
??? Proposition 1B
SB 1266 (Chapter 25, 2006). Perata.
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond
Act of 2006
Legislative Bond Act
??? Proposition 1C
SB 1689 (Chapter 27, 2006). Perata.
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.
Legislative Bond Act
??? Proposition 1D
AB 127 (Chapter 35, 2006). N????ez.
Education facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Act of 2006.
Legislative Bond Act
??? Proposition 1E
AB 140 (Chapter 33, 2006). N????ez.
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.
Initiative Statute
??? Proposition 83
1154. (SA2005RF0092)
Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence
Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.
Proponent: Richard Gann, George Runner and Sharon Runner, c/o Dave
Gilliard (916) 444-1502
Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child
molesters. Prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within
2,000 feet of any school or park, and requires lifetime Global
Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders.
Expands the definition of a sexually violent predator, and changes
the current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually
violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual
review by the Director of Mental Health and petition by the sexually
violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown net costs to
the state, within a few years, potentially in the low hundreds of
millions of dollars annually due primarily to increased state prison,
parole supervision, and mental health program costs. These costs
would grow significantly in the long term. Potential one-time state
capital outlay costs, within a few years, in the low hundreds of
millions of dollars for construction of additional state mental
hospital and prison beds. Unknown but potentially significant net
operating costs or savings to counties for jail, probation
supervision, district attorneys, and public defenders. The portion of
costs related to changes in the Sexual Violent Predators program
would be reimbursed by the state.
Initiative Statute
???
Proposition 84
1185. (SA2005RF0131)
Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource
Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Proponent: Stephen J. Kaufman (213) 452-6565
Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds, payable from
the state???s General Fund, to fund projects relating to safe drinking
water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural
resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state
and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and
conservation efforts. Provides funding for emergency drinking water,
and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement
requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety. Summary of
estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal
impact on state and local governments: State cost of about $10.5
billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5.4 billion)
and interest ($5.1 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about
$350 million per year. Reduction in local property tax revenues of
several million dollars annually, about one-half of which would be
offset by state payments to schools to make up their revenue loss.
Unknown costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars per year, to
state and local governments to operate or maintain properties or
projects acquired or developed with these bond funds. (SA2005RF0131.)
???
Proposition 86
1197. (SA2005RF0139, Amdt. #1-NS)
Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proponent: Paul Knepprath (916) 444-8801
Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60
per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products.
Provides funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services,
nursing education and health insurance to eligible children. Revenue
also allocated to specified purposes including tobacco use prevention
programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research,
prevention and treatment of various conditions including cancers
(breast, cervical, prostate and colorectal), heart disease, stroke,
asthma and obesity. Exempts recipient hospitals from antitrust laws
in certain circumstances. Revenue excluded from appropriation limits
and Proposition 98 calculations. Summary of estimate by Legislative
Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local
governments: Increase in new state tobacco tax revenues of about $2.1
billion annually by 2007-08, declining slightly annually thereafter.
Those revenues would be used for various health and tobacco-related
programs and for children???s health coverage. Unknown net state costs
potentially reaching the low hundreds of millions annually after a
few years due to provisions for streamlining enrollment in the Medi-
Cal and HFP. Unknown but potentially significant savings to counties
on a statewide basis beginning in the near term for a shift of
children from county health coverage to HFP, with unknown but
potentially significant costs to the state in the long term for
ongoing support of expanded HFP enrollment. Unknown but potentially
significant savings in state and local government public health care
costs over time due to expected reduction in consumption of tobacco
products and due to other factors. (SA2005RF0139, Amdt. #1-NS.)
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
??? Proposition 87
1196. (SA2005RF0138, Amdt. #2-S)
Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on
California Oil. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proponent: James C. Harrison and Thomas A. Willis c/o Remcho,
Johansen & Purcell (510) 346-6200
Establishes $4 billion program to reduce oil and gasoline usage by
25%, with research and production incentives for alternative energy,
alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for
education and training. Funded by tax of 1.5% to 6%, depending on oil
price per barrel, on producers of oil extracted in California.
Prohibits producers from passing tax on to consumers. Program
administered by California Energy Alternatives Program Authority.
Prohibits changing tax while indebtedness remains. Revenues excluded
from Proposition 98 calculations and appropriation limits. Summary of
estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal
impact on state and local governments: New state revenues annually ???
depending on the interpretation of the measure???s tax rate
provisions ??? of either about $200 million or about $380 million from
the imposition of a severance tax on oil production, to be used to
fund a variety of new alternative energy programs. Reductions of
unknown amounts in: local revenues from property taxes paid on oil
reserves, potentially partially offset by state payments to schools
to make up their revenue loss; state revenues from income taxes paid
by oil producers; and, potentially, state and local revenues from
gasoline and diesel excise and sales taxes. (SA2005RF138, Amdt. #2-S.)
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
???
Proposition 88
1189. (SA2005RF0126)
Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proponent: John D. Adkisson c/o Joan L. Cassman and Steven D. Miller
(415) 777-3200
Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through
grade 12 by imposing a $50 tax on each real property parcel; exempts
certain elderly and disabled homeowners. Funds must be used for class
size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility
grants, and a data system to evaluate educational program
effectiveness. Provides for reimbursement to government entities to
offset anticipated decrease in other tax revenue. Prohibits fund use
for school administrative overhead. Requires school district audits
and penalties for fund misuse. Excludes funds from Proposition 98
calculations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director
of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual
revenue of up to $500 million from a new, statewide parcel tax with
the revenue dedicated to specific K-12 education programs (such as
class size reduction, instructional materials, school safety, and
facility grants). (SA2005RF0126.)
Initiative Statute
???
Proposition 89
1216. (SA2006RF0015, Amdt. #2-S)
Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase.
Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
Proponent: Deborah Burger c/o Michael Lighty (510) 273-2200
Provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain
eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number
of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public
campaign funding from the Fair Political Practices Commission, in
amounts varying by elective office and type of election. Increases
income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2
percent to fund program. Imposes new limits on campaign contributions
to state-office candidates and campaign committees, and new
restrictions on contributions and expenditures by lobbyists and
corporations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director
of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased
revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and
financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to
pay for the public financing of political campaigns for state elected
offices. (SA2006RF0015.)
Initiative Constitutional Amendment
