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