ANNOUNCEMENT LIST FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO GREEN PARTY Send Announcement items to news@sfgreens.org. Please keep items brief; submissions may be edited for length and content. Green Party General Membership Meeting is held every Third Wednesday of the Month 1028-A Howard Street (between 6th and 7th Streets) http://ww.sfgreenparty.org/ ____________________ SAN FRANCISCO GREEN PARTY ELECTION ENDORSEMENTS, FEBRUARY 2008 http://www.sfgreenparty.org/campaigns/campaigns.gem ____________________ EVENTS (San Francisco, unless otherwise noted) * Healthcare Reform 2008: Saturday Feb. 2, 3-5 p.m. Centro del Pueblo, 474 Valencia For more information, contact Don Bechler, <mailto:dbechler@value.net>dbechler [at] value.net. http://www.singlepayernow.net * California Presidential Primary: Tuesday, Feb. 5, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. SF Department of Elections: www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp * Animal Advocacy Working Group: Thursday, Feb. 7, 7:30 p.m. (Arrive at 7 p.m. if you want to order food.) Golden Era Chinese Restaurant, 572 O'Farrell St. (between Jones and Leavenworth) Our table will display a greeting card or picture with three wolf pups on it. For more information, please email Rosalind Lord at rclord@seaserpent.com and put "AWG" or "Animal Advocacy Working Group" in the subject field. * WestSide Green Club: Sunday, Feb. 10, 3-5 p.m. Home of Barry Hermanson, 2467 - 28th Avenue (between Taraval and Ulloa) For information, call Barry at 664-7754 or Nancy Lewis at 661-5713. Open to all progressives interested in political activity in the Sunset, Richmond and Parkside. * The Art of Progressive Politics: Monday, Feb. 11, 7-9 p.m. Bazaar Cafe, 5927 California St., between 21st and 22nd avenues Join San Francisco Green Party members and candidates for local offices at a SFGP fundraiser/art opening. Enjoy the art of Heike Seefeldt (http://www.pintofpaint.com/artwork.htm) and Sue Vaughan (www.carfreetalk.org). For more information, contact Sue at 415-668-3119. * Second Global Greens Congress in São Paulo Brazil: May 1-4 http://www.globalgreens.org/index.php * Chicago to Host 2008 National Green Party Convention: July 10-13 http://www.sfgreenparty.org/news/newsitem-start.gem?idx=1601 _____________________ NEWS SAN FRANCISCO GREEN PARTY ELECTION ENDORSEMENTS, FEBRUARY 2008 Follow the link, or scroll to the bottom of the page for the text version. http://www.sfgreenparty.org/campaigns/campaigns.gem News items: Greens Connect Ecology with Democracy http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/011108/011108zc.htm Greens Bemoan Retreat of AntiWar Groups http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=2308 SF Green Party County Council member Sue Vaughan writes "Deconstructing Polls" in FogCityJournal http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/sv_polls_080124.shtml Video of Green Party Presidential Debate in San Francisco http://www.sfgreenparty.org/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNGtJ_0vTgk ____________________ GREEN PARTY PRIMARY ENDORSEMENTS, FEBRUARY 5, 2008: Prop A, park bond: no position Proposition A, a bond measure that promises to improve existing parks in San Francisco as well as create new ones, has its pros and cons. The Green Party is passionately supportive of our parks and natural areas. Ecological wisdom is one of our key values, and we are strongly in favor of maintaining parks as public assets. We have major concerns, however, with this park bond. The fact is that a park bond approved in 2000 was supposed to achieve the same goals of proposition A. Instead, the Recreation and Park Department spent substantial funds to develop a golf course in San Francisco. This golf course, though developed with public money, is now very likely to be handed over to private interests. This fact, along with a general lack of accountability on the part of the Recreation and Parks Department, makes us skeptical that funds garnered from Proposition A will be well spent. The San Francisco Green Party is also very hesitant to embrace bond financing. In addition to being environmentally and socially responsible, we are also fiscally responsible. Bond financing is regressive, non-sustainable, and saddles our children with the debt from our public consumption, while transferring billions of dollars of interest payments from California taxpayers to the wealthiest individuals and companies. Other revenue enhancements, such as a gross receipts tax and/or a real estate transfer tax should be explored as waysto fund ongoing maintenance for our public parks. The San Francisco Green Party also notes that Proposition A does not require an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) of the new park developments it proposes to finance. After weighing these pluses and minuses, the San Francisco Green Party reached consensus to remain neutral on Prop A. Prop B, police retirement: NO The SF Green Party opposes Prop B. Prop B would allow retiring police officers to defer retirement for 3 years. We view this method of increasing police staffing levels as overly expensive compared to alternatives, and of only limited benefit to public safety. Public safety is extremely important to all San Franciscans. Greens support accountable community policing and violence prevention programs. Such programs have worked to reduce violent crime in recent years in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. San Francisco, on the other hand, has reached a 10 year high in murder rates, while the Mayor's sweetheart deals with the police union have done nothing to improve safety. Current staffing shortages in the police department should be solved by converting desk jobs to civilian positions. These secretarial jobs are currently filled by fully trained officers, and could be done equally well by civilians, at much lower cost to the public. Civilians would not need to go through the police academy, which limits the rate at which we can hire new officers. San Francisco should continue to train and hire new officers, and use them to implement community policing programs, such as foot patrols. Officers with more experience often use their seniority privileges to avoid such duties. Retaining more expensive retiring officers is a short-sighted distraction from the changes that need to be made in the police department for it to be more effective. Vote NO on Prop B. Prop C, peace center: no position The SF Green Party abstains from an endorsement on Prop C, because although the idea of a peace center is appealing, the Center's plan drew some objections, and also lacks sufficient detail on which to make an informed endorsement. Concerns arose from the Center's inclusion of a prominent "dramatic statue" of St. Francis, a religious symbol being erected on public land, as well as removing the prison as a historical landmark, tourist attraction and source of revenue for the City. The admirable plans for energy self-sufficiency were stated in no more detail than naming three types of renewable energy. And no one from the City government is yet known to be backing the project. Perhaps an endorsement can be decided on when The Global Peace Foundation presents in more detail their idea of a Global Peace Center. Prop 91, transportation funding: NO In CA, gas taxes and similar fees are collected by the state and are earmarked to pay for transportation projects rather than going into the general fund. Current law allows the governor, with the support of the legislature, to borrow the funds for other purposes for up to 3 years. Prop 91 would disallow such loans, except for very short term periods. The Green Party opposed the original proposition that earmarked gas taxes for transportation purposes, since only 20% of the money is spent on public transit. The remaining 80% funds more highways and suburban sprawl. We therefore support giving our elected representatives the flexibility to borrow these funds for other needs, such as education, health care, and other urgent priorities. We supported Prop 1A in 2006, which prevented the governor from borrowing local transportation funds to spend on state projects. This transfer of power from local communities to the state violates our key value of Decentralization. Since Prop 1A passed, the circumstance for borrowing funds that was of most concern to us is now illegal, so Prop 91 provides no additional benefits. Vote NO on 91. Prop 92, community college funding: YES California's community colleges are an economic engine that trains the state's workforce, the number one educators of adults in the state. Two- thirds of all CSU graduates and one-third of all UC graduates begin at community colleges, where they can get their first two years of college at much lower cost. Community colleges also train 70 percent of the state's registered nurses, as well as fire fighters, police officers, and skilled trades laborers. They enable disadvantaged students to earn high school equivalency diplomas. And community colleges teach English to tens of thousands of immigrants to enable them to succeed in the economy. Community Colleges educate 2.5 million students per year, 14 times more than UC teaches. Yet, California ranks 45th in the nation in dollars per student spent for its community college system. Every year since 1991, the state legislature has suspended the Education Code to underfund community colleges, taking over $4 billion away from community colleges in the past ten years. Sometimes the legislature also raises fees, denying access to the poorest students. In 2004, when the legislature raised student fees to $26 a unit, 305,000 students dropped out. By comparison, the UC system has 180,000 total students. Proposition 92 would put and end to all this. Here are the facts: - Prop 92 fixes student fees at $15 per unit and limits future increases to inflation. - It establishes guaranteed minimum funding for community colleges. - It places the community college system in the state constitution, ensuring that the community college system is independent from the political games played by the governor and state legislature. - Right now, community college funding is tied to K-12 funding, based on formulas that don't make sense for community colleges. Proposition 92 establishes a separate set-aside for community colleges with funding formula created for the community college system. - Proposition 92 would not change how K-12 is funded and would not negatively impact the funding of K-12. The usual anti-tax forces are fighting against Proposition 92, and have convinced one state K-12 teachers group to oppose it. Yet, K-12 teachers around the state do support Proposition 92, including the California Federation of Teachers and the local teachers unions in San Francisco and Los Angeles, as do American Federation of Teachers locals. So do school boards around the state, including the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education. The San Francisco Green Party and elected Greens and progressive democrats are supporting Proposition 92. Join San Francisco College Board Trustee John Rizzo, School Board President Mark Sanchez, and former President of the Board of Supervisors Matt Gonzalez and vote YES for Proposition 92. Support higher education and jobs training for the poor and middle class. Prop 93, term limits: no position Proposition 93 would change the term limit formula from the current 14 years to 12 years total, with options to move between State Senate and State Assembly. Currently, a legislator could serve 3 two-year Assembly terms (6 years), plus two four-year State Senate terms, for a total of 14 years in both houses, with a max of 6 and 8 years respectively for each seat. If Proposition 93 passes, legislators in the Assembly who would be termed-out this year would be able to serve for another 3 terms, for a total of 12 years. Additionally, State Senators who are otherwise termed-out would be able to serve a third four-year term if Proposition 93 passes. Proponents of 93 assert that the measure would result in more experienced legislators, who would be less likely to rely on lobbyists and influence peddlers to write legislation for them. Supporters of overturning term limits believe that high turnover in the legislature results in the extraordinary influence of lobbyists and behind-the-scenes consultants. Members of the SF Green Party agreed that abolishing term limits would be a good thing, but expressed concern that the new term-limit formula under Proposition 93 may result in less experienced legislators in the long run, since the total time legislators would be allowed to serve would be reduced by 2 years. Proposition 93 was placed on the ballot by the speaker of the Assembly, who will be termed out if this measure fails. Therefore, many perceive the measures as a self-interested power grab by corrupt Democrats in the state legislature. Green Party members also expressed concerns about the motives of Proposition 93 sponsors, and the contrived way that the legislation was placed on an early ballot in order to enable otherwise termed-out legislators to run again in June 2008 (3 elections this year will result in lower average turnout than 2 elections, and is therefore less democratic). After weighing the pros and cons, we were unable to reach consensus on whether or not to endorse Prop 93. Props 94-97, Native American casinos: NO No on state propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. That was the unanimous sentiment among attendees at the San Francisco Green Party's endorsement meeting on Monday evening, Jan. 7. The referendum measures are identical in substance; they differ only in the names of the Native American tribes that would give unspecified amounts of their gaming revenues to the state each year for the next two decades. If all four measures pass, the state's share of the gaming revenues would be an estimated $9 billion over the 20-year span. That's a paltry $450 million a year. Myriad other concerns about the measures surfaced at the endorsement meeting: -- This is a sweetheart deal. The tribes that colluded on it with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are the four wealthiest among the state's Native Americans and exert influence over smaller tribes, with no oversight. -- The tribes would unilaterally decide how much they would give the state each year. -- The large tribes reportedly mistreat employees at their casinos. Organized labor opposes propositions 94-97. -- We should not support the expansion of gambling as a way to alleviate poverty among Native Americans. In fact, a disproportionately large percentage of gambling revenues comes from the lowest-income segment of our population. -- These measures do not address Native American sovereignty and will do little to bring the state budget toward balance. If policy-makers truly want the state to operate in the black, they should close the tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations, and should reinstate the increase in auto registration fees. Environmental, education, seniors' and civil rights organizations also oppose propositions 94-97. -- Endorsement decisions were made at a special January general membership meeting, with over 100 active members eligible to vote on endorsements. Contact: Erika McDonald for more information: Erika@dolorespark.org or 415-337-1499. _______________________ PREVENTION OF FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY ACT Californians for Humane Farms, sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, must collect the final 650,000 signatures by Feb. 25 to get the measure on the ballot to prevent cruelty to calves raised for veal, pigs during pregnancy and egg-laying hens. This is not an online petition. Volunteers may sign up at http://www.humanecalifornia.org/volunteer/index.php for materials. For more information, call the San Francisco Californians for Humane Farms office at 415-772-0952, or visit www.humanecalifornia.org ___________________ ELECT A GREEN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE USING THE IRV MODEL Electoral Reform Working Group (California Greens) is sponsoring an online ranked-ballot-voting demonstration -- called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) -- using the Green Presidential Primary candidates. The official election gives you just one choice with your vote. But the Green Party advocates a ranked-ballot system where you can tell us how feel about all the candidates by ranking them in order of your preference. http://cagreens.org/erwg/irvdemo/pres08.html See how a ranked-ballot election works by participating in our online demonstration! The results will be posted on the California Greens website after the primary. _____________________ San Francisco Green Party Announcement List To unsubscribe, go here: http://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/announce