- Delegates - list.sfgreens.org

Fwd: Google Map for CA Green Party Plenary
by David Wilbur 23 May '07

23 May '07

I'm getting quite a few emails from people throughout the state asking basic information about logistics and lodging in connection with this weekend's plenary. If anyone contacts you for similar information, you can forward the google map linked below. It should answer most of their questions. The map should have been posted to the state website a couple of weeks ago, and hopefully we'll get in on there soon. Later this evening or tomorrow morning I'll forward the emails from people looking for homestays. David Wilbur <drwsf(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 22:36:38 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wilbur <drwsf(a)sbcglobal.net> Subject: Google Maps To: Michael Feinstein <mfeinstein(a)feinstein.org>, dave <drwsfo(a)gmail.com> Mike, See if this works to put on the state website for plenary attendees.... http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=1027750725262389656…

1 0

Information about Plenary Registration and Agenda
by ErikaSF＠aol.com 19 May '07

19 May '07

Hey folks, I am forwarding 2 emails from the GPCA regarding the plenary. Best, Erika >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We ask that all Greens and others planning to attend the May 26-27 General Assembly in San Francisco to please register online at this time. http://cagreens.org/plenary Information on lodging in San Francisco has just been added to the web site. The two different draft Agenda Packets can also be downloaded (GPCA common password required). You will need both to decide which one to vote for at the Plenary and for discussion before the Plenary County Councils -- Please remember to input your list of delegates and alternates into the Delegates page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For county delegates to the California General Assembly who wish to find out more about the 2 proposals related to the GPUS and the national Presidential campaign, two teleconferences have been scheduled for answering clarifying questions and general discussion of these proposals. Each of these decision items is somewhat complicated, and plenary agenda time is tight, so delegates are requested to inform themselves and bring their concerns forward prior to the plenary if at all possible. Please note that, with Presidential candidates already declaring and the California primary moved up to February, getting these issues resolved is particularly urgent for both the state and national parties. The two proposals are: 1. the IRV Procedure to Resolve Conflicts over affiliation and Presidential ballot line: http://cagreens.org/bylaws/proposals/GPUS_IRV_procedure.pdf 2. the Delegate Selection Process to the National Presidential Nominating Convention: http://cagreens.org/bylaws/proposals/pres_nom_delegates.pdf The teleconference information is as follows: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 and Thursday, May 24, 2007 Both conferences start at 7:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time Dial-in Number: 1-712-432-2323 (Iowa) Participant Access Code 65324 To help the conference organizer schedule room for enough people, please email Cat Woods (cat801(a)mindspring.com) and let her know if you expect to attend. (Some extra room will be booked, so don't refrain from calling in if you forget to RSVP.) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Re: [Delegates] Delegates for plenary - Homestay request
by David Wilbur 18 May '07

18 May '07

Speaking of next weekend's plenary, below is the first request I've received from someone looking for a homestay for next Saturday night. If you can help Marybeth, you can reply directly to her email address below. And please let me know if you have an extra room or couch, along with any criteria, if you're able to host someone on Friday and/or Saturday night. I'll pass along any emails from people matching your criteria and you can decide whether you want to contact them. Also let me know if you're aware of any groups who might like to set up a table outside the main meeting room during next weekend's plenary and we'll try to accommodate them. Thanks, dw marybeth(a)chico.com wrote: Hi there, I would like to know if there will be homestays available for Saturday night? Thanks, Marybeth Wuerthner Butte County John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: The updated list of delegates for the plenary, after tonight's meeting: Delegates: Jim Dorenkott, Christina Olague, David Wilbur, Jazzie Collins, Bruce Wolfe, J-M Chandonia, Charlene Smythe, Shona Gochenaur, Marc Salomon Alternates: Jon Martinelli, Ross Mirkarimi, Mark Sanchez, June Brashares, Woody Hastings, Barry Hermanson, Vicki Leidner, Jane Kim, Erika McDonald, Paul Platt You can email all delegates and alternates at "delegates(a)sfgreens.org" JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

1 0

GPCA plenary info
by John-Marc Chandonia 17 May '07

17 May '07

Here's the updated list of SFGP delegates and alternates to the GPCA plenary, after tonight's meeting: Delegates: Jim Dorenkott, Christina Olague, David Wilbur, Jazzie Collins, Bruce Wolfe, J-M Chandonia, Charlene Smythe, Shona Gochenaur, Marc Salomon Alternates: Jon Martinelli, Ross Mirkarimi, Mark Sanchez, June Brashares, Woody Hastings, Barry Hermanson, Vicki Leidner, Jane Kim, Erika McDonald, Paul Platt All delegates and alternates can be reached by emailing "delegates(a)sfgreens.org". This list should be used for discussing logistics. Bruce mentioned wanting to meet in person at some point prior to the plenary. Plenary info is online, here: http://cagreens.org/plenary/ To get to some pages, you need the common GPCA username and password, which are "gpca" and "14greatyears". Susan is organizing plenary logistics, and Marc is the contact person for electronic registration issues. Erika is dealing with media. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Re: [SFGP-A] Need a ride back to SF Bay Area from Plenary
by Don Eichelberger 21 Jun '06

21 Jun '06

I can drive my car and carry two other people. I would like to leave Friday late morning and camp out Friday on the way to or in Ventura. I may be able to bring back an extra passenger Sunday, depending on how big we all are and what we have with us. Anyone want to share a ride? I suspect that will be discussed at the GM tomorrow. See you there, Don At 05:38 PM 6/20/2006, MrPlutocrat(a)aol.com wrote: >I'm headed to the Plenary in Ventura County this coming weekend. I have a >ride down but not back. Can anyone give me a lift on the way back? > >-Dave >_______________________________________________ >San Francisco Green Party Active Members List >To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: >https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

1 0

Re: [Delegates] RE: [SFGP-A] Gov raises Min Wage
by ErikaSF＠aol.com 03 Jan '06

03 Jan '06

Thanks, Pierre! We are working on getting Barry on the radio this week to talk about this. It will definitely be a big story this week. Best, Erika

1 0

RE: [SFGP-A] Gov raises Min Wage
by Pierre FRAYSSE 03 Jan '06

03 Jan '06

Hello everyone - I have not seen any response yet on the GPCA web site to the Gov announcement below. It really bother me ! Didn't we talk about this at the plenary ? I suggest a strong and aggressive answer from the Green Party in 3 points: 1) $7.25 by 09/2006 and then $7.75 by 7/2007 is pure demagoguery and electoralism. The minimum wage must be raised NOW, not weeks before elections. 2) The current minimum wage is at an historic low, to the point that it has become "inoperative" as described by Mr Greenspan himself. The last numbers available in CA show that the lowest percentile of hourly paid workers is already in the $7.50 range. Nothing less that $8.00/hr is necessary to bring the CA minimum wage back to the level it should be ( around 50% of the average hourly non-supervasory pay) http://www.cbpp.org/9-1-05mw.htm 3) After being arm-twisted by the powerfull CA unions in November 2005, the governor kneels and abjure right-wing / Greenspan's "supply and demand" labor cost and market ideology ! Hurray ! http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050919&s=greider 4) It no time to drop the Green Party sponsored proposition to get a REAL raise for the minimum wage. $8.00 by 1/1/2007 damn it ! The SF minimum will already be $9.00 by that time. That's it. Here I got my second minute of plenary comments and analysis. Pierre. Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> a écrit : Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will propose raising the state's minimum wage by $1 in his State of the State address next week after vetoing a similar measure two years in a row. The move is the latest signal that the Republican governor is trying to rehabilitate his image with moderate voters who soundly rejected his special election proposals this past November. The proposal also may be an attempt by the governor to begin to mend fences with labor unions, who were his fiercest critics this past year and the most vigorous opponents of Schwarzenegger's special election measures. "This is the new Arnold, the one that is willing to compromise," said Ken DeBow, a political science professor at Cal State Sacramento. "I still think most voters are pretty centrist. Things are going to rebound in his favor if he is seen making a good-faith effort to make reasonable compromises with the Legislature." Under Schwarzenegger's proposal, the hourly wage would increase from $6.75 to $7.25 in September 2006 and to $7.75 in July 2007, said an administration official who provided the information on the condition of not being identified. Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill earlier this year that would have provided the same wage increase but also mandated automatic boosts to keep pace with inflation. In his veto message, the governor said he believed it was time to raise the minimum wage but did not support the annual increase. The new proposal does not include an automatic yearly increase, which has been pushed by Democrats and organized labor. Democrats were quick to stake out a negotiating position, praising the proposed wage hike but insisting the governor's plan doesn't go far enough. Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, called the proposal "a good start.'' Núñez said a $1 increase "doesn't really satisfy the needs of the people who are one paycheck away from the street.'' The Assembly's top Democrat said he would push for a provision that would allow for future automatic wage boosts as the cost of living increases or for further raises in future years so that any minimum wage legislation signed this year would have more far-reaching effects. DeBow said Democrats who control the Legislature must be careful not to appear they are being obstructionist when Schwarzenegger is making these proposals. "He's put them on the defensive here," he said. "They have to be constructive and make a good-faith effort, too." Núñez noted he had met "numerous'' times with Schwarzenegger since the special election, and said the minimum wage proposal was indicative of the governor's newfound willingness to work with the Legislature. "This is not the governor we were dealing with last fall,'' he said. "Gone are the days when we were dealing with each other in such a combative way.'' DeBow said he suspects more moderate advisers within the administration may be having an influence. "He's clearly thrown away the Pete Wilson playbook," he said, referring to the former Republican governor. "He's trying to get back to that broad-based appeal that got him where he is in the first place. And that's what voters want." Democratic Treasurer Phil Angelides, who is running for governor, said Schwarzenegger's move is two years too late. Schwarzenegger's proposal is about the same as legislation he vetoed during his first full year in office in 2004. At that time, he described a minimum wage increase as a detriment to job growth, saying "now is not the time to create barriers to our economic recovery'' in his veto message. "He was wrong to veto the minimum wage bill twice, and now all he is trying to do is cover his tracks," Angelides said. "It is two years too late for the hard-working people of California who desperately needed help." Business groups that had opposed the minimum wage increase in the past said Friday that they supported the governor's proposal. "I think most small businesses will be in support because it doesn't have indexing," said Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California, a San Francisco-based advocacy group. San Francisco's minimum wage is $8.62. San Francisco businesses benefit when the wage is raised in the rest of the state because they aren't at such a competitive disadvantage, Hauge said. Washington's minimum wage is the highest state rate in the country, rising to $7.63 an hour on Monday. The federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. It was unclear Friday how Schwarzenegger's proposal might affect a push by a coalition of labor unions and social welfare groups to put a minimum wage increase on the November 2006 ballot. Campaign officials were unavailable for comment. Two initiatives have been introduced: One would incrementally boost the minimum wage to $7.75 per hour by 2008, and the other goes further, increasing the wage to $8.75 per hour by 2009. Both measures also call for the minimum wage to be increased annually in the future based on the state's inflation rate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wage increases California's minimum wage since 1997: $7.75 July 2007 (proposed) $7.25 September 2006 (proposed) $6.75 January 2002 $6.25 January 2001 $5.75 March 1998 $5.15 September 1997 $5.00 March 1997 Source: California Department of Industrial Relations E-mail the writers at lgledhill(a)sfchronicle.com and markmartin(a)sfchronicle.com. Page A - 1 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/31/MNG71GFOAA1.DTL _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active --------------------------------- Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.

1 0

[Fwd: RE: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th]
by Barry Hermanson 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

One more message from Ben Boyce sent earlier in the day. Also one more article - http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/12/22/opinion/20051222_op04_hopper.… I don't often agree with Martyn Hopper from the NFIB (the NFIB is an organization that many in the small business community do not support - politically, they are too far to the right) In the last paragraph of the article, Martyn is commenting on the governor and the November 2006 ballot. "But it is the actions, or inactions, taken over the minimum-wage rate that will set the tone and color the climate for almost every other issue." I agree. But, I don't think Mr. Hopper has seen any poll results. The $7.75 initiative will pass if it is on the November 2006 ballot. ". . . the governor will be in the unenviable position of having to campaign against it." Other than broad public support, part of the reason this initiative will pass is based on the work that the Labor Center at the University of California at Berkeley has done on this wage level. Most employers already pay their employees above this level. I don't think they will contribute to a campaign to oppose this initiative. Sure, there will be a No campaign, but it won't be as well funded as if we were promoting an $8.75 initiative. It is interesting to note that both articles I am forwarding to you state that the Democratic Party or the labor community is moving the initiative forward. It isn't true! How do Green Party members turn this into our advantage to build the party? I know the labor community is tapped out after last fall - AND, they expect more attacks this coming year. But, I don't understand the lack of leadership within the Democratic Party on this issue. The author/coauthors of AB48 were notified of this meeting. As of today, not one has responded. I'm beginning to wonder if the Democrats really want to see this on the November 2006 ballot. I'm wondering if they realize the tremendous opportunity that is being laid before them - to expand their base by working out in the community on a very popular initiative. I'm beginning to wonder about their commitment to low wage and working class Californians. Californians For Fair Wages needs help qualifying a minimum wage initiative for the November 2006 ballot. We need the active participation of the labor community and the Democratic Party to be successful. I'm sure that we will have lots of people asking us for petitions when they are printed. Everyone will want one. "Sign a petition to raise the minimum wage?" As of right now, there is no money to print the initiative and get it out on the street. How do we get people who will want to be carrying this initiative to put up some money for the printing and distribution? How do we get them to be responsible for that distribution, oversee collection of the petitions, check the accuracy of signatures and the ultimate submission to the county elections office? We need the help of the labor community and the Democratic Party. How do we build the Green Party? We have to take the same opportunity that is being handed the Democrats and the labor community. We have to go out into communities of color. Go out into low income communities and talk about this initiative. The Democrats may not, we should. I'm looking forward to talking about it to the voters in the 12th Assembly District. Barry Hermanson Green Party Candidate for the State Assembly, 12th District www.barryhermanson.org 415-255-9494 Barry Hermanson -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:01:21 -0800 From: Ben Boyce <ben.boyce(a)sbcglobal.net> To: <cfw(a)lists.riseup.net> Allies: This meeting will be important because it will set the strategy for the state-wide campaign to raise the minimum wage. From the traffic generated on the issue, it is clear that there are principled differences on the correct strategy that break out on the lines of which baseline figure to start with ($7.75 vs.. $8.75). There are compelling arguments on both sides. I am not afraid of the intensity of the discussion. The differences are not petty or personal, on the whole. They are genuine policy and political judgments with very real consequences. We do need to move forward, but we have to come to an agreement on what are moving forward with. It is important that we make a sound judgment in this regard, because there are real risks associated with losing. A public and visible defeat of an indexed minimum wage, especially if the Right Wing and its Chamber of Commerce allies conduct a coherent ideological attack, would set back our cause for years, and poison the well of public opinion if they have the resources to make their frame stick in the political arena. My ideal scenario would be that Labor and the Democrats would support this initiative wholeheartedly and fund it fully. Unfortunately, the Democrats are not interested in doing anything to raise the profile of the Green Party, and labor is holding off for the time being, perhaps due to financial exhaustion. Looked at in another light, this may represent an opportunity for the Green Party to lay claim to this issue and help rebrand the Green Party as being concerned about social justice issues. If the Green Party can take the lead in a focused and achievable statewide effort, this would add a lot to its credibility with California progressives. What concerns me is that there does not seem to be sufficient recognition in some quarters about what the difference between the two key proposals will be in terms of the level of opposition generated. The magnitude of the opposition campaign will go up exponentially between the two proposals. The $7.75 +COLA is a million dollar campaign for us. The $8.75+COLA is a ten million dollar campaign, with much steeper odds. I would be ready to go into battle for the admittedly preferable higher number if the money is there. If you want my vote, show me the money. Otherwise, lets go with a doable proposal that will back the Governor in a corner, and facilitate passage of a very real improvement in the lives of the working poor in California. My 2 cents, Ben Ben Boyce Living Wage Coalition Coordinator ben.boyce(a)sbcglobal.net <mailto:ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net> (707) 935-1642 www.livingwagesonoma.org <http://www.livingwagesonoma.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Rioryon(a)aol.com [mailto:Rioryon@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:19 AM To: cfw(a)lists.riseup.net Subject: [CFW] DRAFT AGENDA - Fair Wage Meeting, Wednesday, December 28th Meeting Date, Time - Wed, 12/28/5, 6 - 9PM Location - John F Kennedy Library, 505 Santa Clara St, Downtown Vallejo (NOTE - Mapquest has it on the wrong corner - Should be on the NE Corner ie. the far corner coming from the freeway) DRAFT AGENDA 6:00 - 15 Set Up, Introductions, Agenda Additions (Barry H) 6:15 - 20 Treasurer's Report (Pat D) 6:20 - 25 Two Versions, Review of Polling Results (Barry H) 6:25 - 30 Argument in Favor of $8.75 (Cres V?) 6:30 - 40 Voices of Experience (Richard Holober, Ken Masterton, Mike Feinstein, Barry Hermanson) 6:40 - 45 Argument in Favor of $7.75 (Tim S) 6:45 - 7:15 Questions, Comments, General Discussion, Compromise Solutions (?), Consensus (?) 7:15 - 30 Vote if Necessary - Vote Results 7:30 - 45 Next Steps - Printing, Publishing Intent to Circulate, Target Date for Circulation (1/4 or 1/5 ?) 7:45 - 8:15 Signature Gathering Orientation (Tim S) 8:15 - 45 Coordinating - Orientation (Tim S) 8:45 - 9:00 Next Meeting

2 1

[Fwd: [CFW] CFW Statewide Minimum Wage Initiative Meeting W December 28th 6-9 PM]
by Barry Hermanson 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

I thought you might like to see this posting on the CFW listserve regarding the minimum wage. Check out this article that was published last week. http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=394 Barry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CFW] CFW Statewide Minimum Wage Initiative Meeting W December 28th 6-9 PM Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:18:09 -0800 From: Ben Boyce <ben.boyce(a)sbcglobal.net> To: <socolivingwagecoalition(a)yahoogroups.com> CC: <cfw(a)lists.riseup.net> Advocates: The Living Wage Coalition will have a contingent at this meeting. A group will be carpooling from the Corby Ave. Labor Center. This is a meeting of the California Fair Wage (CFW) committee that will determine the initiative proposal that will go forward for the 2006 ballot. The LWC has endorsed the the CFW initiative, and we will be actively supporting the measure to raise the state minimum wage, indexed to inflation. The indexing feature is the key element in the proposal because it will put a floor under the wage rates for low-income workers. This will be a major gain for several million workers and a solid victory for progressive public policy. Please contact me if you are interested in carpooling to this meeting in Vallejo. Ben Ben Boyce Living Wage Coalition Coordinator ben.boyce(a)sbcglobal.net <mailto:ben.boyce@sbcglobal.net> (707) 935-1642 www.livingwagesonoma.org Meeting Date, Time - Wed, 12/28/5, 6 - 9PM Location - John F Kennedy Library, 505 Santa Clara St, Downtown Vallejo (NOTE - Mapquest has it on the wrong corner - Should be on the NE Corner ie. the far corner coming from the freeway) DRAFT AGENDA 6:00 - 15 Set Up, Introductions, Agenda Additions (Barry H) 6:15 - 20 Treasurer's Report (Pat D) 6:20 - 25 Two Versions, Review of Polling Results (Barry H) 6:25 - 30 Argument in Favor of $8.75 (Cres V?) 6:30 - 40 Voices of Experience (Richard Holober, Ken Masterton, Mike Feinstein, Barry Hermanson) 6:40 - 45 Argument in Favor of $7.75 (Tim S) 6:45 - 7:15 Questions, Comments, General Discussion, Compromise Solutions (?), Consensus (?) 7:15 - 30 Vote if Necessary - Vote Results 7:30 - 45 Next Steps - Printing, Publishing Intent to Circulate, Target Date for Circulation (1/4 or 1/5 ?) 7:45 - 8:15 Signature Gathering Orientation (Tim S) 8:15 - 45 Coordinating - Orientation (Tim S) 8:45 - 9:00 Next Meeting

1 0

[Delegates] Re: FW: [G-C-F] Minimum Wage Meeting and Decision - Wed, Dec 28th
by Barry Hermanson 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

Yes. Don also asked for a ride. What do you think - leave by 5? Or should we allow more time? Barry Susan King wrote: > > Barry, can I catch a ride with you to this event? > > thanks, > susan > > ---------- > From: Rioryon(a)aol.com > Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:45:13 EST > To: grns-cal-forum(a)greens.org > Subject: [G-C-F] Minimum Wage Meeting and Decision - Wed, Dec 28th > > > CFW Meeting Announcement > > (NOTE - All GPCA Greens and Groups Committed to Raising the Minimum > Wage, in Coalition with CFW, are encouraged to attend) > > > > > > Wednesday, December 28th > > > > > > 6pm to 9pm > > > > > > John F Kennedy Public Library (Joseph Room) > > > > > > 505 Santa Clara St, Vallejo, California, 94950 > > > > > > The library is located in downtown Vallejo on the Northwest Corner > of Georgia St and Santa Clara St. > > > > Looking at Map Quest there appears to be an I - 80 freeway exit > coming from either direction at Georgia St. > > > > Coming from Sacramento, exit the Freeway and turn right on Georgia, > go approximately 2 miles until you come to Santa Clara St, the > Library will be on the 2nd corner to your right. > > > > Coming from the bay area, exit the Freeway, turn left on Georgia, > go over the Freeway and go approximately 2 miles until you come to > Santa Clara St, the Library will be on the 2nd corner to your right. > > > > > > > DRAFT AGENDA > > > > > > 6:00 - 15 Set Up, Introductions, Agenda Additions (Barry H) > > > > 6:15 - 20 Treasurer's Report (Pat D) > > > > 6:20 - 25 Two Versions, Review of Polling Results (Barry H) > > > > 6:25 - 30 Argument in Favor of $8.75 (Cres V?) > > > > 6:30 - 40 Voices of Experience (Richard Holober, Ken Masterton, Mike > Feinstein, Barry Hermanson) > > > > 6:40 - 45 Argument in Favor of $7.75 (Tim S) > > > > 6:45 - 7:15 Questions, Comments, General Discussion, Compromise > Solutions (?), Consensus (?) > > > > 7:15 - 30 Vote if Necessary - Vote Results > > > > 7:30 - 45 Next Steps - Printing, Publishing Intent to Circulate, > Target Date for Circulation (1/4 or 1/5 ?) > > > > 7:45 - 8:15 Signature Gathering Orientation (Tim S) > > > > 8:15 - 45 Coordinating - Orientation (Tim S) > > > > 8:45 - 9:00 Next Meeting > > > > _______________________________________________ > cal-forum mailing list > cal-forum(a)marla.cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum >

1 0