From gpca-cc-bounces@marla.cagreens.org Sun Feb 5 07:01:19 2006 Return-Path: Received: from marla.cagreens.org (marla.cagreens.org [64.142.114.98]) by skinny.paulfranklin.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k15F1JhG001100 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:01:19 -0800 Received: from cagreens.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marla.cagreens.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k15F2JLo030557 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:02:19 -0800 Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by marla.cagreens.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k15F2IcC030554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:02:18 -0800 Received: from tsm80io3ykjjdk (c-24-5-164-53.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.5.164.53]) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k15F2H1G025555 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:02:17 -0800 From: "Tim Morgan" To: "'GPCA Coordinating Committee'" Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:02:15 -0800 Message-ID: <000301c62a65$26b99d80$0200a8c0@tsm80io3ykjjdk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcYqZSaMMPnkhOPUTpOJwmQLhKG4IQ== Subject: [GPCA-CC] yolo morning notes X-BeenThere: gpca-cc@marla.cagreens.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list Reply-To: blkcloud@sonic.net, GPCA Coordinating Committee List-Id: GPCA Coordinating Committee List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: gpca-cc-bounces@marla.cagreens.org Errors-To: gpca-cc-bounces@marla.cagreens.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on skinny.paulfranklin.us X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.63 Status: X-Evolution-Source: pop://paul@192.168.1.105/ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I do not know if these have been submitted already to whomever they need to be. However, just in case I'm sending them to the list. Valerie Face compiled these. Tim Morgan I'm finishing up my portion which is the Saturday afternoon segment. I do not know what is the status of those notes and who took the Sunday notes. ---------------------------- Setup: Facilitators: Jared Laiti, Sharon Peterson Note taker: Valerie Face Timekeeper: Cat Woods Vibes: Jo Chamberlain, Cameron Spitzer Peacekeeping team: Paul Encimer, Sue Haas, Diane _____, Michael _____ from Yolo County. Decision -- Affirm Agenda: Show of hands re. whether to accept agenda: 34 approve, 7 disapprove. Agenda approved. Decision - Ratify Sylmar Minutes: Warner Bloomberg, Santa Clara County: Three corrections. (1) His name is misspelled. Change "Werner" to "Warner" (pages 15 and 16). (2) In Forrest Hill's comments on GDI (page 5) change "disemboweling" to "disenfranchising". (3) The GDI proposals are listed as "pass", should be changed to "fail" or there should be no indication of whether they passed or failed. Additional comment: The text of proposals was not included in the notes. Our bylaws state that text of proposals is to be included and this rule should be followed. Pat Gray, San Mateo County: Her name is misspelled. Change "Grey" to "Gray" (pages 1 (twice), 2 and 3). Mike Feinstein, Los Angeles: We should be taping these meetings, not having someone type and translate what is said. It's not an objective record. Jane Rands, Orange County: Her name is misspelled. Change "Grems" to "Rands" (page 12). Ron Rodarte's name is misspelled. Change "Redarty" to "Rodarte" (pages 1 (twice) and 7). Minutes approved with corrections. Corrected minutes will be posted on website. Decision - Campaign Finance, Clean Money (ERWG): Jo Chamberlain, San Mateo County, Pat Gray, San Mateo County and Trent Lange, Vice President of California Clean Money presenting. Jo Chamberlain: Loni Hancock introduced a resolution for public financing of campaigns. The Green Party objected because it discriminated against third parties. We have worked with Clean Money and Trent has helped move us along dramatically. Loni has accepted the language being presented today as an amendment to her resolution. This is a real credit to Trent. Some examples were given of funding amounts given after a Green does well in an election. Pat Gray: This allows us to get funding in the districts in which we are powerful. This is movement in the direction of what we need nationally. It's not ideal, but it's a start. We are good at using small amounts of money, so this really does help us. Trent Lange: We're very excited about this. Getting party-building funding is a good step. Excited about the prospects of the bill (AB 583). We hope to have handout on it later in the day. The recent special election highlighted the need for this. This is an example of how enough pressure from grassroots people can influence the legislature. Pat Gray: States with public financing have had changes in demographics of candidates, increased turnout and total cost of election goes down. Clarifying Questions (presenters will take all questions and reply at the end): Mike Wyman, Marin County: Could you contrast primary vs. general election scenarios? Bob Marsh, Alameda County: In Arizona & Maine laws were based on candidates, not parties. This proposal still seems to be based on parties (initially had biased tiering based on party). Why is the proposal still based on parties rather than candidates? Jean Brashears, San Francisco County: Does this proposal still keep partial funding in addition to 10%? Larry Mullen, Fresno County: Is consideration given to amount of registration compared to votes received (i.e., candidate getting a higher percentage of votes than would be expected based on Green percentage of registration)? Trent answers questions: Comparing primary vs. general election: In AB 583 as in other states there is only 1 qualification process for everyone. You collect your $5 contributions and signatures to qualify. Then you win your primary. Arizona & Maine have three registered parties whereas California has seven. There is a concern about full funding for all parties being too expensive and the voters might not accept it. Performance-based qualification based on strong base of support (like Matt Gonzalez had) = extra support = full funding. Partial funding is not used by Arizona & Maine. Few Greens have qualified and won in Maine. In general they have not managed to reach the full funding thresholds. Partial funding (for half of the normal signature requirement) gives significant funding in primary and general elections to build the party. Once party building has been done it's easier to reach the normal funding thresholds. Registration as a method for deciding qualification: The system is already complicated and we did not want to add more complexity. Also we were concerned that if there are different partial amounts based on registration it becomes difficult. Getting mechanisms for full funding and for enough funds to build the party were the goals. Other layering is interesting but does not necessarily help reach these goals. Jo Chamberlain: 2nd week of January is when the elections committee meets on the bill. Then it goes to the floor. Then it goes to the senate. We have a long road ahead. We urge passage of this. Concerns & Affirmations: Chris Collins, Alameda County: The original proposal was a mess. I had fears of Trent Lange as a non-Green Trojan Horse. However, over 1.5 years concerns have been addressed and the process has been very open. This is not perfect but I have no blocking concerns. Thanks to Trent! Gloria Purcell, Alameda County: Affirmation. We're used to not winning everything "this year" and we should work all the harder to keep pressing for what we want. Michael Rubin, Alameda County: Concern about officially countenancing bias against certain parties. Kenny Mostern, Alameda County: Affirmation. Has much experience running campaigns. Has worked with Trent before and has great admiration for his work. Benefits of this bill are: (1) partial funding for party building, (2) possible full funding for every campaign we run, (3) geographical thresholds help us get funding where we are strong. Craig Peterson, Contra Costa County: Two affirmations. (1) Basing this on parties in California is a help because individual candidates might not run every election cycle. (2) There's the ideal and there's the practical. We cannot dictate that everything be exactly the way we want. Cat Woods, Marin County: Affirmation. This will help us get to a place where we can get to our ideal. Warner Bloomberg, Santa Clara County: Affirmation -- In 2002 he was the only candidate for AD 23 besides the Democrat incumbent and got 18% of the vote. With this in place we would have gotten funding for a candidate in 2004. Concern -- Proposal is unclear as presented in the packet. Suggests friendly amendment: The GPCA Endorses AB 583 as amended, it being understood that the language is presented in the Plenary packet. Paul Encimer, Emerald Region: Affirmation. We need a neutral process to expand this for use within our own party. Presenters address concerns: Jo Chamberlain agrees with Michael Rubin. This is discriminatory. Jo made a big fuss over the original version of the bill but that got us nowhere. Trent's diplomacy has gotten us very far. The bill is not fair, but it's what we have available to us. Look at Warner's example. If we had this in place, we might have an assemblyperson in Santa Clara County. We accept Warner's friendly amendment as stated. Trent Lange lists some highlights of the coalition supporting bill: ACLU, Alliance for Democracy, Common Cause, Black Chamber of Commerce, CAN, Firefighters, Equal Justice Society, Gray Panthers, Public Campaign, Rock the Vote, Sierra Club. Please let us know about other potential members of coalition. Any unresolved concerns? NO. We have CONSENSUS to accept the proposal as amended. Decision - Election Code (ERWG): Warner Bloomberg, Santa Clara County and Jim Stauffer, Santa Clara County presenters. Warner Bloomberg: Our goal is to see what we can have agreed upon by consensus and what issues remain. This started in the Burlingame plenary. Drafts have been circulating from January 2003. In the elections code there are general provisions and party-specific provisions for elections. Internal structure also defined (other parties' central committee and county level central committees = our coordinating committee and county councils). The proposed code deals with how our party operates only (not general provisions). We want to move forward on Ranked Ballot Voting (RBV) and None of the Above (NOTA) option. We have a pragmatic issue in that elections equipment does not necessarily handle this. We have provisions stating that when the equipment becomes available and is certified, then these provisions will come into effect. We are looking for a legislator to present this legislation and are reasonably confident that we can find one to do so (as a courtesy - other small parties have their sections of code and we should, too). Jim Stauffer: Lists some highlights of what's here that was not seen in the previous version. The term "Ranked Ballot Voting" (RBV) is used to describe Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Proportional Representation (PR) where you rank candidates in order of preference. NOTA = None Of The Above. NOC = No Other Choice. NOTA is used for single-choice elections. Vote for one of the candidates or NOTA ("either/or" decision). NOC is used in RBV so you can rank some other candidates, then NOC (a "some of the above" decision). We once had NOTA around 1992. We were sued. We have reworked our application of NOTA so it hopefully addresses the court's concerns. This is not ideal, but the alternative is funding a lawsuit to overturn the previous decision. The presidential primary is an internal party decision. The purpose of the primary is to provide instructions to our convention delegates. We want to see the raw data (all rankings from all voters). That's our main goal in this code. Direct primaries - we can use NOTA in all GP direct primaries. (We're trying for this, anyway.) We did not specify GPUS as the national party with which we're affiliated just in case there's a name change. County Council elections -- we want to use Single Transferable Voting (STV) PR, but, recognizing that equipment will not permit it, we've recommended Limited Voting as a semi-proportional system. We've received some comments on it. Clarifying Questions: Jan Arnold, Alameda County: What is the problem for which Limited Voting is the solution? Mike Wyman, Marin County: On the debate over which machines to use, is there some specific set of technology that we should request in our counties? Greg Jan, Alameda County: In terms of the timeline, because there are unresolved questions and no final text, what process will we as the General Assembly have to get the actual language submitted to us and to approve it? Micheas Herman, San Francisco County: We are not currently covered under the Peace and Freedom Party's section of the election code and have not been since the lawsuit. Mike Feinstein, Los Angeles County: For Limited Voting you use the example of an area with 7 people on the County Council. Have you done the work to see how this would work for large counties like Los Angeles that elect their County Councils using different districts? _____: Question about number 5 on page 8. What is meant by fractional transfers of excess votes? Chris Collins, Alameda County: What is the urgency of bringing this to General Assembly at this time? Implementing Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and NOTA are given as reasons. Is there other urgency to pass this today? Presenters address questions: Warner Bloomberg: Greg Jan asked about timeline and process. We're asking for 2 things. To approve the draft text as presented, and to delegate the ERWG and its Election Code subcommittee to present it to the state legislature and negotiate with committees. If that happened we would try to find a legislative sponsor to introduce this in January 2006. If we can't do that we would continue to work on the proposal and try to get it introduced in January 2007. ERWG does feel an urgency to get this work done. However we understand that this is important and must have commitment and acceptance of the General Assembly. The urgency is that right now we do not have NOTA. The only way to get it in state elections is to have our own section of the election code. We do want it for state and local elections. Jim Stauffer: Fractional transfers are used when we discuss STV. STV is a method that uses fractional transfers, which means that there is a step where you divide excess votes by total votes, then transfer 30% of somebody's vote (for example) to the next choice. On advising Registrars of Voters on types of voting equipment to use, we haven't gotten into something like that yet. It's a different subject, too. As your individual counties start looking at touch screen or optical scan methods, get involved in the process. Make sure that the specs include ranked ballot voting for your machines. The comment that we are not covered under Peace and Freedom Party's code is not entirely true. That is one opinion; there are other opinions to the contrary. Our presidential primary is in accordance with Peace and Freedom's code. Limited voting: Do people want an explanation? (Yes.) For example, use a County Council with 7 members. Say there's a 60-40% division between 2 green groups in the county. Each group runs a 7-person slate. The 60% group will win all seats under our current system. Limiting voters to voting for 4 candidates would in theory allow the 40% group to win 3 seats. This method has been used to resolve lawsuits involving the voting rights act. It's intended as an interim step to proportional representation. Our candidates don't campaign much so this probably doesn't make a huge difference. However, this is a chance to walk our talk on proportional representation. And if the faction split does occur, we would be prepared as no other party would be. "So, why not," was the logic behind this. Don't see why it wouldn't work in district-based elections like Los Angeles. Warner Bloomberg: This would not change how districting for County Councils is described. Jim Stauffer: Greg Jan's question on timing is regarding the final text. The original plan is to approve the draft today, find a friendly legislator, and the text goes to elections committee where it will be further modified. We were going to ask the General Assembly to please delegate authority to the election code subgroup to do the negotiations involved. This does raise questions on bringing back the final proposal for General Assembly approval. Our only window for introduction is at the beginning of the year. Bringing it back to the plenary makes it late. We need to work out where we are with the trust level on this. Warner Bloomberg: The timing will depend on what we decide here Concerns & Affirmations: Susan King, San Francisco: Thanks for your hard work. San Francisco's concerns on limited voting: (1) There has been virtually no notice to the locals except through this proposal which was rather late. This is a big change. We haven't had time to discuss it with our general membership. (2) Limited voting does not address the San Francisco model. That is delegated to the general membership. (3) This supposes majoritarian blocks exist. Only one instance of this is known. Most races are not like that - individuals run. This system promotes factionalism. (4) How does the state body's dictating to locals honor grassroots democracy? Proposed friendly amendment: Place limited voting in the bylaws as an option that counties can choose to use. Mike Feinstein, Los Angeles County: Concern. Limited voting limits choice of green voters. There is no evidence of slate voting in Los Angeles county. No work was done on Los Angeles' 14 districts to see how this would work there. Re NOTA: existing legislation could not be interpreted that NOTA would win unless there was a majority decision. This specifically is a move to allow plurality by legislature. We should ask the legislature if we can get a ruling to put in a provision to let a plurality win. Gloria Purcell, El Dorado County: Affirmation -- we've needed this for a long time. Concern that limited voting is counterintuitive. Concentrating votes (such as voting for your one favorite candidate and no others to raise your favorite above the ones you dislike) does work, but it can be hard to explain to people. Don Eichelberger, San Francisco County: Thanks for the hard work. I love RCV. Concern re limited voting: it sounds like a capitulation. Incorporate a statement that it is our intention to move toward RCV. Jo Chamberlain, San Mateo County: Affirmation. Request: Because this proposal affects every section of the code, when you have the final draft, could it go out to the counties for a poll just to make sure we're OK with it? Bob Marsh, Alameda County: Sometimes we feel the need to completely replace the County Council. For example, five years ago there was a, "throw the bums out," movement in Alameda County. It was complicated by the Peace and Freedom Party's rule that statewide candidates are also placed on the local slate. Laura Wells said, "Don't vote for me," but came in first. The movement did not work and limited voting was not in place. Jean Brashears, San Francisco County: Concern on limited voting. What if 7 really good candidates and 2 individuals who are fairly uninvolved in the party run? We would want to vote for all 7 strong candidates. Jonathan Lundell, San Mateo County: Misconception about PR. STV and LV do not depend on slates. There's no particular reason to have slates. Steven Hill chimed in on the limited voting discussion to the effect that: While there is a bit more of a winner take all effect than under choice voting STV, it's much less of a winner take all effect than you have now. Plurality is the worst for diversity. If you cannot agree on what you're trying to accomplish here, it's unlikely that you will agree on the code. The idea is to allow diversity of opinion. Plurality does not. If you are trying to shut out a minority point of view, the current system does this very well. Kenny Mostern, Merced County: With all due respect, many of those opposing limited voting are doing this based on other problems with their County Councils. Please follow the CVD (Citizens for Voting & Democracy) line on this. The Merced city government will have a charter commission. They are considering going from at-large elections to district elections. We want PR, not single-member districts. I would like to tell the council that we support limited voting as a form of PR, so I would like the Green Party to affirm the proposal in that context. Chris Collins, Alameda County: Concern. I think this will be the statement in our law which reflects upon us for a very long time. I want the code to be endorsed by consensus by the General Assembly and everyone who is a Green in the state. The question of urgency has not been addressed well. I affirm the hard work. Michael Borenstein, El Dorado: Affirm the hard work and that we can delegate this and move forward with it. We must get this on the books. Presenters address concerns: Warner Bloomberg: The sections on limited voting are withdrawn. Michael Feinstein's friendly amendment on plurality is declined. The appellate court opinion is that the voter access issue is considered a due process consideration. Plurality would only invite litigation. Re Jo Chamberlain's concern, we would do county polling if time allows. We would definitely keep counties informed by sending the text out via the County Contacts list. We can have more discussion with Michael Feinstein on his friendly amendment. Jim Stauffer: We would like to get agreement on the non-controversial items. Limited voting is out of the proposal for now. PR STV must still be specified. Variables and options need discussion. So Limited Voting and STV are not up for approval at this time. Jo Chamberlain point of process: requests county caucus time. GRANTED. Jim Stauffer: The proposal is to accept the draft except for the parts dealing with Limited Voting and STV because more work needs to be done on those parts. Call for unresolved concerns: Michael Rubin, Alameda: This is a new proposal now. We need to hear concerns. New Proposal: Jim Stauffer: The presenters withdraw the proposal with agreement that it be brought back to a future plenary with adequate time mandated for discussion. 1.5 hours requested. Jo Chamberlain point of process: clarifying that presenters requested GA approval. Old Proposal: We are now going to a vote on the amended original proposal. _____ point of process: let's follow the consensus process on the original proposal (with friendly amendments) Concerns: Michael Rubin, Alameda: Blocking concern. The General Assembly should be able to vote on the final text before it's proposed to the legislature Zach _____, Los Angeles: Concern re the interpretation of court decisions. I have no way of evaluating this. I would like to see us simply say, "We will ask and get an opinion on which interpretation is correct." Then I can support this. Otherwise I have to vote no. Jonathan Lundell, San Mateo County: Why not add NOTA to the list of items taken out at this time since there are concerns? Presenters address Concerns: Jim Stauffer: re approving final language. We can try to work that out but there will still be the issue of what to do when the legislature modifies the code. Any suggestions? We can talk about the schedule again. We don't have to do it today. I, too, have read the court case and don't agree with Mike Feinstein's interpretation. If he's still not in agreement, we can still ask other people's opinions. Perhaps the legislative council (as Mike Feinstein proposed). Mike Feinstein: I'm unclear on what is being agreed to here. I want agreement on asking the legislative analyst, specifically. A firm commitment was not given by the presenters. Presenters: Will only agree to discuss this further with Mike Feinstein. Some delegates from floor: suggesting, "Can we just vote?" Presenters decide to pull proposal and bring it back at another plenary. Decision - Fair Wage Initiative (GIWG): Barry Hermanson, Pat Driscoll, Cres Velucci and Tim Smith presenting. Barry Hermanson: Has a handout that explains the proposal. In the plenary packet there are three proposed versions of the initiative. Previous initiatives to go to $7.75/hr have been vetoed. This initiative includes a COLA index. (A) Mirrors the legislature's $7.75 over 2 years + COLA (cost of living adjustment). (B) $8.75 over 3 years + COLA. (C) $7.75 + 1.5 x COLA. A poll was done by David Binder research. The results showed extraordinarily strong support for Version A's $7.75 level. Across the board. Version B has 63% support. Version C did not poll well and has been pulled from consideration. 2.35 million workers will see an increase in pay if there is an increase in the minimum wage. Millions of dollars per year will be transferred to low wage workers. There will be significant state savings in subsidies paid to low wage workers. ($3 billion savings with $8.75 version.) Lots of people here will support a living wage; lots will support $8.75; lots will support whatever will get an increase for low wage workers. The Democratic Party will caucus in Sacramento at the beginning of this week. They may re-submit AB 48 ($7.75) even though $8.75 should win. But we should call them back after the meeting to be sure of what they're doing. The labor community is divided in this state. We need to take a straw poll today to see where we are as a party on this. Tim Smith: Barry Hermanson's district includes San Francisco, Daly City and Colma. There are potentially 1 million voters there. We need 600,000 signatures in 15-16 weeks. We need people willing to work on this. A sign-up sheet is being passed around: get 100 signatures + recruit 10 other people to get signatures. Barry Hermanson gave $20,000 of his own money for the poll. Much thanks to him. Cres Velucci: This gets us out into the community where we should be. Our candidates can use this. We can use this to register voters. This is more easily understood than the 10 key values. The media is already interested in this. Pat Driscoll: Californians for Fair Wages (CFW) is not a Green Party owned institution. We're opening doors to other groups and we have involved other groups. The obligation is not for the Green Party to run this initiative alone. Democrats (Dave Jones) like this initiative. We will work with whoever's willing. CFW is a political action committee (PAC). We're looking to spread the load of fundraising and signature gathering. We say that a fair wage is: fair to workers (fairer pay), fair to taxpayers (relieve the unfair burden of subsidies to low wage workers) and fair to businesses (removes the uncertainty of how the minimum wage will be handled in the future). Barry Hermanson: David Binder's poll says that an initiative that starts with 73% typically succeeds (although a well-funded opposition campaign will make it challenging). Wants to take a straw poll. Point of process: straw polls inappropriate for Green party. Discussion should go on. Discussion (this is not a decision item now): Michael Feinstein, Los Angeles County: Affirmation. A Santa Monica $10.69/hr campaign was lost when faced with strong opposition. Rebecca Marcuson, Sacramento County: Affirmation. We're excited. We've decided that our county will donate $1000. Scott R_____, Sacramento: Affirmation for $8.75 version. We have volunteers who are ready to go. Tafas(?), San Francisco County: (1) Re decrease in value of wages: the initiative doesn't explain or analyze why this happens. We fought for the minimum wage with a COLA in 1974 in France. We succeeded by using analysis. (2) We need analysis of Alan Greenspan's policies and why labor is a market commodity. (3) Get $8.75 with a COlA. $7.75 won't help. Erica McDonald, San Francisco County: Affirmation. Jonathan Lundell, San Mateo County: We would by acclamation vote for $8.75. The question is about political judgment. If $8.75 is not likely to pass, should we go for $7.75? I personally don't want to back off, but I don't have enough insight. Paul Encimer, Emerald Region: Affirmation. Will donate $100. Go for $8.75. We want to differentiate ourselves from the Democrats. I will support whichever version wins. Peter Camejo, Sacramento County: It's very important for us to understand the dynamics on how to present this. We currently vote for $7.75 Democratic versions of initiatives even while criticizing them. We must be clear that $8.75 is the absolute bottom of what we're proposing. The Democrats' proposal never goes up although they've had plenty of opportunity to fight for it. They always talk themselves out of it. John Earl, Orange County: This is woefully inadequate but that doesn't preclude us from supporting it. Keep working on the inadequacies but support it. Are there some categories of workers who will not fall under this? Presenters: No. Jean Brashears, San Francisco County: We support this. We should go for $8.75, but we will support whichever version passes. Andy Campbell, _____ County: This is hard work, burnout work. After 2 weeks of collecting signatures, a previous campaign he worked on collapsed. Having a good organization is key. The bottom line for a $7.75 version is that if people learn the skills during that campaign they will be better prepared to work on other campaigns in the future. Chris Wall, San Francisco County: We need to be going toward a living wage but in a tempered way. $7.75 is one step; $8.75 is good. We come up with various choices when we go to legislation. Whoever's running our lobbying should have choices. A straw poll is a good idea to find out what we can present as these choices. Barry Hermanson: CFW will consider all of these discussion items. We think we have a sense of where the room is on this. We challenge county councils to help to raise some money to support this. Raise $1 per member registered in your county. San Francisco commits to this. Decision - GPUS delegation elections: Ballots will be given out. Please fill them out during lunch. Ballots to be returned after lunch. We hope to count ballots during SC/WG meetings. Candidates make brief statements. Jonathan Lundell explains balloting procedure. Decision - Two-year Work plan (Bylaws) Jonathan Lundell & Mike Feinstein from Bylaws Committee presenting. Mike Feinstein: Have committees submit their work plans so we can make better decisions on when what items should go before each plenary. This also gives members a better idea of what is going on. CC is to develop a two-year schedule based on individual groups' work plans. The schedule still retains some flexibility. Jonathan Lundell: This was approved in concept. After looking at different versions, we went back to what was closest to the language in the restructuring proposal. We received various comments. All have merit but none were addressed in the original proposal, which we stuck with. We can regard this as a trial of our two-year plan. It's pen to revision later on, but we felt that the old instructions were fairly clear. Mike Feinstein: If we go ahead and start doing this, we will learn what we need to improve. Bylaws is certainly willing to consider what comes up based on that experience. Clarifying Questions: KCM Curry, Los Angeles: I think we should use 2 years up to a point (maybe 3 times), but then move to longer range planning like 25 or 30 years. We get stuck with petty issues and don't move forward. I applaud this effort. Bob Marsh, Alameda County: Will future 2 year plans be 5 years late? Michael Feinstein: There is nothing here to preclude longer range planning. Warner Bloomberg, Santa Clara County: Plenary brainstorming + then cc presentation = two specific agenda items on two succeeding plenaries for this? Concerns & Affirmations: Kenny Mostern Merced County: two-year election cycle means we need a two-year plan. Strongly affirm. I would propose a two-year budget cycle if this passes. Cat Woods, Marin County: Affirmation. The Sylmar fallout had a direct affect on lack of volunteers at this plenary. We need to move toward getting the General Assembly to be more responsible Gloria Purcell, El Dorado County: Affirmation. Appreciate the comment on longer term thinking. Matt Leslie, Orange County: Can you point out what has already been adopted? Are we adopting new language? Jonathan Lundell: Pg 20 7-1.13 = 2 new paragraphs. Jim Stauffer, Santa Clara: Friendly amendment. The CC's work should be specified in procedures, not bylaws. Tim Morgan, Sonoma County: Affirmation. We need to be planning; we're not now. Mike Wyman, Marin County: Affirmation. I've participated in forming budgets. We look at work plans to assess whether a budget was realistic. Nobody took these and put them together for a general work plan. This fits into the budget committee perfectly. Matt Speras (?), San Mateo County: Affirmation with one recommendation that history be done as part of the planning process so that the end plan will reflect some of the history that has gone on before. Jonathan Lundell: in response to Jim Stauffer's concern. I think it's pretty pared down. It needs to be fleshed out with CC and procedures for how it needs to be done. I don't see much in this language now that I would like to boot out of bylaws. Mike Feinstein: The specifics would be reasonable items to put into rules and procedures Mike Wyman, Marin County: This is a bottom-up procedure. We're doing something different here. Call for unresolved concerns: NONE. CONSENSUS. End of morning session. _______________________________________________ gpca-cc mailing list gpca-cc@marla.cagreens.org http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc