Ballot argument filing after-action report

Activists List
1

Thanks, Marcy. When there's a crowd of people in there filing
measures, they are typically processing paperwork well after the
deadline, but I guess when there's not busy they like to give the
impression that everything must be absolutely completed by noon.

  Anyway, I agree I'm glad we got it submitted, even though I'm
troubled by the ability of the mayor and members of the Board of
Supervisors to pre-empt the public lottery system for ballot arguments
in this manner. Although apparently there were no other opponent
arguments filed this cycle, who knows whether someone else who might
have wanted to file against Prop. A may have been stymied by seeing
that Elsbernd had pre-empted the opponent slot. Of course I'm grateful
to the Supervisor for assigning that slot to me, and glad it worked
out in our favor this time, but that might not always be the case. The
system that allows this is fundamentally unfair. If a Supervisor were
so motivated, he or she could choose to become the official opponent
of a measure without ever having any intention of writing an argument
against it, and simply turn around and assign the argument to a
political ally, as one more minor political patronage "goodie" or
favor to hand out. I don't think Sean Elsbernd had any such
underhanded intentions, since I got the argument assigned to me at the
last minute after *I* called *him*, but I see nothing to stop a mayor
or Board member from doing this.

  Now we'll just have to wait and see whether there is a June election
or not. If not, let's keep it in mind that there will be another
period for filing ballot arguments in August, in advance of the
November elections. I don't think we can automatically recycle our
argument without going through the process of resubmitting it, and in
all likelihood there will be other stuff on the November ballot we'll
have an interest in opposing.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

2

Exactly, Starchild. Maybe later, we take on the skewed system. Right now, we watch what happens with the filing we did today.

Marcy

3

Aubrey,

  Thanks for getting the conversation going on our rebuttal.
Unfortunately, I think the claims that School Board members typically
spend amounts of time approaching that of a full-time job are probably
exaggerated only slightly if at all.
"Supervisor Jane Kim said most Board of Education members — who
oversee a complex district with 55,000 students — work 40 hours a
week... 'If you only attend board meetings, it’s a minimum commitment
of 20 hours a week,” Kim said. “That’s not including meeting with
parents, students, teachers and community members, and visiting school
sites.'”

(from http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/education/2011/02/fear-rejection-forces-change-pay-raise-plan#ixzz1Hq5XbjDT
  )

"The SF Weekly reports that, 'Jill Wynns, who has served on the Board
of Education for 18 years, claims that most board members spend at
minimum 20 hours a week prepping for board meetings then attending the
marathon meetings, as well as meeting with parents, students, and
teachers. It makes it difficult, if not impossible for some board
members who have full time jobs to juggle it all.'”

(from http://street.sfstation.com/2011/02/08/sf-school-board-wants-more-money/
  )

  Remember, these folks are typically ambitious career politician types
who are heavily involved in the community. They tend to like the power
that goes with the job, and the more time they invest "doing their
homework", rubbing elbows with constituents, and so on, the more
powerful and effective it tends to make them. School Board is often
the first step up the political ladder to run for Supervisor or other
positions.

  I suggest the angle for us to take is that the School Board (along
with the district central office) has too much power, and that if
board members are finding themselves having to work more than part
time, they should cede more of their duties to local school site
councils, so that teachers, parents, and students would be making more
decisions directly themselves instead of having policy handed down to
them by politicians and educational bureaucrats.

  Serving the community at this level should be seen as a privilege,
not as a labor for which the community owes them compensation.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

4

Agreed. The argument we made in 2002 against making Supervisor a full time
job was basically that idle hands are the devil's tools. :slight_smile: If you pay
them for full-time work, they'll work full-time to screw up education even
more than they already have. The best solution is to "starve the beast" so
that they have less time to intrude in families' educational decisions.

5

Hi Aubrey and All,

Basic! We started with citizens with day jobs giving up some of their time to help support the tasks spelled out in the Constitution. And that grew like Topsy. Parents and teachers should have the primary responsibility of how kids turn out, not full time bureaucrats.

Maybe a concerted effort on LPSF's part, including letters to editor, blogging, as well as ballot rebuttals?

Marcy