Rob,
Regarding your request for input:
1. I concur with your strategy of debating at the August meeting and
endorsing at the September meeting. Most of the initiatives, as usual,
can elicit pretty unanimous reactions from most of us.
2. I also concur that we should let LPCA deal with the State
initiatives. I would suggest that if there is a State initiative that
any of us disagrees with LPCA on *specific* points, then we could
discuss on-line, to see if a separate recommendation is warranted.
3. As always, I would be in favor of inviting candidates only if we
can afford a nice venue (either restaurant or meeting room) and ensure
enough attendance of LP members to warrant the candidates' time.
Otherwise, in my personal opinion, we just look bad.
Marcy
Unfortunately, we've already missed the 30 day notice deadline to send
out the postcard to members advising them about an official vote at the
August 9 meeting. However, we can put out a postcard this month
announcing that September will be our endorsement meeting, discuss and
maybe even do a straw poll on the items at the August meeting, and
structure the agenda for the September meeting to severely limit, or
not
allow, debate on these items. I think, with our world-readable email
discussion list and our ability to debate at the August meeting, that
this would be an acceptable way to manage time at the September
meeting,
while keeping us compliant with the required notice to members in our
bylaws.Are we interested in doing an endorsements/recommendation
dinner/interview for any of the candidates, or do we just want to
endorse the two Libertarian Congressional candidates in September and
leave it at that (i.e., do we even want to consider recommending any of
the major-party candidates for State Senate and Assembly)?Rob
P.S. As a member of the LPC ExCom, I recommend that we just publish
the
state party's recommendations. If there's a specific state initiative
where we think SF Libertarians will disagree with the LPC ExCom, feel
free to bring that up. But having seen the recommendations from our
Legislative Analyst Team thus far, I doubt it. So far, we've only
voted
on three: No on 1, 3 and 10. The remaining recommendations from our
Legislative Analyst Team seem fine to me, and I'll post the results of
our vote on those as soon as the vote is complete.Ron Getty wrote:
> Dear All;
>
> These are the ballot issues facing SF voters in November there could
> be as many as +/- 22 initiatives or policy statements or charter
> amendments on the ballot for SF. We won't know for certain until
after
> July 30. Based on the number it would be best to discuss LPSF stances
> by breaking into two parts half in August and half in September. The
> October meeting is to late with the election day on Nov. 4. Or if
> agreeable doing a marathon session in August or one in September with
> nothing but ballot stances and do them all in one swell foop.
>
> BTW there are also 11 initiatives on the state ballot. While we as a
> local will bow to the state committee on ballot stances I personally
> believe we can have a local stance at odds with the state if we
> believe it is in the best interest locally. While this may not play
> well for cohesiveness and does not play well with other children I
> personally feel we can still make a statement about a state
initiative
> even if it is contrary to state ex comm because it is an issue we
> believe in locally.
>
> Enjoy the general election in November and also remember the
> presidential elections and congressional elections are also on the
> ballot.
>
> The 11 state initiaitves:
>
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General
>
> OH SUCH FUN!!!
>
> Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> Hostis res Publica
> Chair Initiatives Committee
>
>
> These are the propsed initiatives on the ballot placed there by the
> Supervisors or the Mayor so far there are 9. Below that are the
> additonal initiatives the Supervisors are considering. They have
until
> July 24 to place on the ballot AND until July 30 to take off the
ballot.
>
> There are 4 voter initiatives being considered based on registered
> voter name checks:
>
> 1 - Save the Jr ROTC
>
> 2- Stop funding SFPD sex worker department
>
> 3 - Naming the SW sewage treatment plant as the George W. Bush
> Memorial Sewage Treatment Plant
>
> 4 - Back again: taking over Alcatraz as a world global international
> Peace Center
>
>
>