I've prepared a version of the rebuttal argument with all the consensus feedback in it.
I've eliminated a few words to make room for a conclusion that I've spiffed up with Phil Berg's excellent suggested line of argument.
I slightly modified the wording of (1) to make it clearer that the argument against Measure A's funding model is about its adequacy, not its magic 2020 timeframe. I still mention the timeframe, mostly for the shock effect to the "progressive" group as I mentioned.
It's heavy as edited, but within the limits -- 243 words, minus one for the DoE's odd treatment of "San Francisco" as a single word.
Thank you to everyone who provided feedback. I think we've got a much better argument to put in front of people because of the effort you've put in.
I'm going to propose that this be "content complete", and subject only to minor editorial changes (spelling, grammar, typos, etc.) between now and when it is submitted. That will make it easier for Aubrey to get things in. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. For quotable sentiment on where we are, I turn to Steve Jobs:
Ugh. I basically pulled an all-nighter again, which I hadn't intended! But when I started reviewing Matt's latest version, I found I just couldn't stop. I believe this version of the rebuttal makes our arguments clearly and concisely, including Matt's point that allowing the Supervisors to raid the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund now will favor current retirees but threaten later ones.
The thing this loses is the responsiveness aspect of the original structure. Each point in my previous rebuttal corresponds with a major point of the proponent argument. In five years of debate, I learned rebuttals are more effective if you attack the other side's arguments in order. Particularly in a written form, it's easier for readers to connect the arguments together.
That's pretty much just what I did! The first thing they mention is the "lockbox". That's point #1 below. Their second paragraph is about "protecting" the RHCTF. That's point #2 below. Their bullet points that follow under that second paragraph are all addressed as well, except for the final one about providing "major cost savings". I didn't try to rebut that because I think it's pretty clearly empty rhetoric. And obviously they do have the support of the political establishment, so I didn't say anything about that either.
Of course much of the language and structure is the same as what was in what you wrote. But I did take out some things, like the "misappropriate" and "mismanage" language. That's the main stuff that was clearly implying it would be bad to use RHCTF money to pay for current health care needs instead of paying for them out of the general fund. I thought we'd agreed you were going to take that stuff out, but when I saw you'd left it in, I started working on another revision.
Thanks for the Chronicle citation. However it seems only Chronicle subscribers can access the actual article. Are you able to get in to view the actual article? If so, perhaps you can copy and paste it into a document and we can bring along a printed copy in case they want one.
After hearing from Denny that he was fine with going ahead, and not hearing back from anyone else, I went ahead and sent out the press release last night. I'll send it again in a separate email to the list in case anyone else wants to send or forward it.
I'm also trying to post it to the website, but as with the last item I tried to post, am not having much luck with it since the article categories got shifted. Marcy, if you're up and reading this, can you tell me which category I select to put it on the front page?
You clicked "Preview", so nothing is being published. You need to click "News". If you still cannot publish after you do that, let me know.
BTW, you waited so long to publish this, that you sentence "as we are preparing the rebuttal" is now invalid. Hopefully Aubrey has filed it by the deadline.
Just a thought, not a request to change anything this time. Aubrey had suggested that we adopt a collaborative stance on this proposition. In other words, point out the challenges with it, but not appear confrontational towards Farrell, who is the most fiscally conservative Supervisor on the Board. My feeling is that the big "no on A" at the start of the press release you are posting on the website might seem a tad confrontational.
Not sure where I'm supposed to click "News" -- didn't see it in the listing of categories. I think we may have had this conversation last time I tried posting an article, and you ended up posting it.
The deadline for filing the rebuttal isn't till noon. I sent out the press release last night. But if I can't post it to post it to the website this morning, I wouldn't have been able to do so last night either.
The graphic *is* pretty stark, isn't it? It actually just says "VOTE NO"; I was looking in my graphics file to see if I had something with a variation of "No on A", but I didn't. I don't mind using something different for the graphic, if you have one in mind. Or I could take time to look for something. But we *are* the official opposition to this measure, and as far as I know we're all agreed it's a bad measure. To suggest we shouldn't have a graphic saying "VOTE NO" on it on our own website, might be taking the "collaborative" stance a bit too far, imho. Mark Farrell didn't return Aubrey's phone call; do we have any evidence he is interested in collaboration?
This was just a thought on my part. Not any kind of deal breaker! I sent you an e-mail asking for your help in figuring out why you are having trouble posting. And I have posted your article as is on the front page of the website. Like I said, too much thought obliterates action.
Aubrey called me early this morning. He was in the process of pasting the rebuttal on the control sheet and rushing out to the DOE, so he could get the rebuttal in on time, and then get back to work. I trust that he succeeded in doing that.
Thanks for posting the press release, but yeah, we definitely need to figure out why others beside yourself are having difficulty posting to the website and get that sorted out. I'd like to watch how you do it sometime and see how the screens appear for you.
Also, the formatting on the press release needs some correction. The text "LPSF selected as official ballot opponent of Proposition A on November 2013 ballot" is supposed to appear on two lines, with one horizontal line above those two line of text, and the other horizontal line below. Like this:
Yes, I am trying to figure out a way that others can post, but without your help in letting me know if what I sent you is what you are seeing I cannot do much. There is no secret knowledge here.
So you and Matt, can you please look at the attachment and let me know if that is what you see when you are posting an article?
Thanks for fixing the formatting described below. In looking at how the page appears now, it occurs to me that it would be nice to have a bit of white space between the articles or entries, to make clearer they are not one long, multi-topic piece, if you can figure out how to do that.
The font size of the "Read more" link at the bottom of the press release is also larger than the others on the page, which should preferably be fixed for consistency.
In Yahoo, you have to go to the original e-mail to see the attachments. The attachment is there in my original e-mail entitled Website.
Yes, a lot could be improved appearance-wise, and I will work on it as I have the time.
Again, I need your and Matt's help in determining why you can't do your own publishing and formatting. It would do no good for you to watch what I do, since my settings are different than yours. Another way you and Matt could help would be to send me a screen shot or scan/email of what you see when you are working on an article.
I believe this version of the rebuttal makes our arguments clearly and concisely, including Matt's point that allowing the Supervisors to raid the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund now will favor current retirees but threaten later ones.