The selected argument, along with the proponents' argument in favor of the charter amendment on the Retirees Health Care Trust Fund, are attached below.
Our 250-word rebuttal argument is due Monday at noon. If anyone has thoughts about further points to make in that argument, please post them. Something else to think about would be prominent San Franciscans whom we might approach as possible co-signers.
From what I've heard and read, nearly every single point the proponents made can be exposed as an outright lie or at least a serious misrepresentation.
Hi All! Thanks to Starchild and Matt for your work on this project--it was worth it! By the way, when Starchild and I were in the Department of Elections' office putting together the control sheets and various versions of the arguments, some PRO Prop A folks were submitting some of their paperwork, and the one guy wanted to submit the Rebuttal right then and there. How smug of them to submit a rebuttal before our arguments were even in! Starchild, not one to resist a smart-alec remark when one was called for, asked the guy if didn't he at least want to read our AGAINST arguments, and as I recall the guy said, "No, that's OK" or something like that. I guess because every supervisor voted for the measure and the unions and Chamber of Commerce are also backing it--they feel ever so confident. After Starchild's discovery of that critical sentence hidden in the text of the measure and also because Supervisor Farrell never responded to my email, I
now doubt the measure is well-intentioned at all. All the more reason for us to fight this measure.
Also, when we were there, I complained to one of the workers there about the deadline schedule and how could a ballot measure filed on July 26 still be on the November 5 ballot when the deadline was July 8. She showed me a different schedule for the supervisors and mayor that listed July 26 as the last day for them to file measures for the ballot. As always, a double standard! I requested that when they put out future deadline schedules they list everything on one schedule and that's the one that should be posted on their website. We'll see if they do anything with my suggestion. Regardless, I'll have to watch their website like a hawk for future elections right up to the last minute for 11th hour submissions.
As for the rebuttal, who is writing it? I agree with Marcy that Matt's version is almost perfectly tailored to address the PRO argument with a few changes. I will scour the ballot measure for any additional ammunition that could be used against their argument. Just want to make sure that we have something to go by Sunday night. I will swing by the Department of Elections on Monday at 8:00 AM on my way to work and drop off the final version with the control sheet.
Thanks again to Starchild and Matt--I'm glad you're on our side!
Aubrey
Hi Matt! Thanks--I knew you would do it! Please note the rebuttal is limited to 250 words. I will work on this too and see what I come up with. I'm also thinking of contacting Quentin Kopp and Tony Hall (if I can get hold of them) to see if either one would be interested in co-signing our rebuttal. Both are pretty good on the financial side of things and are not afraid to speak up against the lefties.
Hi Matt! I managed to find their numbers and left messages for both Kopp and Hall and explained the situation. Yes, I'm sure they would want to read what they're signing first. I guess the sooner it's done, the better, but we've got well over a day on this, plus both live somewhere over in my part of town, so I could easily run over for an original signature in the latter part of tomorrow. We could send them an electronic draft of our rebuttal earlier, should either want to sign on. So, if you finish it today, it might be better, but if you have other things to do, it could wait until tomorrow, just not too late in the day.
I was busy yesterday and today and am catching up on email. Thanks Aubrey for reaching out to Quentin Kopp and Tony Hall about co-signing, and Matt for taking a stab at the rebuttal. I like your 5-point format -- good way to draw in the reader. I'll try to write up another email later with more detailed feedback.
It occurs to me from time to time that we as a group ought to be sending out press releases about stuff on a regular basis -- even if it's just our take on some current local (or non-local) issue in the news. We might think about adopting a standardized email format to use for this purpose, including the LPSF letterhead... thoughts?
Anyway, these ballot argument selections are good opportunities to possibly get a little publicity and raise our profile. We have sent them out sometimes in the past, but not as consistently as we should. It also occurs to me in this case that we could also try to get the press's interest in what Aubrey reports that we saw at the Elections Department office, and at the same time put out the word that we're looking for co-signers. So I took a stab at writing one up, below. It's not terribly polished, so if anyone has ideas for improvement -- or feel we shouldn't do a release on this for some reason -- please comment. I included myself as the point of contact, but that doesn't have to be me.
I very much like the idea of press releases, and support Starchild's sending one out regarding our opposition to the Healthcare proposition. However, I recommend that we remain positive, and not rat on what me interpret as peoples motives. Also I recommend that we do not put out a call at the last minute to have strangers as co-signers. I am particularly concerned about piling things up for the last minute.
Hi Marcy and Starchild! I'm OK with the press release as is. The motives of the PRO people are perfectly obvious to me--the full establishment is behind the measure, so their overconfidence is breathtaking. I don't think it hurts to publicize that. Also let's not forget that our biggest problem is our lack of visibility in San Francisco--I still remember talking to one of Jim Elwood's speakers at Free Exchange last year, and he was surprised that there is a Libertarian Party in San Francisco. We need to get our faces and voices out there. I think a press release at this time, just the way it is, will do us more good than harm. It might even get the PRO folks upset and they might even start attacking us--better still!
As far as additional folks signing on, at this late point I seriously doubt we'll get anyone today, so I'm not too concerned about having to schlepp around for original signatures at the last minute--but I will be more than happy to do it. I haven't heard back from Kopp or Hall yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get back with me after it's too late or not all. I rather think both of them would be on our side on this issue. I would much rather have their signatures than some unknown folks like my neighbors sign our rebuttal since who knows Suzy Smith or Joe Anderson, but a Kopp or Hall signature would carry some credibility.
Regardless, the rebuttal will be filed on Monday morning without incident or drama.
I can see Marcy's perspective regarding not sending out what we overheard at City Hall. It's not that big a scoop, and does seem a little petty perhaps. On the other hand, I think it does add some interesting and potentially newsworthy material to the press release. I guess I'm neutral on including that.
I'm not too worried about having "strangers" as co-signers. Realistically, we'll be lucky to get responses. It wouldn't be the same as giving them input into the content of what we submit. Is there anyone in the entire city so disreputable that we wouldn't want their name alongside the LPSF's in support of a particular ballot argument? There may be a few, but I doubt we're likely to run into that problem. If we do, we can always debate it if/when it arises.
Anyway, we need to come to a decision one way or the other if we are to avoid doing nothing by default. Most of today has already gone by (my bad for not following up, but I've been busy with other stuff). Can we reach a consensus, or should the officers vote?
I agree that putting out a light release would be better than nothing. Here's a revised bare-bones release -- I took out the anecdote from the filing at City Hall and replaced the language seeking co-signers with an invitation to contact us with input regarding the argument. This has no downside that I can think of, and will serve a similar purpose of giving those who agree with us on the measure a reason to get in touch -- and hopefully stay in touch to fight against the measure as the season progresses.
If there is consensus around putting out this version, I suggest we do so ASAP (I will send to my media email contacts, and any others who have a similar list can do the same).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - To increase the chances they'll see this and respond, I'm individually cc'ing the other two officers on this email who haven't yet weighed in on this (Denny and Les) for their okay or feedback.
Good call on the specific time. I'll make it 10am as you suggest. Ditto on adding the "about us" paragraph. I'll edit that slightly and add it.
I don't think the sentence you cite is technically a run-on, but it is certainly long and unwieldy and could stand to be rewritten. How about this:
The local Libertarian Party invites input from our fellow San Franciscans on this measure as we prepare our rebuttal to this latest attempt to benefit the privileged class of those who operate the government at the expense of the public. If you have any tips, ideas, or suggestions, please contact us before 10am tomorrow (Monday) morning. (We apologize for the short notice, but the windows for filing ballot arguments are not very long!)
Does the last part in parentheses sound too informal? I'm weighing that against the desirability of letting people know why they're only seeing tonight or tomorrow morning a notice with a deadline of 10am tomorrow.
Whatever we decide to include here should be pre-cleared by the executive committee for further PRs, so we don't have to haggle over it in the future.
I agree, and was thinking the same thing! We will probably want to tailor our language somewhat in each case to fit the specific circumstances, but it seems to me that we could adopt a standard format press release to use as a template when announcing future ballot argument filings (perhaps posted at a link in our calendar, so we'll know where to find it when the time rolls around?)
