Marcy,
Thanks for preparing and updating the agenda. A few thoughts on what
I see listed...
First, is 20 minutes enough to talk about 15 ballot measures,
several of them potentially controversial within our group? I highly
suspect not. What exactly is that agenda item intended to entail?
Regarding guests, I think we should as a general rule ask ourselves
two things with regard to each person we invite to come and talk to
us: (1)How is this person coming and speaking to us going to advance
the libertarian cause and (2) What specifically would we like from
them coming out of this meeting? These questions seem particularly
relevant to me in the case of the UC Irvine researcher, Bridgette
Portman. I think it's safe to say that she knows what she wants from
us, and has a sense of how she believes talking to us will help
advance her research goals. What we ought to seek from her, and how
allowing her time to talk to our group will help our goals, remains
unclear to me.
I just got off the phone with Bill Hemenger, and I would say he has a
good chance of getting my endorsement in the D8 race if I endorse
anyone (I didn't in the 2002 runoff, because neither Bevan Dufty nor
Eileen Hanson impressed me enough). Nevertheless I want to give the
other candidates the opportunity to out-libertarian him. My best guess
is they won't be able/willing to do that, but we'll see. Bill's main
focus is economic issues, on which he's not bad (probably better than
any of the others). My questions regard civil liberties issues.
Tonight he said something quite radical to me, namely that he doesn't
think anyone should be in jail for victimless crimes. However I wonder
how much that somewhat abstract belief will affect what he supports or
opposes, and what he prioritizes, on a day-to-day basis. He told me he
does support the Sit/Lie law, for instance, although he sounds like he
now thinks it may have been a mistake to take that position. I got the
sense that he thinks it may have been a mistake primarily because he
didn't realize how controversial it was going to be, which isn't
terribly encouraging regardless of how one feels about the proposal.
On the whole though, I think he's a promising candidate for our
support. But I'd like us to consider what specifically we want from
him. He sounds willing to support me for School Board, but I said I
can't support him just on that basis, that I don't do that kind of
horse-trading. However I *am* willing to horse-trade for something
that isn't benefitting *me* specifically and giving the appearance of
corruption, but that *is* benefitting the libertarian cause. I think
we should listen to him and question him with an eye to finding out
how pro-freedom he's willing to be now, and then if we decide we're
interested in recommending a vote for him, push him to go a little
further, holding out that recommendation as a carrot. 
What is our schedule and plan as far as making recommendations/
endorsements on candidates and ballot measures between now and
November? I don't recall, but I think we ought to have one, and that
we ought to be actively engaged in screening candidates and deciding
which if any to recommend. Nor do I think candidates should have to be
as libertarian as we are in order to get our recommendation -- I only
think they need to be (1) at least somewhat pro-freedom on the whole
(as opposed to somewhat anti-freedom), and (2) at least somewhat more
pro-freedom than the second most pro-freedom candidate in their race.
Of course with ranked-choice voting and races with multiple seats, we
may have more than one recommendation, but I would still suggest we
recommend only those who meet the two criteria listed above (e.g. our
recommendation for second ranked choice in a race should be at least
somewhat less pro-freedom on the whole than our first-ranked choice
and at least somewhat more pro-freedom on the whole than our third-
ranked choice, but that even our third-ranked choice should be at
least somewhat pro-freedom). In judging how "pro-freedom" various
candidates are, I believe we ought to consider not just abstract
beliefs, but the whole package, including what their main agendas and
priorities are, how heavily they weight various issues, how much
integrity and believability we feel they have, what they're willing to
do for us, etc. If we don't have a schedule/plan (and I don't think we
do), we should definitely discuss this Saturday, imho, but not with
outsiders, especially those who are candidates, present in the room.
"Possible formation of LPSF action group" -- this item has my name
next to it with 10 minutes alloted, but I have no idea what it is! A
reference to the SF Liberty Coalition, perhaps? Whatever it is, in
light of the upcoming election stuff we need to deal with, I suggest
we consider postponing the item, along with anything else non-time-
essential, such as non-election-related membership/mailings and in-
meeting activism, and perhaps even the UC Irvine researcher's
appearance, if it isn't too impolitic to ask her to reschedule. We
should also talk about whether we want to do anything with regard to
the Ron Paul event, since that will be happening before our September
meeting.
"SMART Reform" is Jeff Adachi's pension reform measure. I definitely
think we should endorse it, but it is a ballot measure and
consideration of it should be part of whatever process we adopt or
adhere to regarding consideration of ballot measures. Regarding
Economic Recovery SF, I think we should think about not only whether
we support it, but how we can get a "seat at the table," as I had on
our behalf with the SF Taxpayers Union when that group was active.
These two questions are best considered in tandem, along with the
questions "What do we want from them?" and "What will they want from
us?" Am I sounding like a cynical, bread-and-butter politician yet? 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))