LPSF postcard [1 Attachment]

Okay, I finished the postcard. Let me know ASAP if any issues, since Aubrey wants to get it out yesterday.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

LPSF Postcard-June2016.jpeg

Oops! You're right Marcy! Thanks for catching that! Proposition E doesn't just apply to city government employees!

  But now I'm back to the problem of what to say about the measure. Frankly, I'm not sure that the slightly increased requirements for employers outweighs the convenience for them of bringing local policy into accord with state law, and am wondering whether we should have taken a neutral stance.

  Your note has also prompted me to realize that I screwed up on Prop. 50, although I think in a different way than you suggest.

  One of the opposition arguments says that the measure would allow suspension with pay. That's a pretty straightforward claim that I think would have been challenged if not true, so it seems safe to rely on it. The description of the measure says, "Currently, a suspended legislator keeps receiving a state salary and benefits. This measure allows the Assembly or Senate to stop a legislator's pay and benefits during all or part of a suspension." It doesn't say they can't still suspend a member with pay, only that they would get the option to suspend without pay.

  Where I screwed up is in writing that the measure "gives" them the option to suspend colleagues with pay. That option already exists. But I still think the measure's sponsors are being tricky. As I understand it, right now legislators' options for disciplining colleagues are:

1) Expulsion; or
2) Suspension with pay/benefits

  This would add a third option:

3) Suspension without pay/benefits

  That would be a good thing, if it just meant that any suspended legislators would forfeit their pay/benefits. But not only does it not guarantee that, it also means that legislators who otherwise would have to choose between the unpleasant options of expelling a colleague, or just giving him/her a paid vacation and thereby incurring the wrath of voters, would have a new middle option of suspending the person without pay/benefits, meaning perhaps they would be less likely to vote to expel in cases where they otherwise might have felt pressured to do so.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

Okay, here's a revised version... Let me know Marcy if you or anyone else notice any further problems/issues.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

LPSF-Postcard-June2016.jpg

Great job everyone.

Mike

LPSF-Postcard-June2016.jpg

Looks good!! I agree Prop 50 is tricky, but I think you stated the main reason for caution well.

Marcy

  Okay, here's a revised version... Let me know Marcy if you or anyone else notice any further problems/issues.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

<LPSF-Postcard-June2016.jpg>

Hi Starchild and All. Thanks, Starchild, for working on this—looks great! Thanks for fixing E—indeed the measure doesbring city/county policy in line the newer state policy, but it does apply toall work performed in San Francisco, so it’s for all employees. When I have spoken about Prop E during theserecent endorsement meetings, I always talk about the additional burdens onsmall businesses, since E adds new goodies like you’ve mentioned in thepostcard. It makes sense not to put anexclamation mark like the other measures since it mirrors what’s already instate law. Prop 50 is a trickier one. Originally I thought it was a slam dunk for aYES, but after reading the opponent arguments several times, I’m more inclinedto recommend NO. Why wouldn’t they justexpel the disgraced legislator period? Thisis something they can do now without any change in the law. Since a 2/3 vote is required for expulsion, itwould require bipartisan support to happen, so I don’t think it would beabused. Giving the legislature moreoptions to play around rather than deal with an unpleasant situation would notseem to be in the public interest. Prop 50raises the bar from majority to 2/3 for the suspension option thus giving themthe excuse not to do anything if they can’t raise the 2/3 vote. The only good part about 50 is that, if theyvote to suspend, they can now suspend without pay. Due to the addition of this one good part, Ithink we should recommend a NO vote but perhaps remove the exclamationpoint. The LPSF never did get a chanceto vote on this one, so this is a good time for others to weigh in on this one,since I need our recommendation for what will go on the website for all themeasures. Please weigh in! Thanks!Aubrey

Sorry to keep wishi-washing on Prop 50. It is so confusing. Is the main issue not that 1) only talking about suspension, not expulsion, 2) right now suspensions are with pay, but if Prop 50 passes then it can (must?) be without pay?

This seems to say so: http://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=50&year=2016

Marcy

Thanks, Marcy! I'm fine with using any of this language for the website, but if Aubrey wants to say more, that's fine too.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Yes. Aubrey told me he wants to write more. So I will keep an eye peeled for his blurb.

Speaking of websites, I am wondering if you all saw a website I built to oppose Measure AA. It is called Nine County Coalition (just Google the name), and it is as far as I know one of only two opposition websites. The other is Stop Measure AA (sponsored by the contra Costa County Taxpayers Association). The NCC are the folks that have been opposing Plan Bay Area for the last three years.

Marcy

  Thanks, Marcy! I'm fine with using any of this language for the website, but if Aubrey wants to say more, that's fine too.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))