Ron,
Can you send the contact info for the attorneys you spoke with? I'd like to ask them whether something like Oakland's Measure Z, which passed in 2004 would fly here, and if not, why not. Measure Z made "law enforcement related to private adult cannabis (marijuana) use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession, the City's lowest law enforcement priority; (2) to lobby to legalize, tax and regulate cannabis for adult private use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession" (see Measure Z: Marijuana Law Enforcement - Alameda County, CA ).
I think we ought to be able to model our measure on this without too much difficulty. Maybe it wouldn't be as specific as we'd like, but we'd have the potential for getting something technically binding on the books. We could charge the Police Commission with implementation rather than creating a new commission as Measure Z did, and mandate that they automatically get .05% of the Police Department's budget or something (they need more funding to reign in the police anyway). Mandatory set-asides are certainly legal as ballot measures -- it was tried in 2004 in SF (albeit unsuccessfully in that case) with Proposition L, the "Save Our Theaters" initiative.
Note that Measure Z apparently *is* being implemented in Oakland (see http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/061505measurez.cfm ) despite the Oakland City Attorney's office arguing before the election that it was unconstitutional and illegal (scroll down to read "Arguments Against Measure Z" on the SmartVoter page link above). I think these attorneys are snowing us. And asking way too much money to boot. Do you trust Louise Renne's office? I don't. She's a political insider. If I can find a lawyer to file pre-trial motions and defend me in court for $3000, we ought to be able to do way better than the costs being cited for our initiative. The translations should cost little or nothing -- we have connections we've used before to people who speak Spanish and Chinese.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
At the last LPSF meeting I discussed the fact that all the attorneys I spoke with were very direct on the fact that based on court rulings and case law the Police Initiative could not be an administrative initiative. Therefore the Initiative could not be made binding.
The Initiative could say we would like this to happen but we could not demand that this happen.
Secondly, based on a very recent Federal District court ruling the full Initiative Petition circulars and all material filings would be required to be done in Hispanic and Chinese. This is an additional incurred cost for translation services above the standard legal costs of qualifying the ballot initiative and all additional filing requirements.
It was decided to change the Initiative to a Petition simply because there would be no translation costs, no legal fees and the Petition could be circulated by anyone and signed by any San Francisco resident. There would be no voter registration requirements for signer or circulators.
The second priority initiative is the Salary Cap Initiative. This would require a Charter amendment. This is based on the fact that there are some 46 union Memorandum of Understandings between the City and various unions. Go to this web site at SFGov for copies of those agreements.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/dhr_index.asp?id=30852
Read any or try the Police Department on. It makes for very interesting reading.
Secondly there were previous Ballot propositions approved by the voters directing how salaries were determined by various averaging methods.
Each of these propositions and union agreements would have to be specifically addressed in the Circulating Initiative. This means it is absolutely crucial that legal counsel be hired to write the Initiative because of these pre-existing laws.
Total guesstimated costs for just the legal aspects would be an easy $15,000 - $20,000 plus translation costs. To cover the minimum of some 50,000 verified registered voter signatures you would have to collect some 75,000 - 80,000 signatures.
To place this on the November ballot this would have to wrapped up by July 10 which is the final date for submission of signatures for verification for placing on the ballot.
We as an organization do not have this type of money or membership. To get help we would need the other political parties and community groups for bodies and dollars.
It was determined a Petition process would make this possible by presenting tens of thousands of signatures to the Mayor Supervisors the Police Chief and the Police Commission as a very viable alternative to a costly Police Initiative process.
This whole Petition process is set to be discussed at the next LPSF meeting but as Marcy suggested creating a framework before hand would be advisable.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianMarcy,
I am very confused. All this time you've been saying that you don't
any "resolutions," only measures with teeth. But now you're excited
about circulating a petition which won't even result in putting a
measure on the ballot?A resolution that will be voted on by the electorate will...
(a) be a lot more newsworthy
(b) be more apt to be taken seriously by the politicians
(c) be seen by a lot more people, and
(d) do more to put the LPSF on the map and make our actions part of the
public record...than a petition that won't.
My suggestion is we stick with the plan to put a measure on the ballot
(and hopefully get it passed). Write it to make it as binding as we
legally can, and go with that. If it turns out that we really can't say
*anything* about police priorities that will be legally binding
(something I find difficult to believe but will try to do some more
research on), then let's go with our second priority initiative.Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Dear All,
>
> Ron has a great list with which to start our Police Redeployment
> plans. I am hoping that after our campaing Pam from KPOO will no
> longer be asking if Libertarianism is "part of that whole socialist
> thing" (see Derek's post on Discussion Group). The campaing could be
> an effective vehicle to positively introduce ourselves, and make
> mention of our political candidates, as well as a chance to
> contribute to the efforts of cutting down violent crime in San
> Francisco.
>
> I would be pleased to assist in this campaign once we get around to
> formulating some concrete plan of action.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else : -- )
> >
> > To answer your question this is some of what could take place to
> garner seventy eleven hundreds of dozens of thousands of Police
> Redeployment Petition signatures:
> >
> > 1. Contact the respective Chairs: Democratic - Republican - Green
> parties and present a copy of the authorized version of the
> Redeployment Petition.
> >
> > 2. With the approval of the respective party chairs get on the
> meeting agenda of the next available County Party meeting.
> >
> > 3. Get the Redeployment Petition approved by County Party
> membership. Get signatures at the meeting. Get volunteer Petition
> circulators.
> >
> > Due to the fact voter registration is not required just residency
> in San Francisco this opens the Petiton to all San Franciscans and
> any San Franciscan to circulate a Petition.
> >
> > 4. Get a definitive list of all Community Organizations and do
> the same as above.
> >
> > 5. Get a definitive list of all Local Political Party
> Organizations and do all of the above.
> >
> > 6. Get a definitive list of Community Cultural Organizations and
> do the same as above.
> >
> > 7. Get a definitive list of all local Religious Organizations and
> do the same as above.
> >
> > 8. Get a definitive list of all local Business Organizations and
> do the same as above.
> >
> > 9. Get a definitive list of all local Community Events and do
> tables
> >
> > 10. Take ads out in newspapers with copy of the Petition and
> place for signatures
> >
> > 11. Do neighborhood door hanger campaigns with copy of petition
> and place for signature.
> >
> > 12. Do web site with place to download signable petition -
> circulate the web site.
> >
> > 13. Write letters to Editors and newspaper reporters about the
> petition.
> >
> > 14. Petition local newstalk radio shows about the petition and
> getting air time.
> >
> > 15. Get local TV stations to give air time on local talk shows
> about petition and police.
> >
> > 16. Button hole all the Supervisors by people in Supervisors
> districts.
> >
> > This is just a sample of what could or should maybe possibly done
> to get the Petitoion out there.
> >
> > Please read the UPGRADED - Redeployment Petiton it is posted on
> the Activists List Under Files.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > "Amarcy D. Berry" wrote:
> > Dear Ron,
> >
> > Once again, thank you for your immense positiveness and spirit of
> > cooperation...and for so quickly morphing the initiative into a
> > petition.
> >
> > It would seem to me that starting with a petition, which does not
> > call for our committing to raise $8,000 by May or June, seems more
> > appropriate for us, given our current peoplepower.
> >
> > I like the petition as is. But you can guess what my suggestion
> > would be: remove "lack of concern", and substitute with something
> > like "It has become necessary for the People of the City and County
> > of San Francisco to communicate to the Mayor, the Board of
> > Supervisors......(etc) the People's need to see our Police
> Department
> > re-delploy its resources to concentrate on major crimes......etc.
> >
> > I am wondering if there is interest to have by the next meeting a
> > list of places to go and people to meet, as well as a time line to
> > accomplish the events. I realize we do not have a formal committee
> > in place yet, but I personally see no reason why any and all of us
> > could not start offering suggestions. I am thinking that we might
> > want to use election time, coming up pretty soon in June, when
> people
> > are attuned to politics to do some petitioning.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Everyone;
> > >
> > > At yesterdays LPSF meeting due to a variety of factors it was
> > determined that the Police Initiative should be re-born as a Police
> > Petition.
> > >
> > > Some of the factors involved:
> > >
> > > Money. As at its most basic needs it would require at least
> > $6,000 and with the now required translation in two additional
> > languages possibly another $1,000.
> > >
> > > Gathering at least 16,000 signatures.
> > >
> > > Meeting all the legal standards to qualify the Initiative for
> the
> > ballot.
> > >
> > > Definitively being able to obtain co-operation of the other
> major
> > parties and community groups to assist in funding and petition
> > circulating.
> > >
> > > Having LPSF members who could do the necessary work in
> > introducing the proposed initiative to the other parties and
> > community groups.
> > >
> > > The Police Initiative by law could not be binding and would
> only
> > be a non-binding public policy statement. It could not be an
> > administrative initiative which would specifically direct the
> > activities of police personnel by law.
> > >
> > > Therefore it was voted to make the Police Initiative a Police
> > Petition. All activities and further discussion on this to be done
> at
> > the May 13 LPSF meeting.
> > >
> > > I have attached a copy of a sample of what could be said which
> > could then be presented as a petition. I have also included a
> partial
> > list of the activities which would be required of LPSF members to
> > gather enough signatures as a Petition.
> > >
> > > The Petition is for discussion purposes it is not definitive.
> The
> > LPSF would have to concur as a group to approve doing the petition
> > process with an appointed select committee to formulate the
> petition
> > and make it happen.
> > >
> > > Some of the activities to be considered which would require
> > participation would include:
> > >
> > > Presenting to other political parties and community groups for
> > their support and the circulation of the petitions.
> > >
> > > Publicity campaigns in newspapers or radio newstalk shows.
> Doing
> > mailers - postcards - newsletters - telephone campaigns - fund
> > raising and any other activity which would garner support and
> > signatures.
> > >
> > > Once enough signatures had been gathered say at least 10,000 -
> > 15,000 then presenting to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors
> and
> > Chief of Police and Police Commission etc etc etc.
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > U s government grant California Activist California
> politics
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
>>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>