Taking positions on 2016 Ballot Questions

Revised 7/10/16

 

Shepherd: Charlene DiCalogero (would make more sense to have a Communications Committee member on this proposal) 

Sponsors: Charlene DiCalogero, Bill Ashley

Contact Info: electcharleneisgreen [at ] gmail (dot ] com

 

Vetting: Legislative, Platform, Communication Committee

 

Background:

Background:

At the January 2016 State Com meeting, as a result of a proposal by Mike Heichman, the Platform Committee was asked to review  the 2016 Ballot Questions and make recommendations to State Com regarding what positions the GRP should take. The Platform Committee has now made its recommendation to State Com. State Com is expected to be deciding on which ballot questions to endorse at the July 17th State  Com meeting during an agenda item separate from the time in which we consider proposals.

 

Proposal:

  1. We propose that the Party publicize its positions on the ballot questions, if any, via the same measures as suggested in proposal #1.

 

No cost: on the GRP website, FB page, through an email blast, and through summer and fall press releases.

 

Cost: Printing and distribution of printed material, if possible in conjunction with presidential and state candidate information (see Proposal 1).

 Implementation:

This proposal will be implemented by the same committees delegated to implement Proposal #1. Our position on the ballot questions will be added to electronic and printed messages about our 2016 candidates.

Budget Implications:

This would be accomplished within the same budget as Proposal #1

 

Advantages of Proposal: 

  1. This would demonstrate that we are making a good faith effort to act like a serious political party by taking and publicizing GRP positions on the ballot questions.

  2. This effort would demonstrate that we deserve the support of our members and the respect of the public. We predict that new members would join us during the campaign.

  3. Our positions on the ballot questions would earn the respect and appreciation of progressive allies who are actively supporting or opposing the specific ballot questions. By taking positions on these questions in ways that are distinctive, we would be sharing our values and principles with the public.

 

 


Showing 16 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Daniel Factor
    commented 2016-07-16 23:50:13 -0400
    Nancy, perhaps you are not on the State Com, and State Com discuss email lists? (The purpose of the email lists was discussed at our last (April 2nd) meeting; you can review that in the minutes) If you are not on the State Com email lists, I believe that Daphne Stevens (daphnetstevens4@gmail.com) is the State Com Listserves administrator, so Daphne should hopefully be able to add you. Our one person Tech Committee of David Gerry (gerrydk@gmail.com) may also be able to help. Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow.
  • Nancy Slator
    commented 2016-07-16 23:05:25 -0400
    Coming back from a week away, I’m trying to get ready for tomorrow’s meeting. I see mention here of an email from Bill Ashley and of an agenda. I don’t have either of those. I need to figure out how to get into the loop.
  • Charlene DiCalogero
    commented 2016-07-10 18:47:36 -0400
    Sorry everybody. After I put up the revision I found another revision that takes out the substance of the ballot questions. Decision on positions for the questions is on a separate agenda item, not in this proposal.

    Therefore, this proposal is only to dedicate committee time and budget resources to publicizing our positions on the ballot questions.
  • Joyce Palmer-Fortune
    commented 2016-07-10 17:54:50 -0400
    Oops – I read too fast – the link is to the atty general’s summary and the platform committee’s comments, emailed by Bill earlier to all. Charlene – it you do find links to the whole text do add them here in the comments section.
  • Joyce Palmer-Fortune
    commented 2016-07-10 17:51:55 -0400
    The text and some additional info already posted, but linked on the agenda. The idea is that taking a stand on the ballot questions is separate from making a decision about how much and how to spend money supporting those ballot questions. The first is on the agenda as an item separate from the proposal, hence the info is linked there. The proposal is about how to get the word out and how much to spend doing it. Does that make sense? The link is here: http://www.green-rainbow.org/2016_ballot_questions
  • Charlene DiCalogero
    commented 2016-07-10 17:26:29 -0400
    This proposal has been revised to include Bill Ashley as the co-sponsor. It also now includes the titles and recommendations for the 4 ballot questions still considered viable by the state.

    It felt unwieldy to include the text of the ballot questions and Platform Committee discussion in the proposal box (I believe we have committees so not everyone has to participate in every discussion on every work topic). I put in links to a summary of each question, and full text of the questions, so people can read them before the meeting.
  • Daphne  T Stevens
    commented 2016-07-09 16:48:13 -0400
    I am so glad Bill has vetted the ballot questions which hopefully will result with us voting in a bloc to strenghen those we approve. I especially like the last sentence in number three. The amount of money bothers me with so much free media available. Most flyers will be tossed aside.
  • Ian Jackson
    commented 2016-07-09 06:29:15 -0400
    We currently have the funds, but will all things it has to do with making choices.
    If we decide to do this, we need to keep mind that the State tweaked the regulations on permitted spending on ballot questions. Any printing would have to focus on Our Values as opposed what one side or the is saying on the questions.
  • Joyce Palmer-Fortune
    commented 2016-07-08 19:03:31 -0400
    I first thought this should not be a proposal – it should just be that we take it up as an agenda item and decide which Ballot Q’s we support.

    The $1100 print budget is the one part where I think it should be a proposal.

    Could the sponsors give us a little better idea of how the $1100 breaks down? Including how would the printed material be distributed? Who will do that work?

    Ian – could you comment on the availability of funds?

    Regardless of whether we can afford the $1100, we should take time in our meeting to hear Bill’s research and take a stand on questions we think are important. (I think we decided that at the last statecom meeting, right?) What we can afford to do or spend on it, and who will do the ‘doing’, that would be the part that fits our model of a proposal, so I think we should focus on that.
  • Daniel Factor
    commented 2016-07-08 08:01:13 -0400
    Bill Ashley has informed me that he has agreed to replace me as co-sponsor of this proposal. I support this proposal, but I am no longer co-sponsoring because I am already co-sponsoring another proposal. As a result, the two co-sponsors of this proposal (proposal #2) are Bill Ashley and Charlene DiCalogero.
  • Brian Cady
    commented 2016-07-07 16:21:00 -0400
    This proposal text, on July 7th 2016, seems truncated – Advantages of proposal 4.) seems incomplete.
  • Ian Jackson
    commented 2016-06-22 07:58:50 -0400
    The current petition may be found at http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/initiatives-and-other-ballot-questions/current-petitions-filed.html.
    Questions with either IL (in In Litigation) or ESD (Enough Signatures filed by the December 2015 deadline) in the last column are still in active consideration.
  • Mike Heichman
    commented 2016-06-19 20:45:36 -0400
    Brilliant Proposal! I fully support this proposal.

    Mike Heichman, Former StateCom Member
  • Mike Heichman
    tagged this with Important 2016-06-19 20:45:00 -0400
  • Mike Heichman
    tagged this with Good 2016-06-19 20:44:46 -0400
  • Charlene DiCalogero
    published this page in Summer 2016 proposals 2016-06-19 16:41:55 -0400