[statecom-discuss] Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Notes,
Saturday March 10th & March 24th Meetings
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Mon Mar 5 23:28:31 EST 2007
I think your analysis is correct about the differences - But in many
communities there are other processes besides just the ballot so probably the timing
would actually be more flexible - Love, Grace
In a message dated 3/5/07 9:10:02 PM, mikeheichman at verizon.net writes:
> Hi Grace,
>
> I would like to know more about binding municipal questions.
>
> 1. Assuming that we go through a process of selecting one issue, which I
> believe would be preferable, I don't think that we have enough time to
> do this "statewide" this year. Could we do this in 2008? Or would we
> have to do this in 2009?
>
> 2. I assume that there would be different rules and schedules for the
> 351 cities and towns. Is there a set of general instructions that
> communities would follow?
>
> 3. Potentially, could this be done in conjunction with Ron's advisory
> state legislative proposal? My guess is that your idea, since it would
> be mandatory, would probably be a more difficult process, but more
> "meaningful" in changing public policy. Ron's advisory has the same set
> of rules throughout the state and would probably be easier to get more
> local groups involved.
>
> Mike Heichman
>
>
> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>
> >Can someone help me distinguish this from a coordinated statewide effort?
> >This may become the defining issue of our politics for 2008 and it is
> >EXPLICITLY about building the GRP (see below)- yet, I as an elected
> statecom rep have
> >never been asked if I am okay with what issue is chosen- *to represent* and
> >*build my party*.
> >
> >Let me say here: I prefer binding initiatives, chosen by locals for their
> >local community, to build their local.
> >
> >An advisory question to legislators has been done - witness the questions
> on
> >finneran (and the other one I cannot remember but was better that year)-
> then
> >the legislators get to decide! There was no luck in making how the reps
> >voted an issue in the next election. the anti-war advisory will do better
> but
> >that is because there is huge public visiblity and support on the issue and
> they
> >are now lobbying legislators to continue the grassroots buildling (not sure
> >how effective that is being...)
> >
> >Lets organize for real change now. and lets do it on thingsl ocal
> >communities can bind - home rule petitions on housing, CORI, living wage,
> conservation,
> >water use, municipal utilities, etc.
> >
> >Love, grace
> >In a message dated 3/5/07 2:37:32 AM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Notes, Saturday March 10th & March 24th
> >>Meetings
> >>
> >> Dear GRP folks,
> >>
> >> The next meeting of the Common Local Ballot Question 2008 initiative
> >>(CLBQ2008) will be Saturday March 10th at noon in Somerville (44 benton Rd
> #1) and
> >>then Saturday March 24th , noon, in Western MA. The meeting after that
> will
> >>likely be Thursday April 12th at a place to be announced.
> >>
> >> For more info about the CLBQ2008 draft proposal, see end of this email
> or
> >>call 617 230-2835 to get a copy sent to you. Also see footnote (1) at
> end
> >>of this email.
> >>
> >> In brief the CBQ2008 calls on GRP local entities and individuals to
> carry
> >>out State Rep. level local Ballot Questions in as many State Rep districts
> as
> >>possible on one common issue that has a root cause wording that
> definitively
> >>distinguishes the GRP from other parties.
> >>
> >> The proposal is based on an analysis of a GPUS and GRP-endorsed local
> >>ballot question in Somerville in 2006 that used root-cause language and
> generated
> >>45 % vote despite being strongly opposed by all Democrats and Republicans
> !
> >>For questions on this matter please call me at 617 230-2835.
> >>
> >> The proposal is also based on the need for significantly increased LOCAL
> >>organizing as the key to building the GRP into the future. The plan is
> for
> >>2008 so that it can be well thought out and so that there is enough time
> for
> >>solid mobilizing. Let’s build our GRP from the bottom up and
> systematically
> >>create the socially, economically and ecologically just world that we all
> need
> >>!
> >>
> >> WHAT DO WE WANT ? ……Local Organizing !
> >> WHEN DO WE WANT IT ? …..Now ! …….(actually 2008.. Oooops !)
> >>
> >> Please plan to attend the March 10th meeting. We need asmany people on
> >>board as possible (!) to grow this initiative. Let’s build our GRP at the
> >>local levels and clearly expose the ever-so-clear bankrupt policies of
> Dems and
> >>Repubs.
> >>
> >> Here are the notes from last Thursdays (March 1st) informational
> meeting:
> >>
> >> Last Thursday we held an informal informational meeting for folks
> >>interested in Common Local Ballot Question 2008 (CLBQ2008). Three of us
> met and
> >>reviewed the draft proposal and then sprinted (!) into an energetic
> discussion
> >>about next steps. The original intention of the meeting was to just
> explain
> >>the draft proposal and answer questions about it but we wound up going
> further
> >>as there was good synergy. Two of us were from Somerville, one from
> >>Watertown and a fourth called in from Plymouth and contributed over the
> phone.
> >>
> >> Notes from March 1st Preliminary Informational session and Next Steps:
> >>
> >> We covered 4 items for moving forward which we hope people will agree
> >>with, more or less.
> >>
> >> ITEM #1: Initial Questions for each issue that one might consider
> >> ITEM #2: Brainstorm of Issues
> >> ITEM #3: “Question Formulation Technique” for considering and
> gathering
> >>data for each issue
> >> ITEM #4: CLBQ2008 Meetings and Organizing Ourselves
> >>
> >> Here each item is described one at a time:
> >>
> >> ITEM #1: Initial Questions for each issue that one might consider
> >>
> >> We talked about what were the goals of the CBLQ2008 in general and
> >>generated some preliminary questions to think about. They were:
> >>
> >> Will the ballot question be able to get at least 35 % of the vote ?
> >> Will the ballot question capture voters’ and volunteers’ imagination ?
> (a
> >>good idea attracts people thus we can grow through the interest of new
> >>folks)
> >> Will the ballot question clearly distinguish us from other parties ?
> >> Will the ballot question be applicable to each State Rep district ?
> >>
> >> Will the ballot question be phrase-able in terms of a root cause
> analysis
> >>matching our Key Values ?
> >>
> >> ITEM #2 Brainstorm of Issues
> >>
> >> We brainstormed 13 different issue areas where ballot questions might be
> >>done (realizing that there might be others….) and decided to do a
> preliminary
> >>poll to see which issues people might be interested in:
> >>
> >> A) Decriminalization of Marijuana
> >> B) Electoral reform (Instant runoff voting and proportional
> >>representation)
> >> C) No Child Left Behind (exposing it as an attack on public education)
> >> D) Living Wage for Public and Big Box stores (or other abolish poverty
> >>related issue)
> >> E) Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees and Divestment
> >> F) Single payer health care that eliminates health insurance companies
> >> G) Global Warming emission / alternative energy
> >> H) Public Transportation initiatives
> >> I) Immigrants Rights (right to vote for residents, reform of laws)
> >> J) Anti-War related such as high school recruitment issue
> >> K) Genetically Modified Food Reduction or Elimination
> >> L) Gay marriage
> >> M) Reparations
> >>
> >> By email, each person is asked to identify the their 1st, 2nd and 3rd
> >>Choice: "1" for first choice, "2" for 2nd Choice and "3" for 3rd choice.
> People
> >>receiving physical mail are also invited to “call-in” their 3 choices at
> 617
> >>230-2835. Please feel free to choose an issue not listed. (email
> >>ronwf777 at yahoo.com)
> >>
> >> The poll will not be used to make any long term decisions ! one way or
> the
> >>other. The spirit of the process that we agreed to would be that we
> would
> >>just ask questions and not advocate for any issue ! (see below). At this
> >>point we are collecting questions and information and de-emphasizing
> advocacy
> >>for any particular issue….. We GRP’s are so cooperative, .. aren’t we ?!
> We
> >>hope you share the spirit that the three of us are suggesting.
> >>
> >> Instead of thinking of the poll like a vote, the 3 of us thought that
> the
> >>results could be used to decide which two issues would be the first to go
> >>through the “Question Formulation Process” that we came up with, at our
> March
> >>10th Meeting.
> >>
> >> (Charlene from Watertown has used techniques similar to the Question
> >>Formulation Process many times, and suggested it as a vehicle to help
> bring out
> >>as much information on each issue – see below for the “Question
> Formulation
> >>Technique” – and the rest of us agreed that it seemed like a good
> technique
> >>for what we were doing.”).
> >>
> >> We can use the March 24th meeting for the next two issues.
> >>
> >> ITEM #3 “Question Formulation Technique” for considering and gathering
> >>data for each issue
> >>
> >> At our March 10th meeting we will review the overall plan and thinking
> >>behind CLBQ2008 for folks that have particular questions, and then
> collectively
> >>choose two issues to subject to the “Question Formulation Technique”
> >>guidelines.
> >>
> >> The Question Formulation Technique was explained to us as a method of
> >>drawing out the critical questions that revolve around a decision that one
> >>intends to make. The spirit of the technique is to not advocate but
> instead to ask
> >>questions and share information. We actually did a trial run of the
> process
> >>at our meeting and we all liked it !
> >>
> >> The way the Question Formulation Technique works is simple. First an
> >>issue is chosen. Then participants asks questions about the issue (such
> as “Do
> >>we know the Democratic position on the issue ?”) Then three questions are
> >>collectively prioritized. For each of the top 3 questions, more related
> >>questions are asked. By the end the group has honed in on key questions
> for each
> >>issue and can plan to get the answers to help with decisin-making. We
> will
> >>use this technique as a guideline.
> >>
> >> The Question Formulation Technique is one simple way of developing a lot
> >>of questions about any choice one faces, prioritizing those questions, and
> >>honing in on answers. Emphasis is on formulating questions and getting
> info.
> >>Thanks Charlene for sharing this technique,... which she noted might be
> useful
> >>for any decision one faces.
> >>
> >> ITEM #4 Meetings and Organizing Ourselves
> >> We decided that we would try to have several meetings around the state
> at
> >>different locations and at each meeting choose a few issues to take
> through
> >>our versions of the Question Formulation Technique. After several of
> these
> >>meetings we would be in a better position to collectively decide on an
> issue
> >>using the GRP’s consensus decision making process.
> >>
> >> The dates are:
> >> Saturday, March 10th, Noon
> >> 44 Benton Road #1 (off of Highland Ave) in Somerville
> >> Home of Ron Francis 617 230-2835
> >>
> >> Saturday March 24th Noon:
> >> Western Mass location (stay tuned…we will inform you of the meeting place
> …
> >>.)
> >>
> >> Sincerely Yours folks,
> >> Ron Francis
> >>
> >> (Ron Francis was the male co-chair of the Green Rainbow Party in
> 2004-2005
> >>and in 2005-2006 and was a coordinator for the GPUS and GRP-endorsed
> >>Question 5 and Question 6 campaigns in Somerville)
> >>
> >> Footnote referenced earlier:
> >> (1) Please note also that the CLBQ2008 is NOT meant as a substitute for
> >>the strategic planning being done at the state level of the party.
> CLBQ2008
> >>has a local organizing focus and gets it's energy from locals and
> >>individuals. One of the state level strategic planning coordinators
> noted “The
> >>Strategic Plan (statecom approved) is not supposed to place any official
> limitations
> >>on what GRP members decide to work on.”)
> >>
> >> Background
> >>
> >> Feb 5th email:
> >> Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Draft Proposal
> >>
> >> Dear Statecom folks,
> >>
> >> One of the models that the membership committee (circa 2005) explored
> was
> >>the idea of a Party-led local ballot question(s) as a way of developing
> local
> >>chapters. It is high time that this strategy be tried. (Note that a
> >>related strategy is being tried in Somerville in which the party - State
> and
> >>National - got behind a ballot question led by a community group (... a
> different
> >>strategy but clearly related.))
> >>
> >> For several reasons I believe that this strategy (Party led,
> >>Party-signature local ballot questions - probably on one but maybe on two
> issues max - for
> >>2008 leading to statewide in 2010) is the best strategy for the GRP to
> >>pursue at this time and look forward to discussing the reasons why at
> upcoming
> >>strategy sessions. (Also see arguments below).
> >>
> >> In the meantime I invite people to help out with the preparation work
> >>necessary to get this strategy moving before it is too late. If a
> critical mass
> >>of people would like to pursue this strategy then perhaps it will happen.
> >>
> >> Some people might feel that this is jumping the gun on our strategy
> >>sessions. It is not. What this effort represents is a doing the homework
> to
> >>develop one possible strategy to the point where it is ready to go if
> enough GRPs
> >>want to do it.
> >>
> >> In four weeks two meetings will be held, one in Eastern MA and one in
> >>Western Mass for people interested in this strategy. Both will be
> potlucks held
> >>on Saturday March 3rd and Sunday March 4th respectively. Times and places
> to
> >>be arranged.
> >>
> >> One thing that needs to be done is to begin suggesting specific ballot
> >>question language that scores well on each of the following criteria and
> submit
> >>the text of the ballot questions on this newly established thread. People
> >>can then begin to edit the ballot question
> >>
> >> The local ballot questions would have the party signature on it and
> would
> >>call for a specific instruction to be given to the State Rep in the
> district
> >>as most ballot questions do.
> >>
> >> Here are some criteria that should be considered in developing the text.
> >>
> >> a) The ballot questions must be such as to challenge the ROOT causes of
> a
> >>particular social change issue and possibly associated with abolishing
> >>poverty but not necessarily.
> >>
> >> b) The ballot question must be clearly distinguishable from any
> intiatives
> >>that would be supported by Progressive Democrats - our competitors for
> >>social justice minded people.
> >>
> >> Just to get the ball rolling I will throw out one example that I am not
> >>particularly wedded to, and instead throw out for general discussion and
> as an
> >>example.
> >>
> >> "Shall the State Represetative from this district be instructed to vote
> in
> >>favor of a living wage law that covers state employees that work over 500
> >>hours per year, the employees of state service contractors that hold
> contracts
> >>worth over $25,000 per year, and employees of large retailers with gross
> >>revenues over $1,000,000. The law would call for payment of $10.00 per
> hour if
> >>the employer provides health insurance of at least $2.50 an hour, or
> $12.50
> >>per hour if not and all amounts are indexed annually."
> >>
> >> I would like to see other ballot question language as well on other
> issues
> >>such as IRV or health care and then let the issues compete based on a
> >>variety of factors including the degree to which we can make this issue a
> party
> >>signature issue
> >>
> >> Below is some of the background for this initiative:
> >> Please call if you are interested in discussing this or would like to
> help
> >>in the process.
> >> Ron Francis 617 230-2835
> >>
> >> Background and rational for this strategy:
> >>
> >> Our party needs to be identified with a particular issue that we have a
> >>passion about.
> >>
> >> It is essential that we choose ballot question that clearly exposes the
> >>root causes of the system of power that elites and corporations in the US
> hold
> >>over ordinary people. It is also essential that the established
> Democrats
> >>and most of the Progressive Democrats be unable to support the ballot
> >>question. This can be done by choosing an issue that exposes the
> Democrats
> >>(supposedly the party of the working person) so that people will choose
> GRP over
> >>Democrats because they see the Democrats for what they really are.
> >>
> >> The Someville ballot Questions on Palestine met the above requirements:
> >>They got to the root cause of a social problem and had language that could
> not
> >>be supported by Progressive Democrats in Somerville since the upper
> echelons
> >>of the Democratic Party made it clear to local Democrats that the Party is
> >>zionist and that these local Democrats (some of whom are even Progressive
> >>Democrats) would go no where if they were openly anti-zionist. These
> Progressive
> >>Democrats in Somerville must now answer to voters who in fact voted at a
> 45%
> >>level for the Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees.
> >>
> >> A similar effort is needed for a poverty-related issue.
> >>
> >> This propsal is intended to develop a dozen or so local ballot questions
> >>in 2008 that lead to a 2010 statewide ballot question that firmly plants
> in
> >>the public's mind what the party stands for. This could be coordinated
> with a
> >>Statewide candidacies if the party is at that level of development and has
> a
> >>candidate in place by Summer of 2009.
> >>
> >> If this plan works it sets up the party to win a substantial percentage
> of
> >>the vote in A) many local races or B) in just a few local races and then
> >>connected to a statewide candidacy anchored on the ballot question issue.
> >>
> >> Feb 18th email:
> >> Common Local Ballot Question 2008 based on Somerville experience and
> other
> >>factors.
> >>
> >> Dear GRP's
> >>
> >>(Quick Note: Local Ballots 2008 phone conference is sunday night 9:30 pm.
> >> To participate call, 641 497 7002 code 724655. I look forward to
> getting
> >>feedback on the plan and discussing in detail the thinking behind the 2
> year
> >>Plan)
> >>
> >>Some people are interested in how I came up with Local Ballots 2008 - a
> two
> >>year plan to do State Rep Ballot Questions in every district using root
> cause
> >>politics.
> >>
> >>It all has to do with a little experiment in Somerville:
> >>
> >>In Somerville in 2006 I helped a group do two ballot questions: one of
> our
> >>ballot questions read something like " .... support the right of return
> for
> >>all refugees, including Palestinian refugees, to return to their homes".
> Now
> >>how could you be against that !
> >>
> >>Yet Deval, "Bomb Lebanon" Patrick and the other racists (Capuano, Healey
> and
> >>Somerville Mayor Curtatone) came out visibly against us ! with their
> photos
> >>all together. WE obviously struck a cord ! The state GRP and national
> GPUS
> >>supported the ballot questions of course. We got 45 % overall and 50% in
> my
> >>home precinct ! Now if that 's not a set-up for the GRP then I don't
> know
> >>what is.
> >>
> >>It is a perfect set-up because the ballot question, by the nature of its
> >>wording, showed the difference between GRP social justice politics and
> racist
> >>politics.
> >>
> >>(Also note that The Dems and Republican racists fell into the trap we laid
> >>for them and did us a big additional favor by all coming together on one
> large
> >>campaign poster-board used by the zionists to campaign against us at each
> >>polling station. Thus helping making it very clear the difference between
> GRP
> >>politics and racist Democratic and Republican politics. It was a dream
> come
> >>true as far as a strategist is concerned ! )
> >>
> >>Among other things the 45 % percent shows concretely that the Dems and
> >>Republicans are out of step with ordinary folks sense of human rights.
> The
> >>zionists (racists) are still recovering, although they won't show it and
> neither
> >>would I.
> >>
> >>(Also note that a Plymouth county GRP respondent noted that the ballot
> >>questions are mainly for concepts and shouldn't be too specific. That's
> perfect
> >>! It is exactly a concept that we are trying to get across by using the
> >>ballot question mechanism to have people appreciate why GRP is the way to
> go.)
> >>
> >>OK, so that was Somerville.
> >>
> >>Lesson learned was clear: Craft a ballot question that clarifies the
> >>difference between Dems, Repubs and us.
> >>
> >>The next step in my thinking followed straightforwardly: Let's just do
> the
> >>same thing in all State Rep districts and really draw out the
> distinction.
> >>If we are lucky, and all goes as planned, then we can run candidates in
> 2010
> >>based on the distinction and get big percentages. With the Somerville
> work
> >>the distinction was between human rights and racism. With the Local
> Ballots
> >>2008 initiative the distinction needs to be between GRP social justice
> values
> >>and Dem, Repub corporate values - that's what ordinary people need: a
> clear
> >>difference.
> >>
> >>The issue that we use doesn't have to be Palestine but it needs to be
> >>something that hopefully Deval and other prominent Democrats, local
> Progressive
> >>Democrats (who opposed us in Somerville by the way), and Republicans will
> all
> >>come out against ! Let's pray that they'll do us that favor.
> >>
> >>And that means that the issue has to strike right at the root and it has
> to
> >>be done in 3 or 4 sentences and it would be better if there was some
> passion
> >>behind the issue (like refugee rights). We want a voter to say "hmmm...
> that
> >>makes a lot of sense..." when she/he reads the ballot question and begin
> to
> >>wonder why the Dems, Prog Dems, and Repubs are all against it. (if you
> were
> >>against our refugee ballot question then you had to, logically, be a
> racist
> >>!)
> >>
> >>And thus the idea of Local Ballots 2008 was born.
> >>
> >>The main problem with Local Ballots 2008, going forward, is that we have
> to
> >>find the appropriate issue and the appropriate wording. When I realized
> that
> >>we needed careful thinking and careful wording, I knew that there was no
> >>time to waste because it will take a lot of education and 1.7 years is not
> a lot
> >>of time - although I would settle for 10 or 12 districts rather than all
> 160
> >>state rep districts.
> >>
> >>Realizing that time was of the essence, I drafted Local Ballots 2008 and
> >>sent it out to as many GRP lists as I could find to set up some
> discussions and
> >>see if people want to do it. I'll only go forward if a critical mass
> wants
> >>to do it.
> >>
> >>The other parts of my thinking are this:
> >>
> >>a) We need to do more local organizing. Too high of a percentage of GRP
> >>work is spent at the State level. If you add up the person-hours at one
> Statecom
> >>meeting you get about three new chapters that could have been formed. We
> >>need a plan that strongly encourages local organizing and encourages us to
> >>meet ordinary people more often than meet with ourselves.
> >>
> >>b) Local State Rep ballot questions are easy to do (only 200 signatures !)
> >>and encourage local organizing.
> >>
> >>c) We aren't ready for a Statewide ballot question and it may not fit with
> >>the "concept" idea mentioned by the woman from Plymouth. It also would
> not
> >>encourage local base-building.
> >>
> >>d) We need to rely on direct democratic means: that is use ballot
> questions
> >>rather than trying to lobby Dems and Republicans: the "mainstream" parties
> >>have shown their colors... I'm not going to try to get their elected
> officials
> >>to vote for social justice (takes too long and they'll waffle forever
> anyhow)
> >>- I would rather strategize to boot them out of office. I think that
> single
> >>issue pressure groups are better at forcing concessions out of elected
> >>officials than the GRP would be, anyway.
> >>
> >>So that's most of the thinking.
> >>
> >>I hope it is clear, but if not I'm happy to answer questions (at
> conference
> >>call or individually if you prefer)
> >>
> >>Ron 617 230-2835
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>statecom-discuss mailing list
> >>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >**************************************
> > AOL now offers free email to everyone.
> > Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
> >_______________________________________________
> >statecom-discuss mailing list
> >statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> >http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list