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:
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
Sign in with
FacebookTherefore, this proposal is only to dedicate committee time and budget resources to publicizing our positions on the ballot questions.
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.
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.
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.
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, Former StateCom Member