[OccupyCU] township items

Wed Apr 11 14:30:03 UTC 2012

damn, sounds like more fun than ours!

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Stuart Levy <stuartnlevy at gmail.com> wrote:

>  And... we may yet have a Champaign special meeting to re-consider the
> free speech proposal.  There was some real argument over it -- a
> deliberate-looking block of right-leaning people sitting on the left side
> of the audience voted No on every question, and then left at the end of the
> township meeting, as though they'd come specifically to oppose those
> referenda.
>
> One woman, Stephanie Williams, said she would have supported the
> referendum if your amended version had passed, but thought its language too
> vague in its original form.
>
> *But*, after the amendment (barely) failed, this same woman argued for
> proposing *another* Township meeting to consider a revised amendment. After
> brief research the city attorney confirmed that we can call for a special
> meeting if a mere 15 electors sign saying they want it.
>
> So ... we can do this again, and may yet get the free speech referendum on
> the ballot in Champaign!  We gathered a dozen signatures on the spot to
> call for a followup meeting.   I assume that we'd need to specify the
> proposed meeting agenda at the same time we submit the signatures.
>
> If we're game (I am!), I think it'd be good for all interested to meet --
> including Ms. Williams, now on this list -- to tweak the text to be as
> compelling as possible.
>
> Other sparks flew too.  Several of us (Karen, Martel Miller, Eva Jahle,
> and I) spoke during public comment about Champaign Twp's provision of
> general assistance - a tiny amount of money, intended by state standards to
> be provided to a very limited set of people who have no other source of
> support (including people awaiting decisions on Social Security disability,
> those not eligible for TANF, etc.).  We criticized from several points of
> view - that the reports don't indicate how many people were served or
> requested assistance; that the paperwork required for applicants to prove
> eligibility is very burdensome in time/mobility/expense; that Champaign,
> though nominally using the same eligibility standards as Urbana, is much
> stingier about actually handing out money; that fully $50K of the incoming
> general-assistance tax money went *unspent*, compared with about $70K
> actually handed out, plus a presumably-larger amount spent on paying the
> Supervisor and staff to administer this miserly support.  And other stuff.
>
>
> At the end of the meeting, Karen brilliantly lit another spark.  We were
> set to approve the township expenditure reports for the year, which would
> normally be approved pro forma.  She got up to say that the general
> assistance portion of the report was incomplete: it should detail how many
> people had been served by general assistance, and how many rejected.
> Martel spoke too and concurred.
>
> Result?  The right-leaning left half of the room voted to approve the
> expenditure report, and the left-leaning right half voted to reject.  We
> *won*. *The report was not approved.*    Pam Borowski, who had run for
> Twp Supervisor on a platform of not providing services for the poor and has
> clearly worked to keep her promise, looked mad, and (I trust) was
> professionally embarrassed.  Yay, Karen!
>
> [FYI, the Twp does put out quarterly reports detailing general assistance,
> including total expenditures, numbers of people served, how many are newly
> in or newly out of the program, how many transition onto Social Security,
> etc.   One sample -- Oct-Dec 2011 -- showed about $14K paid to 52 people.
> That'd be about $90/month if those 52 people were in the program for that
> entire quarter.  If they're getting more than $90/month, and they should be
> (state standard is well over $200/mo), then actual numbers served at any
> given time are even smaller.]
>
> Not entirely what we could have wished for, but not at all bad, and
> definitely a lively night.  Direct democracy can be fun.
>
>
>
>
> On 4/10/12 10:39 PM, Ian K wrote:
>
> And, in the end, two votes were not registered at the Champaign meeting
> due to early departures (kids have bathroom needs). We should have won all
> four contests. Well done!
> IKD
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Melanie Sivley <melaniesivley at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Citizens United passed by a large margin, 20+ for & 12 against. The
>> second one failed by 1 vote. And yes, thanks for all the hard work!
>>
>> Melanie
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Michael Weissman <mbwmbwmbw at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Both our items passed unanimously in Cunningham (Urbana). 25-0 and
>> 28-0, I think.
>> > Any news from Champaign?
>> >
>> > And once again, thanks Colan!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Michael Weissman
>>  > _______________________________________________
>> > OccupyCU mailing list
>> > OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>> > http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OccupyCU mailing list
>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing listOccupyCU at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>

-- 
Michael Weissman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/occupycu/attachments/20120411/61be02eb/attachment-0001.html>