[Peace-discuss] Re: [Prairiegreens-org] Re: [Discuss] Proposals for the 2.8 million...

[Joe Futrelle]

Thanks, there was a fundraising campaign that raised something in the neighborhood of 1 mil, so that $ is not something we ought to propose using for something else IMO.

Fwiw 5 board members voted against the sales tax measure--bensyl, doenitz, hunt, jay, and Jones.

--
Joe Futrelle
person

-----Original Message-----
From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:24:29 
To:Carol Ammons <livingsoul at sbcglobal.net>,       discuss list <discuss at communitycourtwatch.org>
Cc:Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>,       Prairiegreens-org <prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: [Prairiegreens-org] Re: [Discuss] Proposals for the 2.8 million... 


At 08:28 AM 1/23/2008, Carol Ammons wrote:

 BE, peace.  Dear CUCPJ, this is Aaron.  I have seen several different ideas about how this 2.8 million dollars could be spent (we should also ask for the phone numbers and addresses of the folks that donated the 1.2 million).  The ideas are:  
  
 more money for the public defender's office which will not be a one time donation as this seems to be so our conversation should be more geared towards setting up a portion of the sales tax to consistenly increase the man power of the public defenders office.  Would the 2.8 million secure another public defender or two and a public investigator? What are the salaries of these positions and what does it cost to get them in these positions and ready to go?  
  
 Books to Prisoners are proposing something a little less "threatening" and because of the libraries that are already in the jails and the relationship they have established with the County, it seems more like a well thought out attempt for support. 
  
 Mental Health is a good one also because of the cases lately involving mentally ill people, the nursing home issues, etc.  However, I don't see a concrete proposal that outlines and highlights some well thought out suggestions that take into account cost and feasibility.
  
 More funds for Education programs is very broad unless there are some specific areas that have been targeted.  This one is going to get the "we already fund soo many programs" response.  Boys and girls Club, CU Area Project, and God knows what else.  If this is brought up it should be thoroughly researched to get right to a specific area that the CB doesn't and can address.
  
 Nursing home is a very sticky one because they have already put soo much money into it already but politically I think it's important to talk about it.
  
 I am saying all of this to say that I agree with all of the ideas but we don't seem to have something that Danielle always asks for, clear proposals.  We continue to be abreast of situations but we also have a tendency to come in and try to block things we don't like but we are not "lobbying" elected officials on an ongoing basis to listen to and propose our ideas so they can become issues to be voted on.  We can easily drum up support for all of these ideas but just going to a board of elected officials who have full plates and just dumping in their laps ideas is not the type of citizenship we want to promote.  We have to become far more engaged politically by making researched proposals and then raising the roof if they don't agree!  Overall I think we should ask questions such as, can we spend money from the area in which the clock tower money is coming from on the ideas we have brought up?  Has any other board member investigated any of these ideas and what did they find out?  Are any of them willing to publicly say they will immediately begin working on gathering the necessary support for any of the ideas we have mentioned tonight and how?  I hope everyone receives what I am saying in the best of spirits so that we may be as effective as possible.  
  
 Lastly, I would vote against spending 2.8 million on a clock tower or repairs on the building without first establishing a way to support some of the ideas above. BE, just.

 I probably shouldn't even be jumping in here, because I haven't followed the issue of the clock tower all that closely.  But I want to agree with Aaron about the need for political pragmatism.  Moral arguments go only so far, and usually don't carry the day absent some serious political brainstorming and planning.

 First of all, how much money is actually involved?  I've seen figures of $7.2 million, and now here Aaron is talking about only $2.8 million.  How much is the proposed expense exactly?

 Secondly, where is the money supposed to come from?  I've heard mention of a sales tax, but now Aaron mentions a donation of $1.2 million.  If indeed there was/is such a donation, and if it was earmarked specifically for a courthouse clock tower, then it CANNOT be used for anything else.

 As for the sales tax, is it supposed to be a temporary measure, to be imposed ONLY until the clock tower is paid for?  Or is it going to be a permanent increase in the sales tax?  Most of the things folks are proposing on these lists, such as an increase in the number of public defenders, are ongoing expenses, not one-time-only expenses.  Politically it's much easier to sell a one-time-only expense than an ongoing expense, both to our legislators and to the general public.  And it's not wise to confuse the two when you're trying to convince them.

 It's also generally easier to convince the general, "law-abiding" public to support a nice pretty building than to support additional services for "criminals".  But you already know that.

 I urge you to make the moral arguments, certainly.  People are more important than fancy buildings.  But I also urge you to think as carefully as possible about how to tailor your arguments and proposals to reflect political reality.

 My $0.02.  Thanks for listening.

 John Wason _______________________________________________
Prairiegreens-org mailing list
Prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/prairiegreens-org