Polycal - I did not find any outcome mistakes in the June 5, 2012 local ballot measures for school bonds. The tricky one was the flip on “Elementary Schools Facilities Improvement District No. 1 of the Gridley Unified School District,” consisting of the “former Gridley Elementary School District.” You got it right as a PASS. (CaliforniaCityFinance.com has it incorrectly as a FAIL - http://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes1206final.pdf.)
Polycal I changed "School bond elections in California" and Somis Union School District to indicate the authorized bond amount was $9 million, not $8 million.
I changed Morgan Hill Unified School District from $198.3 million to $198.25 million. (You had it correct in the language of the ballot measure.)
I changed Summerville Union High School District from a loss to a win and corrected the vote count.
I tried to find and correct all of the places where Summerville Union High School District was listed as defeated. I changed the following:
- November 6, 2012 election in California: Local Ballot Measures
- School Bond Elections in California
- Tuolumne County, California ballot measures
- Summerville Union High School District bond proposition, Measure H (November 2012)
I'm going to be finding more mistakes as I research the results back to 2002. Would it be more ideal for me to simply email you mistake I find with links to the backup information?
Kevin in NorCal
Hi Polycal, You seem to be one of the most prolific editors for California issues. I would like to interview you for a story on neontommy.com. Would you be willing to chat? --twit: @peard33
--- Hey, My name is Joshua Meyer and I'm the editor of WikiFOIA, one of BP's sister Wiki's. I am currently working on some research relating to the deliberative process and i came across your notes on Cal Prop 59 from 2004 about the 1991 Governor agenda case, Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court. I was wondering if any other news had come out of the case you mentioned there. It seems to me like the provisions of the amendment would not override the exemptions found within the CPRA but I was wondering if anyone with more legal clout than the San Diego City Attorney had said anything on the subject or if you knew. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. You can contact me at my user page here, user:joshualmeyer or preferably at wikifoia at sunshinereview:user:joshualmeyer or email me at email@example.com.Joshualmeyer 15:08, 26 June 2010 (CDT)
Hey I see that you were the person who created the page "California End the Death Penalty Initiative." I was wondering if you could edit it to change the title to its actual name "The Safe California Act." Thank you.
Hi Polycal, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond. I have to disagree with you, though; referring to Prop. 34 as the "End the Death Penalty Initiative" is inaccurate and should be changed. Its official name is the Savings, Accountability, and Full Enforcement for California Act. That's how it's referred to in the media, and if it's passed, that's how it will be referred to by people citing the law. It should be identified on Ballotpedia by what it's actually called. Thanks!
Here are just a few news articles and editorials, including the LA Times editorial endorsing the initiative: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-death-penalty-california-20120521,0,4948500.story http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/07/02/6815/death-penalty-campaign/ http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/End-death-penalty-says-judge-3552954.php#ixzz1urVfa8ZI http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20463394/california-voters-decide-whether-keep-death-penalty
Also, if and when it's passed, its title will be the SAFE California Act. http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i978_11-0035_%28repeal_the_death_penalty%29.pdf
Please review these revisions:
Santa Clara Valley Water District parcel tax, Measure B (November 2012)
Revision as of 16:28, 27 October 2012 by Callenderr
Revision as of 22:13, 27 October 2012 by Callenderr
Callendarr is clearly posting in favor of Measure B.
1. He shouldn't be allowed to insert content clearly meant to discredit the opposing side.
2. He shouldn't be allowed to remove content and references from the opposing side.
Thanks for taking the time.
Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure B
I realize there is an edit block on the SCVWD Measure B Site. Here is something which should be added as its highly relevant. Business groups and supporters are pointing out that Measure B provides for shoreline protection for Silicon Valley so we can be protected from natural events like super storm Hurricane Sandy. http://californiawaterblog.com/2012/10/29/lessons-from-hurricane-sandy-for-bay-area-business-leaders/
- Callenderr: That link doesn't say anything about Measure B. Do you have a link where a supporter of Measure B makes the connection you reference in your comment above? Polycal 03:24, 1 November 2012 (CDT)
- Polycal: Yes I do, I will get it for you.
On a second matter, you removed material today, 11/4/12 which you said it sounds like its for the yes campaign. Its actually a cut and paste from the impartial analysis. Even the League of Women Voters, the most impartial group analyzing measures describes it in the same way. http://www.sclaraco.ca.lwvnet.org/files/measureb.pdf. The weakness with the introduction right now is that nowhere in the introduction does it say what the tax accomplishes or does. The introduction should state what the tax accomplishes. How do you propose to accomplish that? callenderr 03:24, 4 November 2012 (CDT)
Polycal - The Ventura County November 2012 Voter Guide for Measure S at Somis Union School District indicates "The measure would authorize the District to issue up to $9,000,000..." So I changed the post from $8 million to $9 million.
Open Source Rolodex
I did as you indicated, but I would like to start a discussion about this. I am writing a book about privacy, law and nuclear arsenals. It is a *really* complicated subject. I am not sure about *anything* about privacy anymore except money and abortions and that is about it. (If you let me know of others, I will likely concede the point). Everything else is negotiable. Everything. It is really creepy. Can we start a discussion page about this?--Amorrow 00:40, 27 April 2013 (CDT)