1) Any citizen who objects to a policy of government may go to a licensed/bonded polling company and fund a poll of the registered voters. Said licensed polling company:

A) shall present the citizen's objection to the subject level of government to confirm its validity and then shall have temporary access to the voter rolls.

B) shall prepare and mail a one page proposal to a statistically significant sample of the registered voters. This proposal shall present the citizen's objection to a specific policy and present an alternative to that policy for citizens to vote between. Government may also include in the mailing (at their printing/mailing expense) a one page statement of their position. There shall be no prescreening of such proposals on the basis of the "constitutionality" of the proposal.

C) shall collect the voting results on the citizen's proposal and prepare a public report for the citizen and for the affected level of government. All citizens and the media shall have full access to this report.

2) For a state or local government policy issue, if more than 66 2/3% of the responses favored the citizen's proposal, the state or local government would be required to conduct a full vote of the citizen's proposal within 60 days. If in this election:

A) less than 60% of the votes favored the citizen's proposal, the state or local government could retain their present position or choose to modify their policy.

B) more than 60% of the votes favored the citizen's proposal, the proposal would have the force of law (subject to judicial review) with criminal penalties for violation. Repeal or further modification of this policy would require state or local government support and a majority vote of the voters in an election or by the above process a citizen's proposal with 66 2/3% support followed by an election with 60% support of the citizens voting.

3) For a national issue, the citizen's proposal would need to achieve 66 2/3% support nationwide in the poll and also achieve majority support in 2/3 of the states to force a national referendum.

JUSTIFICATION: Inadequate popular control of government lies at the heart of the loss of citizen control over the rules that govern American society. Allowing citizens to conduct polls ( through licensed/bonded polling companies) that have the power (with 2/3 support of those polled) to force an official popular vote will help keep all levels of government more clearly focused on responding to the will of the electorate. Even polls that fail to achieve 2/3 support will provide a valuable function. Proposals that achieve a majority or even a near majority provide a wake up call to government to provide more responsive leadership in the subject area. Polls that draw little support provide a clear signal to their proponents that the citizens do not support their proposal.

AUTHOR: John M. Humphrey EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

1) Any member of a private organization who objects to a policy of his organization may go to a licensed/bonded polling company and fund a poll of the members. Said licensed polling company:

A) shall present member's objection to the organizationŐs management to confirm its validity and then shall have temporary access to the membership roster.

B) shall prepare and mail a one page proposal to a statistically significant sample of the membership. This proposal shall present the member's objection to a specific policy and presents an alternative to the policy for the members to vote between. The organization's management may also include in the mailing (at their printing/mailing expense) a one page statement of their position.

C) shall collect the proposal results and prepare a report for the member and for the organizationŐs management.

2) If less than 40% of the responses favored the member's alternative proposal, the organization's mangement would not be required to take any further action.

3) If more than 40%, but less than 66 2/3% of the responses favored the member's alternative, the management would be required to inform their members of the proposal and the voting results in their next newsletter or within 60 days by a separate mailing.

4) If more than 66 2/3% of the responses favored the member's alternative, the management would be required to conduct a full vote of the members within 60 days. If in this election:

A) less than 60% of the votes favored the member's proposal, the management could retain their present position or choose to modify the policy.

B) more than 60% of the votes favored the member's proposal, the proposal would become a rule of the organization binding on present and future management with criminal penalties for violation. Repeal or further modification of this policy would require managment support and a majority vote of the members or by the above process a member's proposal with 66 2/3% of those polled followed by an election and 60% support of the members.

JUSTIFICATION: Lack of popular control of government is only part of a more pervasive loss of citizen control of American society. As with our government representatives, the elected representatives in many of America's private organizations (including unions, political parties, civic organizations, homeowner organizations and private clubs) do not always follow the wishes of their members. This situation leads many of these organizations to follow extremist policies of their management that are detrimental to their members interests and detrimental to American society as a whole.

AUTHOR: John M. Humphrey EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

The Board of Directors or other governing body shall be elected by the votes of both the employees and the owners/investors. The allocation of votes between employees and owners shall be determined as follows:

The sum of total employment costs (wages and benefits) and the the gross profits before taxes based on the previous year's financial results shall constitute the total wealth production of the business. Each employee shall be entitled to one vote per dollar of his/her wages and benefits and each owner/shareholder shall be entitled to one vote for each dollar of his/her proportional share of the gross profits. However both the owners and the employees shall be guaranteed a minimum 33 1/3% representation and if necessary the allocated votes between these two groups shall be adjusted to maintain this minimum allocation.

The owners/stockholders shall have sole right to determine sale or purchase of investment including the sale of assets, the issue of new stock and the dispersal of company profits either to the owner/stockholders or as retained earnings. However the operation of the business including all decisions that affect compensation of workers shall be determined by the Board of Directors jointly elected by the votes of labor and capital interests. Under this proposal workers could still form unions, but would give up their right to strike in return for a direct voice in determining business operation.

JUSTIFICATION: Economic effort requires the participation of both labor and capital. Investors should have the right to invest or sell their investment and workers should have the right to choose another job. However the operation of the business should be the joint decision of all the participants. Present law which treats workers as chattel is an unfortunate carryover from our pre-democratic past.

AUTHOR: John M. Humphrey EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com

JUSTIFICATION: Term limits will make Congress more responsive to the interests of American citizens. Presently, there is no limit on the number of terms a member of Congress can serve. The longer Congressmen are in office the more power they have and the less vulnerable they are to challengers. The longer they stay in Washington, the more they represent special interests and the less they represent broad citizen interests. Studies show that both Republicans and Democrats, whether liberal or conservative,vote for higher deficits and more government spending the longer they are in office -- a marked increase takes place after 6 to 8 years. Longer term members are also disproportionately likely to end up in ethical or criminal trouble.

Author: Paul Jacob Email: pjacob@ix.netcom.com

Justification: The current Federal Reserve Banking (FRB) System which was formed in 1913 is a privately-held, stockholder corporation that has been granted a legal monopoly over the monetary system of the United States of America. Although the operations of the FRB are regulated by Congressional laws, Congress is not allowed to have oversight, on the adherence by the FRB to these laws and regulations. Therefore the FRB is allowed to operate as a legal monopoly to serve its private, foreign and domestic, stockholder-owners' profit-making objectives, without the either Congressional oversight or review of FRB operations. Furthermore the FRB is granted special privileges. For example, the profits of the FRB, by government regulation, are a guaranteed 6% dividend to its private stockholders, but the FRB has been exempt from IRS tax collections, since the passage of the Internal Revenue Act in 1914, and has never paid any Federal Income Tax on its profits;

Clearly the FRB's control of the Economic and Monetary Systems of the United States directly controls the General Welfare of the People of the United States and this control should be subjected to close public scrutiny to ensure FRB operations serve the interests of the American people. Furthermore the FRB should be subject to the same public reporting requirements as similar institutions in American society.

Author: Robert B. Moneymaker Email: rmnymkr@omni.sparks.nv.us