<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Single subject?! Yes, that seems to be a solid "rule" of the legislative game in California, and perhaps a few other states. But why is there so much discussion about exactly what the single subject of our ordinance is?<div><br></div><div>Shannon says it is "the bill of rights". </div><div>Karina says it is "banning fracking".</div><div>And I've heard other interpretations.</div><div><br></div><div>Lawyer Losak spells out more than one subject in our ordinance, and therefore he predicts it will be found unconstitutional.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps that is true, and therefore a tactical defeat. But what about the long-run? Is our ordinance strategically a good thing to put before the People? If it is found to be "illegal", will that be a total loss? There are boxes within boxes, lessons within lessons, games within games.</div><div><br></div><div>What I'd like to know is whether CELDF has the same agenda as we do? I appreciate their work, am grateful for their help, but are they playing a slightly different game than we? I have spoken to a few of us who have earnestly asked this question.</div><div><br></div><div>I've heard Shannon to say that the single subject is "community rights". That's quite close to "the bill of rights". But can an ordinance, a local law, be successfully passed that invokes, protects, or establishes either of those subjects? While I like the idea of it, is it legally defensible?</div><div><br></div><div>Others have said the subject of the Ordinance is protecting our water. Banning fracking does exactly that. Indeed, were we to pass a law that simply "protects our water" it might be interpreted as multiple-subjects, since it implies a broad scope to the law—much harder to adjudicate and thus enforce.</div><div><br></div><div>Thus, it seems to me we ought to talk about our Ordinance as laser-focused on banning fracking, and that's all.</div><div><br></div><div>Lanny Cotler</div><div>Willits</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><b><font color="#61177c">"Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass, and the little ones get caught." ~ Honoré de Balzac</font></b></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Shannon Biggs <<a href="mailto:shannon@globalexchange.org">shannon@globalexchange.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">The single subject is the bill of rights. That's all the rights inc. but I can schedule a call with me and Ben if folks would like for next week. ? <br><br>Sent from my iPhone<br><br>On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:14 PM, "Tim Rice" <<a href="mailto:tim@multitalents.net">tim@multitalents.net</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Sounds like we should schedule a conference call around<br>consistent messaging.<br><br>On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Shannon Biggs wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Of course Losak can argue is not a single subject, but we can also argue<br>that it is. I¹m not sure what it matters if Oregon has a single subject<br>rule, but its common.<br><br>In terms of argument this is and has always been about our right to<br>decide, our right to protect local water, and to do that we must ban<br>fracking - that¹s the frame we¹ve always had.<br><br><br>On 8/13/14 4:52 PM, "karinajoy" <<a href="mailto:karinacotler@gmail.com">karinacotler@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Regarding the issue of single vs. multiple subjects: Losak claims the<br>ordinance has more than one subject. CELDF says, no the single subject is<br>Community Rights.<br><br>I concur with Kelly and Tim that we have been telling everyone (because that<br>is what we voted on) that the ordinance protects our water by banning<br>fracking.<br><br>I wrote this yesterday, as my first reaction to CELDF's response:<br>"This ordinance protects our water by banning fracking - that is how we've<br>presented it to the public. We are basing our right to ban fracking on our<br>unalienable rights, which we are defining with a Community Bill of Rights. And<br>this Bill of Rights supports our right to ban fracking. Everything in the<br>Ordinance points back to banning fracking - even the "rights of Nature"<br>section states that nature/water has a right to be free from contamination by<br>fracking." <br><br>If a "Community Bill of Rights" is the single subject, why did we add in a<br>fracking ban? Why not just submit a Bill of Rights to the voters?" I hope<br>CELDF can explain this for our education, as well as why a fracking ban<br>enforces the bill of rights, so we can all explain it clearly to others.<br><br>Not at all sure that CELDF's explanation will quell the fears of our opponents<br>or make things worse... However, since CELDF is defending this ordinance, the<br>argument must be one they feel is defensible by them in court.<br><br>Also, I am wondering if Oregon really has a single subject rule like<br>California - Ben, can you verify that for us, please?<br><br>It is important that we are all on the same page - if some of us say the<br>subject is protecting our water, and others say "community rights" and others<br>anti-fracking - we will be proving our opponent's point about multiple<br>subjects. <br><br>Unfortunately, one day with CELDF was not enough for them to educate and align<br>us with their purpose - hence our confusion. And now I feel we have no choice<br>but to try to align ourselves with CELDF, if we want to keep them on board as<br>our legal team. Paul Cienfuegos agrees with their response, by the way. He<br>says, "i stand 1000% behind celdf on this piece of the work - their very<br>carefully designed legal strategy. this is the part celdf does best, imo."<br><br>Our confusion must be addressed soon! We need clarity and cohesion in<br>everything we communicate to our fellow Citizens. Please add this topic to<br>the agenda for sunday.<br><br>I won't be able to make it to the meeting sunday till 12:30 or 1. If the<br>actual meeting will be over by then, I won't come at all. If we can have this<br>discussion at 1pm, I will come for that. Otherwise, I may call a meeting next<br>week just to discuss and try to understand CELDF's point of view on this<br>subject with whoever is interested.<br><br>We are certainly learning a lot from this process!<br><br>Karina<br><br><br>On Aug 13, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Kelly Larson wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">That is true of me too, Tim. I thought that was the tack. The lawyer stuff<br>is confusing, but we have to get it straight. I prefer this anyway.<br><br>"Measure S contains one subject a Bill of Rights. The prohibitions on<br>fracking activities enforce those rights; and the limitations on corporations<br>and state government protect the enforcement of the Measure."<br><br><br>On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Tim Rice <<a href="mailto:tim@multitalents.net">tim@multitalents.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Shannon Biggs wrote:<br><br>[snip]<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In regards to the single subject rule, Measure S contains one subject <br>a Bill of Rights. The prohibitions on fracking activities enforce those<br></blockquote></blockquote><br>We had better get consistant on our messaging. Some of us were under the<br>impression that the single issue was protecting our water by banning<br>fracking and the Bill of Rights was how we accomplished that.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">rights; and the limitations on corporations and state government protect<br>the enforcement of the Measure. The law only requires that the different<br>parts of the Measure be germane, or reasonably connected, to each other.<br>As an example, groups in two Oregon Counties have put forward Community<br>Bills of Rights dealing with GMO¹s which contain almost identical<br>provisions to Measure S. Courts there have found that the bill of rights<br>ordinances pass single subject review. As to the inclusion and legality<br>of felony charges, that section was added because of local legal advice<br>obtained by the CRN, and since it deals with enforcement, passes single<br>subject review.<br></blockquote></blockquote>[snip]<br><br><br>--<br>Tim Rice Multitalents (707) 456-1146<br><tel:%28707%29%20456-1146><br><a href="mailto:tim@multitalents.net">tim@multitalents.net</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br>crn@lists.mcn.org<br>http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn<br></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br>http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br>-- <br>Tim Rice Multitalents (707) 456-1146<br><a href="mailto:tim@multitalents.net">tim@multitalents.net</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br>crn@lists.mcn.org<br>http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn<br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br>http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>