[CRNMC] Success! We'll be on the November ballot!

[Barry Vogel]

McC and Brown voted to put it on the ballot and have county counsel 
bring a request for judicial determination of the validity of the 
ordinance.  The motion anticipated a court decision prior to the ballots 
going to press, which would have removed it from the ballot if the 
measure were found to be unconstitutional. Pinches abstained claiming he 
didn't understand the motion.  The Dans voted against the motion.  Then 
all 5 voted to put it on the ballot and let it be challenged if adopted 
by the voters.  The Dans'  proposed anti fracking ordinance will be on 
the agenda next Tuesday.

On 8/5/2014 12:51 PM, Lanny Cotler wrote:
> Specifically, for those of us who weren't present, _what were the main 
> reasons for McCowen, Brown, and Pinches not being in support of the 
> initiative_?
>
> Generally, how is it that the Supes have a choice of supporting or 
> NOT-supporting an initiative of, by, and for the voters who amassed so 
> many signatures for putting it on the ballot? What is their function 
> withal?
>
> Lanny
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Shannon Biggs <shannon at globalexchange.org 
> <mailto:shannon at globalexchange.org>> wrote:
>
>> Re: [CRNMC] Success!  We'll be on the November ballot!
>> CONGRATULATIONS EVERYONE!!!! WOOOHOOO!!!!  Thanks to those who were 
>> able to attend the meeting at such last minute!
>>
>> Quoting Steve Scalamini, So *THE CAMPAIGN IS ON!*
>>
>> Prajna is holding the 17th to do campaign planning, but hasn't heard 
>> from the team, so do let us know.
>>
>> BLESSINGS TO ALL!
>> SHANNON
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/14 12:23 PM, "Steve Scalmanini" <sscalmanini at yahoo.com 
>> <x-msg://58/sscalmanini@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> The vote was unanimous this morning to put the initiative on the 
>>> ballot for November!  Thanks to Dan Hamburg for making the motion 
>>> early in the discussion and to Dan Gjerde for the second.
>>>
>>>  The 'other news' is that the vote occurred after an embarrassing 
>>> attempt by John McCowen to obtain a legal opinion from a Superior 
>>> Court Judge before putting it on the ballot (which would likely have 
>>> delayed the item to another election.)  That was bantered about for 
>>> a while, with Care Brown supporting it, until a vote on it failed 
>>> 2-2-1 -- John Pinches abstained due to being 'so confused he didn't 
>>> know how to vote.'  Then just before the final vote, McCowen, Brown, 
>>> and Pinches all expressed their non-support of the initiative, but 
>>> also that they didn't want so many voters (over 6,000) to not vote 
>>> on what they wanted, and so would support putting the initiative on 
>>> the ballot.
>>>
>>>  Eight of us were there to support the item, five of whom spoke -- 
>>> Carrie Durkee, Jim Tarbell, Beth Riedel, Sandy Marshall, me, and two 
>>> others whose names escape me; and Barry (& Jan) sat in the back 
>>> listening to it all.
>>>
>>>  So *THE CAMPAIGN IS ON!*
>>>
>>>  Looking forward to our meeting on the 17th, and congratulations 
>>> again to everyone for getting the initiative this far,
>>>
>>>  Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> crn mailing list
>>> crn at lists.mcn.org <x-msg://58/crn@lists.mcn.org>
>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org <mailto:crn at lists.mcn.org>
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140805/4222d5cd/attachment.html