[CRNMC] Contacting CELDF/Huffman's response to endorsement

Fri Aug 22 22:02:08 PDT 2014

Shannon,

I'm glad that you are following up with this idea. I think a phone conversation might be better than another Democracy School - though I can see why you think we might need one. 

I've read the Toolkit and looked at the CELDF website many times and don't see an answer to my concerns that Congressman Huffman raised when he called this morning to tell me why he wouldn't endorse our initiative. (I did relay this message to Shannon but not to the larger group which I am doing now.....)

Congressman Huffman (an environmental lawyer) told me he cannot endorse the initiative because of the negative ramifications he sees with a Rights Based Ordinance in the "wrong hands" attempting to trump the good  laws (environmental and otherwise) that we have established.  

It is in the language of our Measure S/ Community Rights Ordinance "declaring null and void.....any State, Federal or International Law" and he believes this would set a dangerous precedence for a group who wants to use this approach to go around say the Wilderness Act or any number of State or Federal Law that DO protect the environment but is getting in the way of THEIR Community Rights.  

Huffman pointed me to the CA PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE https://www.c-win.org/public-trust-doctrine.html (many references to this if you google) which basically upholds what we are trying to achieve with this initiative, though obviously it is too late to change horses....  (Shannon has since let me know why this is not a horse we want to ride) 

So for the reason(s) mentioned above I think it would be good to talk to Thomas.

Thanks,
Meg

P.S. Huffman said he would support any other kind of ban on fracking.

On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Shannon Biggs wrote:

> Please put together your questions on the ordinance and send them to me by Monday and I will set up a call with Thomas based on his schedule. The call will be recorded for those who cannot make that time. 
> 
> Best Shannon 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 22, 2014, at 4:56 PM, "Carrie Durkee" <cdurkee at mcn.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hello
>> I too would like to be on the call with CELDF.
>> I have the same concerns that Meg has…and would like to understand CELDF's position.
>> Carrie
>> 
>> On Aug 22, 2014, at 4:29 PM, dougmck at mcn.org wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> Yes,
>>> I contacted CELDF yesterday as I was asked to do by our point committee 4-6 weeks ago but did not have the time or energy to do it at that time.  Frankly, there has been some consternation expressed by a few in our community about the accessability to those who wrote Measure S by those of us working so hard to get it passed in November.  
>>> 
>>> While I appreciate that CELDF is working hard on multiple issues throughout the country, I also understand the feelings by those who want to learn more about CELDF and so acted upon them yesterday to get a little more information about the ideas behind the legalese written into Measure S in order to better respond to those who have expressed these concerns.
>>> 
>>> Ben was clear that their partnership with Global Exchange was such that communication should go through Shannon.  Nonetheless, he did spend some time on the phone with me to ensure that we were all on the same page.  
>>> 
>>> I do feel that a confrence call would be appropriate in order to further solidify our relationship and build trust with the organization that has promised legal representation should Measure S be challenged.  I would recemmend the confrence call be with the chosen members of the point committe so as to follow the protocal currently accepted by the group with all interested members of the CRNMC able to listen in as they wish.  If others, such as Meg, wish to participate as well, I have no problem with that personally, but do feel it should be discussed at next Thursday's point meeting just to make sure everyone is on the same page.  I will make sure this is on the agenda, as well as the idea that others should listen in, to see if we reach consensus.  I would not expect this to be a problem.  We are already planning to discuss allowing members of the CRNMC listen in to all point committee meetings and feel we will probably reach consensus on this as well.  
>>> 
>>> Should this be the case, we could schedual a meeting with Thomas soon after that.
>>> 
>>> Doug
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From:
>>> "Meg Courtney" <mcourtney1 at mcn.org>
>>> 
>>> To:
>>> "Community Rights Network" <crn at lists.mcn.org>
>>> Cc:
>>> 
>>> Sent:
>>> Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:10:07 -0700
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [CRNMC] Contacting CELDF there is a wrong way and a right way
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would like to be a part of that conversation. I think you know what my concerns are so you could forward them along.
>>> Meg
>>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Shannon Biggs wrote:
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > Greetings all, 
>>> > 
>>> > Doug and others have attempted to contact Thomas Linzey. He will not speak with anyone that way without going through me and not one at a time. That goes for Ben too. :-) 
>>> > 
>>> > If folks want me to put together a group call with Thomas I can arrange. Doug if you can send me your questions ahead of time I can make this happen and let you all know when he's available 
>>> > 
>>> > Best, Shannon 
>>> > 
>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>> > 
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > crn mailing list
>>> > 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20140822/63417caf/attachment.html 