[CRNMC] Fwd: what's our next best move

Sun Dec 21 23:00:56 PST 2014

Hi Lanny,

I also like your idea.  I think that it is very important for those who
speak for S really know their stuff, (legally).  I don't count myself among
them, but support those I know are sharp on the legal side.  There is lots
of possible mis-understanding that can happen at this point, and I am for
collaboration, rather than a couple of folks acting on their own.  We are
stronger together than alone!

Blessings,
Kelly

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Lanny Cotler <lcotler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What we DON'T want is random people speaking for Measure S, talking to
> supervisors or interpreting the Constitution on their own, or deciding the
> best course of action to take at this time.
>
> Isn't this a good job to give to a special committee of proponents?
>
> How to create a committee like this democratically? I suggest we put
> together a list of interested people. Then the entire group (we should know
> who constitutes this larger group) votes for six, or seven, or however many
> we want on that committee. Call it the Enactment Committee. That committee
> keeps a record of its activity and shares it with the "larger group" in a
> timely fashion.
>
> Sound reasonable?
>
> Lanny
>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2014, at 1:11 PM, agnes at mcn.org wrote:
>
> > As Dan Hamburg said we need to meet with supervisors, two at a time in a
> > home, and tell them we want them to urge the County Cousel to codify
> > Measure "S" in its entirety.Ask them if they will vote on such an
> > agendized item to that effect. Then meet privately with 2 more
> supervisors
> > telling them the same.If we have 3 solid yeahs then it should become an
> > agenda item to be voted on by the whole board.
> > That's my experience,you can check with Dan Hamburg or your supervisor.
> >
> > Agnes
> >
> >
> >> From Ben Price. I will be hard to reach between now and the 27th, around
> >> yes, but busy and slow to respond. happy holidays.
> >>
> >> Shannon
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: Ben Price <benprice at celdf.org>
> >>> Date: December 21, 2014, 10:16:27 AM PST
> >>> To: Shannon Biggs <shannon at movementrights.org>
> >>> Cc: Elaine and Ed <elained at mcn.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: what's our next best move
> >>>
> >>> I would have the community group get busy pushing back publicly: if the
> >>> county thinks it can pocket-veto the vote of 60% of the people, the
> >>> people can veto the supervisors through the ballot box, and can enforce
> >>> the ordinance as per its language. The formality of placing the duly
> >>> enacted laws of the county into the code is not discretionary, and if
> >>> the county supervisors think they can disrespect the democratic rights
> >>> of the people by not doing their jobs, they can be replaced. The
> >>> supervisors can not choose which laws to obey as a way of claiming that
> >>> the people's law is not authorized.
> >>>
> >>> Not certain what recall options there may or may not be.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Shannon Biggs
> >>> <shannon at movementrights.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Ed,
> >>>>
> >>>> I will respond to this in more detail, but your ordinance I believe
> >>>> (most of ours do) allows for citizen enforcement which means you as a
> >>>> group can force the county to enforce the law.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Shannon
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Elaine and Ed <elained at mcn.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Shannon,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My education in the corruption of US and local governments continues.
> >>>>> I received this disturbing news from Baile.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have all helped to manifest Measure "S".  At the same time, it has
> >>>>> no real teeth of enforcement until such time as it is written into
> the
> >>>>> enforcement codes of Mendocino County.  This process takes place
> >>>>> through the office of the county counsel.  The county counsel can
> >>>>> choose to refrain from writing into the codes of law in the county
> any
> >>>>> part of Measure "S" that the county counsel deems to be unlawful.
> >>>>> Since the State of California presently does not ban fracking and has
> >>>>> passed legislation clearly stating that the right to frack is solely
> >>>>> determined by the State, than the county counsel could make the
> >>>>> decision that no part of Measure "S" can legally be written into the
> >>>>> county enforcement codes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Norman has urged us to get busy contacting and lobbying our
> respective
> >>>>> Supervisors in order to educate them and persuade them to direct the
> >>>>> county counsel to "codify" all parts of Measure "S."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What options do we have to make sure the will of the people is
> carried
> >>>>> out by the county supervisors now? I know from my limited experience
> >>>>> here that it will be extremely hard "  to get busy contacting and
> >>>>> lobbying our respective Supervisors in order to educate them and
> >>>>> persuade them to direct the county counsel to "codify" all parts of
> >>>>> Measure "S." What other options, if any are open to us at this point
> >>>>> in time?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for any help or suggestions you can give us
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ed Oberweiser
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20141221/1631d9b9/attachment.html 