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

Mon Dec 22 00:59:45 PST 2014

Hi everyone,

Charles is studying law right now and I think we need to have his advice on
this and perhaps he knows someone with more law knowledge who can help us.
A friend of mine who visited me today from Santa Cruz County suggested the
threat of a lawsuit. The supervisors and all their staff are our employees.
It's interesting what Ben Price of CELDF had to say about this. That the
supes *cannot* thwart the will of the 'We didn't pass Measure S with only
60% of the vote. It was actually more. Here is the official vote count
after the election. Yes 69.52 No 30.48.

I like Ben Price's idea of publicizing any reluctance by the county
supervisors and their staff trying to override the will of we the people. I
also like the idea of forming an enactment committee. It sounds like Agnes'
idea of talking to 2 supervisors at a time is illegal under the Brown Act.
I have heard from Dan Hamburg that with the current board, there are only
two positive votes for banning fracking in Mendocino County. However,
Pinches is retiring and maybe we will get a more sympathetic supervisor in
his place. However,  I also feel that we must not take the attitude of
asking the supervisors to encode all of Measure S. We must demand that they
accede to the will of 70 percent of the voters.

Ed

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Shannon Biggs <shannon at movementrights.org>
wrote:
>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

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Shannon Biggs <shannon at movementrights.org>
wrote:
>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:

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Kelly Larson <solarkelly at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141222/21dc592f/attachment.html 