[CRNMC] A Meeting in January ?

Baile Oakes baileoakes at gmail.com
Mon Dec 22 08:45:54 PST 2014 

Great information from Meg.

This is a great educational thread.

I am curious as to how lobbyist get around this violation of the Brown Act.  They certainly meet independently with public representatives.  Is it OK to meet individually with public representatives but not legal to meet with more than I ?

We are members of a start up organization and still settling into how we need to represent our selves as a member of a group and as an individual citizen.

We as citizens need to be mindful of when we are representing the will of the CRNMC and when we are talking as private citizens.

Is it ok with the CRNMC for members of the CNRMC to speak out/write to our representatives as a private citizen ?

We do need to have a meeting regarding Enactment and other next steps of our group. 

I do not believe it is healthy to attempt to form a committee over the internet. There are some in our organization that do not communicate on a consistent basis on the net.

Sending all the best to all of you in this wonder filled season of the return of the Light.

with love,

baile

On Dec 21, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Meg Courtney wrote:

> Folks,
>> From my understanding this is a violation of the Brown Act - no matter who or what committee speaks privately w/ 2 members of the BOS and then meets with 2 more BOS members. This is called a "serial meeting" or "daisy chain" to "develop a collective "concurrence".  Not good. Ask Dan. He knows all about this.
> Meg
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2014, at 1:27 PM, agnes at mcn.org wrote:
>> 
>> Lanny,
>> You have used the royal "we" when you mean I.
>> I have established a good relationship with Dan hamburg and respect his
>> advice. I have already contacted him twice re measure S and you can read
>> them on the listserve. Your comment below is undemocratic.
>> 
>> Agnes
>> 
>> 
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn

More information about the crn mailing list