[CRNMC] Meeting to Enact Measure S

Geri Morisky geri.morisky at gmail.com
Mon Dec 22 11:56:49 PST 2014 

I agree, face to face is key on any priority focus.  The January 9 through
12 period would be ideal.  Geri Morisky

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Kelly Larson <solarkelly at gmail.com> wrote:

> We need a face to face meeting to discuss ensuring Measure S in codified
> into law the way we want.
>
> When?  How about one of the days between Jan 9th and the 12th?
>
> Where?  We will need an indoor location accessible to all.
>
> Blessings,
> Kelly
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Carrie Durkee <cdurkee at mcn.org> wrote:
>
>> yes …let's meet.
>> Carrie
>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 10:30 AM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I agree with Baile. We need to have in person meeting about forming an
>> enactment committee. Are there any of us who know where to look to see if
>> the supervisors and their counsel can legally thwart the will of we the
>> people in the initiative process?
>>
>> regards
>> Ed
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Baile Oakes <baileoakes at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/cb8e402d/attachment.html

More information about the crn mailing list