[CRNMC] Meeting to Enact Measure S

Tue Dec 23 10:22:28 PST 2014

Thank you, Agnes, for contacting Dan and finding out about his intentions.
This points our work in the right direction, and allows us a little time to
figure out our most positive and strategic move.  I hope you will be part
of that move, if not on the committee.  We need folks like you, who are
proactive and have those personal contacts, to propel this forward.  I
appreciate your contribution!

I would love to meet on Jan 12th in the afternoon anywhere.

Thank you all for continuing this important work!

Blessings,
Kelly

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:34 PM, <agnes at mcn.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>     I and members of MCPBCoalition have met privately with two Supervisors
> in the past. Meg is right this can't be done consecutively on the same
> topic. I stand corrected.
>      I respect Baile's questions re what a private citizen can do
> representing themselves and his conciliatory tone.
>
> As an individual I sent 2 inquiries about codification to Dan Hamburg
> before there was any discussion about an enactment committee.
>
> I forwarded Dan's response to CRN thinking his response would be useful
> information to you all. I did not use CRN list serve to email him, but my
> own,that's why his email was addressed to me.
>
> I'm glad  people agree there should be a committee.I'll be glad to step
> aside. Please read Dan's email that I forwarded to you about his position
> on Community Rights earlier today 12/22.
>
> Sincerely,
> Agnes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > Jan 9 - 12 works for me. As to location, I guess we'll have to work that
> > out for the most convenient site for everyone.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Ed
> >
> > 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 â€¦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
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20141223/b0ae8bef/attachment.html 