[CRNMC] Meeting to Enact Measure S
agnes at mcn.org
agnes at mcn.org
Tue Dec 23 10:56:36 PST 2014
Thank you, Kelly,
I would be interested in being on the enactment committee if the
meeting were on the coast because I have a Conference call on
Jan.12 at 6:00pm with MCPBC.
Best Regards,
Agnes
> 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 …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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
More information about the crn
mailing list