[CRNMC] Meeting to Enact Measure S

Tue Dec 23 11:48:16 PST 2014

I can be there in the afternoon on the 9th or 12th.
Kelly

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Carrie Durkee <cdurkee at mcn.org> wrote:

> Hello all:
> I am interested in being part of the Enactment Committee.
> I could meet on the 9th in the afternoon…after 1:00 or 2:00..depending on
> the location.
> Or..I could meet on the afternoon of the 12th.
> all the best,
> Carrie
> On Dec 22, 2014, at 2:25 PM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20141223/c28dfe37/attachment.html 