[CRNMC] What Ben Price of CELDF said about the supes not endoding Measure S

Mon Dec 29 09:01:17 PST 2014

Hi Carrie,

I know how to set up a conference call and am happy to do that.

Kelly

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Carrie Durkee <cdurkee at mcn.org> wrote:

> Shall the 5 of us…Agnes, Baile, Kelly, Ed, Carrie
> Communicate by an enactment committee circle instead of the whole network?
> Suggestions?
>
> I think the conference call is a good idea. …Whenever we can set it up.
> Or..who knows how to coordinate and organize a conference call among us?
> I do not.
>
> Carrie
>
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 8:41 AM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>
> > January 12 works for me. Either Mendocino or Fort Bragg works for me
> > as well. Ben Price of CELDF suggested setting up a conference call
> > with Shannon and himself as well to discuss this situation. That
> > sounds like a good idea before our meeting. What do you all think
> > about that?
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Baile Oakes <baileoakes at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Can we consider meeting in Fort Bragg ?
> >>
> >> Mendocino is a long way from Westport.
> >>
> >> Though, I also believe it is best to meet in a location that will
> produce the lowest combined carbon footprint.
> >>
> >> hmmm ?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 28, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Carrie Durkee wrote:
> >>
> >>> So..
> >>> Regarding the enactment committee..
> >>> I recall that there are a few of us interested and we are close to
> setting a meeting
> >>> Monday, Jan 12th in Mendocino… say 1:00…?
> >>> Could be at the GoodLife Cafe..
> >>> Those who had previously expressed interest:
> >>>
> >>> Agnes
> >>> Ed O.
> >>> Kelly
> >>> Carrie
> >>>
> >>> Seems like these are the folks who responded previously. Please
> correct me if I am wrong.
> >>> Who else wants to join???
> >>> My thought is to have a few minds making strategic decisions after
> doing some fact finding.
> >>> We also would be our responsibility to stay in touch with the group
> via CRNMC list serve.
> >>>
> >>> Please respond with improvements or suggestions for a better process.
> >>> Carrie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 28, 2014, at 7:02 PM, Baile Oakes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Agnes et al
> >>>>
> >>>> There has been more than one person speaking from the CRNMC that we
> need to consider establishing a committee to represent our sentiments to
> the legal channels in the county.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe we need to respect and explore this possibility if we wish
> to speak from the CRNMC.
> >>>>
> >>>> That other matter is to establish whether our group is comfortable
> with individuals within our group making clear that they are not
> representing the CRNMC while sharing their views with county officials.
> >>>>
> >>>> Something to consider.
> >>>>
> >>>> with love
> >>>>
> >>>> always
> >>>>
> >>>> baile
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 28, 2014, at 3:41 PM, agnes at mcn.org wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ed and Baile,
> >>>>>  Should we send Ben's response to Dan Hamburg?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Agnes
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sounds like it is getting back to my original email regarding
> Norman de
> >>>>>> Vall's recomendation that we need to be proactive to assure the
> >>>>>> codification of Measure "S" into county law.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Norman was a supervisor for a long time and I figured there was
> >>>>>> justification to his concern.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> with love
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> baile
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:53 AM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> edward Oberweiser <edoberweiser at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dec 24 (2 days ago)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Ben,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here is what one of our County Board of Supervisors is telling us.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ed Oberweiser
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Agnes,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I didn't mean to imply that three votes will lead to codifying
> Measure
> >>>>>>> S.
> >>>>>>> What I was saying was that three votes could codify a ban on
> fracking in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> County.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't believe the broader proscriptions described in "S" can be
> >>>>>>> codified
> >>>>>>> since they run so directly against state and federal law.  There
> is also
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> issue of an initiative addressing more than single subject (which
> is
> >>>>>>> apparently a flaw in the drafting of "S").
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Prior to the November election, Sups. McCowen and Brown wanted to
> send
> >>>>>>> "S"
> >>>>>>> to the Superior Court to determine its constitutionality; however,
> a
> >>>>>>> Board
> >>>>>>> majority voted to allow it to go to the ballot regardless of the
> >>>>>>> potential
> >>>>>>> for a state and/or federal constitutional challenge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now that "S" has passed overwhelmingly, I would like to see the
> original
> >>>>>>> anti-fracking measure come back to the Board.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I will talk with County Counsel to make sure I'm right about these
> >>>>>>> matters.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ben Price
> >>>>>>> to Shannon, me
> >>>>>>> Ed,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think you need to arrange a conference call with Shannon Biggs -
> and
> >>>>>>> I'll join in if it helps --  to discuss why the Supervisors don't
> have
> >>>>>>> a legal option to pick and choose what they enter into the code. If
> >>>>>>> they or another party want to challenge the legality of the
> community
> >>>>>>> bill of rights, or any part of it, there are legal avenues to do
> so.
> >>>>>>> They may not assume the authority of a judge and jury and in their
> own
> >>>>>>> judgement chop up the CBoR to suit their own taste.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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/20141229/e441d9ab/attachment.html 