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

[agnes at mcn.org]

Agnes has a conference call # that the MCPB Coalition uses in the evenings
and could make it available except from 6-7:30 pm.

Agnes


> Tim has an ongoing conference call number and pin set up...just need to
> clear with Tim when we are using it so as not to conflict with his needs.
>
>
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 8:48 AM, Carrie Durkee 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>