[CRNMC] About codifying Measure S into Mendo County law

Fri Jan 2 11:14:08 PST 2015

Hi Baile,

I looked in my local politics class text book from San Jose State
University class that was a requirement for my journalism degree. The
only reference I could find was LAFCO which stands for Local Agency
Formation Commission.Their website is: http://www.mendolafco.org/.
They don't appear to have any authority as to encoding Measure S.

This is something we need to learn and get on top of. Could you ask
Norman the actual specfic name of the group?

After further searching I found a local government commission website
where I got the following information:

http://www.lgc.org/what-we-do/services

The LGC offers a variety of services to assist local elected
officials, their staff, and other dedicated community leaders in
creating healthy walkable, and resource-efficient communities.  This
is achieved by providing workshops, trainings, forums, presentations,
design charrettes, community image surveys and policy development
assistance. As a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, we strive to
offer cost effective services covering a variety of subject areas such
as climate change, energy, community design, and healthy communities.
The LGC also works to link the public and local government officials.
The LGC can work with you to customize the types of services that best
meet your community’s needs.

regards
Ed

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Baile Oakes <baileoakes at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed, I know nothing more about the Local Government Commission then that this body does exist.
>
> One of the reasons I am calling them is to find out who they are, how they serve, and whether they can help me with the questions I have for them.
>
> Will keep you informed.
>
> with love
>
> baile
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:57 AM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>
>> HI Baile,
>>
>> What is the proper name for the local government commission? How many
>> people are on it and how do they get their positions? Most importantly
>> who are they?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Baile Oakes <baileoakes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>
>>> Word from Norman is that the "go to" source of information is the Local Government Commission.
>>>
>>> I contacted them outside of the CRNMC regarding educating my self regarding County Charters.
>>>
>>> I left a phone message in their general messages.  Waiting to hear back.
>>>
>>> With the blessings of the CRNMC, when I hear back from them, I can also ask them to generally address this issue of codifying local measures passed by ballot.
>>>
>>> All the best to all of you,
>>>
>>> love
>>>
>>> baile
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 1, 2015, at 10:56 PM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Baile for clearing this up,
>>>>
>>>> I realize that this, more clearly than ever, points out we need to
>>>> form a committee to deal with this situation - whatever the situation
>>>> turns out to be.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone in CRNMC have a connection to someone in state government
>>>> or someone who can point us in the right direction. I think we need to
>>>> know what the letter of the California law is regarding the
>>>> iniatiative process. I am disappointed that this issue never came up
>>>> during any of the workshops - neither Paul's workshops nor Democracy
>>>> School. I would think that someone would have experienced this before
>>>> and could give us some guidance.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Baile Oakes <baileoakes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Ed et al,
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to Ed's Letter:
>>>>>
>>>>> Norman is a private citizen, a friend of mine and I trust him as a person and his knowledge of how our county operates and the people who operate it.  I have been talking to him  about my interest in local self governance since Paul's workshop, before Measure "S." Our conversations about the measure and local self governance have continued throughout the entire process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Norman has acted alone as a private citizen regarding his inquiry's about the codification of the measure and passed on some information to me the same day that you posted your email regarding questions about the process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Norman's email shed a little light on some of the questions you raised and I asked him if I could share his email with the CRNMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> He said it was ok to do so, so I sent it on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Norman is not involved with the CRNMC and has no desire to be involved with the CRNMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has decades of experience regarding the workings of our county and has been very beneficial to me regarding my education about county politics and protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>> No harm has been done.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am well aware that you have had some level of disagreement with Norman and that you presently do not trust him.
>>>>>
>>>>> You and I have merely had different relationships and experience with him.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the CRNMC does not wish to hear news that other people have regarding our public work, then let's create a protocol for such.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are still very wet behind the ears and there is much to learn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time for a deep breath of patience.
>>>>>
>>>>> With love
>>>>>
>>>>> Baile
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 1, 2015, at 9:51 PM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Baile,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't emphasize strongly enough that Norman De vall cannot be
>>>>>> trusted. He tried to break up our group the Ocean Protection
>>>>>> Coalition. Why is he getting involved in CRNMC business? He is not
>>>>>> part of CRNMC as far as I know. Who is authorizing to do things like
>>>>>> contact Susan Ranochak about this without any consensus from CRNMC. I
>>>>>> think you need to read Charles' email about this situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I am doing my best to keep up with all the posts to this discussion,
>>>>>> and I may have missed some messages, given the craziness related to
>>>>>> the holidays and end-of-semester finals. But from what I have read,
>>>>>> there is ONLY some suspicion that the Supervisors might not codify
>>>>>> Measure S into law -- no actual facts to substantiate that suspicion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is where being on-line can run away with us, where a rumor can
>>>>>> become a big deal, and before we know it, people are starting to treat
>>>>>> the discussion like a fact. And then they start thinking "we're going
>>>>>> to sue the Supervisors to get them to act," and "we're going to
>>>>>> publicize the fact that they aren't acting," etc. This conversation
>>>>>> seems to be going too far, too fast, without clarity about who in our
>>>>>> group is the coordinator, and who in our group is the spokesperson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a result of this running away with us status, we as a group run a
>>>>>> real risk that we may damage some of the positive political capital
>>>>>> that we have created to date. If, for example, given the current level
>>>>>> of this conversation, we were to approach a member of the Board of
>>>>>> Supervisors, and straight-away say, "why won't you codify Measure S?,"
>>>>>> we could put them on the defensive, when they had no intention of
>>>>>> refusing to codify the measure in reality. So let's set up a committee
>>>>>> to (1) investigate how the laws are codified, (2) meet with officials
>>>>>> at the County, and (3) then bring it back to the larger group if need
>>>>>> be (perhaps only a report that it's done completely). The committee
>>>>>> can set up a coordinator and a spokesperson, and perhaps meet with a
>>>>>> local attorney if they need that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The County should tell us how how their process for codifying
>>>>>> initiatives works, who is involved, what the timing is, etc. We don't
>>>>>> have to do this all on our own. Let's get our County officials to work
>>>>>> for us in this respect, and tell us what we need to know, in order to
>>>>>> make sure this whole Measure S process is complete and enforceable."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /s/ Charles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Baile Oakes <baileoakes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> the following is the latest regarding the codification process in our county regarding Measure "S"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seems like many of us have a typo problem with Counsel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Norman de Vall wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I called Susan Ranoachak last week and she
>>>>>>>> moved the codification issue to County Council;
>>>>>>>> County Council has moved it on the the Clerk
>>>>>>>> of the Board (BoS).  CoCo will get back to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK to post with others
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 2015, at 10:54 AM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HI Charles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sorry I took so long to respond to your email. Your email is right
>>>>>>>> on. Uhfortunately someone has already contacted Dan Hamburg about
>>>>>>>> this. I don't know where to look to find out the process for codifying
>>>>>>>> laws. This all took me by surprise. I was under the, apparently false,
>>>>>>>> impression that once the people voted, Measure S automatically became
>>>>>>>> law. We definitely need to form a committee to deal with this in house
>>>>>>>> before we approach the supes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would nominate you for the committee if you have the time. I
>>>>>>>> volunteer to be on that committee as well. It sounds like an
>>>>>>>> opportunity to learn more about local laws and procedures that I need
>>>>>>>> to know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your grounded wisdom!
>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Charles Cresson Wood
>>>>>>>> <ccwood at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello community rights friends,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am doing my best to keep up with all the posts to this discussion, and I may have missed some messages, given the craziness related to the holidays and end-of-semester finals. But from what I have read, there is ONLY some suspicion that the Supervisors might not codify Measure S into law -- no actual facts to substantiate that suspicion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is where being on-line can run away with us, where a rumor can become a big deal, and before we know it, people are starting to treat the discussion like a fact. And then they start thinking "we're going to sue the Supervisors to get them to act," and "we're going to publicize the fact that they aren't acting," etc. This conversation seems to be going too far, too fast, without clarity about who in our group is the coordinator, and who in our group is the spokesperson.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a result of this running away with us status, we as a group run a real risk that we may damage some of the positive political capital that we have created to date. If, for example, given the current level of this conversation, we were to approach a member of the Board of Supervisors, and straight-away say, "why won't you codify Measure S?," we could put them on the defensive, when they had no intention of refusing to codify the measure in reality. So let's set up a committee to (1) investigate how the laws are codified, (2) meet with officials at the County, and (3) then bring it back to the larger group if need be (perhaps only a report that it's done completely). The committee can set up a coordinator and a spokesperson, and perhaps meet with a local attorney if they need that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The County should tell us how how their process for codifying initiatives works, who is involved, what the timing is, etc. We don't have to do this all on our own. Let's get our County officials to work for us in this respect, and tell us what we need to know, in order to make sure this whole Measure S process is complete and enforceable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /s/ Charles
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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