shopify traffic stats
Quantcast

Law of unintended consequences at work – citizens file charter initiative

Law of unintended consequences at work – citizens file charter initiative
image_pdfimage_print

On Tuesday we will find out if the voters reject outright a scheme hatched by a small band of chamber of commerce members to bulldoze over public process by manipulating two interim commissioners to change the county over to a council-manager form of government without a vote of the people. The movement is funded by a few local business interests, including ORC and the Coquille Tribe and organized by the board members of a political action committee, CCAP (Coos County Alliance for Progress).

In nature, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and the strong arm tactics used to centralize political power in the county have already received push back in the form of radio ads placed by a private citizen, John Shank, arguing against an administrator and encouraging a vote for candidates not funded by CCAP. Shank spoke with me yesterday and has experience in municipal government and explained that he initially supported candidates Fred Messerle and John Sweet until he discovered they were trying to force an administrator on the public. “I don’t like that”, he said. “I know a lot about administrators and while there are positives there are also a lot of negatives.”

Proponents of hiring an administrator have not addressed the potential downside not just of centralizing the authority into one person but of enacting sweeping changes suddenly and without careful consideration of the unintended consequences.

Another group calling itself ARRRG (Americans for Responsive, Responsible, Representative Government) took the matter a step further and drafted a charter with the help of Salem attorney Nathan Rietmann and filed paperwork to get the initiative on the ballot by November. The charter calls for five full time commissioners and requires a super majority of four to pass any motion. A quick review of the charter offers no change in services provided that would require state approval but calls for a vote of the people on matters like hiring an administrator or the extension of urban renewal district terms or boundaries.

 COUNTY MANAGER OR ADMINISTRATOR WILL REQUIRE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE – Section 3.24
 COUNTY URBAN RENEWAL DECISIONS WILL GO TO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE – Section 12.
 TRANSFER OF MAJOR COUNTY ASSETS WILL GO TO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE – Section 7.2
 FIVE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE FULL TIME AND ELECTED AT LARGE – Sections 3.1 & 3.9
 COMMISSIONERS WILL VOTE ONLY AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETINGS, NOT AT WORK SESSIONS OR OTHER TIMES – Section 3.12
 CITIZEN COMMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS – Section 3.20
 STANDARDIZED OPEN BID SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIES AND PROJECTS; STANDARDIZED CONTRACTS; ACCOUNTABILITY FOR QUALITY, COMPLIANCE – Section 16.

Read the Final Charter May 9, 2012

Last year it was discovered that Jon Barton and friends were hoping to get a home rule charter on the ballot for the May election, although one would imagine it would look very different than this proposed charter and would not favor public empowerment. Should this initiative acquire the 1,500 signatures required to put it on the ballot and be accepted by the voters then any actions taken by the current board of commissioners will be overturned on January 1, 2013 which means the CCAP may have to rethink its current strategy on the chance the charter is adopted.

Below is the ARRRG press release

” Voice of the Voters “

Would you like a vote on having a County Administrator? Would you like a vote on Urban Renewal taxation? Would you like a vote on the transfer of major county assets?

Would you like five full time commissioners, paid, representing the whole county? Would you like to have Citizen Comments at all the public meetings? Would you like the commissioners to be restricted to voting only at regularly scheduled Board meetings (versus also at scattered Work Sessions)?

Would you like open competitive county bids and standardized contracts? Would you like to have accountability in quality and contract compliance with these county bids?

You can have it all.

The Home Rule Charter for Coos County 2012 has just been filed as an initiative to be decided in the November election. It contains all of the above provisions, and more. It is sponsored by Americans for Responsive, Responsible, Representative Government (ARRRG).

This county does not need a captain. It needs a rudder, and a map. This Home Rule Charter provides both, in detail. It features the values and rights of the voters while defining the requirements of the county governing body. It is unique. It is designed for Coos County.

Feel free to contact us. We’re available to meet with any of the various local groups. We have Charters for anyone who wants them. We can e-mail the complete Charter.

Contact information: ARRRG, PO Box 826, Coquille, Oregon 97423. Phone: 541-396-4200 (machine after six rings). E-mail: ARRRG@harborside.com Donations are made payable to ARRRG. Donations are not tax deductible.

Submitted by Ronnie Herne, Secretary, ARRRG

Print Friendly

About magix

When my oldest son, a Marine, left for war and crossed the border from Kuwait into Iraq in March 2003 I started writing my conscience. After two tours that young combat veteran’s mother is now an ardent peace activist and advocate for social, environmental and economic justice. MGx has matured since those early vents and ramblings and now covers relevant and important local and regional matters in addition to national and global affairs.

Connect

Follow on Twitter View all Posts

76 Responses to "Law of unintended consequences at work – citizens file charter initiative"

  1. RUGullible  May 11, 2012 at 5:05 AM

    THose of us who voted for MarkM should be permitted to cast a different ballot. Those of us who are opposed to Al Pettit and Jon Barton, who have read every word of the Charter, should be opposed to this also.

    Reply
  2. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 9:47 PM

    I think you should keep this going Mark. The public learns a lot about what their elected officials are really doing from you. For example we learned Caddy, Arnie, Peter and Joanne have been supporters of LNG for years, while telling their constituents that they needed more time to examine the proposal. You helped expose these progressive democrats as the blue dogs they really are. You guys have really helped the drive to register more democrats as independents. Good Job.

    Reply
  3. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 9:44 PM

    Well, that’s quite an unimaginative conspiracy theory you have there, The Reminder. But I don’t think that’s my problem. I think my problem is that I take this blog too seriously. Have fun voting for your new government.

    Good night.

    Reply
  4. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM

    Sounds your your just trying to sell Barton/Pettits scheme while discrediting anything else that appears. you took a long time to spit it out, but you finally managed to argue yourself to a conclusion that MGX is not being fair, because your guys took a long time to wheezil the public, and someone might stop you guys in your tracks. You just look like your suffering from sour grapes, because Mary’s not upset with this particular process to secure a vote of the public, unlike your slow march to secure an administrator without the public getting a vote on that specifically. .She saw what you were up to when you started this attempt to smear her, but you couldn’t stop yourself could you? How many times are you and Al going to resort to these tactics? Childish for a person wanting to serve in public office.

    Reply
  5. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 9:19 PM

    aghast!, do you value open meeting law?

    If so, why are you willing to put up for a vote a complete change to our county government without any public input?

    Hey, why don’t we have a public vote on the Governance Committee report? I’m sure they could get 1500 signatures in a weekend.

    Reply
  6. aghast!  May 10, 2012 at 9:05 PM

    Mark, do you always refuse to consider an initiative unless you had a hand in writing it? Are you saying that every initiative you have voted on you also wrote?

    Reply
  7. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM

    ““closeted secrecy”??? The charter is a matter of public record, what is closeted or secret about that?”

    Well, yeah, NOW it is. Prior to that, no one, including you knew about it. THAT is closeted secrecy, yes. Why wasn’t the public invited to ARRRG meetings?

    ” How many initiatives have we all voted on that we didn’t help draft? ”

    None that introduced a new county charter. All Home Rule county charters passed after going through an elaborate public process beginning with a Charter Committee.

    To wit: You do not approve of the Governance Committee. It has been meeting for what? eight months now? All public meetings, pre-announced with minutes and identified committee members.

    Yet, here comes ARRRG. We know of only two committee members, one of which does not even live in the county. We have no idea when, where, or how long it has met. We have no minutes — nothing. All we have is the finished product.

    If the Governance Committee had announced: “We’ve been meeting for eight months now and we’ve come up with this initiative for you to vote on” you Mary would be filing open meeting lawsuits. You know you would.

    But when ARRRG does it? No problem. Hey, let’s see what they have to say.

    “Just because all 63,000 citizens didn’t know about it doesn’t mean it was a secret.”

    Really? I mean, that’s really your defense of this farce? Read that again with a straight face.

    “The difference between this initiative and the Barton/Pettit scheme is the people have months to study this and they also get to vote on it.”

    How about this difference? The Barton/Petit scheme has presented absolutely nothing to be voted on. And the public has been fully apprised of its doings the entire way.

    Look, if you and anyone else want to go down the Home Rule road — great! Let’s just do it in the light of day. Don’t spring it on us at the last second asking for an up or down vote. That’s not how it works.

    It’s a 16 step process. Let’s do it right.

    I oppose this initiative fiasco for the same reason that I oppose a county administrator being haphazardly installed. We need to slow down. We need to talk with one another. Let’s do what’s right for the county. Let’s do it together.

    Reply
  8. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM

    Your very rattled by this. Have you contacted theworldlink with your concerns, or are you just beating the bushes at this site. It would be nice to see you share your feelings about this with the readers of theworld.

    Reply
  9. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

    The Reminder: “free people posing an idea for the public to vote on.”

    So far it’s only ONE person from Coos County, TR. “Imposing an idea”? Interesting choice of words, but very accurate, imo.

    “You would rather these things come from where Mark?”

    The public.

    Reply
  10. magix  May 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

    “closeted secrecy”??? The charter is a matter of public record, what is closeted or secret about that? How many initiatives have we all voted on that we didn’t help draft? Just because all 63,000 citizens didn’t know about it doesn’t mean it was a secret. The difference between this initiative and the Barton/Pettit scheme is the people have months to study this and they also get to vote on it.

    Reply
  11. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 8:36 PM

    You asked, why doesn’t the closeted secrecy bother you?
    Answer. They aren’t the government or sucking tax dollars, that I know of, so why would I be upset, as you are, about free people posing an idea for the public to vote on. You would rather these things come from where Mark? To be decided by Who if not the populace. Do you not see how the public could be served by such an initiative? Don’t keep inserting your thoughts as my words. Its a very annoying habit you present.

    Reply
  12. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 8:20 PM

    Kay,

    Defensive much?

    Just imagine: If Ronnie Herne were Al Petit, how would you feel about this “process”?

    Reply
  13. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

    So, The Reminder, fair point. Why not have a public debate about it? Why the closeted secrecy?

    Furthermore, why doesn’t the closeted secrecy bother you?

    It used to.

    Reply
  14. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

    “Why don’t you just explain why when Barton/Petit do it it’s bad, but when Herne/lawyer do it it’s good. That would be more helpful.”

    UMMMM………..cuz I don’t have to???????

    Reply
  15. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 8:13 PM

    “I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids… ”
    -Base Commander Ripper

    Hummm….I’m just saying……….

    Perhaps it’s time for you to sit down and watch it again Mark, that authoritarian thingey you got going is a little unnerving, just my un-asked-for opinion.

    Reply
  16. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM

    Kay, you said you were going to spank me good with your whips in your black latex and stillettos.

    Now you call me a “prevert”?

    Snap, snap, snap, yourself.

    Why don’t you just explain why when Barton/Petit do it it’s bad, but when Herne/lawyer do it it’s good. That would be more helpful.

    Reply
  17. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 8:06 PM

    OK, here it is. One person with one point. I like what little I learned about this initiative because it will be harder for SCDC members to violate public monies and public resources, as would be possible with a CEO/Administrator system that would be more vulnerable to special interests and potential fraud as has been found existing at the port of coos bay.
    You asked ” Do you or do you not support this initiative? And why?”. There’s one response to your baiting, now what comes next Mark?

    Reply
  18. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 8:02 PM

    Why do scenes from Dr. Strangelove suddenly flood my senses? ?

    http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/strange/slove11.wav

    That one is for you Mark.

    Reply
  19. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 8:00 PM

    It doesn’t matter what’s in it.

    That’s the point.

    The only question before us is: Do we take it, or leave it?

    And that should bother you.

    That it doesn’t, bothers me.

    Reply
  20. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 7:56 PM

    What the heck is wrong with you Mark? I haven’t had time to even read the damn thing, and you come here demanding to know if we are going to sign it? Take two Benedryl Mark, or burn a bowl and relax just a little. You’re trying to hitch yer buggy to the wrong horse here. I don’t understand your manic behavior regarding a piece of paper, and a public process. Man, this is weird. Like. Really.

    Reply
  21. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 7:24 PM

    56 comments in and all we can do is attack MarkM, foment conspiracy theories, and change the subject.

    What I’m asking is not all that complicated: Do you or do you not support this initiative? And why?

    I do not because the way it was done subverts the public process.

    I would have expected many posters here to feel the same way seeing as how they are such champions of public meeting law.

    But I was wrong. Oh well. Turns out, the ends justify the means. Who knew?

    Reply
  22. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 6:49 PM

    Have you ever noticed when you run story’s about SCDC and Jon Barton, that one or two things are certain to happen. Al and or Mark come here to attempt to dis-credit you with lame arguments, and or theworldlink runs negative stories on ORRCA and their inherent corruption problems. These things almost always coincide with one another. Quite a puzzle isn’t it. Mark is a very loyal patron of theworldlink. I remember him banging their drum for heads to roll over the supposed ORRCA scandal.
    Yet he still expects some latitude with his attitude.

    Reply
  23. magix  May 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM

    Boy, Reminder, I don’t know but if Mark doesn’t like the initiative process he needs to take it up with the legislature. There is no motivation for me to fight with him

    Reply
  24. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 6:21 PM

    I like how he argues both sides, you don’t even have to write much, because he has inserted all the pertinent questions and comments he thinks are relevant to his opinion.
    Mary its obvious he wants to pick a fight with you to prove something to someone.
    Is it just his turn, because Al is on break?

    Reply
  25. aghast!  May 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

    Holy cow! MarkM is a screwy as Cam Parry

    Reply
  26. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM

    “I read it this morning. Some things I like. Some things I don’t. What I absolutely don’t like is the fact that it just showed up sans any kind of public process at all. Why that fact doesn’t seem to bother you a whit, Mary, is perplexing, if not disappointing.”

    OKAY, I’VE HAD IT WITH YOU MARK. I AM, AS WE SPEAK PULLING UP MY BLACK LATEX AND STILLETTOS, AND i AM BRINGING MY WHIPS TO SPANK YOU GOOD. I’m so sorry, I didn’t heed our “secret” messages. I forgot, I am getting up there in years, but I still snap a good whip, and I’m coming to teach you not to be mean to my friends. Snap, snap, snap, here I come Mark, you very bad boy you.

    Reply
  27. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM

    The Reminder, why would you support an initiative done in the dark of night with no public knowledge or input? Especially when it is designed to completely change the pinnings of our county government? If PetiBarton were behind it, I’m certain you’d be quick to answer.

    Reply
  28. magix  May 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM

    You’ll be voting NO then?

    Mark what don’t you understand about the initiative process?

    Reply
  29. magix  May 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM

    Mark, I would invite you to reread the post above for topic clarity

    Reply
  30. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 6:05 PM

    “Mark, no one has even had a chance to read the charter yet?”

    Exactly.

    Where the flip did this initiative come from?

    I read it this morning. Some things I like. Some things I don’t. What I absolutely don’t like is the fact that it just showed up sans any kind of public process at all. Why that fact doesn’t seem to bother you a whit, Mary, is perplexing, if not disappointing.

    Why should this initiative even exist in the first place? Can anyone explain that to me?

    Reply
  31. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 6:03 PM

    So the only topic you see here is who would vote for this and why?
    So someone should appease you and give you a reason to knife them with words. Are you doing this at the worldlink, or are you just giving us this special treatment?

    Reply
  32. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

    Kay, it’s pretty simple: sign or not sign. Why, or why not?

    I know you have a hard time staying on topic, but you don’t need to make it personal — especially with someone you hardly know.

    If can’t take the heat, no problem. Get out of the kitchen. Otherwise, answer.

    Reply
  33. magix  May 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM

    Mark, no one has even had a chance to read the charter yet? You are behaving like a bully demanding this or that so please lighten up. If people do sign the petition it will be a matter of public record and they will likely have their own reasons for signing it.

    Reply
  34. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM

    Well we know who plans to be there for the disruptions. Mark where you transplanted to this area to run a pick move (basketball play to guard the ball handler) for SCDC or did you just fall into the job after you arrived to this area?

    Reply
  35. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 5:51 PM

    The Reminder, if you’re so sure I will lose, what are you so worried about? Why don’t you, like Kay, try to stay on topic —

    Are you signing this petition?

    Why?

    Reply
  36. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM

    “Party is Saturday, 3 to 5PM at Figaro’s in Coquille. Be there or be square.”

    Is this when the changes to the petition can be submitted? Will all the committee members be divulged at “the party”? Will meeting minutes be available? Will a schedule of subsequent meetings be posted or arranged? Then will they be published so all can attend?

    Or is there not time for all that frivolousness? After all, there is a celebration at hand!

    FYI: I only say “be there or be square” when I support something.

    Reply
  37. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM

    MarkM, have you read this story?

    http://mgx.com/blogs/2012/05/09/sanne-leads-in-online-poll-by-8-5-points/

    Did you notice they had polls for the other seats as well? Did you see how many votes you had? Sure you’ve seen that info. Do you still wonder why? You wear all the negative weight of the port, you adopted their plans for Coos County as the best path forward. Now for better or worse you own it. Wear it well my friend.

    Reply
  38. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM

    And Kay? Tell me. Why would you sign this initiative?

    Where did I say I would sign this initiative?

    Come on Mark, you’ve got a wife, go rag on her ass.

    Reply
  39. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 5:34 PM

    I’m not talking about the contents of the charter, The Reminder. I’m taking about the process through which it was developed. Did YOU know anything about it until the news broke? How transparent and inclusive is that?

    Mary, since when is one Coos County resident and a Salem lawyer a “grassroots effort”? Don’t look now, but you’re defending the initiative.

    Hey, that’s fine. Just tell us why.

    Reply
  40. magix  May 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

    Perhaps we are special but I am having a hard time understanding why Mark finds a grassroots effort to make use of the initiative process as somehow violating the process or objectionable. The charter is filed with the clerk, anyone can read, sign or not sign the petition and possibly vote on it if it makes it to the ballot.
    There is no reason why changes cannot be submitted as well and a new version filed if people have problems with the charter as written. Or people can just ignore it if they feel so disenfranchised

    Reply
  41. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

    I read a similar story at theworldlink. Are you raising as much outrage in their comments, or are you just giving this to the special people that read this blog?

    Reply
  42. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 5:00 PM

     COUNTY MANAGER OR ADMINISTRATOR WILL REQUIRE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE – Section 3.24
     COUNTY URBAN RENEWAL DECISIONS WILL GO TO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE – Section 12.
     TRANSFER OF MAJOR COUNTY ASSETS WILL GO TO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE – Section 7.2
     FIVE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE FULL TIME AND ELECTED AT LARGE – Sections 3.1 & 3.9
     COMMISSIONERS WILL VOTE ONLY AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETINGS, NOT AT WORK SESSIONS OR OTHER TIMES – Section 3.12
     CITIZEN COMMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS – Section 3.20
     STANDARDIZED OPEN BID SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIES AND PROJECTS; STANDARDIZED CONTRACTS; ACCOUNTABILITY FOR QUALITY, COMPLIANCE – Section 16.

    Tell us again what part you don’t like, or is the part you don’t like not listed. Tell us what we don’t see in the list.

    Reply
  43. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 4:51 PM

    Kay, oh Kay, oh Kay. Why am I not surprised you want to talk about anything but the issue at hand? And now you want to try to build a conspiracy theory? By all means, be my guest. That’s a lovely distraction.

    Reply
  44. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

    And you should not sign this petition until you can come up with a good reason why you should.

    Reply
  45. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

    “Boy, Mary. You just do not get it.” Mark McKelvey

    MARY !!!

    YOU IGNORANT SLUT !!!!! Chevy Chase.

    Mark, where did I say I would sign it? You are ASSuming more than is even here.You liked Sandy Messerlies’ secret process, you praised her for it, and she lied to your face about it, and YOU chose to believe the lie, we told you she wouldn’t/didn’t make it an open process like the architects told her to. We told you the truth, you ignored us, because you were sitting at SCDC’s Magic Table. Remember Mark?

    Why do you come on here and order others around? I don’t understand what motivates you, but then I don’t consider coal, LNG, pipelines as progressive thinking, so I’m not surprised, I am surprised at your obsession about this issue. Has Barton or Messerlie appointed you their point man on this issue?

    Reply
  46. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM

    I never asked you to go away. I knew better. This is very insightful. You should just continue arguing with yourself.

    Reply
  47. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM

    Why is this initiative process superior to an open, public, transparent 16 step process, as described by the AOC?

    Just easier and faster? Hey, that sounds like the same argument being used to hasten in a county administrator.

    How do the ends justify the means here?

    Reply
  48. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

    That’s right, aghast! It’s legal. I never said it wasn’t.

    Why is it right?

    The ends justifying the means, for you?

    Doesn’t matter how we get there, so long as the end result is something we like? Public input, open government, transparency be damned.

    Nothing wrong with a public initiative — except when it’s done in secret; then it’s not really public, is it?. Is this what you would call a public process? When was the public asked for its input?

    Or is it, the out come that matters? So long as you get what you want, nothing else — especially the process — matters?

    Please explain to me how you rationalize signing this initiative while upholding the democratic process. I’d really like to know.

    Reply
  49. aghast!  May 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM

    ‘an alternative to preparing and submitting a county charter using a charter committee under the enabling legislation, a county charter may be prepared and submitted directly to the voters by exercise of the initiative.”

    From the AOC link Mark provided

    Reply
  50. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 4:04 PM

    While it might be so much easier for you, The Reminder, for me to just go away, sorry. You’re going to have to justify what you would sign such a petition. Why do you think the People’s work should be done outside of the People’s eyes?

    Please, elaborate. Maybe you’re right. I’ll sign on when you’ve made a convincing argument.

    But leave? Not on your life. I wouldn’t want to cheat you.

    And Kay? Tell me. Why would you sign this initiative?

    Reply
  51. magix  May 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    Fine Mark, vote NO in November and don’t file an initiative

    Reply
  52. The Reminder  May 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    Do you really think he will leave now?

    Reply
  53. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    Anyone who signs this charter initiative forfeits the right to complain about ANY public meeting law violation in the future.

    Unless you can explain to me how you rationalize this process.

    I dare you.

    Reply
  54. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    Boy, Mary. You just do not get it.

    I don’t want to write my own charter. How is that any better?!?

    The headline here says “citizens.” So far we have Ronnie Hearne and some lawyer from Salem. That’s ONE Coos County citizen. IF the OTHER citizens of Coos County want to pursue Home Rule, great. I have no problem with that. Form a Charter Committee. Post the meeting schedule. I’ll be among those who show up.

    Need I remind you the AOC recommends a 16 step process. Refresh (p. 108):

    http://www.aocweb.org/aoc/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=q9PuDSUARMM%3d&tabid=157

    Why the cloak and daggers? Is this what the people want or not?

    Vote NO? Darn right I will. But even that jumps the question. It’s not on the ballot yet. “Whoever They Are” has two years to collect signatures. “Ronnie and Friends” won’t get mine. Will “they” get yours?

    I challenge anyone willing to sign up for this to justify their endorsement. Is this an admission that the ends really do justify the means? That all this harping about the people being passed over was really malarky?

    I was stunned to see that this had taken placed. I am absolutely shocked to see it gaining approval.

    MGx community: Burning the Village to Save it. Trust us.

    THIS is better than sitting down at a table? Sorry. Count me out.

    Reply
  55. magix  May 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM

    Mark, simply vote NO if this makes it onto the ballot. Then writeup your own charter or form your own committee and engage in your preferred method. Groups file initiatives all the time… you can do it also

    Reply
  56. al  May 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM

    Well, maybe it’s because “the public” (and we know who that small subset is) isn’t being paid to make those decisions. If you want to be a commissioner, then run for the office. If you don’t like those in the seat, then vote. But I don’t think it’s rational to expect the public to allow a handful of disgruntled citizens to play commissioner when you’re not elected, appointed or accountable. The commissioners are responsible for making decisions that in the best interest of the entire county. I know that’s not going to appease a few folks on this blog, but that is the democratic process.

    Reply
  57. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    Kay, fill in the blank.

    You support this process because ……………………

    Reply
  58. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

    MarkM
    May 10, 2012 – 12:47 pm

    It’s too late. My question is “Can I participate?” The answer is “No.”

    The process is over. I can’t believe this doesn’t bother anybody else.

    NOW YOU KNOW HOW WE FEEL MARK

    . Pisses ya off? Git used to it. I guess you have NO problem with Sandy Messerlies’ closed process, but some one else’s? You scream like crazy. See how it works Mark? As long as YOU are sitting at that Magical Table, you don’t make a peep. And you don’t listen to facts Mark, quite frankly, I’ve never understood your thought processes.

    Reply
  59. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM

    It’s too late. My question is “Can I participate?” The answer is “No.”

    The process is over. I can’t believe this doesn’t bother anybody else.

    Reply
  60. Larry V  May 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM

    WOW! Good move Ronnie. Lets get this discussion out before the public in a public vote. From what I’ve read over the months, it seems changing our form of county government is being recommended by a hand picked few who are intent on getting things their way to promote their own adgenda. They have two appointed, not elected, hand picked commissioners who support their views and don’t think the voting public should be the deciding factor in determing our future. This is their chance and they won’t give it up easily. I listen to Barton, Slater and Pettit and all think the decision should be made by the current Board of Commissioners, not the public. Hopefully next Tuesday’s election will put a stop to this nonsense.

    Reply
  61. magix  May 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM

    Contact the committee Mark and ask them your questions

    Reply
  62. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM

    “Before I can address the process I need to understand it better so I will be speaking with Rietmann as soon as possible. Beyond that ARRRG is offering to answer all questions or speak before any groups that are interested and in the end the voters get to decide.”

    What’s not to understand? Here’s the process: Hearne and a lawyer held secret meetings by invitation only. There may have been others involved. We don’t know. They wrote a charter for Coos County. Here it is. We can ask questions, but it’s too late to change the charter. They are asking us for a signature.

    This is not open. It is not transparent. It is a complete violation of the spirit of Oregon’s open meeting law. It is not democratic. It’s not even representative.

    “Where Mark was your outrage when Barton and friends inserted themselves into the political process last summer? Why is this initiative any worse than a handful of oligarchs making decisions for us without a vote of the people?”

    It’s not. It’s exactly the same. Actually, it’s worse — at least the Structure/Governance committees held meetings. Surely you’re not going to use the “He started it” defense. I hear that enough when I’m teaching the fourth grade.

    I’m at a loss to understand how anyone on this blog can support this process. I’d like to see some posts that fill in this blank:

    I support this process because ……….

    I’m not talking about the charter itself. I’m talking about the process. I thought the process was an important thing around here.

    It is to me.

    Reply
  63. magix  May 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    Everyone’s vote and opinion should be considered equally. Allowing the public to comment during the committee discussions before summarily ignoring everything the public contributed is clearly not equal. The committees provide an excuse and cover for the commissioners to try an enact changes regardless of how the public feels about them.

    Reply
  64. al  May 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

    “Barton and friends inserted themselves into the political process”? Since when are we not allowed to insert ourselves into the political process? Are you saying that our vote and opinon doesn’t count?

    Reply
  65. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM

    Mark McKelvey is very very proud of “sitting at the table” with the Messerlie,Barton, SCDC crowd. He many many times told me that is the only way to move forward.

    How does sitting down at the table with the same people that have been sitting at the same table for four decades. SCDC is forty years old, and Mark is so proud to be a part of it. Bragged about it. Made a choice, to stand with the truth regarding Sandy Messerlies’ lies, and the rape of the Elliott Forest , Mark sided with the SCDC side on every issue I can think of. How many times Mark, have I told you , you can’t speak MLKing, and Obama assassinating his own, you made your choices to stand with the Barton/ Messerlie crowd, so I can’t figure out what you are doing here. We tend to be independent thinkers on here, not lemmings who follow power and money.

    Reply
  66. RUGullible  May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

    MGX may have suspected that Pettit / Barton would be furious when they learned that someone in the county thinks and beat them at their game. Sounds like McKelvey is competing with Parry and Pettit for Whiner of the Year award. Using less than a mil worth of ink, mark your November ballot NO Mr. McKelvey, and perhaps you will be among the majority rejecting this Home Rule proposal – but I doubt it. Thank your pals Barton and Pettit who have tried to capture the county for this.

    Reply
  67. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM

    “I doubt we can submit changes if “they” are gathering signatures. It can’t be changed. You knew nothing about it. I knew nothing about it. “They” have obviously been working on it for a while. It’s nice of “them” to tell us about it. It would have even been better if “they” had involved us.”

    There are others in this county, other than your “us” Mark. You are putting a lot of undeserved importance to yourself, aren’t you?

    We know Mark, you prefer that “open” process Messerlie told you about, remember, where it was by invitation only, and some of us tried to tell you what she was doing, and you told us “to come to the table, that is where true progress is made?” Remember that one? You had NO problem slurping up Sandy’s lie, all the while calling us names. But today you are all for openness? Can’t have it both ways Mark.

    Reply
  68. magix  May 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM

    Before I can address the process I need to understand it better so I will be speaking with Rietmann as soon as possible. Beyond that ARRRG is offering to answer all questions or speak before any groups that are interested and in the end the voters get to decide.
    Where Mark was your outrage when Barton and friends inserted themselves into the political process last summer? Why is this initiative any worse than a handful of oligarchs making decisions for us without a vote of the people?

    Reply
  69. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

    M, OK I’ll retract the endorsement comment.

    And I’ll ask instead: Do you support this process? Not the charter, but the process.

    I doubt we can submit changes if “they” are gathering signatures. It can’t be changed. You knew nothing about it. I knew nothing about it. “They” have obviously been working on it for a while. It’s nice of “them” to tell us about it. It would have even been better if “they” had involved us.

    Again, how would you feel if “Barton and Friends” had done this?

    Reply
  70. themguys  May 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM

    Maybe it’s time to see a doctor about all that stunning you’re contending with, doesn’t sound healthy to me. Quite strange, we didn’t object when M allowed your sorry arse on her site to say whatever you wanted to say. But you don’t want that same respect shown ANY ONE else? So damned Demoratic of you.

    When EXACTLY did you TELL the committee what you thought? I’ve never seen your face at a BOC meeting, EVER. Perhaps once you decided you wanted to be paid to spread your form on “progressive” politics, but I’ve not even seen you since you announced. But boy do you jump on someone who has actually taken the time to attend most all BOC meetings since I got here nine years ago. Shame on you Mark, real progressive thinking.

    Reply
  71. magix  May 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM

    You are way out of line, Mark! Where have I endorsed anything? Simply because I report on a grassroots effort or even provide you with a forum does not constitute an endorsement of anything. I reported on CCAP as well, do you regard that as an endorsement too?
    I learned about this over the weekend and saw my first copy of the charter this morning and because a lot of people will be working on this it behooves you, me and everyone else to learn about it, suggest changes if they have a problem and ultimately to vote for or against it in the fall.

    Reply
  72. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 9:05 AM

    Sorry, not you. Ronnie. Although I’m surprised you would endorse this process. It’s not really a process at all.

    So, Ronnie is the secretary. Nathan is the lawyer. Who else does ARRRG mean when it says “we”?

    I pointed out to the Governance Committee that the OAC suggests a 16 step process to pass a Home Rule charter. The Gov Comm is on step 6. ARRRG has skipped all 16 steps and raced directly to a vote.

    This is not democracy. I don’t care if “Barton and Friends” does it or ARRRG does it.

    I don’t blame you for it, M. I’m just stunned you would endorse it.

    Absolutely stunned.

    Reply
  73. magix  May 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM

    You are giving me too much credit Mark, I have had no input on this effort whatsoever.

    Reply
  74. MarkM  May 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM

    I am absolutely stunned. This is your model for open government? ARRRG indeed.

    Was a Charter Committee formed? Who are the members? Is there a schedule of its meetings? Why wasn’t the public invited? Can we get copies of the minutes?

    This charter just drops out the sky with no public input and you expect us to vote on it? If “Barton and Friends” had done this, this entire board with be livid.

    Not a very good start for “open government.” Absolutely stunning.

    Reply
  75. magix  May 10, 2012 at 7:25 AM

    Party is Saturday, 3 to 5PM at Figaro’s in Coquille. Be there or be square.

    Parry threatens a lot of people and I am saving that particular threat for after the next BOC

    Reply
  76. RUGullible  May 10, 2012 at 7:19 AM

    When is the kick off gathering for interestied citizens? Have you heard about appointee commissioner Parry threatening people who ask why large dollar contracts are not being competitively bid; something that is mentioned in the proposed charter?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.