Global Exchange is excited to be taking part in Blog Action Day this year. Here’s a little preview of what we’ll be blogging about, for those interested: we’ll be doing an interview style post to share the experiences and wisdom of local Mt. Shasta California residents who are involved in a local water rights campaign aimed at recognizing the rights of nature and community. To learn more about the Mt. Shasta campaign, read Big Politics in a Small Town: Why Mt. Shasta is standing up for YOUR rights.

If you have a blog, it’s not too late to join Blog Action Day. The Blog Action Day website makes it easy to join in, plus they have a very well thought out list of suggested blog topics for those looking for blog post ideas.

So check back with us here on the People to People blog to read about water rights issues on 10/15/2010. Happy almost Blog Action day!

Contact:
Ami Marcus, 530-918-9444 ami@planetvisionproductions.com
Molly Brown, 530-926-0986 molly@mollyyoungbrown.com
Shannon Biggs, Global Exchange, 415-298-9419 shannon@globalexchange.org

MT. SHASTA CITIZENS DENIED RIGHT TO VOTE ON MEASURE “A”
COUNTY COURT RULES THAT CITY FAILED TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE

On Monday September 20, the Siskiyou Superior Court ruled to keep the controversial water rights initiative, Measure A, off of the Mt. Shasta ballot this November.

Last month, proponents filed an election complaint claiming that County Clerk Coleen Setzer acted beyond her authority to remove Measure A from the ballot.  On September 10, Judge Karen Dixon heard attorney arguments for both the proponents and defendant Setzer.

Dixon agreed that what proponents argued in their complaint was true: City Clerk Sandra Studer was indeed the Elections Official for Measure A, not County Clerk Setzer.  However, the court did not reinstate the measure to the ballot.  Instead, Dixon determined that the City of Mt. Shasta skipped an official step of the elections code by failing to issue a resolution authorizing Setzer to properly verify petition signatures.

“The real concern is that justice was not served by this ruling,” said proponent Molly Brown.  “Through no fault of proponents or residents, the right to decide has been stripped from the voters of Mt. Shasta.” The Measure would prohibit outside corporations from bulk water extraction and cloud seeding. It is the first ordinance of its kind in California to assert the rights of residents over the rights of corporations.

“Because the city made a procedural error, citizens are being denied their right to vote,” said Ami Marcus. “Now we look to our City Council to rectify this mistake and ensure that the fate of Measure A is rightfully decided by a vote of local residents.”

Proponents say that the City Council has the authority to remedy the situation, and are hopeful they will take swift action.  “Regardless of whether they agree with the content, the City Council has consistently supported the ordinance going to a vote of the people, and we trust that they will do what it takes to make that happen,” states Marcus.

“We don’t blame the city council for their oversight, but we do expect them to fix this,” says Brown. “After literally thousands of hours of volunteer time, hundreds of signatures, and public testimonials before the City Council, a citizens’ initiative can be thrown off the ballot because the City made a minor mistake? How is that democratic?”

“Citizens have the right to place matters on the ballot. They also have the right to ensure that the future of their local resources are determined by those who live there,” said Shannon Biggs, Community Rights Director for the advocacy group Global Exchange.

As for how proponents will proceed, Marcus says that they are exploring their options. “We’re committed to standing for people’s right to vote on issues that affect us in the place that we live.  That is, ironically, the central purpose of this rights-based ordinance.”

# # #

The “issue” addressed by citizen-driven Measure A is whether or not residents have the right to protect local water from corporate water bottlers and to stop weather manipulation (chemical cloud seeding) from energy corporation, PG&E.   The “issue” is whether important decisions that directly affect the health, safety and welfare of the community belong to citizens—or corporations.

And now the issue is: why is Measure A—an ordinance fundamentally about democratic local self-governance—being stripped from the ballot?

In partnership with Global Exchange and CELDF, residents spent the last eighteen months and hundreds of hours of organizing, signature-gathering and public education campaigning in order to put an ordinance on the ballot this November that bans corporate cloud seeding and bulk water extraction and places community (and nature’s) rights above corporate interests.

Proponent Jen Matthews (left) at a packed city council meeting

Yet in a surprise move August 12, County Clerk Coleen Setzer, threw Measure A off the ballot, claiming it had been filed in the wrong office and also citing a one sentence difference between the initiative filed with the City and the version petitioners signed.  However, the previous week at the emergency meeting, the City Council had already voted unanimously to leave Measure A on the ballot, because the error, the result of a clerical mistake, did not change the meaning or intent of the initiative in any way.

“After nearly two years of work by dozens of volunteers, and garnering the petition signatures of over 700 voters, and more than 200 public statements of support at City Council meetings all Spring and Summer—Measure A was killed by the stroke of Setzer’s pen.”, states Ami Marcus.

Within days, proponents had rallied. On August 20, the Mt. Shasta Community Rights Project filed an elections complaint to restore Measure A to the 2010 general election ballot. The elections complaint contends that County Clerk Setzer acted improperly and illegally in taking Measure A off the ballot.

“We followed correct procedures as instructed by the City and County Clerks,” said Molly Brown, the official proponent for Measure A. “The City of Mount Shasta accepted our initial filing, petitions were verified and the City Council voted unanimously to place it on the November 2 ballot.”  They fully expect to have Measure A restored on the ballot.

Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides?

In addition to unilaterally denying residents their fundamental and constitutional right to vote, Setzer accused proponents of playing dirty.   This echoed the voices of others standing in opposition to Measure A, including City Councilman Ned Boss and the City Attorney, who publicly lambasted petitioners for having engaged in deliberate deceit as a result of the word difference.

The smear campaign was particularly stupefying, as the City Attorney had already declared that the mistake had no effect on the ordinance.  It was also particularly offensive because the ultimate purpose of Measure A is to protect natural resources through community decision-making.

Local Tea Partiers have also taken a curious and fervent oppositional stance in Mt. Shasta. Elsewhere across the nation, Tea Partiers have supported and even campaigned in favor of nearly identical rights-based laws, aligning with the notion of protecting individual and community rights from corporate power.

Despite being portrayed as liars and worse by a small minority, the citizens who first stood up to put Measure A on the ballot are not giving up, and they refuse to surrender their rights.  Their struggle is bigger than the tiny town of Mt. Shasta. They are on the frontlines of challenging corporate power, and changing the way the law works for all of us.  We must stand up for their rights, as they stand for ours.

TAKE ACTION!  Please join our list-serve to keep up to date with the campaign.

Make a contribution today for the necessary legal action needed to keep Measure A on the ballot.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 21, 2010
Contact:
Ami Marcus, 530-918-9444 ami@planetvisionproductions.com
Molly Brown: 530-926-0986 molly@mollyyoungbrown.com
Shannon Biggs, Global Exchange, 415-298-9419 shannon@globalexchange.org

On Friday, August 20, the Mt. Shasta Community Rights Project filed an elections complaint to restore Measure A to the 2010 general election ballot. Siskiyou County Clerk Colleen Setzer is denying Mt. Shasta voters the right to vote on “Measure A”, which was stripped from the city’s ballot earlier this week.The Measure, which would prohibit outside corporations from bulk water extraction and corporate cloud seeding, is the first ordinance of its kind in California because it is designed to assert the rights of residents over the rights of corporations.

Through California’s Initiative Process, citizens have the right to place matters on the ballot. Proponents in Mt. Shasta gathered the necessary number of voters’ signatures, and they worked closely with County Clerk Setzer throughout the process of filing to ensure that the initiative (Measure A) was successfully placed on the November ballot.

But in a surprise move, Setzer threw Measure A off the ballot earlier this week, claiming it had been filed in the wrong office and also citing a one sentence difference between the initiative filed with the City and the version petitioners signed.

However, the previous week the City Council had already voted unanimously to leave Measure A on the ballot, because the error did not change the meaning and intent of the initiative.

“Citizens are being denied their fundamental and constitutional right to make laws and vote,” said Shannon Biggs, California Community Rights Director for the advocacy group, Global Exchange. “Even more fundamentally, this Ordinance is about who decides—residents or corporations?”

“Our community deserves to know the facts,” states Jennifer Mathews, of the Community Rights Project. “We filed an elections complaint because our only other option was to allow citizens’ efforts to be undermined. Instead, we are choosing to stand up for residents’ right to vote on issues affecting the place that we live.”

Proponents dispute the charge of incorrectly filing with the City Clerk. They argue that the city is the correct jurisdiction for filing a municipal initiative. “We have followed correct procedure as instructed by the City and County Clerks,” said Molly Brown, the official proponent for Measure A. “The City of Mount Shasta accepted our initial filing, petitions were verified and the City Council voted unanimously to place it on the November 2 ballot.”

The elections complaint contends that Siskiyou County Clerk Setzer acted improperly and illegally in taking Measure A off the ballot. “This issue goes straight to the heart of our right to direct democracy through the initiative process,” states Ami Marcus, also of the Community Rights Project. “Setzer lacks the authority to make this decision. We want Measure A back on the November ballot.”

###

Last night, the Shasta City Council convened to decide the fate of the ballot and we are happy to report that the Council decided to keep the measure on the ballot.

Shannon Biggs, Director of the Community Rights Campaign had this to say after hearing the good news:

We’re still on the ballot!  But our opposition has come forward. Lots of them, many tea partiers and others. We’ve got a long road ahead to make history and put the strongest environmental law in place in Shasta – and the state. Thanks for your good thoughts today.

Yes. The fight to put the strongest environmental law in place in the state of California continues. Mt. Shasta is poised to pass the first law in California recognizing nature (and climate) rights. When passed on election day, this law would establish the highest level of environmental protection by denying corporations the right to change natural weather patterns in order to “own” the rain before it hits the ground or to take massive amounts of local groundwater for water bottling. Support California’s first ever law that recognizes the rights of nature (and the rights of the climate) and allows citizens to ban corporate assaults on their ground and atmospheric water.

For more information about the campaign, visit the Community Rights website and stay updated by signing up for electronic news updates.

To volunteer to assist the Mt. Shasta community or make a donation to support the campaign and ensure nature and communities win this November, contact  Shannon Biggs at 415.575.5540 or Shannon@globalexchange.org.

Contact: Ami Marcus, Mt. Shasta Community Rights Project: 949-554-4353
Shannon Biggs, Global Exchange: 415-298-9419

TECHNICAL GLITCH COULD DERAIL MT. SHASTA WATER RIGHTS LAW:
SHASTA CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE TONIGHT

Mt. Shasta, California: This spring, Mt. Shasta voters petitioned in favor of Measure A, an ordinance that, if passed, would assert the community’s right to ban bulk water extraction and chemical cloud seeding within city limits. The City Council voted to send the measure to the ballot in November. But an unforeseen technical error may cause the measure to be dropped from the ballot; the City Council will decide tonight.

Jennifer Matthews of the Mt. Shasta Community Rights Project said, “Tonight the city has a choice to throw out the people’s initiative based on a technicality, or to remedy the situation and stand for the democratic process by keeping the ordinance on the ballot. Whether they agree with the ordinance or not, keeping it alive and sending it to a vote in November is the right thing to do.”

Two sentences in the draft ordinance submitted to the City Attorney for title and summary differed slightly from the version petitioned for by Mt. Shasta residents.

“Mt. Shasta voters are concerned that the technicality will be used as a pretext to pull the ordinance,” said Ami Marcus, a proponent of the ordinance. “This is about democracy, and about rights, and should be left to the voters to decide.”

Measure A would make it illegal for outside corporations to take Mt. Shasta’s water or to manipulate the weather. It would limit the power of outside corporations engaged in commercial water withdrawal or cloud seeding, by elevating the rights of the community above the rights of those corporations.

The rights-based ordinance is the first of its kind in California, but is modeled on similar laws in other states. If passed, it would provide the highest level of environmental protection within Mt. Shasta.

“There’s no way the Council could claim that there’s been harm to the voting process,” said Shannon Biggs, Director of the Community Rights Project at Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based advocacy group. “It was an accident discovered by the county clerk, and it could be easily remedied by the City Council. If a few members of the City Council choose to kill the ordinance based on an easily fixable clerical error, their decision is clearly a political one.”

The Mt. Shasta City Council will make their decision tonight at 5:00 P.M. at the main Upper Lodge at Mt. Shasta City Park, Many concerned city residents on both sides of the issue are expected to be in attendance.

###