Category Archives: BlogPost

The Ten Commandments of Movement Solidarity

Reprint from an essay by Josh Schlossberg – From The Energy Justice Network

http://www.energyjustice.net/content/ten-commandments-movement-solidarity

Ten_CommandmentsAfter a decade of grassroots advocacy, my personal belief is that the greatest obstacle to positive change in the world isn’t corporations, the government, or the 1%, but lack of movement solidarity.

And no, I’m not pretending to be some modern day Moses bringing the divine truths down from the mountain. I’m just someone who has participated in the entire spectrum of the environmental movement — from mainstream to “radical,” on both coasts — who has witnessed a lot of unnecessary failures over the years, in large part because people can’t figure out how to work together.

Since my work these days focuses on the health and environmental impacts of dirty energy —  nuclear, fossil fuels, and biomass/trash incineration — most of the specific examples I give in this article will come from that realm. However, chances are the “Ten Commandments of Solidarity” can also apply to your movement, whatever it is…unless it’s evil. In which case, it won’t, so don’t bother.

Now, I’ll admit that limiting this list to just ten points is arbitrary, so if you’ve got other “commandments,” please post them in the comments, where I’ll ignore them…Just kidding, I’ll read and carefully consider them, because that’s what solidarity looks like.

1. Thy movement shalt not have ambiguous goals

Whatever your movement, even if you can’t figure out exactly what you want, you can almost guarantee that your opposition can. For instance, a corporation that logs forests typically wants to cut down as many trees as it can and sell them for as high a profit as possible, for as long as is feasible. Its goals are crystal freaking clear — unlike the streams it silts up in pursuit of the dollar.

Unfortunately, Big Timber’s counterpart, the forest protection movement, doesn’t have the same clarity of purpose. Instead of these organizations banding together to achieve a concrete goal, such as passing a Congressional bill to protect National Forests, they have split off on literally hundreds of different missions under the banner of forest protection — including pushing for more logging.

This isn’t to say that simply declaring a specific goal, like banning private land clearcutting, means it will happen. In many cases, especially for some of the bolder goals, it might never. But what many — most? — forest protection groups have done is thrown in the towel before they even set foot in the ring. While it’s true that you can fight the good fight and still get knocked out, you can damn well guarantee defeat if you throw the fight before the bell is even rung.

In my opinion there’s one way, and one way only, to go about advocacy of any sort. And no one has explained it better than David Brower, the archdruid himself: “Our role is to hold fast to what we believe is right, to fight for it, to find allies, and to adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or our friends to win, then let someone else propose the compromise, which we must then work hard to coax our way. We thus become a nucleus around which activists can build and function.”

Suffice it to say, were Brower alive today, he’d have some, um, suggestions for the ever-shifting and seemingly arbitrary goals of the 21st century’s forest protection movement.

2. Thou shalt not contradict movement goals

A movement is only as powerful as its message. In fact, messaging is pretty much the only tool the grassroots has to enact change. When speaking to the media, commenting on policy, or protesting in the streets, make sure you aren’t advocating for anything that would stand in the way of your movement reaching its ultimate goals.

For instance, if your organization opposes biomass power plants because of their impacts on public health from air pollution, you can’t support slightly smaller and/or barely more efficient biomass facilities with even less effective pollution controls without invalidating your main talking point. 

Which isn’t to say that you can’t have your priorities straight and focus on the biggest, most conspicuous 50-megawatt facilities and not devote many resources to, say, opposing a college’s 2-megawatt combined-heat-and-power facility. But, actually endorsing one of these incinerators not only contradicts your public health concerns, but makes the work of those in the movement who are fighting those facilities that much harder.

3. Thou shalt not confuse partial agreement with solidarity

It may seem easy to tell the difference between organizations and individuals who support your movement and those who do not, but it’s a common mistake within the grassroots and a major reason for a given movement’s seemingly inevitable fragmentation.

While it’d be nice to take the “big tent” approach and invite anyone claiming to be an ally into a pivotal role in your movement, the reality is that’s one of the best ways to ensure its demise. On the surface, they may appear to support all of your movement’s goals, but a deeper look may reveal otherwise. For instance, not everyone who opposes a particular nuclear power plant is necessarily against the entire concept of nuclear energy. While they may share the anti-nuclear movement’s goal of shutting down one specific facility, a closer look may reveal them to merely be in favor of a more technologically-advanced nuclear reactor.  

This isn’t to say you can’t have friendly and respectful working relationships with those entities or individuals whose goals mostly, or even partially, overlap. But you are setting yourself up for disappointment if you actually expect them to have solidarity with your movement. A difference of opinion doesn’t always mean they are weak-willed or in the pocket of industry, but it usually does mean they are coming from a different place, and therefore it’s unlikely for any amount of sweet-talking or brow-beating to change their mind. Solidarity in the anti-nuke movement can only be achieved by those who are, well, anti-nuke. Opposing one facility while supporting another is still pro-nuke. 

Of course, if they do reconsider their position, you can leave the past in the past and welcome them with open arms. But letting them in before they recant just weakens the movement. The best way to achieve movement solidarity is by creating it slowly but surely, building a strong foundation upon which to expand — instead of on shifting sands that can topple the entire structure.   

4. Thou shalt not sidestep calls to action

If someone in your movement has an initiative, be it a rally, a call-in day to elected officials, or even an online petition, even if it’s not your favorite thing in the world, help them out with it at least a little bit. If you have constructive criticism to offer in regards to their project, or even have concerns that it doesn’t align with movement goals, then privately speak to them about the issue. But don’t shun them out of disagreement, or because it’s a bit of a hassle, as that will only foster hurt feelings, and be the beginning (or widening) of a rift in the movement.

If you’re jazzed about the proposal, then of course, offer as much support and resources as you can. But even if you’re lukewarm or just don’t have the means, it literally only takes a few minutes to spread the word via email or social media. Even if doing so doesn’t make or break the initiative (it might), rest assured that your ally will make note of your support, and keep your efforts in mind in the future.

This quid pro quo support of organizations is the currency of grassroots movements. Therefore, the movement aside, it’s in your own best interest to make sure your credit’s good.

5. Thou shalt not respond emotionally to criticism

The only thing more important than criticism from inside a movement is how you respond to it. Whether it’s a well thought out, point-by-point refutation or just a knee-jerk outburst from someone having a bad day, sit with the information — not the tone — before responding to it, so as to filter out the hurt and/or anger.

No matter what they’ve said, if they are a fellow movement member, chances are it’s not important enough to ruin your working relationship over. Many times, in fact, it’s simply a misunderstanding that can be cleared up quickly. But even if it’s not, responding in anger will only make the situation worse, guaranteed.

Criticism from outside the movement is another matter entirely, as in that case it’s coming from those who don’t share your mission, such as a gas industry lackey beating up on your anti-fracking stance. If it’s simply verbal abuse without any specific points being addressed, then feel free to ignore it. But if there is actually a coherent argument, it can be seen as a sign of weakness to ignore it entirely, especially if it’s done on a public forum.

If you choose to respond to an external critique, make certain you do so calmly and without malice, as you never know who might be watching the interaction. Don’t think of it as an attack you need to defend yourself against, think of it as an opportunity to educate the public on a particular point, and a model as how to respond to the opposition.

6. Thou shalt not ignore internal conflicts

For those of us who have bought into the whole evolution concept, we believe that modern day humans are descended from an ape ancestor. And while the Great Apes family is generally a social one, it is also one prone to frequent conflict and strife. Typically, these conflicts don’t end in bloodshed, but the disturbances are often enough to tear the social fabric.

In a movement, conflicts will always come up, and how they are dealt with by other members of the movement can often determine how much of a problem it will ultimately become. If the conflict is between individuals, it’s not always necessary to take a side, but it’s in the movement’s best interest for someone to intervene before things get out of hand.

It’s easy to step aside as tempers flare and mud is slung by telling yourself it’s a personal conflict and not your place to get involved. But if there’s turmoil inside your movement, guess what? You’re already involved. To decide not to act is taking action — it’s deciding to allow the fighting to get worse.

7. Thou shalt not turn a blind eye to attacks

If the work or character of fellow movement members is attacked from the outside, you have a duty to come to their aid. This doesn’t mean you need to respond to negativity with more negativity, nor does it mean you have to defend everything this person has ever said or done, but at the very least get involved in the discussion.

One unparried attack may signal weakness to the opposition which, like a predator searching for the easy kill, might embolden them enough to intensify the onslaught — and you just might be their next target.  

 8. Thou shalt not abuse thy power

Most of the interactions between grassroots movement members happen on a level playing field, where no one is really in charge of anyone else. But, in the case of managing someone as an employee or volunteer, a power dynamic comes into play.

The key thing is fairly obvious: make the best use of your (probably underpaid or unpaid) worker by being a good boss or manager. This means being on top of your organization’s priorities and maximizing the use of your worker’s time. Do your best to provide clear direction (which can include constructive criticism) while offering support, without bottlenecking their work.

If you have a legitimate and professional reason to fire this person, realize that there are very few people out there willing to devote themselves to the often thankless and undercompensated (or uncompensated) work of an advocate, and therefore — unless you honestly believe the person does more harm than good — it’s your responsibility to the movement to help them on their feet (think severance pay and a recommendation) so they can smoothly make the transition to another role in the movement.

Nonprofit workers burn out very quickly and a lot of it has to do with poor management. If you’re not good at being in charge, there are many resources out there to help you learn how to get better. And if you’re not willing to improve, for the good of the movement, you might want to think about stepping down, so someone who can handle the responsibility can take the reins.

9. Thou shalt not align thy movement with a political party

One political party may be more of an obvious ally to your movement than another and it may be tempting to hitch yourself to their wagon. But while one party may be more likely to support your cause, such as the Democratic Party and the dirty energy resistance, chances are there are many, many examples of them harming your cause, like the left’s support for dirty biomass/trash incineration.   

The greatest risk of a movement backing a political party or candidate is its disinclination to offer criticism when they do wrong. As we’ve seen with President Barack Obama, blind endorsement by the environmental movement has resulted in him taking its support for granted and given him the go ahead to start backsliding on his promises in regards to climate change.

Loudly and publicly applauding a politician’s good vote or strong policy should be encouraged, so long as you’re also critiquing the bad votes and weak policy.

10. Thou shalt not avoid personal relationships

A movement isn’t just about a cause, like replacing industrial-scale dirty energy with distributed clean energy, it’s about people. In our age of internet activism, it’s vital to take opportunities to connect with movement members as living, breathing creatures. Take some time to have some in-person meetings (if you’re far away from each other, go to a conference), share a meal or a beverage, or go on a hike together.

Nothing bonds a movement together tighter than personal relationships — you’re much more likely to do what it takes to achieve solidarity with an actual human being you care about than a disembodied avatar on the other side of a screen. 

 

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Community Rights Coalition General Assembly Saturday, November 30th

trees and women river walkingRegrouping! – Community Rights Coalition activities for the next week:

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 30th –  General Assembly – 9:30 AM to 11:30 am at Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship hall –  2333 San Juan Avenue Port Townsend, WA.  Agenda includes ongoing discussion about how to bring more grassroots voice to the people. Report back from Tuesday night  study group.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3 – The Community Rights Coalition Study group meets on Tuesday Nights at 5:30 PM at the Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship hall. Discussion about consensus process and readings from READ THE DIRT and the national Community Rights movement.  Here is an excerpt from the November issue of READ THE DIRT –  Washington State attempts to sell Columbia River water for $6 million: Those appealing argue state can’t sell rivers, favor corporate farms over family farms.

“The waters of the state are already over-appropriated, but still Ecology continues to issue new water rights – often under political pressure to do so,” said Lee Bernheisel of the appellant Okanogan Wilderness League.

Update (November 4, 2013): Okanogan Wilderness League has filed an appeal of a new water right decision, challenging the Washington Department of Ecology’s authority to issue water rights from the Columbia River that are not conditioned on maintaining instream flows.

The appeal also challenges Ecology’s use of “out-of-kind” mitigation that allows the user to pay into a state fund for habitat restoration projects instead of curtailing pumping when river flows are too low. The price? $35.00 for every 325,000 gallons sold, or, pumped.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

CRC Home rule platform, list of endorsed Freeholder Candidates and Honking and Waving – the quest for more voice for the people.

Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County will meet on November 2nd – 9:30 am to 11:30 am at Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship hall –  2333 San Juan Avenue Port Townsend, WA.  All Friends are welcome to attend.  Updates on Proposition 1 and I-522 campaigns.  Election night gathering and post-campaign potluck will be discussed.  Join Us!

CRC PLATFORM AND LIST OF CRC ENDORSED CANDIDATES BY DISTRICT – See below

new website bannerThe Community Rights Coalition was formed by residents of Jefferson County, WA, who attended workshops and Democracy School given by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). We have met for a year to study how:

  • Corporations have used the US Supreme Court to become “persons” under the law with human rights to privacy, freedom of speech and unlimited political influence;
  • Communities in the United States and internationally are finding ways to resist the corporations whose business causes harm;
  • Including the “right to govern ourselves” in a legal strategy changes how the law and courts consider ordinances;
  • Creating a Home Rule Charter can give needed tools to citizens wanting a stronger voice in their own government.

After an intense petition drive we have succeeded in bringing to the ballot Proposition 1 and ask you, the voters of Jefferson County to support:

  • The Community Rights Coalition Platform
  • Vote yes for Proposition 1.
  • Elect freeholders empowered to create an amendable Home Rule Charter designed of, by and for the People of Jefferson County.
  • Claim the power of Initiative and Referendum for local citizens.
  • Include a simple Bill of Rights such as: We the People have the innate right to govern ourselves and the right to defend the living world of which we are a part.
  • Vote for the following candidates who support Proposition 1 and have declared their support for Initiative, Referendum and a simple Bill of Rights.

The Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County endorses the following candidates for District Freeholder.endorsement- thumbs up

District 1:  O’Neill Louchard (CRC), Julia Cochrane (CRC), Doug Milholland (CRC), John Wood

District 2:  Mike Regan (CRC), David Cunningham

District 3: Norm Norton (CRC), Jim Davis, Nicole Black

For more information about Proposition 1 – Home Rule Charter for Jefferson County, Washington please go to the Yes! on Home Charter Ballot Committee Website: http://yesonhomerule.com/

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP FROM NOW UNTIL NOVEMBER 5th.  HONKING AND WAVING UNTIL ELECTION DAY – WE NEED YOU!

The ballots go out on Wednesday, October 16th of this week. The newspaper insert for Yes! On Home Rule will also go out with the Port Townsend Leader in the October 16th edition of the Port Townsend Leader.   Research tells us that 60% of voters will fill out their ballots within the first 2 days of receiving them. Talk to your friends, tell them to vote YES!  on Proposition 1 and vote for 5 or less Freeholder candidates in their voting district.  Visit our website to get more information

honk and wave2HONKING AND WAVING- WE NEED YOU!  Throughout the weeks leading up to the last day to turn in ballots (November 5th at 5:00 PM) supporters of Proposition 1 will be Honking and Waving with our yard signs at strategic locations throughout the county, most notably near the PT Food Coop on Sims  and Kearney. Come join us.  People have been waving back and stopping and asking questions about Home Rule, the charter process and election of Freeholders.

JOIN US IN BRINGING MORE VOICE TO THE CITIZENS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY WASHINGTON!

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Good News for I-522 and the Label GMO movement

1-522 label GMOsA NUMBER OF COMMUNITY RIGHTS COALITION MEMBERS HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY WITH THE I-522 CAMPAIGN AND CRC ENDORSED IT AT A GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING. Many are standing on the street corner near the Food Coop on Kearney and waving signs.  Some attended the recent rally at the Hood Canal Bridge.

WASHINGTON STATE – THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING. I-522 would mandate the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Parts of this article are reprinted from an article written by Ocean Robbins for Huffington Post

But perhaps the biggest bombshell of all is now unfolding in  Washington state. The mail-in ballot state’s voters are already weighing in on Initiative 522, which would mandate the labeling of genetically  modified organisms (GMOs). Knowing full well that 93 percent of the  American public supports GMO labeling, and that if one state passes it, many others are likely to follow, entrenched agribusiness interests are pulling out all the stops to try to squelch yet another state labeling effort.

This time, however, things aren’t going quite as planned. On Wednesday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Feguson filed a lawsuit against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA, a lobby  for the junk food industry, has been by far the largest donor to efforts to defeat the labeling initiative.  The lawsuit alleges that the GMA  illegally collected and spent more than $7 million while shielding the  identity of its contributors.

The source of the money has now been exposed, and it turns out to be Pepsico, Coca-Cola, NestleUSA, General Mills and a few other junk food companies. The lawsuit reveals that GMA leadership held a series of secret meetings to plot how to  perpetrate a money laundering scheme and illegally hide member donations from Washington state voters, in direct violation of campaign  disclosure laws.

Unlike the junk food companies that feared consumer backlash,  Monsanto hasn’t even bothered to hide the more than $4 million the  company has given to the “no” campaign. In fact, GMA, Monsanto and a  handful of other corporate donors have now broken a state record by pouring more than $17 million into their effort to stop Washington’s GMO labeling ballot initiative.

Voting is already underway in Washington, and the final ballots will be cast on November 5. The “yes” side is ahead in the most recent polls, but supporters of the right to know fear that a barrage of heavily funded and misleading ads could sour voters to the initiative.

They remember that just last year, California’s Proposition 37 was well ahead in the polls until Monsanto and its allies spent more than $46 million on their campaign in the Golden State.

All this label fighting and money laundering leads to some very  significant questions. Why are Monsanto and the junk food industry  willing to spend many tens of millions of dollars every year trying to  keep you in the dark about your food? What doesn’t big food want you to  know? And what are they afraid might happen if you did?

Monsanto tells us that their products are about the best thing to  come along since sliced bread. For years they’ve been promising that  GMOs would reduce pesticide use, increase yields, reduce water consumption, and offer foods that are more tasty and more nutritious.

But in the 20 years since GMO crops first came on the market, studies have found that they have led to higher pesticide use, and no meaningful improvement in flavor, nutrition, yield or water requirements. Instead, what they’ve created are plants that are engineered to withstand massive dosing of toxic herbicides, and plants that function as living pesticide factories. Monsanto’s Bt. corn, for example, is actually registered with the EPA as a pesticide.

With concern about GMOs growing fast, and with the public being  pummeled with vast amounts of misinformation, there is a tremendous need for clear, accurate and reliable information about GMOs. In response,  the 100,000+ member Food Revolution Network and the Institute for  Responsible Technology are co-sponsoring a free online GMO Mini-Summit. From October 25-27, some of the top GMO experts on the planet will be  providing insights and clear calls to action in this teleseminar that is also being broadcast without charge on the Internet. Monsanto probably  isn’t too happy about the prospect of tens of thousands of people  getting informed and mobilized. But if you love life, safe food, and the truth, then you might want to check it out.montage MAM rally

And if you want to lend a hand to getting out the vote in the state of Washington, CONTACT:Judy Alexander <lightenup@olympus.net>   OR Rick Doherty <rickdoh@gmail.com> or you can sign up to volunteer here.

Nobody knows what’s going to happen in Washington between now and  November 5. But from Mexico, to Hawaii and to the 64 nations that  already have GMO labeling, this tide just might be turning.

Maybe we, the people, do get a say in what we know, and what we eat, after all. It’s up to Washington State to get the ball rolling.

IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD THE BATTLE FOR SAFE CLEAN FOOD IS IGNITED.

It hasn’t been a good week for Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry.

MEXICO BANS GMO CORN

Just three days ago, Mexico banned genetically engineered corn. Citing the risk of imminent harm to the  environment, a Mexican judge ruled that, effective immediately, no  genetically engineered corn can be planted in the country. This means  that companies like Monsanto will no longer be allowed to plant or sell  their corn within the country’s borders.

KAUAI LAW MANDATES FARMS TO DISCLOSE PESTICIDE USE

At the same time, the County Council for the island of Kauai passed a law that mandates farms to disclose pesticide use and the presence of  genetically modified crops. The bill also requires a 500-foot buffer  zone near medical facilities, schools and homes — among other  locations.

And the big island of Hawaii County Council gave preliminary approval to a bill that prohibits open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops or plants. The bill, which  still needs further confirmation to become law, would also prohibit  biotech companies from operating on the Big Island.

Ocean Robbins is co-author of Voices of the Food Revolution, and serves as adjunct professor for Chapman University and CEO and  co-host (with best-selling author John Robbins) of the 100,000+ member  Food Revolution Network. The GMO Mini-Summit starts October 25. Find out more here. 

 

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

CRC Proposition 1- Home Rule Charter Platform and Freeholder Candidate Endorsements

yes on proposition 1The Community Rights Coalition was formed by residents of Jefferson County, WA, who attended workshops and Democracy School given by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF).   We have met for a year to study how:

  • Corporations have used the US Supreme Court to become “persons” under the law with human rights to privacy, freedom of speech and unlimited political influence;
  • Communities in the United States and internationally are finding ways to resist the corporations whose business causes harm;
  • Including the “right to govern ourselves” in a legal strategy changes how the law and courts consider ordinances;
  •   Creating a Home Rule Charter can give needed tools to citizens wanting a stronger voice in their own government.

After an intense petition drive we have succeeded in bringing to the ballot Proposition 1 and ask you, the voters of Jefferson County to support:

 The Community Rights Coalition Platform

  • Vote yes for Proposition 1.   Elect freeholders empowered to create an amendable Home Rule Charter designed of, by and for the People of Jefferson County.
  • Claim the power of Initiative and Referendum for local citizens.
  • Include a simple Bill of Rights such as: We the People have the innate right to govern ourselves and the right to defend the living world of which we are a part.
  • Vote for the following candidates who support Proposition 1 and have declared their support for Initiative, Referendum and a simple Bill of Rights.

Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County endorses the following candidates for District Freeholder.
endorsement- thumbs up

 District 1: O’Neill Louchard (CRC), Julia Cochrane (CRC), Doug Milholland (CRC), John Wood

 District 2: Mike Regan (CRC), David Cunningham

 District 3: Norm Norton (CRC), Jim Davis,  Nicole Black

For more information about Proposition 1 – Home Rule Charter for Jefferson County, Washington please go to the Yes! on Home Charter Ballot Committee Website: http://yesonhomerule.com/

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

This week in Jefferson County: Ballots are mailed, Two more chances to learn about Propostion 1 – then vote Yes on Home Rule Charter

new website bannerThis week Ballots will be mailed and you will have a chance to actively change the county and state for the better.  Also there is one of two last chances to learn about Home Rule Charter.

VOTE YES!  I-522 to  Label All GMO’s – Statewide vote

VOTE YES!  Proposition 1 – Home Rule Charter and choose 5 Freeholder Candidates ( The CRC will post a platform and list of Candidates it supports in the next few days – Stay Tuned!)

EVENTS – Learn More – Be Informed

October 15,Tuesday,   League of Women Voters- Forum  On Proposition 1 – 7:00 PM, Quilcene Community  Center, 294952 U.S. 101, Quilcene, WA

October 16 – Ballots mailed

October 21 – Monday – Noon – Elks Chamber, Proposition 1 informational meeting, Port Townsend Elks Lodge, 555 Otto St, Port Townsend, WA

For more information on Proposition 1 – Home Rule Charter and vote for Freeholders – go to http://yesonhomerule.com/

 

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

District 1 Home Rule Freeholder Candidate Forum October 8th

don't forgetThe District 1 Home Rule Charter Freeholder forum is coming…

Tuesday, October 8th – 6:00 Pm To 8:00 PM…at the Port Townsend Community Center ( Uptown Port Townsend across from Aldrich’s)

COME MEET THE CANDIDATES!  A Chance for the public to meet and ask questions of the candidates for FREEHOLDER.

 

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

This Week in our community…get active and become informed

Two Special events…

  • October 1 – Tuesday, 6:30 PMPort Townsend Community Center – “Open Government How to Discussion featuring a panel of attorneys and legal experts.”  Ask questions and become informed.  Panel is moderated by Scott Wilson, Publisher of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader; former president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. Sponsored by the Jefferson County Bar Association and the Washington Coalition for Open Government.
  • October 2– Wednesday – 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM  District 2 Freeholder Candidate Forum – Tri area Community Center, Chimacum, WA Sponsored by the Yes! on Home Rule Ballot Committee and the Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County
  • open government event
Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

CRC GENERAL ASSEMBLY THIS SATURDAY!

Salish BeeSEPTEMBER 28th – Saturday- 9:30 to 11:30 AM – GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Community Rights Coalition of Jefferson County.

Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (2333 San Juan Ave) Port Townsend, WA – ALL FRIENDS ARE WELCOME.  Come join us as we make real change happen and stand up against corruption.

Agenda items:

  • Update on I-522 action group (Label GMO’s in Washington state) – the big guys with their big money come to Washington State, the people respond by using community activism Phone banks, flyers, action meetings.  The Senate in Washington votes to stop the Monsanto Protection Act!
  • Update on Home Rule Charter campaign and Freeholder Candidate forums.  WE HAVE YARD SIGNS TO DISTRIBUTE.  If you live on a major thoroughfare or street in Jefferson County or know someone who does, please put a Yes! On Proposition 1 Home Rule sign in your yard or property.
  • Consensus study group about to start.
  • Community Bill of Rights update

…and much more.  Join us

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Jeffery Smith advocate and expert on the dangers of GMO’s at Chimacum High School

Seeds-of-DeceptionMr Smith comes to Chimacum!  On Monday, September 30th at 7:00 PM at the Chimacum High School –  Meet Mr. Smith. The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey M. Smith, is the author of the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the health dangers genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk, and the environment in peril.

He is the author Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating. He is also the author of Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter