Arcata City Council Receptive to No Confidence Resolution

[GuvWurld]

At the conclusion of Wednesday's Arcata City Council meeting, Councilmember Paul Pitino asked that the No Confidence Resolution be considered when the Council next meets on Feb. 16. Apparently this is sufficient to secure the resolution's place on the agenda.

However, before adjournment, Councilmember Harmony Groves said that she and Vice Mayor Dave Meserve would like to review the resolution in a subcommittee. It is unclear whether this would delay formal consideration by the entire Council. It is also unknown whether the subcommittee would work privately or with members of the public. I will be making a round of phone calls tomorrow to thank all the Councilmembers and learn the answers to these questions.

I hope that it will be possible and appropriate to work with the subcommittee as the group's output seems extremely likely to me to pass the whole Council. I am even optimistic about the thought of not having further input as Harmony and Dave both have proven progressive stripes. In my opinion, whatever they develop together would also be extremely likely to pass the whole Council. I expect they would modify the eight recommended reforms, and it is a good bet they'll also tinker with some of the problems described in the top WHEREAS sections. I can be very flexible in those areas. I just hope the two most important ideas will remain intact, namely saying there is "no basis for confidence" and the Consent of the Governed is being denied.

Read the rest in the GuvWurld blog.

[dmac]

1. I don't know if you are the author of the proposed resolution

or not, but if you are, you may consider as one of the items for no confidence the software companies' non-disclosure of the source code for the programs that count our votes.

Also, I gather you are doing this on a local level - but what does it accomplish? Would not state government laws override the local? And where Arcata?

Thanks.

[GuvWurld]

3. Answers to those good questions

I am the author. This section of the GuvWurld News Archive contains all of the previous versions of the resolution (the first was in April 2004) plus the vast amount of local media coverage it has received since then.

Arcata is a small town in Northern California, about 260 miles north of San Francisco. It is considerably easier to organize with my neighbors here than to do anything on a state level.

Regarding open source for voting machines, I am certainly in favor of this *IF* we stay with voting machines at all. The resolution must balance detail with brevity. The recommended reforms have inherent in them parameters which would require this (divesting corporations from voting machine ownership, national standards, verifiable permanent record of votes, vote counting transparency, etc.)

Also consider we are not directly attempting to implement any laws that would be weighed in comparison to state or federal laws. The idea is to generate advocacy of a total election reform platform whose focus is creating a basis for confidence where none currently exists.

The idea is also to question whether the government has lost the Consent of the Governed, not just in Arcata but in all the communities we hope will pass similar resolutions (there are over 300 anti-Patriot Act resolutions). Click here for additional strategy and talking points on the No Confidence Movement.

I ask everyone to consider showing the No Confidence Resolution to friends and neighbors and then to collectively take it to your City Council.

[dmac]

5. Keep us informed how this goes

in your area. I am feeling a bit dense, so would you mind explaining what this means exactly if the resolution is adopted in your area?

1) It seems to define why we as voters have no confidence in the election process,
2) It restates the complaints of any software companies (or their employees), SoS's or other elected/appointed officials with obvious conflicting interests being involved in the process,
3) It states that: "WHEREAS conditions do not currently allow US federal elections to be accepted without question;"

Okay, forgive me if I ramble a bit here - my questions are all over the place and hard to articulate.

To me, #1-3 just seem to be reiteration of fact - we have no confidence, and therefore we question the authenticity of the election(?) So, my question here: are these points made to build the case for the resolutions listed at the bottom?

And on the second half, I understand it to mean:

4) It outlines very specific (and very reasonable, protective) resolutions that would assure voter confidence and
5) it further states that without meeting this criteria, the voters would not acknowledge the election results as true or accurate and
6) would pursue justice by exercising their constitutional rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Okay - so am I understanding these pieces correctly? And if so, how does a local area go about this? Is it a bit like succeeding from the union??? I just don't get it. Who would enforce these thing? It the town as a whole refuses to say that the election is valid, it doesn't seem to have any implications that the government would care about that I can determine. And I just don't see it as anything that different than what citizens across the US have TRIED to do this time - tried and failed thus far.

I am struggling because I keep reading great ideas and great proposals by so many people out here but in the end, I don't see that much difference from one thing to the next, nor do I see any of it vastly different than what has been tried in 2004. Please do not mistake my meaning - I think this is very good and I would be happy to get on board but I just cannot connect the dots to any of this having an impact on the government one way or another. I haven't exactly had the impression that BushCo gives a damn whether we validate their stolen election or not - it's a bit like squatter's rights - he's there, he declares victory, Kerry conceded - who cares what the evidence suggests? Certainly they don't. They have no problem at all just ignoring us.

[dmac]

6. further clarification (I know, won't she ever just shut up?!)

I am still struggling with what my real question is here. And I think it is,

so your town adopts this resolution - we have another election and it goes down exactly as this election has gone down - so your council cries foul, goes to the constitution to begin whatever action it allows (not unlike what many attorneys and Representatives are working on still) - meanwhile, what has changed? He is still the President, the rest of the country treats him as Pres, he makes the laws and sets the tone for the country you live in - so in the end how has this declaration done anything to protect your rights or to keep them from repeating 2000, 2002, 2004, etc.? Brigadoon was a great play but I wouldn't want to live there.

[GuvWurld]

7. You have mostly got it...here's why this is potentially powerful

You are correctly grasping the point of the top part (WHEREAS clauses) which defines the problems, and the bottom part (BE IT RESOLVED) which describes solutions. What connects the two parts is the idea that the problems leave us no basis for confidence and the solutions would create a basis for confidence.

Now this is intended to be first and foremost a platform for a comprehensive election reform agenda. But it is also meant to be a revolutionary catalyst. I've written in this forum many times that it is more practical to focus energy on local action and small-scale political bodies like City Councils than it is to shout into the vacuum of Congress. You will make more common ground with neighbors and you will find your local Councilmembers far more responsive to you than a Senator will be. Plus even with a sympathetic Senator or Congressman there is still the zero percent chance that they'll win over the entire corrupt body to which they belong. In short, the No Confidence Movement is about pooling the voices of the people until we have reclaimed the power that rightfully belongs to us. The federal government becomes a red herring here, at least as far as being a viable path toward progressive change.

So how would one bold statement have such a ripple effect? I have referred to the 300+ anti-Patriot Act resolutions as solid precedent that we can start a trend. What we can do differently and better with this series of resolutions is to create cumulative impact. Think about it - over 300 resolutions against the Patriot Act have still failed to restore our rights. We need to see to it that five resolutions carry more weight than one and fifty carry more weight than five. But how...?

The reason the No Confidence Resolution refers to the Consent of the Governed is because this is the way Government derives its "just Powers," its legitimacy. You could probably list dozens of ways that the government is not even seeking our Consent these days, let alone the ways in which our Consent is denied and deemed irrelevant. It should therefore not be a stretch for us to say we are withdrawing our Consent. When the first No Confidence Resolution passes, nobody will really think this is the net effect. However, as additional resolutions pass, this question will necessarily be asked over and over: has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET? The answer may still be NO after the second or fifth or twentieth resolution, but at some point, as more and more communities declare No Confidence, a tipping point will come and the answer will switch from NO to YES, the Consent or the Governed HAS been withdrawn. More than just a rhetorical condemnation, this would demonstrate a unified message on behalf of a large number of citizens who will be extraordinarily elevating the idea of non-cooperation, the backbone of civil disobedience.

I've written about this at length for the past nine months. Check out the No Confidence Movement Primer.

[GuvWurld]

8. Kick (eom)

[meganmonkey]

2. Sweet little Arcata!

I used to live up that way for a brief spell. Couldn't find a job there but had a real good time for a few months..

:hippie:

[GuvWurld]

4. Kick (eom)

[GuvWurld]

9. Update from Speaking To Councilmembers

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/02/update-on-contacting-city.html

I am very encouraged!

[GuvWurld]

10. Kick (eom)

[GuvWurld]

11. Kick (eom)