SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Alexis Baden-Mayer, 202-744-0853, alexis@organicconsumers.org
Jan Buhrman, 508-360-4491, jan@kitchenporch.com
John Mayer, 925-681-9780, johnm@organicconsumers.org
The
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) blocked
scores of citizens from participating in a public hearing held on
Monday, May 10, 2010, to examine controversial proposed regulations
restricting public access to raw milk. The Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) has sent a formal letter of complaint (see below) to
Attorney General Martha Coakley seeking a full investigation of what is
a serious violation of the state's open meetings law. OCA is a
national organization with thousands of members in Massachusetts. It
promotes healthy organic foods such as raw milk.
Last Monday,
May 10, hundreds of citizens, and at least one dairy cow, descended on
the State Capitol to protest and testify against proposed MDAR
regulations that would end, for all intents and purposes, the ability
of most Massachusetts citizens to obtain fresh raw milk directly from
the farm. The proposed regulations would put out of business many
family farms during these hard economic times.
Despite the
peaceful nature of the public hearing, scores were kept from attending
the proceedings and were not provided with any alternative means to
hear, see or participate in them.
"These dictatorial proposed
rule changes have sparked outrage among Massachusetts milk drinkers and
dairy farmers," said Jan Buhrman, a chef and farmer advocate who
attended the hearing. "The Department of Agriculture knew this was a
contentious issue, and yet the hearing was held in a room much too
small for the number of attendees. We call upon Attorney General
Coakley to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation and force MDAR
and Commissioner Soares to comply with Massachusetts law regarding
public meetings."
Commissioner Soares has violated the
Massachussetts open meetings law. The proper and immediate sanction is
to do it right - open this process anew and conduct another public
hearing with no lock-outs and full and fair public participation.
Attorney General Martha Coakley can be reached at (617) 727 2200, ago@state.ma.us
Robert Nasdor, Director, Division of Open Government, can be reached at (617) 727 2200, Robert.Nasdor@state.ma.us
MDAR Commissioner Scott Soares can be reached at (617) 626 1701, Scott.Soares@state.ma.us
THE COMPLAINT:
May 13, 2010
Attorney General
Martha Coakley
Office of the
Attorney General
One Ashburton Place,
20th Floor Boston,
Massachusetts 02108
Via Email, Fax and Overnight Certified Mail
Attn: Robert Nasdor,
Division of Open Government
Re: Open Meeting Law
Violation
Dear Attorney General Coakley:
I am writing to ask you to investigate an open meeting law violation that
occurred on Monday, May 10, 2010 during a hearing conducted by the
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources ("DAR").
The meeting occurred pursuant to a notice advertising changes to the DAR's
regulations regarding raw milk. It
took place in meeting rooms D and E on the second floor of 100 Cambridge Street
in Boston. A number of people (we
estimate between 50 and 75) were prevented from entering the hearing room by
DAR staff who stated that allowing additional people to attend the hearings
would exceed the rooms' capacity. These people were directed to another room that lacked any visual or
sound connection to the hearing room. Only as individuals left the hearing room were additional people
allowed, on a one-by-one basis, to enter the hearing room. As a result, a large number of
interested persons were prevented from attending the meeting at all.
I strongly believe that preventing people from entering the meeting
violates the open meeting law, which provides:
All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and any
person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by
this section. G.L. c. 30A, SS 11A1/2.
In this
case many "person[s]" were not "permitted to attend" this
meeting. No exceptions in SS 11A 1/2
apply, as there was no declaration of an executive session and no basis for
excluding anyone. The same is true
under the version of the Open Meeting Law that will become effective on June 1,
2010. G.L. c. 30A, SS 20(a).
There is no exception for a room that is too small, as DAR claimed. I
recognize that there are codes limiting the number of people in hearing
rooms. That places the burden on
the agency to secure a large enough room or at least to provide for video and
audio feeds into and from any room holding people who are turned away from the
live hearing. Responsibility for
the size of the room falls upon the agency having control over the
arrangements, not upon members of the public who are trying to exercise their
rights to address and petition their government. Failing to provide adequate space cannot be allowed as an
excuse for non-compliance with the open meeting law.
Moreover, the DAR itself anticipated a large amount of interest in its
proposed regulations. In an
attempt to reduce attendance, it posted an announcement on its website after
hours on Friday, May 7, attempting to withdraw a controversial provision of the
proposed regulations and contacted at least one large organization, which
withdrew its request for its members to attend. Enforcing the government's open meeting
responsibilities to allow "any person . . . to attend any meeting" is
particularly important when the agency tries to match room size and audience by
taking active steps to reduce attendance instead of providing a large enough
room, with overflow capability by video and audio feed. The DAR is not, after all, without
resources to comply with the minimal open meeting burdens that the legislature
has imposed upon it.
I respectfully request an investigation.
Signed,
Alexis Baden-Mayer,
Esq.
Political Director
Organic Consumers
Association
cc: Deval Patrick, Governor
Ian A. Bowles,
Secretary
Scott J.
Soares, Commissioner
###
Learn more at www.organicconsumers.org/raw-milk
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
"Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over," said one organizer.
Campaigners who last month celebrated the success of their effort to place an abortion rights referendum on November ballots in Missouri faced uncertainty about the ballot initiative Friday night, after a judge ruled that organizers had made an error on their petitions that rendered the measure invalid.
Judge Christopher Limbaugh of Cole County Circuit Court sided with pro-forced pregnancy lawmakers and activists who had argued that Missourians for Constitutional Freedom had not sufficiently explained the ramifications of the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative, or Amendment 3, which would overturn the state's near-total abortion ban.
The state constitution has a requirement that initiative petitions include "an enacting clause and the full text of the measure," and clarify the laws or sections of the constitution that would be repealed if the amendment were passed.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom included the full text of the measure on their petitions, which were signed by more than 380,000 residents—more than twice the number of signatures needed to place the question on ballots.
Opponents claimed, though, that organizers did not explain to signatories the meaning of "a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom."
Limbaugh accused the group of a "blatant violation" of the constitution.
Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for the group, said it "remains unwavering in [its] mission to ensure Missourians have the right to vote on reproductive freedom on November 5."
"The court's decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process and undermines the rights of the... 380,000 Missourians who signed our petition," said Sweet. "Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over."
Limbaugh said he would wait until Tuesday, when the state is set to print ballots, to formally issue an injunction instructing the secretary of state to remove the question.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom said it plans to appeal to a higher court, but if the court declines to act, the question would be struck from ballots.
As the case plays out in the coming days, said Missouri state Rep. Eric Woods (D-18), "it's a good time for a reminder that Missouri's current extreme abortion ban has ZERO exceptions for rape or incest. And Missouri Republicans are hell bent on keeping it that way."
The ruling came weeks after the Arkansas Supreme Court disqualified an abortion rights amendment from appearing on November ballots, saying organizers had failed to correctly submit paperwork verifying that paid canvassers had been properly trained.
"We demand our government completely stop arming Israel and push for a cease-fire now," said the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Thousands of people gathered at London's Picadilly Circus Saturday for the city's latest march against Israel's bombardment of Gaza and the United Kingdom's continued support for the Israel Defense Forces, following what organizers called "a major victory in defense of the democratic right to protest."
The Metropolitan Police on Friday dropped its restrictions on the march, which was the first pro-Palestinian protest since last October to proceed to the Israeli embassy in London.
The police had attempted to stop campaigners from gathering before 2:30 pm, conflicting with plans to begin the rally preceding the march at noon.
"They never provided any convincing explanation or evidence for this delay, and it has caused enormous, unnecessary difficulty to the organization of a large-scale demonstration," Ben Jamal, who leads the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, one of the groups organizing the march, toldMiddle East Eye on Friday.
"It has unfortunately been part of a pattern of obstruction, delay, and lack of communication on the part of the Met which we will press them to review and reflect on for future demonstrations," he added. "For tomorrow, we call on our supporters to turn out in their hundreds of thousands to show we will not be deterred from seeking an end to Israel's genocide and justice for Palestine!"
Jamal said the police "saw sense and abandoned their unjustified and impractical attempt to delay the start of the march by two hours on Saturday," allowing the march to begin at 1:30 pm.
During previous marches in which hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in solidarity with Palestinians since last October, police have blocked off the area surrounding the Israeli embassy in Kensington, threatening anyone who protested in the vicinity with arrest.
Marching to the embassy, demonstrators made a "renewed call to end the ongoing genocide in Gaza" and demanded an "immediate and full cessation of arms supplies to Israel."
Earlier this week, the U.K. government announced it was suspending approximately 30 of its 350 arms export licenses for Israel, saying that "there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law."
Human rights advocates, medical professionals working in Gaza, and legal experts have for months demanded that Israel's top international funders, including the U.S. and U.K., stop providing military aid as Israel has blocked humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza and waged attacks on civilian infrastructure, killing more than 40,000 people.
The country has also been accused of carrying out genocide in a case led by South Africa at the International Court of Justice; the court has ordered Israel to end its blockade on humanitarian aid and to prevent genocide in Gaza.
"We demand our government completely stop arming Israel and push for a cease-fire now," said the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
As Londoners marched on Saturday, the Gaza Health Ministry announced that at least 61 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces in the last two days. Four people were killed in a strike on Halimah al-Saadiyah school in Jabaliya, where displaced Palestinians have been sheltering, and three were killed in a bombing at Amr Ibn al-As school in Gaza City.
Media outlets in Palestine reported that a baby named Yaqeen al-Astal had become the 37th child in Gaza to die of malnutrition since Israel began its near-total aid blockade.
International outrage also grew on Saturday regarding the killing of a Turkish American activist, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, in the West Bank on Friday. Local media and eyewitnesses said Eygi had been deliberately shot in the head by Israeli forces at a protest over the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements.
The U.S. called on Israel to investigate the killing on Friday, but Eygi's family said in a statement that such a probe would not be "adequate."
"We call on President [Joe] Biden, Vice President [Kamala] Harris, and Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken to order an independent investigation into the unlawful killing of a U.S. citizen and to ensure full accountability for the guilty parties," said the family.
Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the United Nations, called for "a full investigation of the circumstances" and said that "people should be held accountable. And again, civilians must be protected at all times."
“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," said Democratic leaders, "the odds of a shutdown go way up."
Leading U.S. Senate Democrats on Friday accused House Republicans of "wasting precious time catering to the hard MAGA right" as House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a stopgap funding bill tied to a proposal that would require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections.
The proposal—the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—has been pushed by Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump and was passed by the House in July, with five Democrats joining the GOP in supporting the bill.
Non-citizens are already barred from voting in federal elections. With about 21.3 million eligible voters reporting in a recent survey that they would not be able to quickly access their birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or certificate of citizenship in order to prove their status, critics say the proposal is a clear attempt to stop people of color and young Americans from taking part in elections.
Johnson proposed including the legislation in a stopgap bill, or a continuing resolution, that would keep the government running roughly at current spending levels through March 28—a move that would postpone major spending negotiations until after the next president takes office.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that "avoiding a government shutdown requires bipartisanship, not a bill drawn up by one party," and alluded to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) attempt last September to ram a spending bill through with immigration and border policy changes in order to avert a government shutdown.
"Speaker Johnson is making the same mistake as former Speaker McCarthy did a year ago," said Schumer and Murray in a statement. "The House Republican funding proposal is an ominous case of déjà vu."
“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," they added, "the odds of a shutdown go way up, and Americans will know that the responsibility of a shutdown will be on the House Republicans' hands."
Johnson is expected to bring the bill to the House floor on Wednesday after lawmakers return from summer recess. Congress has a September 30 deadline to make changes to the spending bill in order to avoid a partial government shutdown on October 1.
The House speaker called the proposal "a critically important step" toward funding the government and ensuring "that only American citizens can decide American elections"—prompting one critic to accuse Johnson of pushing a "manufactured" issue.
"Anyone who reads the SAVE Act understands it is a bad bill," said attorney Heath Hixson, "a poorly worded unfunded mandate that'll lead to voter suppression and racist outcomes."