

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.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."
"Outside of armed conflict, premeditated killing is referred to as murder," said one expert.
US President Donald Trump and Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in social media posts late Friday that American forces, in coordination with Venezuelan authorities, killed the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua gang in a strike on a compound inside Venezuelan territory.
"At my direction, the United States Southern Command delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Niño Guerrero, the infamous leader of Tren de Aragua," the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, posting what appears to be footage of the strike. Hegseth later specified that the attack took place inside Venezuela earlier this week and that Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores—known as Niño Guerrero—was "confirmed killed."
The strike that purportedly killed Guerrero, whom the US Justice Department charged last year with multiple crimes including "facilitating acts of terrorism," came in the context of the Trump administration's broader, deadly military campaign in South America and off its coast. Dozens of US bombings of boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean since last September have killed more than 200 people—including possible victims of human trafficking—with the stated goal of stemming the flow of drugs to the US (an objective that experts say has not been achieved).
Leading human rights organizations have characterized the boat bombings as "murder."
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, called the strike that allegedly killed Guerrero Flores "more lawless, performative killing by the Trump administration."
"Outside of armed conflict, premeditated killing is referred to as murder," Finucane wrote on social media. "There is no indication this strike occurred in an armed conflict. Including because, as best we can tell, TdA doesn't constitute an 'organized armed group.'"
The government of Venezuela, whose president was kidnapped by US forces earlier this year, issued a statement confirming its involvement in the strike this week.
“During the operation, clashes occurred with members of criminal groups, resulting in the death of Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, alias ‘Niño Guerrero,’ the leader of one of these criminal organizations,” the statement reads.
It was not immediately clear if others were killed in the military attack.
"We extend our gratitude to the Venezuelan security forces for their support to the successful joint operation against a Tren de Aragua compound that resulted in the death of the narco-terrorist organization’s leader," said Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of the US Southern Command.
The Associated Press noted that "Trump and administration officials have consistently blamed Tren de Aragua for being at the root of the violence and illicit drug dealing that plague some US cities."
"The president spent months repeating the claim—contradicted by a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment—that Tren de Aragua had operated under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s control," the AP added.