SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
Indybay About Contact Newsletter Calendar Publish Community

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Drug War | Government & Elections | Police State and Prisons

The Measure K Oversight Committe Meeting of June 15, 2009
by HUFF
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 5:04 PM
This is the entire, unedited video of the Measure K Oversight Committee Meeting held at Santa Cruz, CA City Council Chambers on June 15, 2009.
Copy the following to embed the movie into another web page:
download video:

measurek_6-15-09.wmv (83.0MB)

Of particular concern:
1) The Measure K Oversight Committee is being denied substantive and detailed police documentation relating to citations/arrests involving marijuana, based on one or more Public Records Act restrictions according to Deputy City Attorney, Celestial S.D. Cassman.
2) The Measure K Oversight Committee is limited to two meetings per calendar year, once in June, and once in December.
3) An agenda item slated for discussion at the December 2009 Measure K meeting as initiated by Committee Member Jim King, puts forth the proposal that even fewer meetings than the current 2 per year be scheduled in the future.
4) Minutes of the meeting are not made available to Committee Members until roughly a week before the next meeting...That's approximately 5 months and 3 weeks later.
5) There is/was no Santa Cruz Police Department liaison (representative) present.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Robert Norse
Tuesday Jun 16th, 2009 6:16 PM
For more info see ""Lowest Marijuana Enforcement Priority" Committee Meets Today " at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601743.php .
by palmspringsbum
Thursday Jun 18th, 2009 1:25 AM
The Measure K Committee met on June 15, 2009 and accomplished as little as possible thanks to the transparent subterfuges of chair Mary Lou Goeke, who is also an executive director of United Way and therefore the hand-maiden of the local chamber of commerce. Obviously aligned with Mary Lou are vice-chair James King, who suggested they discuss cutting the meetings from twice a year to once a year, and member William Christie, who provided the 3rd vote to accept the so-called report.

This was the first meeting of Tony Madrigal's appointee David Partida. He mostly listened, saying little if anything. But when he voted firmly and without hesitation against approving the report, it was obvious he had been paying attention.

The most telling point for me was when Anita Henri requested some sort of information about these 123 marijuana arrests or citations, beginning with how many were arrests and how many were citations, and chairwoman Goeke decided at the next meeting they would look at 1 (one) sample of the information that could be provided according to the city attorney's interpretation of state law.

Keep in mind, it was the city attorney that represented the police department against Measure K with the result that sections requiring a separate report to be filled out by the police for marijuana arrests and requiring the police to provide any other information to the committee were striken from the ordinance.

Measure K was passed by 68% of Santa Cruz voters.

Eric Rice and Larry True have previously resigned in disgust. Larry True stated, "I joined the committee looking for a way to serve the community ... I feel like the committee is no more than a rubber stamp for the police department."

Two members were not present, Caroline Hawkins and Candi Jackson. Ryan Coonerty's appointment to the committee has yet to be made.

The next meeting is scheduled for 5:30pm December 14, 2009.

Given the committee has been stacked by the city council with members hostile to Measure K and to oversight and civilian review of the police department, I expect the committee to vote to meet only once a year and to quash any attempt to verify or examine the numbers provided to it by the police department.
by my goodness
Thursday Jun 18th, 2009 8:03 PM
"This was the first meeting of Tony Madrigal's appointee David Partida. He mostly listened, saying little if anything. But when he voted firmly and without hesitation against approving the report, it was obvious he had been paying attention"

He cant approve it. He wasn't on the board last time they met.
by cannabis
Thursday Jun 18th, 2009 10:31 PM
measure-k-cannabis.png
measure-k-cannabis.png

by Just a Guy
Friday Jun 19th, 2009 9:19 AM
Saying enforcing pot laws is a low priority is not the same as not enforcing them at all. If someone gets busted for something else and they have pot on them it isn't rocket science that they will get cited for it. Where the cops looking specifically for the pot? Probably not but in the course of the arrest it was found.
by Robert Norse
Friday Jun 19th, 2009 10:35 PM
It should be clear to anyone but idiots, bigots, and corrupt cops that enforcing the pot laws should be a No Priority.

Measure K was an attempt to monitor police behavior to ensure that enforcement was the lowest priority. The Santa Cruz City Attorney, acting on behalf of the PD, sued to essentially remove the oversight function so the Committee could not easily and independently examine police reports to see if, in fact, marijuana arrests were the lowest priority.

City Council first delayed appointments, then stacked the Committee with pro-police members uninterested in a strong independent committee, but simply concerned with rubberstamping unexamined police summaries.

Anita Henri raised the issue repeatedly and was overruled or ignored. The former chair and vice-chair of the Committee resigned in protest.

There is no way to determine if the initial cause for each of the 123 arrests and citations was marijuana-related and Measure K-compliant unless you can see those reports. The PD has chosen to withhold them with the connivance of the City Council, the City Manager, and Tina Sholl, the City Manager's go-to girl.

The question is whether there can be an independent examination of those reports--as Measure K intended. The answer, apparently is not unless the community demands the Public Records and does so loudly enough to overcome "police discretion" in withholding, delaying, or redacting them.

That's not rocket science either, but requires will, guts, independence, and energy.

We also need stats on how many marijuana political prisoners are being held in the county jail, how much the city and county is spending on marijuana arrests, and how many cases D.A. Bob Lee is currently prosecuting.
by Robert Norse
Friday Jun 19th, 2009 10:38 PM
Measure K Committee members David Partida and Anita Henri discussed this issue Thursday night on Free Radio Santa Cruz.

Their talk is archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090618.mp3 (download and go to the last 1/2 of the show).
by Shadow
Saturday Jun 20th, 2009 12:25 PM
Robert says "It should be clear to anyone but idiots, bigots, and corrupt cops that enforcing the pot laws should be a No Priority."

But "No Priority" is not in the wording of Measure K. Was that an oversight on YOUR part, Robert? Or an oversight of the people writing the measure up? Would it have passed if it had said "No Priority"?

Becky says that when people run out of arguments they must resort to name calling. She says this when commenting on the rules of classic debate. "Idiots, bigots, and corrupt" sure sounds like name calling. Robert must be out of arguments, as per Becky's definition.
by Robert Norse
Saturday Jun 20th, 2009 9:15 PM
It is my opinion that supporting Marijuana Prohibition does make one a "bigot, idiot, or a corrupt cop". And I'm not alone in that view. The suffering produced by the War on Marijuana over the last few decades here and its absurdity prompts me to be impatient with critics.

However, the issue in this thread is whether Measure K has been crippled and essentially subverted. Has the City attorney collusion with the SCPD denied the publicly-established Measure K Committee its power to oversee the police department's claims? I think so.

If critics disagree, they should be specific in their arguments and explain why concealing police reports from the Measure K Committee is helpful in keeping the SCPD honest. Attacking my (widely held) view that Marijuana Prohibition is an evil in and of itself is a straw man. The issue is the SCPD and their buddies in power overruling the will of the voters to maintain their own monopoly of power.


NEW PROHIBITIONS BEING RUSHED IN

At the Sleeping Ban/Boycott Bunny's Shoes Protest downtown, Craig Canada (http://www.palmspringsbum.com/ ) made me aware of an upcoming sneak attack on Medical Marijuana at City Council this Tuesday. He mentions it in a response on the Sentinel Topix website (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TFDQ6RAE14QVCP9BA/p2#c31 )

The Emergency Moratorium on New Medical Marijuana Dispensaries comes up at Santa Cruz City Council this Tuesday at 3 PM is a new emergency ordinance to suspend all new marijuana club applications. http://64.175.136.240/sirepub/cache/2/ewouwy45hpkd2u55qg3h2s55/215649806202009084514304.PDF

The agenda report (http://64.175.136.240/sirepub/cache/2/ewouwy45hpkd2u55qg3h2s55/215649706202009083523788.PDF ) doesn't give any evidence whatsoever of a huge flow of such applications nor any specifics about the "current and immediate threat to
the public health, safety, or welfare" involved.

The issue hasn't even made it into the Sentinel except in the bigoted and Prohibitionist-heavy Sentinel Topix forum comment section to an article in today's paper about carcinogens in marijuana smoke ("State rules marijuana smoke is a carcinogen, may require dispensaries to post warnings" at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_12654249 ).

Where's the emergency? Why is it being crammed onto the afternoon session? Why the complete lack of publicity?

Contact City Council at 420-5020 to oppose this Rush to New Prohibition, which has received zero public notice in any widely read newspaper or website.
by craig canada
Saturday Jun 20th, 2009 10:32 PM
It seems to me the emergency is the application of 2 dispensaries on the West Side, and that the point of the moratorium is to prevent these dispensaries from opening by delaying their application for the maximum of two years.

I have complained about the existing dispensaries. I have sent emails of complaint to all the city council about them. Of course, I didn't need proof the city council thinks I'm "no one".
by Mike Rotkin
Tuesday Jun 23rd, 2009 11:05 PM
Bout fucking time to drop this shit. now dont get me wrong... i love to relax with a doobie at the end of the day and listen to peter paul and marry while i puff the magic dragon, but is this really such a concern? oh legalize so the state can make money, since when has the state shown itself to be responsible with looking out for the well being of citizens?
by Robert Norse
Monday Aug 24th, 2009 5:58 AM
The moratorium was expanded in another rushed afternoon session--the last Council meeting of July--for SIX MONTHS, over the pleas of the two applicants, Craig Canada, and Greenway owner Lisa M. No "emergency" evidence was presented other than unsupported assertions of staff that they wanted more time to "study" the issue.

Vice-Mayor Rotkin put in a weak plea to allow Greenway and Ken Sampson's club to be allowed to open up a growhouse at their existing location since grass prices were rising and supplies were dropping. Though he had the power to block the expanded moratorium, Rotkin voted with a unanimous Council to block all applications.

This disagraceful and unjustified surrender to conservative bureaucrats was sharpened by the lack of activist opposition (Craig Canada alone) and the "make me an exception, but screw the other distribution centers" speeches of Lisa. M. and the two applicants.

Radio commentary and the Council discussion can be found at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090816.mp3 (close to the beginning of the file) andhttp://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090820.mp3 (3/4 of the way through).