Rohnert Park Vote Leaves Impeachment Activists Dumbfounded

By Phil Burk, impeachbush.tv, and Donna Norton, Sonoma County PDA

An unusually large group of citizens showed up at the Rohnert Park City Council meeting on a rainy Tuesday night to ask the City Council to pass a resolution urging Congress to Impeach George Bush and Richard Cheney. At the end of the meeting, those who attended were left scratching their heads and wondering what had happened.

A banner containing signatures of 400 citizens supporting the petition was displayed before the council. Somewhere around 20 people spoke. Once the session got underway, many who had initially not planned to speak ended up filling out cards to participate because they felt compelled to stand up and say something.

Speakers included members of the business community, historians, attorneys, students, activists, and ordinary citizens all demonstrating a clear knowledge of the impeachment process. Testimony was given describing the impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. Several speakers pointed out that every elected official from Town Councils to the President takes an Oath of Office to protect and “defend the Constitution.” Abuse of powers as well as violations of laws and treaties as documented. Many explained how the crimes Bush and Cheney have committed are a local issue because the illegal war and occupation has negatively impacted the community.

At the end, a 20-year veteran said she had come just to listen but was moved by the other speakers. She said soldiers are not allowed to question their Commander in Chief, but she condemned Bush for what he had done—to the military and her fellow soldiers. She urged the council to vote for the resolution.
After the speakers were finished, the council members gave their response. IT WAS AS THOUGH THEY HAD HEARD NOTHING.

The first member explained he had studied the Constitution and could not vote for the resolution because the right to impeach was given to the House of Representatives, and not to city councils. The audience began to exchange puzzled looks at this point. The second member reiterated the opinion of the first and urged the crowd to become “more educated voters” because that was the best way to avoid situations such as this. The crowd gasped in amazement. “Do you think we voted for Bush?” one asked.

The remaining council members continued in the same vein. These are among the points they raised as to why they could not act on the resolution:

• Only Congress can initiate the impeachment process, a city council cannot •
• They can only act within the parameters of their office, and this falls outside of that scope •
• It is not their role or a function of their office to act on national issues * (And get this one, spoken by the Mayor herself) It is not in their oath of office to get involved in Constitutional matters. (Has she read the oath she took? “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . ..”) •
• It falls outside their “jurisdiction” and they must avoid this, as it could result in legal problems •
• If they act on this, they could be violating the Constitution because it was outside their jurisdiction •

At this point, the crowd was apoplectic. Phil Burk raised his hand, insisting on addressing the legal issue that had been raised. He was invited to the podium and allowed two minutes. He explained the resolution was not asking the council to directly impeach Bush and Cheney. The resolution was a petition urging Congress to impeach. He explained it’s a standard practice, and the notion that Rohnert Park has no right to petition the federal government is legally incorrect. They looked stunned and didn’t get it. Phil cited references and laid it all out. They looked stunned and STILL didn’t get it. They seemed not to grasp the meaning of “jurisdiction” and why it did not apply here. They were not being asked to pass a law. They were being asked to petition Congress.

They refused to entertain further objections. At this point, the Council unanimously rejected the resolution on the grounds that the Constitution did not grant them the power to impeach.

It was astounding to those present. The disbelieving crowd noisily gathered in the lobby and tried to assess what had happened. “Did they simply misunderstand the resolution?” one asked. Some felt the council was simply unaware of its own rights. Others suspected the council was merely trying to hide its real reasons for not supporting the resolution. It was even more frustrating to those of us who had fought to get impeachment on the council’s agenda because prior to the hearing we had provided each member with a small packet of carefully selected materials covering all the points they seemed to be so painfully unaware of.

A number of us gathered in a nearby restaurant to attempt to sort out the details and determine what should be done next. We decided the rejection had to be challenged because it was based on a number of faulty premises. Perhaps a visit to the offices of the city officials (city manager, city legal counsel, etc.) would be in order. The citizens deserve to be heard by a council that understands what’s being asked and the nature of the process available to them. If they’re going to reject the citizens’ proposal, then it needs to be because they feel the acts of Bush and Cheney do not constitute a threat to our system of government—not on the faulty premise that the Constitution does not grant the council the right to impeach and that petitioning Congress is outside the council’s “jurisdiction.”

Editor's note: The Rohnert Park City Council's refusal to hear its citizen representatives and the voices of 400 petitioners comes as no surprise to this editor. At a meeting of Sonoma County progressive city council members, so-called progressive councilmen from Rohnert Park, Jake McKenzie and Tim Smith took a similar head-in-the-sand position when asked to lend support for an Out of Iraq Resolution presented to the Sonoma City Council. Mckenzie's behavior was particularly rude and obnoxious, indicative of his disdain for addressing issues outside what he and others on the RP Council consider outside the purview of their little bailiwick. This in total disregard of the hundreds of cities, large and small, across the nation that had passed resolutions urging withdrawal from Iraq within a year's time. This was in 2006. The short-sighted and imbecilic stance adopted by these stalwarts of the people's business, using the dodge that it's not a local issue, flies in the face of reality and just plain common sense. Just recently the Press Democrat ran an article showing the tax burden felt by all citizens of Sonoma County in paying for the war and occupation. Sonoma County hospitals are in deep financial trouble as are its schools and infrastructure. This is a direct result here and elsewhere of taking local and state taxes and pouring them down the deadly hole that has become Iraq occupation.
It is incomprehensible that county city councils are unable or unwilling to see the connections between local effects and national issues when it comes to matters like Iraq or impeachment of executive branch criminal activities. Hopefully county voters, progressive or otherwise, will remember such cowardly and dismissive behavior by recalcitrant politicians who blatantly refuse to listen to local voices. Some of these local pols have made a comfy career ensconced on councils at the people's expense, and it's high time to limit their terms.
Will Shonbrun

Medical Marijuana Madness

The villagers were out in force on a Wednesday evening on October 24 at a Riverside Drive commercial building complex just outside city limits, and though while not armed with pitchforks and torches were just about as riled up and fearful as the mobs in corny monster movies. The villagers in this case are the residents of the La Mancha housing complex, and they’re up at arms about a medical marijuana dispensary that may open its doors adjacent to their peaceful village to strictly qualified patients.

Many neighborhood opponents vehemently expressed their concerns to a panel of five proponents moderated, sometimes refereed, by Sonoma Index-Tribune editor David Bolling. As reported in that paper most of the neighbor’s questions and comments voiced legal, security and property value concerns. A consensus among the dispensary opponents seemed to be: We’re not against medical marijuana per se, but we don’t want it in proximity to our ‘hood. Right or wrong this is classic NIMBYism and no surprise.

The reality of this issue is this: Patients who need marijuana for medical purposes are not clustered in one town or area of the county, they’re all over the place. To suggest, as it was, having one Sonoma city or district as the designated medical marijuana dispensary area – Santa Rosa was the designated target – defies the logic of the situation. Would we place hospitals in only one area of the county?

The panel was able for the most part to answer factually and straightforwardly the questions and concerns directed their way. Myths and misunderstandings about dispensaries were fielded and answered by the panelists citing fact based data in response to opponents fears and concerns, which should have but often did not assuage the palpable negativity of many in the audience. It was clear after an hour and a half of offense and defense that many La Manchans came with minds made up, and they weren’t going to let facts and reason get in the way.


It was also abundantly clear to this observer that the medical marijuana dispensary folks weren’t going to win any hearts and minds among opponents, but is that necessary? Yes and no. If they adhere to the county’s stringent rules and regulations governing an enterprise of this nature then their business application should pass muster. But the kicker is that the Board of Supervisors gets to vote on this matter, and that hurdle is the wild card. The Sonoma Valley District Supervisor, Valerie Brown, commissioned this town hall meeting, and if I remember correctly asked Bolling to moderate, but oddly she did not attend. No doubt she got a report by staff, but still it begs the question - why was she absent in light of the public event being one she herself inculcated.

In light of full disclosure I fully support marijuana for medical purposes, and the establishment of dispensaries wherever they adhere to county regulations. I also fully support the use of marijuana in general and its being decriminalized and government regulated the same as the booze industry. Government has no business legislating the use of intoxicants other than regulating it regarding public safety concerns and legal business practices.

For factual information and data about medical marijuana and dispensaries here are some sources:
http://www.AmericansforSafeAccess.org / 510-251-1856
Organic Cannabis Foundation, Member Handbook – Rules & Regulations of the Dispensary, http://www.organicann.com / cannaorganic@yahoo.com
SAMM.net – Sonoma County Alliance for Medical marijuana
NORML.org
Common Sense for Drug Policy, 703-354-9050, info@csdp.org, http://www.csdp.org