Nuclear Parts Opponents File Court Suit for Ballot Access

Kansas City Peace Planters

August 26, 2011

Contact:

Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D. (Plaintiff in the lawsuit), Phone: (816)753-2057

Ann Suellentrop, (913)271-7925

At its regular legislative session August 25, the City Council voted (with only one dissenter) to keep the initiative petition entitled “Production of Nuclear Weapons Components Prohibited” off the ballot. Accordingly, we are filing today with the court for a Writ of Mandamus to safeguard our rights as citizens according to the City Charter to have it put on the November 8 ballot.

All legal requirements were met:

May 12 – almost 5,000 Kansas City Missouri signatures turned in

May 26 – official verification of sufficient number of signatures: 4,389 verified when 3,572 were required

June 16 – as expected, City Council voted against an ordinance based on the petition; this is a required part of the process to be done before placing a measure on the ballot

June 24 – petitioners file the request with the Clerk that requires the measure be put on the ballot

The Council has had two full months for the Charter’s requirement of passing an ordinance directing the Election Board to place the measure on the ballot. The deadline for certification for the November 8 ballot is August 30. Waiting until the last possible time allows the court only five days, two of which are a weekend, to consider the case. While the letter of the law is fulfilled in the timing, the spirit of democracy and proper deliberation is not. We believe this timing is an unfair power play.

Today’s ordinance to keep the measure off the ballot claims that the measure is unconstitutional — but the City Charter is the constitution of the city, and its terms are being violated by this action. The Charter clearly states that initiatives with sufficient signatures shall be placed on the ballot at the next available election.

The reason that it is the courts who are charged with the duty of determining constitutionality of any laws passed is that they have hearings in which both sides present their cases, being listened to by people well trained in the legal precedents and previous arguments. If councilmembers had a sincere concern on the question of constitutionality, the proper procedure would have been to ask the court for a Declaratory Judgment. If a party to a dispute can decide the dispute in its own favor while ignoring its own Charter, then the very purpose of the initiative petition process in upholding democracy is being sabotaged.


Note on Finance, Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting

Finance, Governance and Ethics Committee voting on Resolution No. 110602 (preventing initiative petition from reaching November Ballot), Wednesday, August 17th, 8:30 AM, 26th Floor, Council Chamber.

This is a change of venue. Please proceed to the 26th Floor, despite the committee website suggesting otherwise .


City Council Moves to Strike Citizens’ Initiative from Ballot

City Council Moves to Strike Citizens’ Initiative from Ballot:
Resolution No. 160602, To Stifle Public Debate on Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing

Contact: Dr. Rachel MacNair
Phone: 816-753-2057
E-mail: rachel_macnair@yahoo.com

Kansas City Peace Planters* met requirements for the City Council to place their initiative petition on the ballot, according to the requirements of the City Charter. The initiative petition proposes to ban production of nuclear weapons components in Kansas City and in its place promote jobs in renewable energy. Six Council members – John Sharp, Scott Taylor, Dick Davis, Cindy Circo, Jan Marcason, Scott Wagner, Jermaine Reed – along with Mayor Sylvester James Jr. – have sponsored a Resolution to prevent the initiative petition from reaching a city-wide vote. The Resolution cites issues of constitutionality relating to federal authority on nuclear weapons policy. “The City Council is not the correct forum to make a decision about the constitutionality of an initiative, for that is a decision reserved for Courts,” says Henry Stoever, attorney, of PeaceWorks KC. Placing a legitimate initiative petition on the ballot is a way to prevent the City Council from “having a monopoly on a vital issue.”

The Resolution endangers public awareness of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, a vital issue concerning government accountability, health and security. Rachel MacNair, Ph.D. believes the city council should be called to question for the leasing agreement designed for the new Kansas City Plant: “It was the city council that put up municipal bonds for a debt that should be financed by US Treasury bonds, and thereby breached the boundary between city and federal jurisdictions. They’re ignoring the strange ownership arrangements they made – yet those unprecedented arrangements are a major issue in this campaign. That point should not be squelched by the very people who caused this financial-involvement problem in the first place.”

Dr. MacNair is not alone in her skepticism. A report released last April by Dr. Robert Civiak, former budget examiner of the Department of Energy’s nuclear security activities at the White House Office of Management and Budget, observed that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) had made an agreement for a 20-year lease without appropriating funds. To Dr. Civiak, this arrangement was facially unlawful: “NNSA’s commitment to the plant, without having appropriated funds for its construction, violates the U.S. Anti-Deficiency Act.”

If the Resolution were successful and upheld in the court challenge, it will be a missed opportunity to address the health and environmental consequences of manufacturing nuclear weapons. Legacy contamination from operations at the old Kansas City Plant involving beryllium machining is an immediate testament, but the prospect of employing nuclear weapons for a supposed strategic aim would have incalculable effects. Ann Suellentrop of Physicians for Social Responsibility asserts constitutionality takes second place to survival, “Undoubtedly more people have died from the mining, manufacture, testing and waste storage of nuclear weapons than ever died in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The people’s right to survive trumps absolutely everything. We have a right to say NO when our water, air and soil are contaminated by lethal cancer-causing pollution and potential world-wide annihilation.”

This Wednesday, August 17th, many members of the Kansas City Peace Planters will attend the Finance, Governance and Ethics Committee Meeting at City Hall (8:30 AM, tenth floor). They will raise their voices against a Resolution which aims to silence and exclude public engagement on a vital issue.

In the event of passage, court relief will be sought immediately. The group has hired attorney Phil Willoughby, an expert in election law and former member of the Missouri House of Representatives, who is confident that we have a good case for the court to order the citizens’ initiative onto the ballot.

*KC Peace Planters, a coalition, includes PeaceWorks-KC; Physicians for Social Responsibility-KC; East Meets West of Troost; Holy Family, Cherith Brook, and St. Lawrence Catholic Worker Houses; The Recipe LLC; KC’s Loretto Peace & Justice Network; the Social Justice Committee of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth; Benedictines for Peace; and Faith-Based Coalition for Peace, Justice & Healing.


Letter to City Council on Economic Conversion Plan

Note: The letter attached was delivered in hand by Dr. Rachel MacNair to each member of the City Council of Kansas City, Missouri.

KC Peace Planters
1101 E. Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64110
816-753-0240

Contact: Ann Suellentrop, 913-271-7925 annsuellen@gmail.com

At the hearings for our initiative petition on June 8, 2011, Mayor James indicated concern about the economic feasibility of conversion of the Kansas City Plant to alternative uses.
As I was speaking immediately after him, I informed the committee that we had commissioned a report by a prominent economist, Dr. Lloyd Jeff Dumas of the University of Texas, so that we could offer exact figures on such issues as the job-multiplier effect, which was a major point in contention.
This is that report, and we believe it is crucial information for you to have a full understanding on this issue.
While as everyone expected the Council did vote down the ordinance, and the Council’s vote to put it on the ballot is necessitated by the City Charter, it is still important that you be aware of the documentation for our economic argument. Future events will be influenced accordingly – especially since you seem to have gone back and forth on this issue.

For the summary version, the authors report:

“Our general findings indicate that renewable energy, energy efficiency, and infrastructure products are not only likely to have much bigger and more buoyant future markets than nuclear weapons, but also that they would be considerably more effective in generating jobs for the economy of Kansas City and its environs.

. . . It is always tempting to the cautious investor to invest in those economic activities that have seemed a safe bet in the past. But investment is an inherently forward-looking activity. One of the surest ways to lose is getting stuck in the past, rather than looking to the future. It is in the spirit of helping to avoid that fate that we present this report.”

The report documents

  • Why nuclear weapons are such a poor investment – the market has always been restricted to one customer, people who used to advocate for them are now advocating their abolition, and federal budget pressures are intense;
  • Why renewable energy and similar projects are foreseeable as a far more profitable market;
  • Why the five buildings of the current plant, well underway in construction, are technically suitable to these alternative uses;
  • The job-multiplier effect was calculated for nuclear weapons components production compared with various alternatives, showing that the nuclear weapons has by far the lowest multiplier effect – authors explain why.

At the June 8 hearing we made the basic philosophical arguments as to why a capital-intensive (that is, less labor-intensive) business creates fewer jobs for the same resources, and would have less of a multiplier effect than other uses. But we were not yet able to give exact figures, and now we are. Below are multiplier effects for each of several options, including the current one, plus a chart that shows the calculated number of jobs: 

These are of course all explained at length in the report. We hope you find this useful.

Sincerely,

Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.