Rebuttal of Measure U Argument Against

By Alan Fletcher, C4H 11/15/24 Published Draft

The official rebuttal was by Flaman McCloud, Jr. Chairman, Big Valley Rancheria (See the Voters Guide linked below.)

This supplementary rebuttal by C4H covers some details of the opposition's argument against Measure U.

The text of their argument has not been changed, but some sections have been grouped together for comment.

The voters guide is at https://www.lakecountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12628/17-Measure-U and the original text extracted from it and used here is at https://citizensforhealing.org/measure-u-arg-rebut-text-orig.php

Introduction

Voting NO on Measure U, an advisory vote regarding the proposed renaming of Kelseyville, is essential for protecting the community's economic stability and historical legacy.

The opposition to the name change have operated under several names: The "Save The Name" subcommittee of the Kelseyville Business Association. "Save The Name of Kelseyville" (STNK) - with which they first identified themselves to the BGN, "Save Kelseyville", and now "No on Measure U - Save Kelseyville". We will use the BGN form.

Arguments concerning the BGN

The opponents completely mis-understand the policies and procedures of the BGN.
Here is the BGN Policy Guide

The BGN recently (Oct 4) released FAQ for the change of Kelseyville to Konocti (Unfortunately, it only has scans of the FAQ so one cannot copy text from it.)

Here is the complete text of the BGN's policy for changing a name which is deemed offensive.

BGN Policy -- click to open
Policy V. Derogatory and Offensive Names

(Text in bold by C4H)

The BGN's guiding principle for the names of places, features, and areas in the United States and its territories is to approve for official Federal use the names found in present-day local usage (see Principle II. Names in Local Use). An exception to this principle may occur when a name is derogatory or is shown to be offensive to a particular racial or ethnic group, gender, or religious group.

Because geographic names are part of the historical record of the United States, the BGN prefers to proceed cautiously with regard to the use of names in everyday language, as attitudes and perceptions of words considered to be derogatory or offensive can vary among individuals and communities and can change connotation over time. Accordingly, the BGN will act on a case-by-case basis.

Three words, however, are considered derogatory by the BGN in all occurrences. In 1963, the Secretary of the Interior mandated the word "N___r" in geographic names on Federal maps and other products be changed to "Negro." In 1974, the BGN mandated the word "J_p" in geographic names on Federal maps and other products be changed to "Japanese." In 2021, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretary's Order 3404: Declaring "Squaw" a Derogatory Term and Implementing Procedures to Remove the Term from Federal Usage.

Sec. 1 The BGN will not consider a name proposal that includes the derogatory words "J_p," "N___r," or "Sq___."

Sec. 2 The BGN will not make official for Federal use a locally used name that is determined by the BGN to be derogatory or offensive to a particular racial or ethnic group, gender, or religious group.

Sec. 3 Proposals to change names considered to be derogatory or offensive must meet the same basic criteria required of any other name proposal and will be processed using the same procedures as any other name change (see Policy II. Name Changes).

Guidelines

Any individual or agency may submit to the BGN a proposal to change an existing name that they consider derogatory or offensive. Such proposals should include reasons why the proponent believes the existing name is derogatory or offensive. The proponent must offer a replacement name as part of the proposal, following BGN guidelines for name proposal submittals.

In proposing a replacement name, a conscientious effort should be made to offer a name that does not eliminate or obscure the original intent of the geographic name as a historical record on the cultural landscape, taking into account the historical, cultural, or ethnic significance of the original name.

My summary of that BGN process is as follows:

  • A proposal is submitted, and the BGN checks that all its guidelines are met.
  • The Case is then published in a Quarterly List, which summarizes the case
  • The BGN then solicits input from various parties: in this case the Lake County Tribes, The BoS, and the Californian naming committee CACGN. Any individual or organization can comment on the case, preferably by email.
  • CACGN reviews all the information, and makes a recommendation to the BGN as whether to support, or deny the change.
  • BGN staff then prepare a final recommendation to the committee, which makes an UP/DOWN decision. (I presume they could also refer it back to staff.)

    Their criteria are not documented, but in our case are probably as follows :

    1. Is the name offensive to Lake County Tribes?
    2. Is the case FOR the change compelling?
    3. Is the case AGAINST the change compelling?
    4. If the name is offensive, and the arguments for are more compelling than those against, then the old name will be removed
    5. Does the new name conform to BGN standards?
    6. If so, the old name is changed and the new name is immediately adopted
We believe that C4H and the BGN have fully complied with their procedures.

The Tribes have spoken clearly as to whether the name is offensive.

The opposition has not made a compelling case against the proposal.
The U.S. Board of Geographic Names (BGN) Principles, Policies, and Procedures emphasize preserving existing names with established local usage and historical significance.
Their policy about "preserving" names is not that the old name will be kept in use, but that a record of the old name will be preserved in their files:
Principle VI. Preservation of Names and Features

Once a feature is named for Federal use, it cannot be unnamed; the name can only be changed. The former name is recorded as a variant.

Once a feature is recorded for Federal use, the record cannot be eliminated. If the feature no longer exists and/or no longer serves the function by which it was named, the feature and name are rendered historical in Geographic Names Information System (GNIS)

The application to rename Kelseyville was submitted to the BGN without local input, another violation of the BGN's principles, which stress the importance of community consensus regarding such decisions.

We solicited local input. Our kick-off event at the Big Valley Grange was on the front page of the Press Democrat. Many of our opponents came to our meetings. It is true we have no consenus, but WE tried. The opposition crashed the KVUSD land-acknowledgement meeting because it 'might hurt their cause'. The opposition held NO public meetings. The BoS declined to hold "limited time, limited purpose" meetings.
Adopting the name Konocti would create confusion, as nearby communities use the name for existing water and school districts. The BGN also emphasizes the importance of avoiding names that will cause confusion.
The BGN is concerned only with confusion between names in its records. "Kelseyville" and "Kelsayville" would be confusing.

Arguments concerning the History and Usage of the name Kelseyville

Kelseyville has been the official designation by the U.S. Postal Service since 1882, embedding it deeply in legal and historical contexts.

No conclusive evidence demonstrates that Kelseyville was named to honor any specific individual. Instead, the name Kelseyville represents the collective identity and heritage of the community as it stands today. It embodies the residents' shared history, reflecting their connection to the town and its development.


This position is posited in a letter to Lake County News, by a SK supporter, Marilyn Holdenried
We rebut it here: citizensforhealing.org/measure-u-mhrebut.php

Arguments concerning Costs


Kelseyville, 95451, has more than 10,000 residents. Changing the name of Kelseyville would involve considerable administrative and financial burdens. The expenses for updating property titles, estate plans, business licenses, rental agreements, and other legal documents would be substantial. The process is time-consuming and complex, causing delays and errors affecting personal and business operations. Additionally, no plan exists for who would bear financial responsibility, adding to the proposal's inadequacy.

We think that is Scare-Mongering (Lorna Sides' letter to LakeCoNes cc BGN)

We DO have answers FOR INDIVIDUALS:
(Mail --- Links to come later -- document via BGN, response from PO, BGN Q&A
Passports : NO )

The mail will get rhrough. Lake County ALREADY has an offical name over-lay :

https://www.zip-codes.com/city/ca-loch-lomond.asp
Loch Lomond, CA is an Alias Name for the city of Middletown, CA. Showing data for Middletown, CA.

They claim that EVERY document that has an address has to be changed.

They give no evidence that their claim is true. Town Names are rare -- street names, common.
Any 101 Law Course on Trusts etc .... Any cases where a trust was invalid because a street name changed?

Businesses : we have an example of an Alcohol Licence -- one form/

General Comments

The proposed name change has created profound division within the community.

There has ALWAYS been division between those that regard AndyVille (tm) as "just a random town founder" and "a reminder of the loss of our society".

It is not bullying to call out a bully. It is not divisive to call out division.

The following is a summary of the above

Voting NO on Measure U supports the will of the Kelseyville residents. It recognizes the potential personal, business, financial, and legal issues associated with a name change. Maintaining the name Kelseyville honors the community's historical continuity and current identity. Vote NO on Measure U.

s/Rachel White, Committee Chair, Save Kelseyville
s/Mark Borghesani, Owner/CEO, Kelseyville Lumber
s/Angela Carter Brown, Attorney

An attorney signed "to my knowledge and belief" Hmmm ....
s/Dan Prather, Owner, Prather Logging
s/Cassie Pivniska, Owner/Broker, Pivniska Real Estate Group


The Elephant That Left The Room

They do their usual scare-mongering about the BGN, Procedures, Costs.

They don't even mention the Tribes AT ALL !!!

And they have NO rebuttal to Flaman McCloud's argument FOR

Cost of Signs VERY ROUGH DRAFT

They do their scare-mongering about the BGN, Procedures, Costs.

I did a photo-survey of every Kelseyville / Konocti business and sign
All are very minor changes. I'd say $50K to redo every single sign in downtown Kville

The exception : Kelseyville Lumber Mark B commented at the Jul BoS meeting about the cost of changing his signage.

But Clayton Duncan tried to change the town name in 2007 : and KV Lumber relocated in 2009.