<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I can not support a motion to delay the process of getting the ordinance on the ballot because:<div><br></div><div>1. We do not have a majority of the CRNMC presently in this discussion</div><div><br></div><div>2. The group of people who are presently in the discussion have no authority to make a decision of this nature.<br><div><br></div><div>3. No one has worked with the county to establish a definitive amount of days that our process of signature gathering will be delayed if the ordinance is resubmitted to the county. </div><div><br></div><div>So how can a well informed decision be made by anyone ?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>My personal bottom line is that no matter what happens in this matter, I will do my best to gather endorsements and signatures to bring our ordinance to the ballot.</div><div><br></div><div>Blessed Be</div><div><br></div><div>In Deed !</div><div><br></div><div>Baile</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>So a few people are working to make <br><div><div>On Apr 24, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Caitlin Alexander wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">We are moving forward now, why things were or were not done in the past is not relevant or helpful to decisions that need to be made now. We are rushed and no one is perfect, that is your answer, seems obvious. All of the other points you've brought up have been discussed and when you have something new and constructive to add please post that instead. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Baile Oakes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:baileoakes@gmail.com" target="_blank">baileoakes@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; ">I missed this in the final draft. My understanding was that the fine was to be the highest allowed by law.<div><br></div><div>Please help me understand why Barry's advice was not followed before we submitted the ordinance for approval.</div><div><br></div><div>Seems that a few people are really strong on this change.</div><div><br></div><div>Where were these comments when we were asked for any changes that needed to be made to the draft?</div><div><br></div><div>Color me confused and a bit concerned about process.</div><div><br></div><div>All I hear is "maybes" about the timing of this change. </div><div><br></div><div>The timing needs to known.</div><div><br></div><div>The reality of extension of signature gathering needs to be known.</div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise we are once more being asked to make a non-informed decision that could very well threaten getting what we have on to the ballot</div><div><br></div><div>with love and respect,</div><div><br></div><div>baile</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:13 PM, karinajoy wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; ">You really think it's worth passing an ordinance that allows a judge to snub his nose at us by giving an offender a $1/day fine? or probation? What kind if disincentive is that? They could just come in anyway and pay the puny fine. If we're going to work our butts off gathering signature, don't we want the ordinance to actually do it's job?<div>K</div><div><br><div><div>On Apr 24, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Baile Oakes wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; ">I will vote no on this.<div><br></div><div>Tim seems to agree.</div><div><br></div><div>We have more than 11 people in our organization.</div><div><br></div><div>We do not have a process in place to make a rush decision that represents the will of the full CRNMC. </div><div><br></div><div>A lot of people think we are ready to gather signatures.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no definitive word of how long the process of amending will take.</div><div><br></div><div>Shannon still has not heard back from Ben regarding this matter.</div><div><br></div><div>We need all the time we can get to gather signatures.</div><div><br></div><div>We have a good ordinance</div><div><br></div><div>A Great Step Forward</div><div><br></div><div>, not perfect, </div><div><br></div><div>what is ?</div><div><br></div><div>let's move forward with signatures and endorsements and get going.</div><div><br></div><div>The clock is ticking</div><div><br></div><div>yep</div><div><br></div><div>Baile</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:45 AM, karinajoy wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; "><div>Want you to know, even if we change sec.4, it may add only a few days to our process (they have 15 days, but I may be able to speed that up, since the title and summary will not change). Everything else is ready to move forward, with the minor change to the ordinance language - the newspaper publication is ready; the petition is ready; the Letter of Intent won't change. We're ready to open the bank account and file form 410. </div><div><br></div><div>The sooner we come to an agreement, the sooner we can start the clock again. I am prepared to drive to the county today and resubmit the Ordinance.</div><div><br></div><div>So far out of 15 responses, 11 have been to go ahead and change sec 4a. The other 4 did not say no. Opinion on 4b is 50-50.</div><div><br></div><div>AnyoneŽelse have a strong opinion?</div><div>K</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; "><div>On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:52 PM, karinajoy wrote:</div><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; "><span style="font-size: 15px; ">Sisters and Brothers,</span><div style="font-size: 15px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 15px; ">A small but crucially significant problem regarding our Ordinance has arisen. It can be solved if we act now. It will cause some delay, but it is better we fix the problem now than ignore it and regret it later.</div><div style="font-size: 15px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 15px; ">It has to do with the ENFORCEMENT of the Ordinance. In other words, we need to give our Ordinance the proper teeth with which a judge MUST (not just MAY) enforce the Ordinance and thus dissuade those who would break the law.</div><div style="font-size: 15px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 15px; ">Barry Vogel pointed this problem out before, but then Norman de Vall raised the concern again. And Charles Wood responded with <span style="font-size: medium; ">I don't think that simple use of the word "offense" makes it unenforceable, it just </span><span style="font-size: medium; "><b>gives the judge too much latitude</b> to set the fine at whatever level he or she pleases.<b> It could be $1/day. </b></span><span style="font-size: 14px; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; "><font size="3" style="font-size: 15px; ">The jury decides the facts (guilty or not-guilty), </font></span>Judges interpret the law (amount for the fine).</span><span style="font-size: medium; "><b>"</b></span><span style="font-size: medium; "> They all agree, we</span> need to be more specific and strong in the enforcement clause. </div><br><div style="font-size: 15px; ">So this is Barry's suggestion, as best I recall : </div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">Sec. 4(a). </div><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; font-size: 15px; "><font size="3" style="font-size: 17px; "><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; ">Any corporation, government or natural person that violates any prohibition of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; "> most serious misdemeanor offense </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; "> and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to </span></font><span style="font-size: 17px; ">go to prison for one year and shall </span><span style="font-size: 17px; ">pay a fine of $10,000 for each violation. Each time the pump is turned on, and each stroke of the pump down and up shall be a separate violation, and violation of each section of this Ordinance shall count as a separate violation. Courts shall grant no probation.</span></p><div style="font-size: 16px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; ">Is there any strong opposition to this change in sec.4(a)? The lawyers at CELDF (or you) may fiddle with the language or the fine, but we need agreement by tomorrow, so we can re-submit asap.</div><div><br></div><div>On a second issue:</div><div>Sec. 4 (b) shall we strike out "or any resident of the County<b><i> " and later "or the resident..." ?????</i></b></div><div><b><i>Bus and Prof Code 17200 recently took away the citizen's right to take enforcement action. Ben felt we should claim this right anyway, since it's just another slow erosion of our rights. But Barry thinks we shouldn't risk the ordinance over this. So, should we leave it in or take it out?</i></b></div><div><b><i><br></i></b></div><div style="font-size: 16px; ">There will be a cost. We'll have to pay the $200 fee again (which is refunded when we qualify for the ballot). But we'll forfeit the first $200. And there will be some delay. But since I doubt it will change the title or summary, it could be a fast turnaround. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; ">Let's do this right. A little additional cost, a little delay. The hurry isn't as great as the need to get it right and have a strong ordinance.</div><div style="font-size: 16px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; ">So shall we make the change to 4a? and keep or delete citizen enforcement in 4b?</div><div style="font-size: 15px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 15px; ">Karina</div><div style="font-size: 15px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 15px; "><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org" target="_blank">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org" target="_blank">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org" target="_blank">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org" target="_blank">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org" target="_blank">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>crn mailing list<br><a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br></blockquote></div></div></div><div><br></div></body></html>