[CRNMC] CRNMC - IMPORTANT! change sec.4 (a) of Ordinance?

[Beth Brenneman]

If it's ok with celdf and our county counsel, i am okay with it.
Personally, i think such egregious crimes are felonies but that would be
harder to pass.  Beth B


On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:52 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sisters and Brothers,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Barry Vogel pointed this problem out before, but then Norman de Vall
> raised the concern again. And Charles Wood responded with “I don't think
> that simple use of the word "offense" makes it unenforceable, it just *gives
> the judge too much latitude* to set the fine at whatever level he or she
> pleases.* It could be $1/day. *The jury decides the facts (guilty or
> not-guilty), Judges interpret the law (amount for the fine).*"*   They
> all agree, we need to be more specific and strong in the enforcement
> clause.
>
> So this is Barry's suggestion, as best I recall :
> Sec. 4(a).
>
> Any corporation, government or natural person that violates any
> prohibition of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a most serious
> misdemeanor offense  and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to go
> to prison for one year and shall 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.
>
> 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.
>
> On a second issue:
> Sec. 4 (b) shall we strike out "or any resident of the County* " and
> later "or the resident..." ?????*
> *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?*
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So shall we make the change to 4a?  and keep or delete citizen enforcement
> in 4b?
>
> Karina
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>


-- 
"The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've
seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as
speaking out. There's no innocence. Either way, you're accountable.” Arundhati
Roy <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6134.Arundhati_Roy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140424/928b8fde/attachment.html