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

[Caitlin Alexander]

Good Morning,

I think, as Barry, Norm and Charles have suggested, that its important to
have a robust and specifically defined enforcement (they are saying that
its required for ballot compliance, as I understand). I see its importance
also as deterrence and prevention and as a strong statement of our
sovereign power.

We may be able to get our signature deadline extended, I understand, to
possibly mid-July - if so, this would allow plenty of time to gather
signatures (and get more organized also, bank account, promotional
material, etc.) if county counsel takes the full 15 days again. He may take
less time since he is now familiar with it and we can describe specifically
where we are making changes.

My votes are YES to changing 4(a) by being specific as to:

*"describing the kind of violation (misdemeanor) and define each violation
- which means potentially hundreds of violations/day instead of "each day"
being a violation. And it specifies the punishment, so the judge has no
discretion in the matter.*"

We need to be sure and specify that its the board members who would
personally face jail time and/or large fines since, of course, a
corporation IS NOT A PERSON.  :)

and NO to changing 4(b), I agree with Ben Price here - we are creating the
law as sovereigns:
"The other issue is  sec.4 (b).  The Business and Prof. code 17200,
specifically repeals the right of citizens to take action. Ben felt that
even tho it is against the "law" * we should claim this right anyway*.
Barry thinks this might cause us problems and make the ordinance
vulnerable."   (emphasis added)

Best,

Caitlin




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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140424/782e392d/attachment.html