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

[Patricia Norris]

Karina, everyone,

I am in favor of making both changes. Let's make the ordinance as strong 
as possible, and eliminate possible risks.
A fast turnaround is essential since our time is limited.

Patricia


> 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/20140424/8121c4c5/attachment.html