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

[Baile Oakes]

We had plenty of time to address this issue of enforcement before we submitted our paperwork to the county counsel.

Things get rushed,  suggestions were not taken in a timely fashion, the ordinance was finished as it could be finished under a very tight and stressed time line.

So we now have a very good ordinance that could be improved. 

A few days ago a lot of us were very happy and feeling blessed and ready to do the very pressing work to gather signatures within a very short amount of time.........hopefully the deadline will be extended into July.

To take possibly weeks longer to change the wording in the ordinance is very big decision and we do not have a system in place to make this level of decision in an expedient manner.

Let's move forward with gratitude and love,

Baile


On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:52 PM, karinajoy 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/20140424/4710ca09/attachment.html