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

Thu Apr 24 10:40:49 PDT 2014

I have asked Ben to weigh in. It had been my suggestion several times that you delay filing until you had the ordinance questions answered. It was unclear to me if the discussion happened offline and perhaps had been resolved.  I again asked after it was filed if we had resolution on this issue, so we could potentially amend without losing any time. It's worth seeing if we can amend quickly or start over which I don't suggest unless we are given an extension for signature gathering. 

 I wish this discussion had taken place at that time rather than now, but since we are here now,  I have asked Ben for his thoughts. Will forward when I hear. 

Whatever you all decide I'm by your side. 

Best, Shannon 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:28 AM, "Caitlin Alexander" <caitlin29 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> I think it was Shannon who was concerned about ballot compliance, not Norm, Barry and Charles - they are concerned, as I understand, that the judge would have too much leeway without specifically defined enforcement. Barry suggested the following (in part):
> 
> 15. Our ordinance should have criminal provisions requiring the maximum incarceration penalty and (not or) the maximum monetary penalty. The specific maximum penalties would have to be researched.  My recollection is that the maximum for each violation is either $1K or $10K, and either 6 or 12 months in County jail.
> 
> -Caitlin
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Caitlin Alexander <caitlin29 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e0e7a534/attachment.html 