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

[Patricia Norris]

I'll weigh in, although I already expressed this;  why go through these 
needed changes in 4a, and then risk the whole thing by not changing 4b 
also.  I respect Ben and the philosophy he expresses, and we will be 
working for and affirming our rights, and can announce them loud and 
clear; it does not need to be in the ordinance, let's follow Barry's advice.

I'm glad to hear the chances are good that only a few days will be added.
Thanks Karina for your shepherding this!
Patricia


> Want you to know, even if we change sec.4, it may add only a few days 
> to our process (they have 15 days, but I may be able to speed that up, 
> since the title and summary will not change).  Everything else is 
> ready to move forward, with the minor change to the ordinance language 
> - the newspaper publication is ready; the petition is ready; the 
> Letter of Intent won't change. We're ready to open the bank account 
> and file form 410.
>
> The sooner we come to an agreement, the sooner we can start the clock 
> again. I am prepared to drive to the county today and resubmit the 
> Ordinance.
>
> So far out of 15 responses, 11 have been to go ahead and change sec 
> 4a. The other 4 did not say no.  Opinion on 4b is 50-50.
>
> Anyone´else have a strong opinion?
> K
>
>
>
>> 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 <mailto:crn at lists.mcn.org>
>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org <mailto: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/20140424/6f259175/attachment.html