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

[Caitlin Alexander]

4(b) is severable according to Ben so it does not need to be changed.
Please see Shannon's most recent posting which has Ben's input on this
matter.

-Caitlin


On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Patricia Norris <PatriciaNorris at comcast.net
> wrote:

>  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
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing listcrn at lists.mcn.orghttp://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/20140424/1bfe2dc7/attachment.html