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

Thu Apr 24 13:23:13 PDT 2014

I agree Karina.

$10,000 per violation ($1,000 per really is chump change for mega-oil)

Maximum jail time as defined by state law (Vogel thought it was 12 months
per violation - we need to find out)

Vogel recommended both of these in conjunction not and/or.

Define the board members as specifically accountable for these violations
not just the "corporation".

-Caitlin

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:

> You really think it's worth passing an ordinance that allows a judge to
> snub his nose at us by giving an offender a $1/day fine? or probation? What
> kind if disincentive is that? They could just come in anyway and pay the
> puny fine. If we're going to work our butts off gathering signature, don't
> we want the ordinance to actually do it's job?
> K
>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Baile Oakes wrote:
>
> I will vote no on this.
>
> Tim seems to agree.
>
> We have more than 11 people in our organization.
>
> We do not have a process in place to make a rush decision that represents
> the will of the full CRNMC.
>
> A lot of people think we are ready to gather signatures.
>
> There is no definitive word of how long the process of amending will take.
>
> Shannon still has not heard back from Ben regarding this matter.
>
> We need all the time we can get to gather signatures.
>
> We have a good ordinance
>
> A Great Step Forward
>
> , not perfect,
>
> what is ?
>
> let's move forward with signatures and endorsements and get going.
>
> The clock is ticking
>
> yep
>
> Baile
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:45 AM, karinajoy wrote:
>
> 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 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 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/20140424/3aa4f5ac/attachment.html 