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

[agnes at mcn.org]

I'd say take it out to ensure we have an ordinance.
Agnes


> 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
>