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

Thu Apr 24 14:04:56 PDT 2014

Ok, yes. Mandatory jail time in combination with $1000 PER INFRACTION is
strong and if it follows what's allowable for a misdemeanor then it seems
that would be the best way to go.

We need to be sure and have a clear definition of the infraction.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:56 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Charles said he thought the maximum fine for a misdemeanor was $1000.
> Since there could be hundreds of violations/day, I think we should reduce
> the fine from $10,000 (which makes me laugh every time I read it) to $1000
> plus mandatory jail time (should that be 6 months, instead of 1 year, just
> be make sure we're within the law?) per violation.
> K
>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Caitlin Alexander wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140424/74b429c8/attachment.html 