[CRNMC] IMPORTANT! change sec.4 (a) of Ordinance?
Patricia Norris
PatriciaNorris at comcast.net
Thu Apr 24 15:18:40 PDT 2014
Yes, and i year was suggested ... for each infraction, defined as each
stroke of the extractor; could be hundreds a day...
> If it is a misdemeanor it is a sentence under 2 years....County jail
> time. If it is a felony it is any sentence 2 years and up in a State
> prison. Beth B. ex-deputy
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Caitlin Alexander
> <caitlin29 at gmail.com <mailto:caitlin29 at gmail.com>> 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
> <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> "The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once
> you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political
> an act as speaking out. There's no innocence. Either way, you're
> accountable." Arundhati Roy
> <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6134.Arundhati_Roy>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e5d4a5a0/attachment.html
More information about the crn
mailing list