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

Thu Apr 24 15:47:33 PDT 2014

Per "violation" or does it need to say "per misdemeanor".

-Caitlin

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Beth Brenneman
<storyteller2069 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Caitlin, an infraction is like running a stop sign or having a joint on
> you.  Misdemeanor is the next level.  Felony is the worst.  Between Mis.
> and Fel. there can be wobblers.  Beth
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Caitlin Alexander <caitlin29 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> 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/20140424/8f75924d/attachment.html 