[CRNMC] IMPORTANT! change sec.4 (a) of Ordinance?
Patricia Norris
PatriciaNorris at comcast.net
Thu Apr 24 17:16:08 PDT 2014
1. We do have the majority, in fact the entire CRNMC list, receiving
this discussion.
2. We as a group are the only ones who can make the decision.
3. Karina is working on this, Caitlin looking into it, and I think the
point is, we need a _viable_, not just a finished, ordinance.
Patricia
> I can not support a motion to delay the process of getting the
> ordinance on the ballot because:
>
> 1. We do not have a majority of the CRNMC presently in this discussion
>
> 2. The group of people who are presently in the discussion have no
> authority to make a decision of this nature.
>
> 3. No one has worked with the county to establish a definitive amount
> of days that our process of signature gathering will be delayed if the
> ordinance is resubmitted to the county.
>
> So how can a well informed decision be made by anyone ?
>
>
> My personal bottom line is that no matter what happens in this matter,
> I will do my best to gather endorsements and signatures to bring our
> ordinance to the ballot.
>
> Blessed Be
>
> In Deed !
>
> Baile
>
>
>
>
> So a few people are working to make
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Caitlin Alexander wrote:
>
>> We are moving forward now, why things were or were not done in the
>> past is not relevant or helpful to decisions that need to be made
>> now. We are rushed and no one is perfect, that is your answer, seems
>> obvious. All of the other points you've brought up have been
>> discussed and when you have something new and constructive to add
>> please post that instead.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Baile Oakes <baileoakes at gmail.com
>> <mailto:baileoakes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I missed this in the final draft. My understanding was that the
>> fine was to be the highest allowed by law.
>>
>> Please help me understand why Barry's advice was not followed
>> before we submitted the ordinance for approval.
>>
>> Seems that a few people are really strong on this change.
>>
>> Where were these comments when we were asked for any changes that
>> needed to be made to the draft?
>>
>> Color me confused and a bit concerned about process.
>>
>> All I hear is "maybes" about the timing of this change.
>>
>> The timing needs to known.
>>
>> The reality of extension of signature gathering needs to be known.
>>
>> Otherwise we are once more being asked to make a non-informed
>> decision that could very well threaten getting what we have on to
>> the ballot
>>
>> with love and respect,
>>
>> baile
>>
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:13 PM, karinajoy 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140424/151e522a/attachment.html
More information about the crn
mailing list