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

[Jane McCabe]

Let's hear what Ben has to say & fallow his advice. Jane

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Patricia Norris <PatriciaNorris at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I'll weigh in, although I already expressed this;  why go through these needed changes in 4a, and       then risk the whole thing by not changing 4b also.  I respect Ben and the philosophy he expresses, and we will be working for and affirming our rights, and can announce them loud and clear; it does not need to be in the ordinance, let's follow Barry's advice.
> 
> I'm glad to hear the chances are good that only a few days will be added.  
> Thanks Karina for your shepherding this! 
> Patricia
> 
> 
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140425/7e5c3e70/attachment.html