Re: Anti-Scofflaw Law

[Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>]

I would certainly like to see citizen enforcement, too, but given the
choice between nothing and the administration's proposal, I don't have a
hard time going for an administration-enforced provision.

However, it is not necessary that one share my point of view to offer
useful comment on the regulation. Send a comment that pushes for some kind
of citizen enforcement, or at least an automatic cutoff of the right to
contract with the government if a certain threshold of violations is
passed. 

Again, for more on how to comment and other matters related to the
anti-scofflaw regulation, check our web page at
http://www.essentialaction.org/anti-scofflaw.

On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, william sanjour wrote:

> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 22:23:50 -0400
> From: william sanjour <wsanjour@lincs.net>
> To: rob@essential.org
> Cc: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> Subject: Anti-Scofflaw Law
> 
> Bob,
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I like the idea of an anti-scofflaw law, I just
> don't want it administered by the scofflaws in the administration.  I
> would much rather see a law which allows citizen suits and cuts out the
> administration entirely.  In fact I would like to see most environmental
> law written that way.
> 
> Bill Sanjour
> http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour
> 

Robert Weissman
Essential Information			|   Internet:	rob@essential.org