AB1991 hearing delayed until next week

The CURRENT BILL STATUS web page indicates the hearing was postponed at the request of the author.

What’s up with that?

Comment 2 by Anneliese Agren  on  Jun 19  at  4:55pm  •  All my comments • 

I wonder also, Francis - the Review carried this quote:

“Mullin asked the chair if they could put it over another week,” said Sara Ramirez, chief of staff for the assemblyman. “We just needed more time to work the bill.”

http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2008/06/18/news/breaking_news/doc485940c944c96091030623.txt

Just two days to go until the State Senate’s Local Government Committee hears AB 1991 on June 25.

For those who have not seen it, here is a link to the Local Government Committee’s staff analysis of the bill. It pretty much nails the precedent setting nature of the legislation. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_1991_cfa_20080619_143611_sen_comm.html

Please reinforce your opposition to the bill with Senator Yee and, more importantly, fax or call your short, pointed comments to the members of the Local Government Committee no later than June 24th.

Comment 4 by Anneliese Agren  on  Jun 24  at  6:46am  •  All my comments • 

Please, can someone - Carl? - Confirm: Is this a current list of who to contact on the California State Senate Local Government Committee:

California State Senate Local Government Committee:
Gloria Negrete McLeod Phone: (916) 651-4032 Fax: (916) 445-0128
Tom Harman Phone: (916) 651-4035 Fax: (916) 445-9263
Christine Kehoe Phone: (916) 651-4039 Fax: (916) 327-2188
Michael Machado Phone: (916) 651-4005 Fax: (916) 323-2304
Dave Cox Phone: (916) 651-4001 Fax: (916) 324-2680

Comment 5 by Anneliese Agren  on  Jun 24  at  6:50am  •  All my comments • 

Sorry. Guess my html got wonky. You get the idea though, yes?
=]

Anneliese et al.,

In an action dated yesterday but not showing up until today on the Legislature’s website, it looks like the hearing for AB 1991 by the Senate Local Government Committee has been cancelled once again at the request of the author (Mullin). I have no knowledge of why. All sorts of lobbying and other stuff going on.

Your list of the members of the Local Government Committee is the one I get from the Legislature’s site. Note that Kehoe and Machado are also on the Natural Resources and Water Committee. That would have been one of the more logical committees to hear this bill, so it might not hurt to put in a couple of extra sentences in any messages to those two.

Time is getting short for bills to get out of committee in the Senate. I’m not sure how quickly a new committee hearing date can be scheduled, but common sense tells one that it would be just like Mullin to try to sneak this bill back in on a quickie basis. So I’m sending my short last-minute messages to the Local Government people anyway.

One news bit also suggested the Senate Rules Committee, which directs bills to committee, may be asked for a waiver to avoid any committee hearings and send the bill straight to the Floor of the Senate. That is all wrong for this precedent-setting piece of legislation. Not only should it go through Local Government, but Rules should also direct it through Natural Resources and Water and through Environmental Quality because of the nature of the extensive exemptions from major laws of various kinds in the bill.

So, for any who have the inclination, it is probably not too early to start making comments to the (obviously powerful) Rules Committee with regard to not short-circuiting the committee process due to the importance of the bill. ‘Tis the season when some of the Legislature’s attention is siphoned off by the annual budget circus, so it is important that they not be taken in by the city/lobbyist ruse that this is a one-time, one-place fix for a small city that has no other options and rush it through.

Offical: “Withdrawn from committee[L.GOV.]. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.”