Tag Archive for Assembly Bill 1947 (2012)

“The vast majority of Californians have an unfavorable view of their state legislature – and for good reason.”

In today’s FlashReport on California’s Most Significant Political News, Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) gives her concise perspective on the quick defeat of her three “good government” bills to address what she called “malpractice” in the California State Legislature. The bills were Assembly Bill 1946, Assembly Bill 1947, and Assembly Bill 1948. As reported on this web site, I submitted letters to legislative committees in support of these three bills and testified in committee hearings for two of them. All three bills were defeated on party-line votes: Republicans in support, Democrats opposed.

See the opinion piece here: California Democrats Oppose Open and Transparent Government.

Read my letter in support of Assembly Bill 1946, my letter in support of Assembly Bill 1947, and my letter in support of Assembly Bill 1948.

I would like to believe that Republicans would run the state legislature differently if they were in control. And maybe it would be run differently if someone with solid principles was selected to be Assembly Speaker. But the experience of Republicans winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 after 40 years out of power does not build a lot of confidence. (I was a legislative assistant working in the House at the time of the 1994 election.)

Upon taking control, Republicans proposed getting rid of the 10 elevator operators in the House office buildings (out of 22 total in the U.S. Capitol complex) who pushed the buttons for members of Congress and sometimes for the staff and the public. This would have saved taxpayers $263,000 annually and eliminated an obvious symbol of elitist pomp.

On June 22, 1995, Congressman Jon Christensen (R-Nebraska) irked many of his peers by offering an amendment to eliminate the House elevator operators, saying the following: “The time has come for Members of Congress to start pushing their own buttons. Yes, that grievous, arduous task of pushing your own elevator button. No, my amendment does not propose to eliminate elevators, nor does my amendment require the Members to take the steps from here out. All my amendment requires is that we begin pushing our own elevator button.”

The subsequent debate on the House floor appears to take place in an alternative universe. See page H6222 of the June 22, 1995 Congressional Record, here.

As you might guess, many Republicans joined Democrats to defeat the amendment solidly, on a 177-246 vote. Business as usual was already taking effect, almost eight months after the elections. The button pushing (in the elevators) continues today at the U.S. Capitol complex.

Signs the Republic Is in Free-Fall: Fierce Battles at the Capitol over Control of Pet Care

Remember those innocent days (such as 2008) when the California State Legislature’s involvement with household pets was focused on bills such as former Assemblyman (and current candidate for Congress) George Plescia’s Assembly Concurrent Resolution 103 – “Take Your Dog to Work Day?”

Today (April 17, 2012) the Assembly Business, Professions, and Consumer Protection Committee was crowded with pet teeth cleaners, vets, and dog owners as it deliberated over Assembly Bill 2304, a bill introduced by Assemblyman Martin Garrick (R-Carlsbad) that would clarify that veterinarians do not have a monopoly over the use of “nonmotorized instruments, including, but not limited to, a scaler, to remove calculus, soft deposits, plaque, or stains from an exposed area of a household pet’s tooth above the gum line, provided that the service is performed exclusively for cosmetic purposes and the person performing the service first obtains written permission from the person requesting the service” by completing a form.

I only know about the hearing on this bill because I had to wait for this extravaganza to be over so that Assembly Bill 1947 could be quickly considered and rejected. A highlight was when one passionate supporter of the bill brought her fluffy white dog to the witness table.

Assessing the message of the opponents of the bill, I thought it might have helped the California Veterinary Medical Association to more effectively fend off the Anesthesia-Free Teeth Cleaners Association if the vets had brought an old toothless dog to the witness table as an exhibit, but they did not. Also, there would have been even more excitement if someone had demonstrated anesthesia-free teeth cleaning techniques on a cat.

Meanwhile, pet groomers and dog owners keep a wary eye on State Senator Juan Vargas’ Senate Bill 969, which creates a “California Pet Grooming Council” and would require any person engaged in pet grooming to be certified and regulated by that potentially power-hungry council.

Someday perhaps I’ll write a ground-breaking history of coercive government intervention in pet ownership and care, but right now we can watch history being made as the state legislature is buffeted by special interest groups fighting over market control of pet grooming and pet teeth-cleaning. Only a flaccid, over-pampered civilization in decline would spend so much time and money debating government policies over pet care services, estimated to be $58 billion in the United States in 2011.

Competitive Bidding for the California State Legislature? Democrats Vote NO to That Concept

Today (April 17, 2012), the California State Assembly’s Business, Professions, and Consumer Protection Committee considered Assembly Bill 1947, a bill introduced by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) to put the contracts of the California State Legislature under the same competitive bidding laws as other state agencies and local governments.

I predicted in my post on April 15 that this committee would kill this concept, as it did in 2007 and 2009. I was right! Here’s my support letter:

Dayton Letter in Support of Assembly Bill 1947

Assemblywoman Grove did an excellent job presenting the general arguments for the bill. I then cited two anecdotes showing why competitive bidding was needed at the state legislature: the 2005 “all-union workforce” bid specification for the Capitol Safety and Security Improvements Project and the 1975 Capitol Restoration Project that resulted in a lawsuit from the Pacific Legal Foundation under its former staff attorney Ron Zumbrun. (See Department of General Services v. Superior Court (Sacramento Builders’ Exchange, Inc.) (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 273, 147 Cal.Rptr. 422.) I also talked about best value criteria in bidding and how the legislature could authorize that for its bidding, if it chose to do so. Juli Broyles then spoke in support of the bill for my former employer, Associated Builders and Contractors of California. Finally, James W. “Jim” Ricketts of Tea Party United spoke in support of the bill, giving a voice to the millions of Californians who don’t like their tax money squandered on cronyism and corruption. He commended Assemblywoman Grove for introducing a bill to promote transparency and free market principles to the procedures of the California State Legislature.

Two of the three Republicans on the committee were not in the hearing room. Assemblyman Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) encouraged the committee to “restore just a little bit of trust” and made a motion to approve the bill. Committee chairwoman Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward) gave a routine courtesy second to allow for a vote. Committee members did not make any additional comments or ask any questions.

On a 4-1 vote, Assembly Bill 1947 was rejected. Voting NO were Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward), Mike Eng (D-Alhambra), Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), and Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco).

Voting YES was Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita).

Not present to vote were Vice-Chairman Bill Berryhill (R-Stockton), Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills), Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa), and Betsy Butler (D-El Segundo).

A few people in the fully-occupied hearing room audibly snickered when the bill was voted down without any arguments made against it.

California Legislative Committee to Again Consider Putting Legislature Under Same Fair Contracting Laws as Other State Agencies

UPDATE: The committee analysis for Assembly Bill 1947 has been issued, and the Dayton Public Policy Institute (a project of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC) is the sole party in the universe that bothered (or dared?) to submit a comment. I’ll be at the committee meeting tomorrow to testify as a witness. Perhaps there will even be some committee members there besides the chairperson to hear it.

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) has introduced a package of three bills (Assembly Bill 1946, Assembly Bill 1947, and Assembly Bill 1948) that would eliminate some of the special privileges of the California State Legislature. I call these bills the “Glass Houses” package because they reveal how the state legislature hypocritically enacts laws to control the activities of businesses and government entities, but makes sure to exempt itself from those same laws.

On Tuesday, April 17, the Assembly Business, Professions & Consumer Protection Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m. in Room 447 of the Capitol and at that hearing will consider Assembly Bill 1947. This bill changes state law to require the California State Legislature to bid its contracts under fair and open competitive bidding, for the purpose of stimulating competition in a manner conducive to sound fiscal practices and for eliminating favoritism, fraud, and corruption. AB 1947 also creates transparency in the development and execution of bid specifications, so that the legislature is accountable to the people for its policy decisions concerning contracts funded by the people. A preliminary fact sheet explaining this bill, the need for this bill, and the inspiration for this bill is here:

Assembly Bill 1947 – Preliminary Fact Sheet

My letter in support of Assembly Bill 1947 is here:

Dayton Letter in Support of Assembly Bill 1947

Posted NEW on April 16: Assembly Business, Professions, and Consumer Protection Committee Analysis of Assembly Bill 1947

To express your support for Assembly Bill 1947, go to Shannon Grove’s My Legislation, select “AB 1947 – Competitive Bidding for Legislative Contracts” – and then select Support/Oppose AB 1947.

What Are the Chances of Assembly Bill 1947 Becoming Law?

Based on past history, the Democrat leadership will NOT let this bill pass out of committee.

In a shameful vote on April 23, 2007, the Assembly Business and Professions Committee rejected Assembly Bill 1070, a bill introduced by Assemblyman Paul Cook (R-Yucaipa) that would have subjected the state legislature to the same competitive bidding requirements as state agencies and local governments in California. One Democrat, Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto), joined committee Republicans to vote in support of the bill, reportedly because she recognized the historic legacy of racial discrimination in awarding government contracts.

A freshman legislator at the time, Assemblyman Cook learned through frustrating experience about how Democrat legislative leaders control their fiefdom. The Legislative Counsel’s office, which drafts bills, included an unnecessary provision in the bill that Cook could not manage to get removed despite his efforts. The Democrat committee analyst used the provision as the basis for an argument against the bill. Even though Assemblyman Cook received no letters of opposition, and not a single speaker at the committee hearing testified against the bill, the bill was rejected without comments.

Following the vote, the May 11, 2007 Orange County Register published a column by the newspaper’s “Capitol Watchdog” Brian Joseph entitled “Committee Quashes Contract Rules: Bill Would Have Required Legislature to Follow Fair Play Rules in Awarding its Projects.” The column reported on the committee rejection of Assembly Bill 1070. It also reported that in 2005 an unknown person or persons in the legislature unilaterally decided to insert a provision in bid specifications for the Capitol Safety and Security Improvements Project to require all contractors to use an “all-union workforce.” Such a requirement would not be allowed under the state’s competitive bidding laws, but the state legislature has exempted itself from those laws.

The column also referred to a court case – The Zumbrun Law Firm v. California Legislature – in which the legislature was accused of illegally using that union-only bidding requirement and also accused of illegally withholding documents from the public that would reveal which legislator initiated this behind-the-scenes bidding scheme. That lawsuit lost in Sacramento County Superior Court in 2006 and lost on appeal in the California Third District Court of Appeals in 2008. The California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. The courts ruled that the legislature could indeed and was indeed exempt from the State Contracts Act when bidding construction contracts.

In 2009, Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills) introduced Assembly Bill 641, which would have required the legislature to abide by competitive bidding laws. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sponsored the bill in response to the two court decisions in The Zumbrun Law Firm v. California Legislature. The Assembly Business and Professions Committee defeated Assembly Bill 641 on a party-line vote (Republicans in support; Democrats opposed).

Will the third time be the charm for competitive bidding? The California State Legislature may want to heed the advice of Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard’s Almanack:

Don’t throw Stones at your Neighbours’, if your own Windows are Glass.