Today Senator Dean Florez had his Floor Manager, Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield call the bill, SB250, in the Assembly for a vote. (Mr. Blumenfield was Lloyd Levine's handpicked successor - Mr. Levine's father even managed Blumenfield's campaign, so it's appropriate that Blumenfield is the floor manager for this bill.) The first vote was at 5:36 pm, the second at 5:49 pm. In the Senate, there could only be two calls a day; we assume the same in true in the Assembly but will verify that point.
Senator Florez needs to get 41 Yes votes; the responsibility is his. So from our perspective an abstention is as good as a No. But a No means we have done a better job in educating the Assembly Members about the many flaws in SB250.
At the end of the voting, (Ayes - 27; Noes - 42; Not Voting - 10) Member Blumenfield asked for and was granted reconsideration. That means Florez and Blumenfield can (and probably will) call the bill for voting tomorrow, presumably two times; and if they do not get 41 Yes votes, again on Thursday and again on Friday. Each day they do not have success, Mr. Blumenfield will ask for and be granted reconsideration. If they have no had success by the end of Friday, he will ask for reconsideration again and that will carry over to when the Assembly has its first floor session in January 2010. So thoretically the first vote of 2010 COULD BE SB250.
Now that the Assembly Members have made their positions clear, Senator Florez will be bring pressure to bear on them to change their vote. He must pull 14 more votes from those Democrats who are abstaining or voting No.
They are
Block (A)
Buchanen (N)
Caballero (N)
Calderon (N)
Carter (N)
Chesbro (N)
Davis (N)
Evans (N)
Furutani (N)
Hall (A)
Huber (N)
Lowenthal (A)
Ma (A)
Monning (A)
J. Perez (N)
M. Perez (N)
Saldana (A)
Salas (N)
Skinner (N)
Swanson (N)
Torres (N)
Yamada (N)
Eng did not vote; he may have been out of the capitol.
Please take the time to send a short fax (it can be handwritten) to as many of these people as you can. Please assure them that you appreciate their vote and that groups like CDOC and Save Our Dogs will be working on legislation to can help resolve some problems but will not kill more dogs and hurt dog owners. Explain that you are part of responsible groups.
If Arambula, Galgiani or Mendoza are your Assembly Members, let them know how disappointed you are that they chose to vote this way; these are people who understood the problems with the bill and are just going along.
Until we start issuing bulletins through the new group (CDOCDogPAC - yes, a real PAC) we cannot talk politics. But we know California dog people to be focused and loyal and it's important to remember the people who stepped forward here.
So please understand that we need to participate each and every day of the session. But then we get a break. Now it is 72 more hours.
A comment of the opposition statements of Members Calderon, J. Perez, Smyth and Swanson. We need to let them know they are greatly appreciated. We could not help but think that Blumenfield's continuing to pretend that the portion of animal control allocated to impounding and managing animals is $250,000,000 was a little silly. And his refuting of Perez's remarks was just wrong. Almost no one in the City of Los Angeles can get an unaltered license; it is only offered to a very few who can jump through silly hoops. Mr. Perez is exactly correct.
Other things we heard during the day; our numbers are wrong (we continue to point out that we didn't make them up; they are what the cities and counties reported to the state), that animal control is not allowed on private property (absolutely untrue), that MSN saves money (again, the Santa Cruz budget).
But you have made a good start here. CDOC is proud to be associated with all the special people who are responsible, who have made trips to Sacramento, phone calls, sent faxes, and helped with expenses. We think Cole Massie, and all the other people, disabled or healthy, who rely on dogs to enrich their lives would be proud.
Senator Florez needs to get 41 Yes votes; the responsibility is his. So from our perspective an abstention is as good as a No. But a No means we have done a better job in educating the Assembly Members about the many flaws in SB250.
At the end of the voting, (Ayes - 27; Noes - 42; Not Voting - 10) Member Blumenfield asked for and was granted reconsideration. That means Florez and Blumenfield can (and probably will) call the bill for voting tomorrow, presumably two times; and if they do not get 41 Yes votes, again on Thursday and again on Friday. Each day they do not have success, Mr. Blumenfield will ask for and be granted reconsideration. If they have no had success by the end of Friday, he will ask for reconsideration again and that will carry over to when the Assembly has its first floor session in January 2010. So thoretically the first vote of 2010 COULD BE SB250.
Now that the Assembly Members have made their positions clear, Senator Florez will be bring pressure to bear on them to change their vote. He must pull 14 more votes from those Democrats who are abstaining or voting No.
They are
Block (A)
Buchanen (N)
Caballero (N)
Calderon (N)
Carter (N)
Chesbro (N)
Davis (N)
Evans (N)
Furutani (N)
Hall (A)
Huber (N)
Lowenthal (A)
Ma (A)
Monning (A)
J. Perez (N)
M. Perez (N)
Saldana (A)
Salas (N)
Skinner (N)
Swanson (N)
Torres (N)
Yamada (N)
Eng did not vote; he may have been out of the capitol.
Please take the time to send a short fax (it can be handwritten) to as many of these people as you can. Please assure them that you appreciate their vote and that groups like CDOC and Save Our Dogs will be working on legislation to can help resolve some problems but will not kill more dogs and hurt dog owners. Explain that you are part of responsible groups.
If Arambula, Galgiani or Mendoza are your Assembly Members, let them know how disappointed you are that they chose to vote this way; these are people who understood the problems with the bill and are just going along.
Until we start issuing bulletins through the new group (CDOCDogPAC - yes, a real PAC) we cannot talk politics. But we know California dog people to be focused and loyal and it's important to remember the people who stepped forward here.
So please understand that we need to participate each and every day of the session. But then we get a break. Now it is 72 more hours.
A comment of the opposition statements of Members Calderon, J. Perez, Smyth and Swanson. We need to let them know they are greatly appreciated. We could not help but think that Blumenfield's continuing to pretend that the portion of animal control allocated to impounding and managing animals is $250,000,000 was a little silly. And his refuting of Perez's remarks was just wrong. Almost no one in the City of Los Angeles can get an unaltered license; it is only offered to a very few who can jump through silly hoops. Mr. Perez is exactly correct.
Other things we heard during the day; our numbers are wrong (we continue to point out that we didn't make them up; they are what the cities and counties reported to the state), that animal control is not allowed on private property (absolutely untrue), that MSN saves money (again, the Santa Cruz budget).
But you have made a good start here. CDOC is proud to be associated with all the special people who are responsible, who have made trips to Sacramento, phone calls, sent faxes, and helped with expenses. We think Cole Massie, and all the other people, disabled or healthy, who rely on dogs to enrich their lives would be proud.
No comments:
Post a Comment