[Vision2020] Fw: house bill 172

[Art Deco]

Is there a relationship between the rejection of this proposed bill and the 
one dealing with day care?

W.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Fw: house bill 172


>
>
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> From: "Tom Trail" ttrail at house.state.id.us
> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:53:01 -0800
> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] house bill 172
>
> Roger--You can share this if you'd like.   Shirley and I were stunned when 
> the committee rejected the amendments
> that they asked us to bring to them.   I believe it was not so much the 
> amendments as the bill itself.  The courts
> asked for several additional amendments including one from the courts and 
> the other to protect the state from
> liability in the extreme case that someone in the Secretary of States 
> office leaked confidential information.  These
> were the amendments.
>
> Generally, the amendments are the only thing debated when you bring them 
> in once the Committee has approved
> the bill.    But all of a sudden it seemed that we were debating the bill 
> again.   One committee member said that
> several people had come up to him and said they disagreed against the 
> bill, but they certainly didn't show up
> to testify.
>
> One committee member asked how the Idaho Prosecutors stood on the bill. 
> I had contacted their lobbyist
> on three different occasions and never heard anything.   Shirley checked 
> with Bill Thompson who is now the
> State President of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association.   Apparently a 
> notice went out to all of the
> prosecuting attorney's in the state to comment on the bill and no feedback 
> was received.   The problem
> was that Shirley and I were not notified about this and could not bring 
> this up to the committee.
>
> We feel that this was handled poorly in committee.   Committee members 
> that we interviewed after the
> meeting were all confused and really couldn't give us any good reason for 
> the negative vote.
>
> We will come back again next year with the bill.   We need to get the 
> State Groups who represent Women
> who are victims of domestic violence to come out and testify next time 
> around.
>
> Rep. Tom Trail
>
>
>
>>>> lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> 3/6/2007 10:13 AM >>>
> House Bill 172 was sent back to committee for revision. It still lost.I 
> think the vote was 8 to 7. I would like to thank Tom Trail, Shirley Ringo, 
> LiZ Brandt and Carl Hulquist for there hard work on this bill. We will all 
> have to find out what the objections were, refine the bill and try again 
> next year. Tom and Shirley will continue to work on it. The Attorney 
> General's office is also supportive. Everyone will keep trying until we 
> make it.
> Maybe Tom and Shirley can give us some more indepth information.
>
> Roger
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net ( http://www.fsr.net/ )
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================