[From nobody Tue Mar  6 12:16:51 2007
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:01:17 -0800
From: lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com>
Reply-To: lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com>
To: vision2020@mpscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] house bill 172
Message-ID: <addfe71cefe6a137ac29bf14e97008c0@turbonet.com>
X-Mailer: IceWarp Web Mail 5.6.7
X-Originating-IP: 129.101.14.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--05605BA1AA1608A1D973E13F419C3271"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----05605BA1AA1608A1D973E13F419C3271
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


-----Original message-----

From: "Tom Trail" ttrail@house.state.id.us
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:53:01 -0800
To: "lfalen" lfalen@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@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@moscow.com 
=======================================================


----05605BA1AA1608A1D973E13F419C3271
Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [Vision2020] house bill 172"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="Re: [Vision2020] house bill 172"

Received: from lso_lsocomm.state.id.us ([164.165.111.249])
	by mail.turbonet.com (Cactus Mail Server v8.9.1) with ESMTP id LVH90530
	for <lfalen@turbonet.com>; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:53:30 -0800
Received: from LCDCDOM-MTA by lso_lsocomm.state.id.us
	with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:53:26 -0700
Message-Id: <45ED561D.EF6B.008E.0@house.idaho.gov>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.1 
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:53:01 -0700
From: "Tom Trail" <ttrail@house.state.id.us>
To: "lfalen" <lfalen@turbonet.com>
Cc: "Shirley Ringo" <sringo@house.state.id.us>
References: <75602f28713bec4a2f25c07a6357a184@turbonet.com>
In-Reply-To: <75602f28713bec4a2f25c07a6357a184@turbonet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartE5C1409D.0__="
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.11 required=5.00 tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.00,
	BAYES_95=3.60, NO_RDNS2=0.01, MR_DIFF_MID=1.00, OTHER=1.5
	version=3.1.6
X-Spam-Level: ******
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.6 (1.0) on mail.turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] house bill 172

--=__PartE5C1409D.0__=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.
=20
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.
=20
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.
=20
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.
=20
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.
=20
Rep. Tom Trail
=20


>>> lfalen <lfalen@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 =
hafe 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

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List services made available by First Step Internet,=20
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.  =20
               http://www.fsr.net ( http://www.fsr.net/ )                  =
    =20
          mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

--=__PartE5C1409D.0__=
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: HTML

<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-15=
">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>Roger--You can share this if you'd like.   Shirley and I =
were stunned when the committee rejected the amendments</DIV>
<DIV>that they asked us to bring to them.   I believe it was not =
so much the amendments as the bill itself.  The courts</DIV>
<DIV>asked for several additional amendments including one from the courts =
and the other to protect the state from</DIV>
<DIV>liability in the extreme case that someone in the Secretary of States =
office leaked confidential information.  These</DIV>
<DIV>were the amendments.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Generally, the amendments are the only thing debated when you bring =
them in once the Committee has approved</DIV>
<DIV>the bill.    But all of a sudden it seemed that we =
were debating the bill again.   One committee member said =
that</DIV>
<DIV>several people had come up to him and said they disagreed against the =
bill, but they certainly didn't show up</DIV>
<DIV>to testify.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One committee member asked how the Idaho Prosecutors stood on the =
bill.   I had contacted their lobbyist</DIV>
<DIV>on three different occasions and never heard anything.   =
Shirley checked with Bill Thompson who is now the</DIV>
<DIV>State President of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association.   =
Apparently a notice went out to all of the</DIV>
<DIV>prosecuting attorney's in the state to comment on the bill and no =
feedback was received.   The problem</DIV>
<DIV>was that Shirley and I were not notified about this and could not =
bring this up to the committee.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We feel that this was handled poorly in committee.   =
Committee members that we interviewed after the</DIV>
<DIV>meeting were all confused and really couldn't give us any good reason =
for the negative vote.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We will come back again next year with the bill.   We need =
to get the State Groups who represent Women</DIV>
<DIV>who are victims of domestic violence to come out and testify next =
time around.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rep. Tom Trail</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>>>> lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> 3/6/2007 =
10:13 AM >>><BR>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 hafe 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.<BR>Maybe Tom and Shirley can give us =
some more indepth information.<BR><BR>Roger<BR><BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>List =
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities=
 of the Palouse since 1994.   <BR>     &=
nbsp;         <A href=3D"http://www=
.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</A>       =
            &nb=
sp;   <BR>          =
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

--=__PartE5C1409D.0__=--
----05605BA1AA1608A1D973E13F419C3271--]