{"id":9949,"date":"2009-08-28T23:57:02","date_gmt":"2009-08-28T23:57:02","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2009-08-28T23:57:02","modified_gmt":"2009-08-28T23:57:02","slug":"cdp-legislative-committee-a-clarification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/2009\/08\/28\/cdp-legislative-committee-a-clarification\/","title":{"rendered":"CDP Legislative Committee: a clarification"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>CDP inside baseball time.<\/p>\n<p>I made a post earlier about the CDP Legislative Action Committee that I refuse to link to because it was that shoddy. &nbsp;Essentially, the piece implied that there was a subcommittee meeting in Sacramento this upcoming Tuesday because John Hanna was unhappy with the way the Committee currently functions.<\/p>\n<p>That&#8217;s not at all true, and I apologize for the implication. &nbsp;After further discussions with more of the people involved, I have come to realize that there are plenty of issues with the Legislative Action committee as it currently stands that need resolution, including, but not limited to:<\/p>\n<p><b>Message consistency.<\/b> &nbsp;The Party already has two policy committees&#8211;platform and resolutions. &nbsp;Should the Legislative Action committee be a third policy committee, or a legislative action &#8220;branch&#8221; of the other policy committees? &nbsp;Should the Legislative Action committee only support bills for which it can find a precedent for party support in a resolution or in the Party Platform?<\/p>\n<p><b>What types of bills?<\/b> &nbsp;Should the committee consider federal, state and local bills, or just state bills?<\/p>\n<p><b>Gut-and-amend.<\/b> &nbsp;If the committee supports a bill that then gets gutted and amended in a legislative session, how can the Party&#8217;s support of the bill be rescinded?<\/p>\n<p><b>Propositions.<\/b> &nbsp;Should the LAEOC consider ballot measures? &nbsp;Technically, props are legislation, but currently those decisions are handled by the Resolutions Committee. &nbsp;There&#8217;s some inconsistency there.<\/p>\n<p>Those are some of the key issues, though there are plenty of other logistical issues involved as well&#8211;and in this, we haven&#8217;t even discussed the &#8220;action&#8221; portion of the Legislative Action Committee&#8217;s responsibility. &nbsp;Bear in mind that I still stand by everything I wrote about John Hanna&#8217;s solution to these problems&#8211;his emails do speak for themselves, after all&#8211;but it was severely wrong of me to imply that that&#8217;s the only reason the Rules Committee was meeting on this topic.<\/p>\n<p>If it were up to me, the Legislative Action committee would convene to decide a slate of key California bills (including propositions) the Party should support, in conjunction with the Resolutions and Rules Committee, and should then be tasked with developing a Legislative Action Plan to promote the passage of those bills. &nbsp;If any of these bills were to be substantially gutted and amended, the Chair would have the discretion to rescind the Party&#8217;s support.<\/p>\n<p>Maybe I&#8217;ll submit that as written testimony&#8211;even though I&#8217;m not any committees any more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CDP inside baseball time.<\/p>\n<p>I made a post earlier about the CDP Legislative Action Committee that I refuse to link to because it was that shoddy. &nbsp;Essentially, the piece implied that there was a subcommittee meeting in Sacramento this upcoming Tuesday because John Hanna was unhappy with the way the Committee currently functions.<\/p>\n<p>That&#8217;s not at all true, and I apologize for the implication. &nbsp;After further discussions with more of the people involved, I have come to realize that there are plenty of issues with the Legislative Action committee as it currently stands that need resolution, including, but not limited to:<\/p>\n<p><b>Message consistency.<\/b> &nbsp;The Party already has two policy committees&#8211;platform and resolutions. &nbsp;Should the Legislative Action committee be a third policy committee, or a legislative action &#8220;branch&#8221; of the other policy committees? &nbsp;Should the Legislative Action committee only support bills for which it can find a precedent for party support in a resolution or in the Party Platform?<\/p>\n<p><b>What types of bills?<\/b> &nbsp;Should the committee consider federal, state and local bills, or just state bills?<\/p>\n<p><b>Gut-and-amend.<\/b> &nbsp;If the committee supports a bill that then gets gutted and amended in a legislative session, how can the Party&#8217;s support of the bill be rescinded?<\/p>\n<p><b>Propositions.<\/b> &nbsp;Should the LAEOC consider ballot measures? &nbsp;Technically, props are legislation, but currently those decisions are handled by the Resolutions Committee. &nbsp;There&#8217;s some inconsistency there.<\/p>\n<p>Those are some of the key issues, though there are plenty of other logistical issues involved as well&#8211;and in this, we haven&#8217;t even discussed the &#8220;action&#8221; portion of the Legislative Action Committee&#8217;s responsibility. &nbsp;Bear in mind that I still stand by everything I wrote about John Hanna&#8217;s solution to these problems&#8211;his emails do speak for themselves, after all&#8211;but it was severely wrong of me to imply that that&#8217;s the only reason the Rules Committee was meeting on this topic.<\/p>\n<p>If it were up to me, the Legislative Action committee would convene to decide a slate of key California bills (including propositions) the Party should support, in conjunction with the Resolutions and Rules Committee, and should then be tasked with developing a Legislative Action Plan to promote the passage of those bills. &nbsp;If any of these bills were to be substantially gutted and amended, the Chair would have the discretion to rescind the Party&#8217;s support.<\/p>\n<p>Maybe I&#8217;ll submit that as written testimony&#8211;even though I&#8217;m not any committees any more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":68,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[],"tags":[921],"class_list":["post-9949","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-921"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Pvhz-2At","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9949","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/68"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9949"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9949\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9949"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}