Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/1/2006 6:26:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 3:01:51 PM EDT by Phil_in_Seattle]
By the calendar this bill was scheduled for executive session in committee today.

That means closed doors, no public attendence.

I don't yet have any information as to what may have happened if anything did happen.

I'm trying to get some information for us.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:41:15 PM EDT


Kline
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:46:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 7:05:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 7:10:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
By the calendar this bill was scheduled for executive session in committee today.

That means closed doors, no public attendence.

I don't yet have any information as to what may have happened if anything did happen.

I'm trying to get some information for us.




I thinking we are gonna have a fight on our hands...
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:06:06 PM EDT
ahhh will it never end.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:12:04 PM EDT
They did vote on the bill in Executive Committee.

The bill FAILED on a 5-3 vote (Hargrove absent). Voting for were
Kline, Weinstein and Thibaudeau. Voting against were Johnson, McCaslin.
Carrell, Esser, all Rs, and Rasmussen -- D.

The scads of phone calls into Rasmussen's office worked. Even if she had voted for the bill, it
still would have been a tie, thus failing to get a majority.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:13:51 PM EDT



Now Kline can go Sheehan somewhere else to be an attention whore.



Thanks for keepin on top of this Phil!



Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:22:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
The scads of phone calls into Rasmussen's office worked. Even if she had voted for the bill, it
still would have been a tie, thus failing to get a majority.




Shes a good Lady and the only Democrat I really like.

Thank her!

rasmussen.marilyn@leg.wa.gov


Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:05:12 PM EDT
Damn, thanks for this great timely info, Phil!
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 7:12:52 AM EDT
My family's known Rasmussen's family for a long time, glad to see her keeping with her rural background..
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 7:15:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 7:17:10 AM EDT


Thanks everyone for your hard work in phonecalls and letter writing.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 8:06:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
By the calendar this bill was scheduled for executive session in committee today.

That means closed doors, no public attendence.

I don't yet have any information as to what may have happened if anything did happen.

I'm trying to get some information for us.



Is this how it works in WA? That is, is it common practice to vote in closed session or did this bill get special treatment? Its unclear why theyd want to go closed session as the voting record is public.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 3:01:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultPossum:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
By the calendar this bill was scheduled for executive session in committee today.

That means closed doors, no public attendence.


I don't yet have any information as to what may have happened if anything did happen.

I'm trying to get some information for us.



Is this how it works in WA? That is, is it common practice to vote in closed session or did this bill get special treatment? Its unclear why theyd want to go closed session as the voting record is public.



There are provisions in the WAC and RCW for the holding of closed door meetings by various government bodies. I jumped the gun, so to speak, with the declaration in my initial post last night that this was a closed door session, however. I don't have any information that tells me it was in fact a closed session, I made an error in declaring it to be one.

In general executive sessions in the legislature are open to the public but no testimony is taken. Note that in other contexts executive sessions are closed to the public.

If you'd like to hear the committee in action you can go to www.tvw.org/Podcasts/podcastsearch.cfm?EvntType=C&keywords=Senate%20Judiciary and either stream or download the February 01, 2006 audio file.

I haven't had a chance to listen to it all and make notes yet but the gunshow bill comes up around the 1hr 18 minute mark.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 3:10:51 PM EDT
Thanx! Its interesting that the sessions are 'taped'. Is this done also or a closed session?
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 6:17:37 PM EDT
I'm not up to speed on all that TVW provides but from the 1-27 GOAL Post


TVWashington conducts live audio coverage of all legislative hearings.
The audio coverage is then available in archive form at TVW’s web site
(http://www.tvw.org <http://www.tvw.org/>). Interestingly, the first
hour of audio coverage of Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary hearing is missing
– the hour devoted to SB 5343. Supposedly a technical glitch involving
remodeling activity in the Cherberg Building is to blame. But the one
hour that was lost is the hour when WASPC admitted it wants to close all
private firearm transfers in the state and acknowledged it has no hard
evidence of guns bought at gun shows being used in crimes.



It appears that closed sessions in the legislature are at best uncommon.

It is interesting, and useful that sessions are taped, and even better that you can download the files for use later.

Last year TVW broadcast the "gun day" bill hearings live on their TV network.

The audio is available to stream online here www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2005010191&TYPE=A

or for $70.46 you can buy a video tape of it.

I think I still have the video tape I recorded of the broadcast and I know I have it archived to DVD
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:07:26 AM EDT
Thanks for keeping us updated, Phil. I e-mailed the appropriate Senators on the Judiciary Committee thanking them for their "no" vote.

Trey
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:32:30 AM EDT
Sent Rasmussen a quick email thanking her.

Thanks for keeping us updated Phil.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 9:44:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
They did vote on the bill in Executive Committee.

The bill FAILED on a 5-3 vote (Hargrove absent). Voting for were
Kline, Weinstein and Thibaudeau. Voting against were Johnson, McCaslin.
Carrell, Esser, all Rs, and Rasmussen -- D.

The scads of phone calls into Rasmussen's office worked. Even if she had voted for the bill, it
still would have been a tie, thus failing to get a majority.



Cool. One battle won, but the WAR is still not over!
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 12:36:33 PM EDT
Cool, what disturbs me is that they keep floating this stuff year-after-year and no matter what they never seem to give up. So I guess that means we never give up either.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 12:09:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PSUpete:
Cool, what disturbs me is that they keep floating this stuff year-after-year and no matter what they never seem to give up. So I guess that means we never give up either.



I'm sure they keep on hoping that "this year" will be "the year". Maybe in the back of someone's sick head, they are hoping for some kind of "incident" to push their agenda through......

Link Posted: 2/7/2006 1:06:36 PM EDT
Just curious but how long can a bill continue to "float" from year to year if it doesn't pass or at least get voted on?. It would seem that there must be some point where it must have to be reintroduced. Any thoughts???

eric
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 3:13:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By deadbolt308:
Just curious but how long can a bill continue to "float" from year to year if it doesn't pass or at least get voted on?. It would seem that there must be some point where it must have to be reintroduced. Any thoughts???

eric



Reintroducing bills is done on a regular basis.

During the exectuve session where the Judiciary Committee voted down on SB 5343 Kline said "I think I know where the votes are and I understand that this bill may not pass but it's got to come up every year, and we've got to be faced with this every year, until we have a little sense"

It will most likely be back next year, along with all of the other bills.
Top Top