By James Spagnole
Special to The Bee
Published: Thursday, May. 26, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 11A
Last Modified: Thursday, May. 26, 2011 - 6:40 am
America's cynicism with politics continues. No wonder – the following typifies why everyone is ready to suspect the worst of every elected official.
Roger Dickinson, a newly minted Assembly member, submitted a packet of bills nearly before the ink dried on his inauguration papers. One, Assembly Bill 622, purports to improve the existing civil grand jury system and professes to fix "abuses."
It was heard April 5 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The new assemblyman is on that committee. Testimony was taken from three organizations, all opposed to the bill. Their reasons and concerns were cogent, clear and well-stated. They raised procedural and substantive issues. They were followed by six members of the public who all stated their strong opposition, also stating clear reasons that justify further inquiries by the commission chairman or members. No one except the author testified in support of the bill.
In the face of organized opposition raising serious questions about the bill requiring further investigation, the chairman disregarded the need for any further investigation and called for a vote. The measure passed out of Judiciary on a 6-4 vote and went to Appropriations since it contained language that identified it as containing an unfunded state mandate.
The bill was set for hearing in Appropriations. The same witnesses were prepared to testify in opposition, this time armed with specific data and estimates that the bill will force costs of upward of $250,000, possibly resulting in costs in excess of $1.5 million upon counties if passed as submitted. This is where it gets interesting.
The Appropriations Committee procedures ignored the fact that the unfunded mandate issue is a potential compelling defect greater than the procedural and substantive issues raised at the Judiciary hearing. It removed the bill from the hearing calendar and put it on the suspense calendar. Normally this would mean the bill would languish and most likely disappear. Not in this case.
Without further hearing, the matter has been set for a vote in Appropriations on Friday, with specific instructions from the chairman that no testimony for or against the bill will be permitted.
Assuming that the Appropriations Committee will vote along party lines similar to the Judiciary Committee, this bill will reach the floor for consideration without being fully vetted or discussed, all in the face of no voiced support other than the author's, and of specific evidence in opposition that highlights serious defects and the creation of another unfunded state mandate.
The purpose of the bill? To radically reduce the confidentiality and latitude inherent in a civil grand jury's ability to privately examine complaints about governmental operations, and to remove the confidentiality of witnesses testifying before a civil grand jury by requiring such testimony, if taken under oath, to be "public," recorded and with counsel present.
This bill, if passed, would remove one of the few remaining vehicles for citizens to ensure that local government operations are examined honestly, without fear of retribution. It would also make it nearly impossible for a civil grand jury to write a report within the time frame allotted by law by establishing unrealistic and obstructive time frames for discussions with affected governmental bodies before publication of its findings.
All of this is with no support by anyone other than the author, a freshman legislator, and in the face of substantial organized opposition and the creation of an unfunded state mandate, and most important, without a hearing on how this unfunded state mandate will impact counties already reeling under the most serious budgetary crisis since the Great Depression.
And people wonder why legislators are held in such disrepute.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/26/3654874/grand-jury-bill-is-exhibit-a-of.html#ixzz1NT7LHYQ9
No comments:
Post a Comment