Just one more thing on SB755.
I made a mistake in my post on the origin of the bill when writing about how its contents related to gambling were gutted and replaced by language to give the governor and several state agencies powers to exempt projects from environmental reviews.
Turns out this was actually a second generation “gut & replace.”
The original version of the bill actually was about economic development.
Senator Carol Fukunaga said she and others signed on as co-sponsors of the original bill because it was the product of the Small Business Caucus convened by EDT-ERB Chairs in the fall of 2010.
“However,” Fukunaga wrote in an email yesterday, “we never endorsed the ERB/JUD Committees’ ‘gut-and-replace’ proposal to turn the measure into one endorsing peer-to-peer gaming; and were relieved when SB 755, SD1, HD1 failed to advance out of House Finance Committee last year.”
Now the bill has morphed into something even worse [relating to exemptions from environmental reviews], and senators are receiving complaints about our so-called endorsement of online gaming.
We’d appreciate your sending out a correction to the networks who received your initial emails or read your blogs, identifying the correct form of SB 755 as introduced. We would also like it made clear that the Senate has never heard or adopted any legislation on online gambling.
Thanks to Senator Fukunaga for the clarification.
Correction noted.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Like the classic shell game (find the pea), following the text of bills, as they slide around the capitol, dazzles the eye, and cannot be won. It’s a sucker’s bet.
The bill’s origins as something other than “peer-to-peer gaming” or “gut-and-repeal environmental laws” was pointed out in a comment on the orginal post on 3/20.
If they didn’t use the gut and replace tactic in the first place, this wouldn’t be an issue.
It may not seem like it right now through your indignant eyes, but there have been and will be times when the “gut and replace” strategy accomplishes a “good” (however you want to define that) legislative purpose which would otherwise be impossible and have to wait until another year.
If the Lege had no bill introduction deadline and remained in session all year, then I’d be in favor of completely forbidding the “gut and replace.” It does not, so I am not.
I have to agree with Doug.
Gut & replace is a way around arbitrary deadlines. It can be used for good or ill.
I will concede some good may come from the gut and replace procedure, but I would suggest that it be changed to allow more notice to the public.
I wish we had a unicameral legislature. Do not see the benefit in two entities, operating as they do now. Over and over again good bills get killed in crossover, or are gutted and replaced, special interests write the bills, and the public interest is an afterthought, if that.
Pissed.
It is not just the gut and replace but rather the sum total of a whole slew of by-pass the public type strategies. The content of SB755 is loosely composed of several other Bills at least two of which had been re-referred directly to Finance to avoid the subject matter committee. Chair Har gave SB755 about 15 minutes maybe 20 at the most of testimony time then said “we can talk more and have questions tomorrow”, which never happened. Did anyone else notice the rudeness she showed to Chair Coffman, almost acting if he was not even in the room?
I wonder if Sharon Har’s district has changed enough due to reapportionment to make her even more vulnerable to a challenge? I there anyone impressed with either her abilities or her values? I just don’t understand how she was ever elected.
I guess there is a dearth of talent in her district. Too many newcomers, not enough resistance.
Rep. Takumi had the best floor remarks when SB755 was up for a vote recently. He said something along the line that “this bill has gone through more positions than the Kama Sutra.”
I agree that gut and replace in and of itself is not bad but this was bad.