The nice thing about being a private business is that not only do you get to look at legislation that might affect you but there are organizations, like the California Chamber of Commerce that will take up causes on your behalf.
Oftentimes scratching the surface is all it takes to understand that what appears to be a pro-business position on legislation was bought and paid for. These positions tend to favor one business position over all others. It is the logic behind the position that often gives it away. Sometimes the chamber gets it right and sometimes the chamber misses the mark. The California Chamber of Commerce has added AB1208 to its “Job Killers” list for 2011 saying that the bill will result in inflated liability costs.
AB 1208 (C. Calderon; D-Montebello) Court Inefficiency
Creates uncertainty, inefficiency and unpredictability for litigants, further aggravating California’s reputation as a bad place to do business, by decentralizing control of trial court funds. This bill was passed on for a vote by the full Assembly.
That’s the hype promoted by Deloitte because the jobs that will be lost are theirs. And now the facts for businesses.
The chamber missed the memo that courthouses were being shut down, employees were being laid off and courthouse hours were being curtailed. They also missed the memo that indicates case backlogs are increasing and access to justice is being sacrificed. They missed the memo that long court lines are getting longer impacting worker productivity, thereby impacting business directly. They missed the memo on how much justice that is delayed really costs business in California.
When the local courthouse is closed down due to the AOC taking local trial court money to finance a 3 billion dollar bridge to nowhere, both businesses and workers must spend more time traveling to a court that remains open.
Uncertainty, inefficiency and unpredictability for litigants is a situation created by the Administrative Office of the Courts when they choose to raid trial court funds for central politburo boondoggles. This virtual collapse of the California justice system, this uncertainty, this inefficiency and the unpredictability for litigants was not the trial courts doing. However, with AB1208 being passed, this uncertainty, inefficiency and unpredictability will be reduced when the politburo is no longer permitted to raid trial court operating funds.
The case above is a case where the chamber has chosen one business, Deloitte, over all others in foisting a position that most businesses do not agree with. This is where the chamber has got it wrong.
JusticeCalifornia
May 29, 2011
JCW, you are being kind to the chamber.
I would love to have a little sit-down with the Chamber about what appears to be an embarrassing and irresponsible position, rather casually taken on an issue of vital importance, ostensibly on behalf of business and litigants. There are no facts stated in support of its position about 1208, just innuendo, and that is not surprising.
How could the chamber conclude that, in addition to the factors you mentioned, $3 billion computer debacles, whistleblower lawsuits, outrageous maintenance/building costs, statewide litigant protests, calls for criminal investigations, scathing official reports denouncing the irregular and unprofessional business practices engaged in by top leadership, and a branch meltdown are better for California business and litigants than the “uncertainty” of AB 1208?
Did the Chamber do its homework? Did it read the the April 23, 2010 OCIO report
http://www.cio.ca.gov/pdf/CCMS_Final_Report.pdf , and the February, 2011 Board of State Audits report– — http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2010-102
— both of which document irregular AOC business practices, poor or nonexistent documentation regarding costs incurred and decisions made, and/or ongoing misrepresentations to the legislature and/or others about the cost of its CCMS debacle?
Did it consider and presume to reject the many, many unanswered concerns of our CA Assembly that has taken the time to study the issues facing the branch?
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c423/102809/background%2010.28.2009.pdf
Or how about the fact that according the Judicial Council’s own research, victims, litigants and attorneys who use the courts most have the least confidence in and most negative of the courts? https://judicialcouncilwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/jc-4-15-092.pdf
The Chamber ought to be ashamed of itself, and look around to find out exactly who it was that got them to take what appears to be a patently irresponsible and apparently uninformed position on this issue. I do not believe it intended to harm the citizens of California, but that is precisely what their unsupported and unsupportable offhand conclusion is doing.
AlwaysAmazed
May 29, 2011
Justice California…there’s a contact form for the Executive head of CalChamber (if you click Contact Us and then click the Executive Committee or Team and then click the contact form for the head guy). I was going to copy and paste your response above, but thought maybe you’d like to do it your self. (Not that I think he’ll actually read it, actually share it with the rest of the team, or actually take it serious, but it would get it out there).
JusticeCalifornia
May 29, 2011
Thank you, AlwaysAmazed, great idea. The following comment was sent to Allan Zaremberg today, via the Chamber comment form, so now the Chamber cannot say it did not know. (I apologize in advance for the length and redundancy):
May 29, 2011
Dear Mr. Zaremberg,
The below was posted today on Judicial Council Watcher. https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/how-business-will-benefit-by-ab1208/
Please read the thread and the comments — as well as the referenced links, very carefully.
A favorite quote of yours posted all over the internet makes a great case for passage of AB 1208, namely:
“Shareholders already have the ability to express their opposition simply by selling the stock”.
At present a few dozen people with varying backgrounds (some of them downright unsavory) appointed by the Chief Justice to, or employed by, top judicial branch leadership are making financial, ethical and policy decisions affecting roughly $10 billion in taxpayer funds, 1,700 elected judges and the millions of people who pass through the judicial branch as employees, appointees, victims, litigants, lawyers and others.
If the Chamber has done its homework, it would know that the current judicial branch leadership and management structure has failed miserably, and the very people the Chamber is supposed to be protecting are paying the price. Branch stakeholders are unable to express opposition by “selling stock”, and they are not allowed to vote regarding the removal of Judicial Council members and AOC staff. Well aware that the Judicial Council and the AOC hold almost ALL of the cards, branch leadership has made it abundantly clear that it isn’t at all interested in hearing what “the opposition” has to say, even if the “opposition” includes the majority of judges, thousands of litigants, the Board of State auditors, the legislature, and its own employees.
This has created the perfect storm, from which AB 1208 has resulted.
Which brings me to today’s JusticeCalifornia post on JCW:
“JCW, you are being kind to the chamber.
I would love to have a little sit-down with the Chamber about what appears to be an embarrassing and irresponsible position, rather casually taken on an issue of vital importance, ostensibly on behalf of business and litigants. There are no facts stated in support of its position about 1208, just innuendo, and that is not surprising.
How could the chamber conclude that, in addition to the factors you mentioned, $3 billion computer debacles, whistleblower lawsuits, outrageous maintenance/building costs, statewide litigant protests, calls for criminal investigations, scathing official reports denouncing the irregular and unprofessional business practices engaged in by top leadership, and a branch meltdown are better for California business and litigants than the “uncertainty” of AB 1208?
Did the Chamber do its homework? Did it read the the April 23, 2010 OCIO report
http://www.cio.ca.gov/pdf/CCMS_Final_Report.pdf , and the February, 2011 Board of State Audits report– — http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2010-102
— both of which document irregular AOC business practices, poor or nonexistent documentation regarding costs incurred and decisions made, and/or ongoing misrepresentations to the legislature and/or others about the cost of its CCMS debacle?
Did it consider and presume to reject the many, many unanswered concerns of our CA Assembly that has taken the time to study the issues facing the branch?
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c423/102809/background%2010.28.2009.pdf
Or how about the fact that according the Judicial Council’s own research, victims, litigants and attorneys who use the courts most have the least confidence in and most negative of the courts? https://judicialcouncilwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/jc-4-15-092.pdf
The Chamber ought to be ashamed of itself, and look around to find out exactly who it was that got them to take what appears to be a patently irresponsible and apparently uninformed position on this issue. I do not believe it intended to harm the citizens of California, but that is precisely what the Chamber’s unsupported and unsupportable offhand conclusion is doing.”
Mr. Zaremberg, I must ask whether, after reading the official reports and other documents referenced in the JCW thread, you would personally put your reputation on the line and write a letter of recommendation touting the financial and ethical management skills and track record of the CA Judicial Council and AOC? Well, that is essentially what the Chamber has done.
I must respectfully point out that the Chamber may not have known all of the above before, but it is on notice now. If it continues to take the position that the dismal branch status quo is a) consistent with the business and management ethics and principles supported by the Chamber and b) better for California’s businesses and litigants than AB 1208, it does so with its eyes wide open.
JusticeCalifornia
May 29, 2011
My follow-up e-mail, which, if the Chamber continues to support the CA judicial branch’s rather alarming dictatorship, and unique and pronounced lack of business acumen, may fall on deaf ears:
Dear Mr. Zaremberg,
Following up on my prior detailed comment of today, I respectfully request that the Chamber quickly and officially take action to withdraw its opposition to AB 1208, and remove it from its “job killer” list. That would be the responsible thing to do under the circumstances.
SF Whistle
May 29, 2011
The Chamber of Commerce in California has become a silly joke and this position further documents what must be regarded as total stupidity—This is so lame….such flawed logic…
The good news here is that the Chamber has become so ineffectual—such an unheard voice that NO ONE cares what position they take…
The AOC—JC is “pro-business”…?—-yeah right….so is Jerry (big government) Brown
Mrs. Kramer
May 29, 2011
Don’t be misled. The Ca Chamber does not have the authority to diss AB1208 on behalf of all business in CA or even all the state’s Chambers of Commerce. People think that all Chamber of Commences are affiliated and universally represent business interests. This is not correct. Example as taken from the San Francisco Chamber’s website:
“The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce is not a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the California Chamber of Commerce. The SF Chamber does not necessarily share the same views and is not bound to the policy positions of either organization. The SF Chamber’s policy decisions are determined through a deliberative process and governed by our Board of Directors.”
Recently, the Green Chamber, which was started in SF and is headquarter in San Diego, publicly announced their disassociation with the US Chamber and their (this will sound familiar) misrepresentation of speak with one voice on behalf of all business.
Small to midsize CA businesses should be asking themselves, “Since when do commerce’s representatives want more government centralized control over policies and laws that impact my business– like the CA Chamber is promoting supposedly on my behalf?” Its not on their behalf. Its adverse to their and their workers’ best interests.
As I understand it, the CA Chamber of Commerce represents primarily large corporations who do business in the state of CA, including but not limited to, the workers’ comp insurance industry. Like injured workers and the taxpayers; small to mid-sized CA businesses are getting raked over the coals by this industry and their cozy relationship with the out of control judicial hierarchy. Small businesses’ premiums are going up, while their employees’ benefits received are going down; and the cost burden continues to be shifted onto state and federal disability programs. Costs are increasing because of legal battles of the insurers trying to run from responsibility to injured workers – not added benefit to anyone. Small to mid-size businesses are being asked to pick up the added tab by paying higher premiums.
All is not well in the CA judicial system at its highest levels aiding sickness in the CA workers comp system. If you think what they have done over a computer system is bad, you should understand what their power hungry abuse has done to our state, including small to midsize businesses, by their aiding with the workers comp insurers’ cost shifting scheme. Little businesses can barely keep up to pay their required premiums for insurance that does no one any good. You can thank Judy McConnell, Dick Huffman and the CJP for much of this. (along with Ron George). They have worked to keep this fraud on the QT.
You know all is not well when the US Dept of Labor, OSHA chooses to cite a little wordpress blog run out of Tx and CA as a scientific reference; but does not cite ACOEM, who writes the workers comp guidelines for the state of CA.(McConnell, Huffman, etc. backed ACOEM & the US Chamber in the insurer fraud cost shifting scheme by aiding with a malicious, strategic litigation, carried out by criminal means – and are now trying to use a lower court to gag me from writing of what they have done).
We just blogged about this, on May 26th: “a summary of industry’s assault on science and why this live saving information is not reaching private sector physicians. This is directly because of the undue political influence of the US Chamber of Commerce over science, medicine, the courts and policy.”
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/osha-issues-federal-advisory-regarding-poor-indoor-air-quality-importance-of-building-maintenance/
JusticeCalifornia
May 29, 2011
Seriously,folks, does anyone truly back a modern day dictatorship in the largest judiciary in the Western World? The U.S of A.? I think not. That is an incredibly stupid proposition for the public, the legislature, the governor, and the 1700-plus elected judges of California to swallow whole, no matter how charismatic the former cj once was.
The emperor has no clothes. Let’s call it like it is: the CA third branch is a dictatorship right now. Nothing more, nothing less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
“For some scholars, a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government).
In this sense, dictatorship (government without people’s consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people’s life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments’ power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people’s life.”
And let us recognize and call out those who may be ever so tempted to continue to support this failed, incestuous dictatorship, which has harmed so very, very many in this state, completely demolishing the public’s trust and confidence in the third branch along the way. Senators Steinberg and Corbett, I am talking to you.
Wendy Darling
May 29, 2011
One of most important principles upon which this country was founded is set forth in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives to the people the fundamental right to petition their government for redress of grievances.
Tomorrow is Memorial Day, the day in which, as a nation, we pause to give recognition and remembrance to all of those who have served, and who serve today, in the defense of their country, and especially to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect and defend the rights, privileges, and freedoms upon which this nation was founded.
On Tuesday, honor that service and sacrifice by taking the time to contact the members of the State Assembly and ask that they do their duty on behalf the people of California, and to the integrity of the California judicial branch, and support AB 1208.
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs. Kramer
May 29, 2011
Marc Burgat is the Ca Chamber’s main lobbyist on this from what I can tell. He is an ex-chief of staff for some assembly member.
http://www.calchamber.com/bios/Pages/MarcBurgat.aspx
JusticeCalifornia
May 31, 2011
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1201-1250/ab_1208_cfa_20110528_173054_asm_floor.html
Is the vote today?
Judicial Council Watcher
May 31, 2011
There’s a scheduled floor session. After reading this I am sure that some time soon we will see Drew Liebert working at the AOC. He’s been a good little soldier making as many damaging misrepresentations he can make.
Mrs. Kramer
May 31, 2011
Wow. Funny you should write that. I don’t know Drew Liebert. But I was just trying to understand what the concept is that is being marketed to the Assembly Members – because those indicate what objections may need to be overcome. Looks to me like they are going for an emotional sale of “Au shucks, give the little lady a chance.”
The best way to understand an author’s position is to read the first sentences they write and then jump to the last sentences they write. Here’s Drew Liebert’s:
Beginning –
DELETES EXISTING PROVISIONS OF LAW that states that the Judicial Council shall retain the ultimate responsibility to adopt a budget and allocate funding for the trial courts and perform specified activities that BEST ASSURE their ability to carry out their functions, promote implementation of statewide policies, and promote the immediate IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFICIENCIES AND COST SAVING MEASURE in court operations, in order to guarantee equal access to the courts.
Concluding –
PROPONENTS of this measure AGREE that as currently drafted, the bill would effectively give a VERY SMALL COMBINATION of trial courts in California a “VETO” OVER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT of a statewide court computer system, or any interconnected financial accounting system generally, if the GOAL OF THE SYSTEM is a statewide approach ultimately connecting all 58 state trial courts. [What proponents have agreed this “very small combination” having too much say would occur? – They are selling fear of the boogyman]
OPPONENTS POINT TO THE ANALYSIS of the Appropriations Committee, which states in this regard that “Given the inherent uncertainty in budgeting for IT projects in particular, the budgeting restrictions in this bill could be PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC, as the need for ADDITIONAL RESOURCES subsequent to budget enactment would REQUIRE CONCURRANCE of two-thirds of the trial courts on a proportionate basis.” [They are selling that a fiscal analysis by their peers has concluded this bill will increase judicial branch costs while ignoring the waste and abuse that goes unbridled in the equation. Since when is input and concurrance of fund allocation among end users, i.e., the trial courts–aka the customer that the AOC is to compliment, a bad thing?]
It appears to me that they are attempting to market the concepts to Assembly members that there is a little band of disgrutaled judges who want to take over and stop progress; and that the new CJ needs to be given a chance. They ignore the evidence of what happens when there is no check and balance in the system to assure tax dollars are not misappropriated for excessive judicial branch administrative costs at the expense of needed court operational costs – no matter who is CJ in the past, present or future. These are the concepts that need to be addressed based on the facts in evidence.
http://freepdfhosting.com/3fa71180ca.pdf
BTW, Two more clues to an author’s position: When they start a sentence with the word “But” everything they wrote in the sentence before is discounted as of valid concern in their mind. When they start a sentence with the words “In fact” the following words are not fact. They are opinion.
Mrs. Kramer
May 31, 2011
ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/dailyfile/asm/assembly_floor
Looks like it is at the end of today’s calendar.
TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING FILE-Continued
250
A.B. No. 1208-Charles Calderon.
An act relating to courts.
Vote required: 41
2011
Feb. 18-Read first time. To print.
Feb. 20-From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
Apr. 7-Referred to Com. on A. & A.R.
Apr. 25-Re-referred to Com. on JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
May 9-From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on
APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (May 3).
May 10-Read second time and amended.
May 11-Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 18-From committee chair, with author’s amendments: Amend, and
re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.
May 19-Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 27-From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 1.) (May 27). Read
second time. Ordered to third reading.
JusticeCalifornia
May 31, 2011
Okay what’s the deal? Did the vote happen today? If not, I heard the vote could be any day this week. I thought it was going to be today, but if it is any day this week we should ALL be calling tomorrow– and not assume it is too late to be heard.
Mrs. Kramer
May 31, 2011
No. It was not heard today.
Mrs. Kramer
June 1, 2011
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 06/01/2011
ITEM : 72
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1208
AUTHOR(S) : Charles Calderon.
TOPIC : Trial courts: administration.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/18/2011
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/27/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR.
suspense file. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes
1.) (May 27). Read second time. Ordered to third
reading.
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 06/01/2011
ITEM : 72
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/27/2011
COMM. ACTION : Do pass.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 14 Noes: 01 PASS
TITLE : An act to amend Sections 68085, 68502.5, 77006.5, 77009,
77200, 77202, 77203, 77206, and 77207 of the Government
Code, relating to courts.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 1, 2011
A couple of us were monitoring the assembly session to see if AB1208 comes up today as we expected it might. We have been unable to connect to the assembly session for almost two hours. If you are connected or have any information, please drop us a line.
JusticeCalifornia
June 1, 2011
I was also unable to connect.
But whatever did or did not happen, consider this:
The question is really simple.
How many of the state’s judges are really on board with having no voice at all in branch management, and letting the new patently inexperienced cj captain the Titanic?
The branch is supposed to be made up of the best and the brightest. . . . .
From the 4.29.11 judicial council minutes:
“At the March 30th meeting, the committee also considered AB-1208, the trial courts rights
act of 2011. The committee heard from and considered the position of the chair of the
joint legislation working group and of the PJ’s and court executives which had
recommended that the council take no position on the bill. ”
Did I read that right?
“The committee heard from and considered the position of the chair of the
joint legislation working group and of the PJ’s and court executives which had
recommended that the council take no position on the bill.”
Mrs. Kramer
June 1, 2011
From what I understand, yes. You heard it right. Thus:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/huff040711.htm
Nothing happened today on AB 1208, as I understand it. But I am aware that the bill deemed a “job killer” by the CalChamber lobbyists, AB 1994 – Skinner, breezed through with flying colors.
JusticeCalifornia
June 1, 2011
It would be lovely to think that the Chamber has lost ALL credibility by virtue of its ridiculous stance on AB 1208.
Silly, silly chamber. Who was responsible for this embarrassing 1208 Chamber debacle???
Mrs. Kramer
June 2, 2011
“Silly, silly chamber. Who was responsible for this embarrassing 1208 Chamber debacle???”
Do you really want me to answer that question? If I did, my answer would most likely start with the phrase, “Honey, lemme tell ya…” 🙂
On a more positive note, I am so pleased that it looks like several federal agencies are going to put out a joint health and safety advisory for the flood victims along the Mississippi. This is in follow up of a directive by the Federal GAO. I am not anticipating they will be turning to the US Chamber ILR (or their buds at CA JC/CJP) for input, based on their expertise in environmental science and law.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 1, 2011
June 1, 2011
Hon. Charles Calderon
State Capitol Building Rm. 319
Sacramento, CA 94249
Re: Assembly Bill 1208 (Calderon)
Dear Assemblyman Calderon,
This is to inform you that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supports your AB 1208.
AB 1208 represents an opportunity to provide needed transparency in our judicial system. As much as possible, trial court operating funds appropriated by the Legislature should be apportioned fairly in order to ensure that justice is done in a timely manner. Especially with a $26 billion budget deficit elected judges, not bureaucrats, should be in charge of prioritizing these funds.
When it is fiscally prudent to do so, HJTA has long stressed the importance of local control. AB 1208 certainly meets this objective.
Sincerely,
David Wolfe
Legislative Director
Judicial Council Watcher
June 2, 2011
To add to the findings of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association we give you the California debt clock.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html
Population: 37,655,607
Unemployed: 2,175,213
Food Stamp Recipients 3,817,358
Total state debt (not deficit, total debt) 370,259,074,000 (that’s 370 billion) (18.7% of GDP)
Total state revenue 352 billion
Total state expenditures 505 billion
Mrs. Kramer
June 2, 2011
AB 1208 looks like it is on the agenda fairly early today, No. 35
FILE : ASM THIRD READING
FILE DATE : 06/02/2011
ITEM : 35
I had trouble with the connection yesterday, too. Kept cutting in and out. I don’t know if this is what solved the problem or not, but I just let it do that for about 10 minutes and then it ran fine. http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp (first link is the live video).
007
June 2, 2011
Did they skip it??? I thought I heard “pass and retain” for items 33 & 34 and they started to read 1208 but then went back to 32.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 2, 2011
It did appear that they skipped it. I heard Calderon re-order item numbers but it didn’t include item 35 that I heard. We’re confused as well.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 2, 2011
Via Yen Media’s YenWire service:
AB1208 legislation will not be taken up today and has been put over to tomorrows calendar. Confirmed via telephone call to Assemblymenber Calderon’s office.
YLee
YenNorth
Mrs. Kramer
June 3, 2011
AB 1208, ASM THIRD READING, 06/03/2011, ITEM: 17
Link to watch: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp
Judicial Council Watcher
June 3, 2011
An interesting development. Just as opposition was beginning to pile onto SB242, support was beginning to pile onto AB1208. Many of the same parties were involved.
In the latest two legislative analysis, support and opposition to AB1208 has been omitted.
Imagine that.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 3, 2011
Item number 17 has been temporarily delayed on the floor @ 10:35AM
Mrs. Kramer
June 3, 2011
10:35 am. They just “passed temporarily” on Item No. 17, which is AB 1208. What does “passed temporarily” mean? Does that mean it comes up later today?