CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Fees and perennial safety nannies are back!
Included is a 2.3 percent fee on homeowners' insurance, charged to the insurance companies. But the companies likely would pass the charge along to policyholders, adding about $25 a year to typical premiums. The estimated $40 million generated would go into the general fund to help pay for local police and fire services, if a community requested it. Neither the insurance companies nor the homeowners receive any new services through the fee. In fact, homeowners already pay real estate taxes for local public safety.
This sound strikingly familiar to other questionable legislative proposals of the past, such as the prescription drug tax and the nursing home bed tax. We do not oppose legitimate user fees - they are much preferred to additional taxes. However, the Senate budget language clearly states that the fees will go into the general fund, where they can be used for any purpose, not just to cover the cost of the service provided.
In fact, Citizens for Limited Taxation claims some of the proposals may be illegal, based on a Supreme Judicial Court ruling involving Emerson College and the city of Boston. In that case, the court determined that the city only could charge for particular services which benefit the payer; one must be able to forgo the service, making it a "choice," and, such fees must be collected to compensate directly for the service provided, not simply to raise revenues.
Based on that ruling, Senate and House conferees should not count on balancing the budget on what could be short-lived revenues.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Sunday, May 25. 2003
Budget battle begins
More reform, not new fees, is the real solution
While roughly three out of four residents say life in Massachusetts is good to excellent, the survey of 1,001 Bay Staters by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, or
MassINC, found widespread worry about the cost of housing, health care, taxes, and higher education. In addition, one-third feel they are making little or no progress toward improving their lives....
But while a majority express general contentment, significant financial concerns are weighing on people here -- even the wealthy, according to the survey....
The cost of housing seems to be felt most keenly by newcomers to Massachusetts, those who arrived here within the past decade. The newcomers, a group the poll found to be highly educated and diverse both racially and ethnically, were more prone to want to leave Massachusetts than the general population. About one-third of the group said they would leave if given the opportunity, most citing the cost of living or taxes as the driving factor....
Lawmakers on Beacon Hill didn't fare better. Only 10 percent of respondents say they have a lot of confidence in state government.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Economic issues gnaw at Mass. quality of life, poll finds
Gov. Mitt Romney came out in favor of the primary seat belt law yesterday, saying the state and its residents can't afford the costs of a poor seat belt usage rate.
"I firmly believe that the commonwealth must do everything possible to prevent avoidable injuries to our citizens," Romney wrote in a letter to lawmakers....
In his letter, Romney argues that the White House's proposed transportation reauthorization legislation also calls for $100 million divided by states that enact primary seat belt laws - and that Massachusetts could lose out on $10 million if the bill fails.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Tighter seat belt law urged for Mass.
But whether using a seat belt is a wise personal choice has never been the central issue in this contentious debate. Instead, it is one of those questions that goes to the heart of the role government should play in mandating personal health and safety choices, and whether reasonable limits on police power should be imposed.
Tough questions, those, but they have already been answered definitively by voters. After repealing the seat belt law outright in 1986, voters agreed to let a secondary enforcement law stand in 1994....
Opponents of the seat belt law vigorously fought for repeal in 1994, arguing that legislative
"incrementalism" would soon lead to primary enforcement. And they warned that the $25 fine would be increased, and then counted as a surchargeable offense against drivers' insurance.
Their fears may soon be realized. As the House takes up a primary seat belt law today, the question facing lawmakers is whether they will respect voters' wishes. In a chamber where laws enacted by voters have been almost routinely disregarded in recent years (clean elections, income tax rollback) this vote will say more about a philosophy of government than a position on seat belt enforcement ever could.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Voters spoke on seat belts
Today, I am offering my full support for a primary seat belt law and urge the House of Representatives and Senate to enact this important legislation this year....
Although not enacted yet, his proposed legislation would provide $100 million per year to be divided by all states that enact and enforce primary seat belt laws. While it is still unclear exactly how much money Massachusetts would receive, federal officials estimate it will be over $10 million annually....
Although I strongly support individual freedoms and civil liberties, in this case, I must disagree with those who oppose seat belt laws.... I firmly believe that the Commonwealth must do everything possible to prevent avoidable injuries to our citizens.
Lastly, passage of a primary seat belt law does not overturn the will of the voters. The citizens of Massachusetts have voted twice on secondary seat belt laws.
Letter from Gov. Romney to House members
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Senate budget debate begins today, and we've been
informed that state Sen. Sue Tucker (D-Andover) may lead the
charge against the proposed "homeowners insurance 'fee'." But
in the House, today's debate will be an annual rite of passage.
When Patriot Ledger reporter Tom Benner called
yesterday and informed me that Governor Romney had sent a letter to
House members strongly supporting primary enforcement of the mandatory
seat belt law my first reaction was doubt, disbelief. No governor since
Michael Dukakis has embraced a mandatory seat belt law, never mind
primary enforcement of it!
And Governor Romney has been such a strong defender
of voters' decisions on ballot questions that surely this couldn't be
true. Republicans stand on limited government and personal
responsibility; former-Governor Weld even vetoed the last mandatory seat belt
law in 1994. Surely a Republican Party leader hadn't joined the nanny
brigade!
So I retrieved a copy of his letter ... and was
stunned.
I recognize that a few CLT members don't consider the
mandatory seat belt law a tax issue, that it is outside our focus or
should be. To them I must point out that in
1996, when I was recruited by CLT, I had already twice battled mandatory
seat belt laws and had founded Freedom First, for which I was national
spokesman against mandatory seat belt laws. When I was hired by CLT's
board of directors, we merged the two organizations; Citizens for
Limited Taxation was renamed Citizens for Limited Taxation &
Government. While for simplicity we've returned to the CLT name, its
history is what it is. While I don't look to lead another charge against
mandatory seat belt laws, I will not remain silent as our liberty is
further eroded.
I was stunned not only by Governor Romney's abrupt
departure from previous governors' positions for the past 17 years since
Dukakis held the corner office, but also by his convoluted presentation.
"Although I strongly support individual freedoms and civil
liberties ..." he asserts, then goes on to assess its cost, and the
price limit he assigns to it in actual dollars!
He stumbled on: "passage of a primary seat belt law does not overturn the will of the
voters," when in fact it does exactly that. Though voters in 1994
declined to repeal the state's second mandatory seat belt law, it was at
least in part because they
had been assured over and over that it was and would remain "secondary
enforcement" -- a driver had to commit some other offense to be
stopped, and only then could be cited for not using a seat belt. Voters were sold another
bait-and-switch scam ... just as we've predicted since the law first
surfaced in 1985.
If the Legislature wants to change the rules after
the vote on the mandatory seat belt law referendum, why don't they
attempt it just as they did with another citizen-initiated ballot
question the results of which they didn't very much like either, the
Clean Elections Law? Despite their adamant opposition to the latter, at
least they put it back on the ballot in some form for the voters to
again decide.
Since 1985, we opponents have predicted that
"secondary enforcement" would inevitably evolve into
"primary enforcement" -- where simple suspicion that a driver
is not buckled-up is cause enough for a police stop. But this is not and
never has been the end-game.
The powerful insurance lobby has been behind
mandatory seat belt laws from their inception almost two decades ago,
and safety has never been its foremost concern, and never is.
Mark my words: The end-game will come only when
failure to use a seat belt is a surchargeable offense adding cost to a
violator's policy, when breaking the law is considered contributory
negligence thereby reducing or eliminating insurance company pay-outs in
the event of an accident.
After winning the repeal ballot campaign in 1987,
(like our "voluntary tax check-off" in 2000) I proposed
"The Buckle-Up Bonus Bill" -- so the losers could be winners
too -- and was strongly supported by my erstwhile opponents, the
Massachusetts Seat Belt Coalition. It would have provided insurance
premium discounts for any driver involved in an accident and found,
along with all passengers, to be using seat belts -- presumably right
there reducing potential costs resulting from that accident. A horde of
insurance industry lobbyists descended upon that Public Safety Committee
and defeated my "carrot" incentive alternative to the defeated
government "stick" approach.
Mike Dukakis and Mitt Romney, united; not a good image for
future aspirations.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
PS. As I proposed on Howie Carr's WRKO radio program
yesterday, there's a telethon every Labor Day Weekend for "Jerry's
Kids." What we need today is a post-Memorial Day Weekend telethon by
"Jerry's Kids" ... in memory of the recently-deceased Jerry
Williams, advocate of individual liberty and vocal opponent of mandatory
seat belt laws.
Today the House votes on a "primary enforcement"
law.
You can reach your state representative at the State House
by calling (617) 722-2000 and asking the switchboard operator to connect you.
Let your state rep know where you stand on this intrusion.
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Sunday, May 25. 2003
Editorial
Budget battle begins
More reform, not new fees, is the real solution
The fiscal 2004 state budget proposed by the Senate Ways & Means Committee last week is something of an improvement over the package released earlier by the House.
It offers a broader reform of the state courts; alters the payouts to police officers under the Quinn Bill and proposes much-needed restructuring in higher education, transportation and health and human services.
However, like the House budget, it does not go as far as Gov. Mitt Romney's proposals, which call for significant reform in the court system and higher education, including elimination of the University of Massachusetts president's office; a substantial increase in state employee contributions for health insurance premiums and elimination of the Pacheco law, which prohibits the privatization of some state programs and services.
The Senate budget at $23.2 billion, is about $33 million higher than the Romney budget and $100 million higher than the House budget, but includes about the same amount of money for local aid - $230 million lower than the current year.
The senators look to close up the deficit by using $175 million of the remaining $300 million of rainy day fund, a questionable move considering the possibility of future shortfalls, if the economy does not improve.
As promised, the package contains no new taxes, following the wise lead of Mr. Romney and the House. However, that enlightened decision is tainted by $500 million in outlandish new fees on insurance policies, certain business licenses and other services.
Included is a 2.3 percent fee on homeowners' insurance, charged to the insurance companies. But the companies likely would pass the charge along to policyholders, adding about $25 a year to typical premiums. The estimated $40 million generated would go into the general fund to help pay for local police and fire services, if a community requested it. Neither the insurance companies nor the homeowners receive any new services through the fee. In fact, homeowners already pay real estate taxes for local public safety.
This sound strikingly familiar to other questionable legislative proposals of the past, such as the prescription drug tax and the nursing home bed tax. We do not oppose legitimate user fees - they are much preferred to additional taxes. However, the Senate budget language clearly states that the fees will go into the general fund, where they can be used for any purpose, not just to cover the cost of the service provided.
In fact, Citizens for Limited Taxation claims some of the proposals may be illegal, based on a Supreme Judicial Court ruling involving Emerson College and the city of Boston. In that case, the court determined that the city only could charge for particular services which benefit the payer; one must be able to forgo the service, making it a "choice," and, such fees must be collected to compensate directly for the service provided, not simply to raise revenues.
Based on that ruling, Senate and House conferees should not count on balancing the budget on what could be short-lived revenues.
In fact, legislators' time would be much better spent looking for structural reform. Absent any real change, the problem of multi-billion-dollar budget shortfalls will never disappear.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Economic issues gnaw at Mass. quality of life, poll finds
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
A majority of Massachusetts residents express significant concern about the high cost of living in this state, and one in four would move away if they could, a statewide survey has found.
While roughly three out of four residents say life in Massachusetts is good to excellent, the survey of 1,001 Bay Staters by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, or
MassINC, found widespread worry about the cost of housing, health care, taxes, and higher education. In addition, one-third feel they are making little or no progress toward improving their lives.
The poll, taken in January and February, is one of the most extensive ever conducted on the quality of life in Massachusetts. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Overall, people here say they have a good life, and 59 percent are optimistic about the state's future. Most say they feel safe on the streets and express confidence in local public schools, and close to half report feeling very satisfied with their jobs.
But while a majority express general contentment, significant financial concerns are weighing on people here -- even the wealthy, according to the survey.
"People are telling us it's a good quality of life, but they see it slipping away from themselves and their children," said Larry
Hugick, vice president and director of media and political surveys for New Jersey-based Princeton Survey Research, which conducted the poll for
MassINC.
Of all issues, the high costs of housing and college seem to be major concerns for Bay
Staters, who now pay an average $350,000 for a home. Fifty-four percent of those polled cited housing cost as the policy area most in need of major improvement. And 40 percent of parents say college costs are a "big problem" for their families.
The cost of housing seems to be felt most keenly by newcomers to Massachusetts, those who arrived here within the past decade. The newcomers, a group the poll found to be highly educated and diverse both racially and ethnically, were more prone to want to leave Massachusetts than the general population. About one-third of the group said they would leave if given the opportunity, most citing the cost of living or taxes as the driving factor. Sixty-nine percent of the newcomers said housing affordability is an area in need of major improvement by policymakers.
"These are the folks we want to retain in Massachusetts, the best and the brightest," said Gloria Larson, who cochairs
MassINC. "Too large a percentage of those families, even those with a positive view, express large concerns about the cost of living and taxes. It's a clarion call to see what we can do, whether in the public or private sector."
In addition to newcomers, 41 percent of people between ages 18 and 29 said they would move from Massachusetts if they could. That was the largest percentage of any age group polled.
Economics is not the only reason some people want to leave; a quarter of those open to leaving don't like the weather, according to the poll.
Still, the trends will be unsettling to Massachusetts policymakers and lawmakers because job creation has become stagnant here, said
Hugick.
It is difficult to assess whether Massachusetts has a higher-than-typical number of residents who would leave the state if they could. Most national polls ask respondents only whether they want to leave their hometowns, not their states, Hugick said.
"It's unclear how it compares with other states," Hugick said of the results of the survey, which was underwritten by Citizens Bank. "The significance with Massachusetts is, with flat labor growth, we need to keep people in the state more than ever."
One striking result of the poll was the concern expressed by those who categorize themselves as "upper-class" about their ability to save for their children's college education, as well as their own retirement or long-term care. Only one in three in that group said they have enough money set aside for retirement or long-term medical care, and fewer than one in five believe they have enough for their child's college education.
The numbers are even lower for those who categorize themselves in the middle and working classes. Only 9 percent of self-described middle-class residents believe they have enough saved for their children's higher education, along with just 1 percent in the working class or who called themselves poor. Overall, 80 percent say they are at least somewhat concerned that they won't be able to afford to send a child to "the kind of college they would like" -- with 41 percent saying they are "very concerned."
That figure mirrors other concerns for the future of children reared in Massachusetts: 73 percent of residents worry that their children may not have good job opportunities.
But if many residents are saddled with financial concerns for themselves and their children, it has apparently not stopped them from spending on consumer goods.
The poll found that 34 percent in the state have high-speed Internet access at home, 18 percent have three or more cars, and 83 percent have cable or satellite television access.
Meanwhile, one-quarter of those polled said they have taken on more debt than they can handle, and about half said they have experienced "a lot of stress" over the last five years due to money problems.
At the local level, 49 percent of those surveyed expressed "a lot" of confidence in their police departments. Just 15 percent had high confidence in their local governments, while 28 percent had either not much or none.
Lawmakers on Beacon Hill didn't fare better. Only 10 percent of respondents say they have a lot of confidence in state government.
In regard to local school systems, urban residents were more dissatisfied than their suburban counterparts. In Boston in particular, just 17 percent of parents said they have a lot of confidence in the schools. About twice as many, 33 percent, said they have high confidence in the Boston Police Department.
Larson said she hopes the survey will act not only as a policy guide for government officials, but also as a statistical benchmark to measure progress in future years.
"Now we can look every couple years," Larson said. "MassINC's mission is all about making sure the middle-class lifestyle is an attainable goal, and what this survey says is, we have to make sure we're not pricing the middle class out of a decent life in Massachusetts. That's awfully important."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Tighter seat belt law urged for Mass.
by Elizabeth W. Crowley and David R. Guarino
Cops could soon have the right to stop motorists just for not wearing a seat belt under controversial legislation set for debate on Beacon Hill today.
Gov. Mitt Romney came out in favor of the primary seat belt law yesterday, saying the state and its residents can't afford the costs of a poor seat belt usage rate.
"I firmly believe that the commonwealth must do everything possible to prevent avoidable injuries to our citizens," Romney wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
The governor disputed arguments that the new powers could lead to an increase in police abuses, including racial profiling. He said the costs of health care, injuries and insurance premiums make unbelted drivers everyone's concern.
"It is fundamentally unfair to ask those taxpayers who wear their seat belts to shoulder the increased cost of medical bills of those who intentionally choose not to buckle up," Romney wrote.
Currently, police may only pull over and fine motorists for violating the seat belt law if they have been stopped for another violation. The "primary enforcement" bill, set to be debated in the House, would give police powers to stop a motorist merely for not wearing a seat belt.
A similar bill died in the House in May 2001 after passing the state Senate. Representatives debated the issue for hours, only to deadlock in a vote at 76-76, sending it down to defeat.
In his letter, Romney argues that the White House's proposed transportation reauthorization legislation also calls for $100 million divided by states that enact primary seat belt laws - and that Massachusetts could lose out on $10 million if the bill fails.
But many lawmakers oppose it, and promise a tough floor fight.
"The cops won't even have to lie and say your tail light was out to pull you over," said state Rep. James H. Fagan (D-Taunton).
Minority lawmakers are expected to argue that passing the law would allow racial profiling to flourish because officers could pull over anyone at any time.
State Rep. Michael E. Festa (D-Melrose) said it could be "potentially mischievous" for police officers.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Voters spoke on seat belts
The high visibility "Click It or Ticket" seat belt campaign may have the desired effect of increasing the number of Massachusetts adults using a seat belt. And that's certainly a good thing. The evidence is clear that boosting seat belt use will save lives and prevent injuries.
But whether using a seat belt is a wise personal choice has never been the central issue in this contentious debate. Instead, it is one of those questions that goes to the heart of the role government should play in mandating personal health and safety choices, and whether reasonable limits on police power should be imposed.
Tough questions, those, but they have already been answered definitively by voters. After repealing the seat belt law outright in 1986, voters agreed to let a secondary enforcement law stand in 1994.
Current law draws the line where 59 percent of Massachusetts voters said they were comfortable. Seat belts are required but police can only issue a $25 citation for a violation if the driver is pulled over for another offense. Massachusetts law also draws an appropriate distinction for children who are too young to make their own safety choices.
Opponents of the seat belt law vigorously fought for repeal in 1994, arguing that legislative
"incrementalism" would soon lead to primary enforcement. And they warned that the $25 fine would be increased, and then counted as a surchargeable offense against drivers' insurance.
Their fears may soon be realized. As the House takes up a primary seat belt law today, the question facing lawmakers is whether they will respect voters' wishes. In a chamber where laws enacted by voters have been almost routinely disregarded in recent years (clean elections, income tax rollback) this vote will say more about a philosophy of government than a position on seat belt enforcement ever could.
Return to
top
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
May 27, 2003
To: The Honorable Members of the House of Representatives:
I am writing in support of two important public safety issues, per se drunk driving legislation and primary enforcement of the use of seat belts.
Please accept my sincere gratitude for the efforts that the House of Representatives, the Committee on Criminal Justice and the Committee on Public Safety have made to work together with my Administration to enact a per se statute. I also commend the Senate for including a per se provision in its budget. The Committee on Criminal Justice is hearing per se legislation today, and I have asked Lieutenant Governor Healey as well as Secretary Grabauskas and officials from the Executive Office of Public Safety to testify on my behalf.
Drunk driving is a public safety epidemic. Our statistical record, when compared to other states, is deplorable. Approximately half of the fatalities on the roads and highways of the Commonwealth area result of alcohol. In 2001, drunk drivers killed 234 people. As elected leaders, we must do everything within our constitutional powers to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth from drunk drivers. I believe that a strong per se statute will provide safer highways for our citizens.
I am sure you will agree that, given the deadline of June 30 to qualify for approximately $2 million in federal incentive funds and the September 30 deadline to avoid punitive federal highway sanctions, it is important that the House and Senate enact a meaningful per se drunk driving law before June 30, 2003.
As the House begins debate on a per se statute this week, I respectfully request that the House membership consider the following during its debate:
It is paramount that any per se statute complies with the minimum federal standards. After reviewing the amended legislation proposed by the Committee on Criminal Justice with federal officials, we have determined that the Committee's draft language, if enacted without amendment, complies with the minimum federal standards.
I urge the House to enact meaningful per se legislation that removes the disincentive to take the breathalyzer test. The bill being considered by the Committee on Criminal Justice would increase the license suspension period for refusal of the breathalyzer test from 120 days to 180 days and decrease the penalty for taking and failing the breathalyzer test from 90 days to 30 days. Enactment of this section will decrease refusal rates and increase conviction rates for first time offenders. The legislation also includes a provision that allows for a hardship license so that first time offenders may be granted conditional licenses for work. Inclusion of these provisions is essential to provide for an effective program to significantly reduce drunk driving. I strongly urge the House to resist any efforts to weaken this portion of the legislation.
With respect to primary seat belt legislation, as you may know, Secretary Edward Flynn recently testified before the Public Safety Committee. He did not explicitly offer the Administration's support for a primary seat belt law. Today, I am offering my full support for a primary seat belt law and urge the House of Representatives and Senate to enact this important legislation this year.
After due consideration, my support is based on the following compelling factors:
1. There is a strong and clear correlation between a primary seat belt law and usage rates. As you may know, Massachusetts has one of the worst usage rates in the country. In 2000, Massachusetts was 48th in the nation with a usage rate of 50 percent; in 2001, our usage rate was 56 percent, or 46th nationally. On average, states that enact a primary enforcement law see a 12 percent increase in seat belt usage. For example, New Jersey's rose from 63 percent to 74 percent and Michigan's increased from 70 percent to 84 percent after enacting a primary seat belt law.
2. The cost of providing medical treatment for unbelted accident victims is 55 percent higher than for treating those who wear seat belts. Studies indicate that those passengers that do not wear a seat belt are increasingly likely to suffer spinal cord and head injuries. The cost of treating unbelted accident victims impacts the state's Medicaid program, the health care system in general, and health and car insurance rates. Overall, it is estimated that a primary seat belt law, and the accompanying increased usage rate, would prevent 3,000 to 4,000 injuries in Massachusetts annually.
3. President Bush's recently released SAFTEA transportation reauthorization legislation offers significant financial incentives to states that enact a primary seat belt law. Although not enacted yet, his proposed legislation would provide $100 million per year to be divided by all states that enact and enforce primary seat belt laws. While it is still unclear exactly how much money Massachusetts would receive, federal officials estimate it will be over $10 million annually. With an aging infrastructure and over 550 structurally deficient bridges, Massachusetts needs every federal highway dollar available.
Some civil libertarians and minority groups oppose primary seat belt laws. It is my understanding that civil libertarians are concerned that enactment of any seat belt law will take away our individual freedoms. Although I strongly support individual freedoms and civil liberties, in this case, I must disagree with those who oppose seat belt laws. Unbelted crash victims disproportionately receive serious spinal cord and head injuries and necessitate more extensive and long term care, the cost of which are borne by the taxpayers and insurance ratepayers. I firmly believe that the Commonwealth must do everything possible to prevent avoidable injuries to our citizens. It is fundamentally unfair to ask those taxpayers who wear their seatbelts to shoulder the increased cost of medical bills of those who intentionally choose not to buckle up.
I also understand that some minority groups are concerned with the enactment of a primary seat belt law because they feel that it may be used for racial profiling. Needless to say, my Administration is wholeheartedly opposed to racial profiling. My Administration will not tolerate a primary seat belt law to be misused for racial profiling. Rest assured, any law enforcement officer or police department that is accused of practicing racial profiling will be the subject of a thorough investigation. To that extent, I included full funding of the racial profiling law in my House 1 budget.
Lastly, passage of a primary seat belt law does not overturn the will of the
voters. The citizens of Massachusetts have voted twice on secondary seat belt laws. In 1986, the voters overturned a secondary seat belt law, but later in 1994 embraced a 1993 law passed by the General Court over Governor Weld's veto.
Again, I thank the House of Representatives for its willingness to work together on these important highway safety issues.
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney
Governor
Cc: Senate President Robert Travaglini
Minority Leader Brian Lees
Senator Thomas McGee, Chair of Criminal Justice
Senator Jarrett Barrios, Chair of Public Safety
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|