Re: NY OPMC Bill Current Status

From: Neurolyme (Neurolyme_at_HotMail.com)
Date: 11/10/04 

Date: 9 Nov 2004 21:19:50 -0800

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0411091402.5118aad8@posting.google.com>...
> Neurolyme@HotMail.com (Neurolyme) wrote in message news:<8d125677.0411080805.33ab9f60@posting.google.com>...
> > STATUS:
> > A4274-B Gottfried (MS)
> > Public Health Law
> > TITLE....Relates to proceedings and administrative review by the state
> > board for professional medical conduct
> >
> > 02/13/03 referred to health
> > 04/30/03 amend (t) and recommit to health
> > 04/30/03 print number 4274a
> > 05/06/03 reported referred to codes
> > 05/20/03 reported referred to rules
> > 06/09/03 rules report cal.359
> > 06/09/03 ordered to third reading rules cal.359
> > 06/09/03 passed assembly
> > 06/09/03 delivered to senate
> > 06/09/03 REFERRED TO RULES
> > 01/07/04 DIED IN SENATE
> > 01/07/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
> > 01/07/04 committed to rules
> > 02/02/04 rules report cal.188
> > 02/02/04 ordered to third reading rules cal.188
> > 02/02/04 passed assembly
> > 02/02/04 delivered to senate
> > 02/02/04 REFERRED TO HEALTH
> > 06/16/04 recalled from senate
> > 06/16/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
> > 06/17/04 vote reconsidered - restored to third reading
> > 06/17/04 amended on third reading 4274b
> > 06/21/04 repassed assembly
> > 06/21/04 returned to senate
> > 06/21/04 COMMITTED TO RULES
> > 06/21/04 SUBSTITUTED FOR S4148A
> > 06/21/04 3RD READING CAL.1193
> > 06/22/04 RECOMMITTED TO RULES
> > 07/21/04 RESTORED TO THIRD READING
> > 07/21/04 PASSED SENATE
> > 07/21/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
>
> So bottom line, does the bill now require any further action by either
> house of the NY state legislature, or simply a signature by the
> Governor?
>
> According to the above, it would appear that the bill requires further
> action by the Assembly?
>
> The proponents of the bill in Lymeland previously (months ago) told
> people that Pataki's signature was required prior to the end of
> September but now say the "drop dead" date is today or tomorrow?
>
> Any clarifications if you know, thanks in advance.

Glad you asked LOL.

Those people have "dropped dead" so many times now, that they and the
bill are on life support.

A bill cannot be signed by the governor unless it is passed by both
houses and then sent to the governor by the house which first passed
the bill (Assembly in this case).

The first drop dead date that was announced by the above referenced
parties was out of ignorance that the bill had to be transmitted to
the governor, and they assumed the constitutional deadline for
passage. Other announced drop-dead dates related to actions that they
anticipated, but did not happen.

A bill might not be immediately transmitted for several reasons
(non-inclusive):

1) Bills are not ordinarily immediately transmitted since they are so
numerous that they cannot be properly addressed, so they are spaced.
Exceptions usually are budget bills, bills of high visibility/urgency,
or bills passed subject to a message of necessity. This is because
the vast majority of bills are passed in the last few days of session.
 It usually takes about 1-2 months to transmit.

2)Bills are sometimes bunched together in quids pro quo. (You can tell
me if that's the proper plural.)

3) Bills are sometimes passed in anticipation of veto in order to
placate a constituency. (2-way vs 3-way agreement in NY-speak) There
can be avoidance of transmission until a time that it will not be
noticed, or that the relevant parties are unavailable.

4)A bill may be passed either with the knowlege that the governor will
veto, or without that knowlege (except to the governor). This
sometimes leads to the hope that a deal can be made with the governor.
 Either as a quid pro quo (never public), or as an amendment. In
Lymeland, hope springs eternal. In this case, if the governor
telegraphs that he will not sign, the Assembly may reconsider the bill
and add provisions to the liking of the governor. If that happens,
the Assembly transmits the bill to the Senate and the process starts
over. The opportunity now exists for this, at least in the procedural
sense, since the legislature will probably meet again on or about Nov
18. The most recent announced drop dead date of the life support
people has to do with activities in which they are participating, not
legislative procedure.

You and I have previously discussed quite some time ago that session
ending is kept vague for political reasons, and that in this way
deadlines can be manipulated with different constitutional
consequences. I'm not going to discuss that further here.

There is almost no chance that a veto on this bill would be overridden
in spite of unanimous passage, since bills pass only at the pleasure
of the leaders, and unanimity is symbolic.

I think that's all.

Your are now a weiserman.

Relevant Pages