Re: NY OPMC Bill Current Status

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

Date: 10 Nov 2004 11:59:39 -0800

Weisman-

I think if you had read this in its entirety and more carefully before
picking it apart, you would have fewer questions. Most of the answers
are built in to my original response. I'll try to fill in some of the
gaps below.

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0411100603.292f750a@posting.google.com>...
> Neurolyme@HotMail.com (Neurolyme) wrote in message news:<8d125677.0411092025.7ecf991e@posting.google.com>...
> > 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).
>
> Ok but I think you misunderstood my first question. From the
> chronology of events that you provided above, it appears that after
> the bill passed the Senate, it was returned to the Assembly.
>
> There is nothing after that.

There is nothing after that, since the Assembly never sent the bill to
the governor, perhaps for one of the reasons listed below. The most
recent amended version was passed by the Assembly as a4274b, followed
by the passage of the Senate companion bill - s4148a. The bill, as is
usual, was returned to the Assembly for transmission to the governor.
As explained below, there are alternatives. Only companion bills are
listed on a given status list. There are other status lists for other
related, but not identical, or not passed, OPMC bills.

>
> Was the bill subsequently transmitted by the Assembly to the Governor
> for signature?

No

>
> In fact, preliminary to that, was the version of the bill that passed
> the Senate, identical to the one passed in the Assembly on 6/21 or did
> the Senate pass a different version? If it was different, I assume it
> requires resubmission for passage in identical version again by the
> Assembly? Alternatively does NY have a "conference" system whereby the
> two chambers appoint a joint committee to iron out the differences?
>
> In other words, is there a bill that has passed both houses of the NY
> State legislature in identical version which even could be submitted
> to the Governor for passage?

The bills being discussed are companion bills which were passed in
both houses, and there is no established conference system. Which
allows for diminished openess in NY.
 
>
> And has the bill even been submitted to the Governor for signature?

NO, no, no.

>
> If not, are the Lyme activists once again sending everyone off on a
> wild snipe hunt?

You would have to ask them. A good guess would be that they deem this
to be a good negotiating tactic with reference to #4 - below.

>
> And is it accurate that the bill had to have been signed yesterday or
> it died?

NO.

>
> > The first drop dead date that was announced by the above referenced
> > parties was out of ignorance
>
> There seems to be an endless supply of that.
>
> You'd think that after more than five years at this, even a novice
> like E L would have learned at least the first and most basic
> fundamentals?
>
> I guess she's been too busy issuing action alerts to get the first
> clue?
>
> >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.
>
> For example? Not sure I follow

You "yourself" just refered to all the action alerts.

>
> > A bill might not be immediately transmitted for several reasons
> > (non-inclusive):
>
> See above. Has the bill been transmitted? Is there a bill that can be
> submitted that has passed both houses in identical form?
>
> Even more basic, why should Lyme patients support this bill that has
> nothing to do with Lyme and may protect bad doctors? Why is it touted
> as doing things that it clearly doesn't do?

I am not the one to ask these questions. Perhaps you could ask EL et
al.?

>
> > 1) Bills are not ordinarily immediately transmitted since they are so
> > numerous that they cannot be properly addressed, so they are spaced.
>
> Why "too numerous to be properly addressed"? Is there a time limit
> after submission that the Governor has to sign or veto a bill? Is
> there a "pocket veto" and what happens during adjournments of the
> legislature?

These items will be addressed in the course "NY Legislative Procedure
102", which will be offered next year. You are now auditing 101.

>
> What is the process, if any, for the legislature to override a
> gubenatorial veto?

Totally not relevant in this case.

>
> > 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.
>
> Why so long?

>
> > 2)Bills are sometimes bunched together in quids pro quo. (You can tell
> > me if that's the proper plural.)
>
> I could tell you if I knew? One dictionary I accessed provided this:
>
> pl. quid pro quos or quids pro quo
>
> So either appears to be correct.

Thank you. It's good to be correct.

>
> > 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.
>
> LOL Do ya think?
>
> > 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.
>
> What activities are you referring to?

Ask them.

>
> > 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.
>
> I don't recall such a discussion however it is of no moment.

What is "no moment"?

>
> > 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.
>
> Please see above. Is there a bill that has been passed in identical
> version that can be submitted to the Governor?

Already answered ad nauseum.

>
> In the current form is the bill (1)worthy of support? What does it do for
> (2)Lyme patients or (3)their doctors? (4)Does it protect bad doctors in an
> effort to provide dubious protections for those so called llmds?

1)you decide
2)nothing, except to the extent that it may minimally help their
doctors.
3)minimal protections
4)Yes, it could be interpreted in that way.

>
> Is FAIM still involved with this? Does FAIM still exist? What about
> their lobbyist?

Ask FAIM

>
> It is true that a professional lobbyist was hired in the summer by
> ILADS? What did he do?

Do your own homework.

>
> What about the famous Dr D from SUNY? I hear there are some
> developments worthy of note?

Who?

>
> Is that merely a professional change of locales for him or was he
> given the bum's rush out? If so, why?
>
> Dish, please.
>
> > Your are now a weiserman.
>
> With every passing day.

End of discussion.

Relevant Pages