Wednesday, September 2, 2009

AB 590 Update: September 2, 2009

From Sacramento:

We note that the proposed AB 590 remains unchanged since August 20th, yet the bill was sent for a third reading just this week. Today we phoned Kevin Baker, Deputy Chief Counsel, who advised that the amendment removing 6159.52(b) and 6159.52(c) in their entirety is "in the works" and will be "completed in the next couple of days, before it is taken up for a vote on the Senate floor."

We understand that we will be notified once this task has been accomplished. While we are sympathic to the complexities of amendment at this late stage; we remain watchful until we receive assurance that the specific language has, in fact, been removed from text of the bill. We will post an update here on Scribe once we have been notified and confirmed the amendment to AB 590. We have been told that may happen on Monday.

We would like to thank everyone who wrote letters to ALDAP and its officers. We appreciate your support as we work to effectuate a change in California's Legal Document Assistant profession.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

How come I read yesterday on CALDAs forum from Angie Walters she said

"Further clarification of my last post.

The bill definitely has subd. (b) and (c) stricken.
(they will not be revisiting anything to do with those subdivisions, at all, notta, never again.)
However, they may review other portions of the bill.

This means the language we were concerned about is gone!

__________________________
Angie Walters, Legislative Chair
(916) 724-2627


Somebody has their news wrong! Whatever happened to basic fact checking before publishing?

Suzanne Ervine said...

We cannot, of course, tell you "why" someone posted a particular statement on the internal message forum of another association. I cannot log in to that forum so have not seen what is being discussed, and in what context.

What I can tell you, however, is that the statement you posted in this "comment" (that the issue will never be revisited in the future) conflicts with statements Kat and I have received in emails from DCC Baker. In one email, it states, in part, "the better course is simply to strike subdivisions (b) and (c) and revisit these issues in the future."

This entry here on Scribe was updated again last night upon receipt of further emails from the DCC, so I have every reason to believe this is the most up-to-date, accurate information.