Dina Shacknai: "Parental Disclosure Act" Proposal

  • #81
Does anyone know what effect being the defendant of any kind of lawsuit has towards introducing a bill into government? I'm pretty sure you can't serve on a jury (maybe only civil, not sure about criminal) while involved in a lawsuit, so what happens when you are trying to pass something into law? I wonder if there is any history of people who have been (in any kind of court) tried for wrongful death, i.e. murder, introducing bills that would help further their agenda? I wonder if history shows some kind of precedent to someone doing such a thing? Or is it more of a Jodi Arias thing of trying to sling all kinds of mud against the murdered person while on trial? This case has certainly been in the court of public opinion for some time.

That's a great question, inthedark14.

Anyone, private citizens, nonprofits, special interest groups, corporations, etc can suggest an idea for a law. But only legislators can introduce a bill. If a sitting legislator was embroiled as a defendant in some kind of lawsuit, the degree to which he or she was able to be effective in their job as a legislator would depend on what the lawsuit was about, and what the legislator's alleged role was. He or she might be a pariah, with other legislators distancing themselves, or the lawsuit might be about something so obtuse that it escaped notice of the public and other legislators.

So, Dina herself cannot "introduce" anything into either the AZ House or the Senate. The degree to which the "idea proposer" is invited into the process of writing and promoting the bill is up to the legislator who agrees to sponsor it. And as BettyP has pointed out, Dina cannot be severed from this process for her idea for the bill. It just wouldn't work to have someone else promoting it.

The only hope Dina has, IMO, is to step away from the process all together, and persuade a legislator to take it on independently, without Max's name attached, or Dina, in any way. But that would look very odd. I suppose it "could" potentially work, though, as long as the legislator took total control and responsibility for the bill and the language as though they thought it up themselves, KWIM?

For example, if there were an idea for a bill that had to do with child safety, a legislator may choose to develop a focus group of many interested stakeholders to study the issues for a period of time, and identify priorities-- such as whether there is already something in statutory language that could be changed, or do we need a whole new law. Then the legislator would make a decision whether or not to sponsor a bill for a whole new law, or attach some things to other bills, or abandon it all together. (That is a greatly simplified explanation.)

One thing to keep in mind is that Dina doesn't just have to persuade ONE legislator of her ideas for a proposed bill. She has to make the issues palatable enough, that a bill could be written that has a chance of passing BOTH the house and senate! Once a bill is written (a process that can take a VERY long time in the case of a new law), it is submitted, numbered, read, and referred to a committee. The committee chair has a ton of power-- the chair can decide whether or not a bill gets a hearing, who gets to speak at the hearing, how long, etc. The committee votes it up or down, then it goes to the full senate (or house), and is voted up or down. (Legislators can ask questions and talk about it again before the vote.) THEN the bill has to go thru the SAME process in the house. Only when BOTH the house and senate have passed the bill, does it go to the Governor to be signed or vetoed. There is a lot more to it than that, but this is the basic process. But as you can see, you have to persuade a lot of people that "your" idea should be a law. You have to talk it up to other legislators to either get them to sign on as co-sponsors, or agree to support it and vote it up. There is a lot of "you support my issue, and I'll support yours" discussions at every state capitol.

AZ Senate has 30 members, and the House has 60. AZ has a Republican trifecta-- Governor and both houses are dominated by Republicans. This should theoretically make it easy for republican sponsored legislation to pass, but it doesn't always work that way, lol!

If Dina's idea for a bill gets introduced, it would likely go to the Health and Human Services Committee. Senator Barto is chair of that committee.

And Senator Barto is up for re-election in 2014.

I strongly agree with BettyP that this idea for a bill has almost no chance of passing even one house. However, Dina is in Senator Barto's district, so there is another possibility. Sometimes legislators introduce legislation bills that they know have no chance of passing. They do this for "show" and support for other purposes, sometimes, and sometimes they do it for their constituents. If Senator Barto DOES introduce Dina's idea for a bill, the key thing will be to watch how Senator Barto handles the bill. Does she aggressively nurture it, or let it die of benign neglect?

Roughly 1000 bills are introduced every session, and usually around 300 make it all the way thru the process. Getting a completely new law thru the process is extremely difficult, expensive, and time consuming-- and the process was meant to BE that way! To protect all of us.

And also remember that for most states (I have to check AZ), a bill that is introduced and doesn't make it all the way to being a law DIES at the end of the legislative session. Only a few states have bills held over for a second session. So if your bill doesn't make it, you have to start all over again the next session with sponsors, etc and reintroduce it, if you have enough patience and drive to send the issue up again for consideration! :seeya:
 
  • #82
I wonder how much the political history of the person proposing a bill plays a role in whether or not a legislator will support the proposal? If the person has a history of supporting one party and the legislator is from the opposing party? There is quite a bit of history on the web showing both Dina and Jonah's campaign contributions. It is an assumption, but imo from their contribution history it is easy to tell their party affiliation.
 
  • #83
I wonder how much the political history of the person proposing a bill plays a role in whether or not a legislator will support the proposal? If the person has a history of supporting one party and the legislator is from the opposing party? There is quite a bit of history on the web showing both Dina and Jonah's campaign contributions. It is an assumption, but imo from their contribution history it is easy to tell their party affiliation.

In my state, a LOT. Someone has to be very well connected up a long line of connections with everyone from lawyers, lobbyists, former office holders, state party chairperson, top party donors, judges and more (helps to have national connections too even in state biz. You never know when a favor will be needed). If the speaker of the house is in the opposite party, it also helps if he/she owes one or more of your connections a favor.
 
  • #84
snipped by me

I wonder if Rebecca Zahau knew what she was getting herself involved in. I confess, I haven't read DR's Max's act. Is there anywhere in her proposal where it say's significant others/or and not significant others are able to invade another's privacy just because one feels like it?

The news article posted in the opening post of this thread is easily understandable.

it would create a mechanism for concerned parents to run a background check on any adult who assumes a caregiving or co-living arrangement with their children – for instance, your ex-wife’s new boyfriend.
 
  • #85
Remember - if you have a question for a Moderator, send them a PM. Don't derail the thread.

Thanks,

Salem
 
  • #86
An AZ state senator was the sponsor of the bill.
 
  • #87
Does anyone know what effect being the defendant of any kind of lawsuit has towards introducing a bill into government? I'm pretty sure you can't serve on a jury (maybe only civil, not sure about criminal) while involved in a lawsuit, so what happens when you are trying to pass something into law? I wonder if there is any history of people who have been (in any kind of court) tried for wrongful death, i.e. murder, introducing bills that would help further their agenda? I wonder if history shows some kind of precedent to someone doing such a thing? Or is it more of a Jodi Arias thing of trying to sling all kinds of mud against the murdered person while on trial? This case has certainly been in the court of public opinion for some time.

Dina did not introduce the bill.
 
  • #88
An AZ state senator was the sponsor of the bill.

<modsnip> completely false, because there was no "bill" in the 2013 session, therefore there is no "sponsor" at this point in time. Maybe that will change in the 2014 session, but we aren't there yet. There was no bill matching Dina's idea submitted for the 2013 AZ legislative session in either the AZ House or AZ Senate. (Reference link below.)


Dina did not introduce the bill.

Of course, Dina did not "introduce the bill" because Dina Shacknai is not an elected legislator who is authorized by law to introduce bills in either the AZ House or Senate.

Here is a link listing of all bills introduced in the AZ 2013 legislative session. Dina's idea for a bill was not submitted, numbered, or introduced in either the AZ House or Senate.

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/51leg/1R/House/SummaryBillIndex.pdf

<modsnip>
 
  • #89
This statement in the Phoenix Magazine article is particularly, well, embarrassing for Dina. She apparently did not consult anyone knowledgeable about state government before she decided to do this interview. Because if she had, she would have been advised better about how to phrase her comments about an idea for a bill that was "in progress". With these comments, she clearly reveals her unfamiliarity with the bill-to-law process. (Or is she intentionally stating inaccuracies??)

Sponsored by State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), the bill was authored late in the 2013 legislative session and did not make it to committee before lawmakers adjourned for the year, Shacknai says. “But that’s good because we’re working to fine-tune the bill so it would be acceptable in a nonpartisan way.”

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201308/split-decision/

No one who is knowledgeable and hopes to introduce and pass an idea for a billwould state that their proposal was "authored late in the session"-- when there was clearly no realistic timeframe left for the idea/ proposal to wind thru the process in the waning days of the session. It's the same as saying "I'm not really serious about passing this idea into law", or worse, "I don't really know how the "legislature thingie" and "bill- to- law thingie" works". IMO. It made her look very foolish to those that understand the process, IMO. No one "authors a bill late in the session." And it doesn't matter if they do-- because the only authorship that really matters is authorship and sponsorship that leads to REAL submission of the idea to be considered as a bill by the entire legislature. And that clearly did NOT happen in 2013. So all of Dina's interview is merely ideological talk, without real substance or real action.
 
  • #90
Many accidents are the result of negligence. The thread is about caregivers of children. Every parent should have the right to know a caregiver's background. It sounds as though Max's mother never did find out everything she wanted to know. I have to wonder if Jonah knew everything.

JMO
Can you please be specific about what you are implying? You are besmirching a dead person's reputation to fit your narrative that she murdered a little boy. Apparently Dina found shoplifting to be the most criminal thing Rebecca had done.

What do you suppose Dina would have found if she had everything she was looking for? And what is the "everything" that you wonder if Jonah knew?

MyBelle, I have not yet seen a post from you regarding my questions from two days ago, bolded above. Would you care to respond?

:seeya:
 
  • #91
Well. I went back and read the article in the op. It didn't answer my question. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Is there a mechanism in her proposal to "run a background check" on someone's ex-wife? To be specific, would a 'girl-friend' (Rebecca) of a man twice married, twice divorced (Jonah), be able to "run a background check" on the ex-wife (Dina)?

After reading the above posts (thanks everyone!) regarding the process from beginning to end, it seems as though Dina Romano did not take the necessary steps (once again) to inform herself about it, so she may achieve her goal.

Or,

1- Hiring a PI to do a check on Rebecca is soooo much easier. The PI could also tail Rebecca.

2- Hiring a 'nanny' for Maxie.

3- Go to court, ask for slight change in the custody order, with it being, "First Right of Refusal".

I'm still baffled why that order was not included in the original custody order. Didn't Dina Romano have a famous lawyer?

ETA
Oh and BTW MyBelle, Dina Romano held much disdain towards Rebecca way before Maxie had his tragic accident.

oops, I don't have a clue what I did to mess this post up. Hahaha
 
  • #92
http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201308/split-decision/

Here is another issue to scratch our collective heads over.

Journalists are supposed to fact check their sources, and verify the truthfulness of the information that they publish. That protects their publisher, themselves, and their sources from any controversy or action for inaccuracies, right?
Craig Outhier is the author of the Phoenix Magazine article interviewing Dina about her idea for a bill, and he is also the husband of Lisa Elder Outhier, a former co-worker of Dina&#8217;s from Melmed Center.

Interviewing someone about their ideas for activism and grass roots organizing is a very fine and laudable pursuit for a journalist. However, at the point in which Dina &#8220;name dropped&#8221; Senator Nancy Barto, Craig Outhier and the Phoenix Magazine editorial staff had an obligation to fact check and verify the information that Dina was stating. And that would have been VERY easy to do, and would have given some authenticity to what is being claimed.

Craig Outhier and Phoenix Magazine editorial staff should have contacted Senator Barto for comment about the &#8220;bill&#8221; Dina was promoting and discussing. That would have served several purposes, and been respectful and ethical on the part of the Magazine, the author, the interviewee, the Senator, and the public, right?

It would have allowed Senator Barto to comment directly about Dina&#8217;s ideas for a bill. That is a win-win situation for Senator Barto AND Dina, if Senator Barto intends to support and introduce Dina&#8217;s idea for a bill in January 2014. AND it would clear up just why she has not spoken of this prospective bill publicly, or why it was not introduced it in 2013, since Dina claims the bill was &#8220;authored late in the session&#8221;.

Senator Barto could have confirmed that she was working with Dina and Maxie&#8217;s House to write and introduce this idea for a bill, and talked about how much she supports Dina&#8217;s goals and ideas for legislation, and how that would be very good for Arizonans. Or, she would have said something &#8220;else&#8221;, such as &#8220;I extend my sympathies to Dina Shacknai on the loss of her son, and I wish her well in her efforts to honor her son&#8217;s life&#8221;. Or she might have chosen not to respond for Phoenix Magazine&#8217;s request for comment. But we don&#8217;t know what her comments would have been, because Craig Outhier and his editors either chose not to publish Senator Barto&#8217;s comments (not likely), or they never contacted her office, which is much more plausible, IMO.

I wonder why Craig Outhier and the Phoenix Magazine editors chose not to contact Senator Barto for comment and fact check? Did they think no one would notice? I wonder why Craig Outhier made an error in reporting Dina&#8217;s educational degree, and didn&#8217;t correct it? This is a perfect example of irresponsible and biased journalism, tinged with the additional appearance of bias, due to Craig Outhier&#8217;s connection to Dina through his wife. IMO.

I&#8217;d be pretty unhappy about this, if I were the editor of Phoenix Magazine. The ethical thing to do is contact the Senator for comment, publish what she says, and correct the errors. IMO.
 
  • #93
Cities West Publishing Inc in Scottsdale, AZ is a private company categorized under Magazine Publishers. Our records show it was established in 1999 and incorporated in Arizona. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $20 to 50 million and employs a staff of approximately 50 to 99.

http://www.manta.com/c/mmddtxd/cities-west-publishing-inc

Cities West Publishing publishes Arizona's only two paid and audited regional magazines: PHOENIX magazine and Phoenix Home & Garden.

http://www.linkedin.com/company/cities-west-publishing

Bill Phalen is the CEO and editor of Cities West Publishing, and Phoenix Magazine.

Phalen, an Arizona resident, is CEO and chairman of Cities West Publishing Inc., which produces a number of publications including Phoenix magazine and Phoenix Home & Garden. While Phoenix magazine has been printed for more than 40 years, it has experienced a circulation and readership boom since Phalen gained an ownership interest almost a decade ago. Today, it boasts 320,000 readers.

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Bill-Phalen/968438710

http://www.usm.edu/school-of-journalism-and-media-studies/alumni/bill-phalen

Niki D'Andrea is the managing editor of Phoenix Magazine.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/niki-d-andrea/11/69a/b60?trk=pub-pbmap
 
  • #94
ETA
Oh and BTW MyBelle, Dina Romano held much disdain towards Rebecca way before Maxie had his tragic accident.

oops, I don't have a clue what I did to mess this post up. Hahaha

Link please?
 
  • #95
After reading several issues, in my opinion the magazine seems to be used to pat each other on the back. To be more precise, kind of like a "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" type of setup.
 
  • #96
Link please?

I know you're probably looking for more than this, but here is a start. I think it is significant Mary doesn't mention Jonah's first ex wife Kimberly, but she does mention Dina.

Snip - But she says it wasn&#8217;t easy for Rebecca to fit into the privileged family, which included two teenaged children from Shacknai&#8217;s first marriage; Max, 6, from Shacknai&#8217;s second marriage; and Max&#8217;s mother, Dina, Shacknai&#8217;s recently divorced second wife.

&#8220;I didn&#8217;t ever meet Jonah&#8217;s ex-wife,&#8221; says Mary. &#8220;I just know that she was making Becky&#8217;s life difficult. I think she was rude to her a lot of times, requesting that Becky not attend any function with the kids, especially Max. Things like that.&#8221;


Read more: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/sep/14/citylights2-rebecca-zahau/#ixzz2gsGYZV1F
 
  • #97
I know you're probably looking for more than this, but here is a start.

Snip - But she says it wasn’t easy for Rebecca to fit into the privileged family, which included two teenaged children from Shacknai’s first marriage; Max, 6, from Shacknai’s second marriage; and Max’s mother, Dina, Shacknai’s recently divorced second wife.

“I didn’t ever meet Jonah’s ex-wife,” says Mary. “I just know that she was making Becky’s life difficult. I think she was rude to her a lot of times, requesting that Becky not attend any function with the kids, especially Max. Things like that.”


Read more: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/sep/14/citylights2-rebecca-zahau/#ixzz2gsGYZV1F

Thank you. Did that reporter confirm the sentiment with Dina? (Since we're on the topic of responsible journalism).
 
  • #98
Thank you. Did that reporter confirm the sentiment with Dina? (Since we're on the topic of responsible journalism).

Well, IMO Mary's comment was an opinion.

Dina's comments, OTOH, about the existence of a bill, and who may or may not be sponsoring and supporting this bill are in a different category of fact and responsibility.

A journalist isn't necessarily responsible for fact checking someone's opinion, but they ARE responsible for verifying objective claims of fact. To not do so is not just unethical, but exposes the author and their editors and publisher to negative publicity and potential civil lawsuits. And it is irresponsible, IMO, to the public, whom they serve.
 
  • #99
Could we please remain on topic in this thread?

This thread is about Dina Shacknai's interview in Phoenix Magazine, and her efforts to introduce legislation.
 
  • #100
Could we please remain on topic in this thread?

This thread is about Dina Shacknai's interview in Phoenix Magazine, and her efforts to introduce legislation.

And journalistic integrity. I have plenty of opinions on that!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
2,460
Total visitors
2,568

Forum statistics

Threads
632,513
Messages
18,627,824
Members
243,174
Latest member
daydoo93
Back
Top