Dina Shacknai: "Parental Disclosure Act" Proposal

[Salem]

Let's stay on topic in here, please.

Salem

 

[MyBelle]

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.

What in the story's description of the bill is false?

 

[kittychi]

Interesting to think about the bill being in place when JS & his first wife were divorcing. Kim could have had Dina investigated since she would be around her children.

 

[K_Z]

What in the story's description of the bill is false?

Well, for starters, there never was a "bill" in the 2013 session. Just an "idea" for a "bill". It isn't a bill until it's submitted and numbered during the session. Knowledgeable folks immediately look to see what the bill's number is, so they can pull up the history, calendar, and the progress of the bill. That is the level of governmental transparency that is open to every citizen, in every state. And it takes merely seconds to search for this, once a citizen logs onto a state government website. Some states even archive video of committee hearings online.

One of the issues related to the truthfulness of Dina’s claims in the Phoenix Magazine article is whether or not Dina, or anyone from Maxie’s House BOD, has had ANY contact with State Senator Barto attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any actual, or potential legislation. It appears they have had fairly substantial contact, from, Dina’s comments in the interview. Dina says the bill she is promoting was authored late in the 2013 session, with Senator Barto as sponsor, but it “never made it to committee”.

It took me less than one minute, as I read the article the first time, to ascertain that no bill matching Dina’s description was ever submitted or numbered in the 2013 session, with or without Senator Barto as a sponsor, in either the House or Senate of the AZ legislature.

And that brings us to lobbying rules in Arizona—probably the strictest state in the nation for lobbyists. IMO, legislators get kinda cranky when they are name dropped too early in the process of developing the ideas for a bill, and then they might be less receptive when there is negative publicity. (This is “Lobbying 101”, on the “don’t do this” list.)

So you see, Dina has placed Senator Barto, AND herself, AND Maxie’s House BOD, in somewhat of a difficult position with her “name dropping” in the Phoenix Magazine article. Dina’s own words place her relationship with Senator Barto, for the purpose of influencing legislation, as early as the 2013 AZ Legislative session (Jan to May 2013, or at least 8-10 months ago).

The Phoenix Magazine article was published in August, and it is now October. As of today, no one from Maxie’s House BOD (including Dina, and Michael Chetworth, quoted in the article) is listed as a registered lobbyist. David Bodney was the only one with a record of being a registered lobbyist, and he has been terminated since January 2009, when he represented another children’s advocacy group.

http://www.azsos.gov/scripts/Lobbyist_Search.dll/ZoomLOB?LOB_ID=3206368

So, that would be pretty clearly outside of the 5 days prescribed by the AZSOS website, which opens them all up for potential sanctions (misdemeanor charges—yeesh!).

If Craig Outhier had done 15 min of internet research before he submitted his interview of Dina, he would have discovered that Senator Barto has not made any public comments, or identified Dina’s issue in any way as something she is sponsoring, or intends to sponsor in 2014. That is why it was, IMO, very important for him and his editors to reach out to Senator Barto for comment—to validate Dina’s claims, when there is no evidence of her publicly supporting this issue.

IMO, he wasn’t acting as a journalist, but more as a “transcriptionist” for whatever Dina wanted to say. That is pretty lazy “journalism”, IMO—perhaps even incompetent journalism. It is more than just a “simple” mistake.

As I said in another post, his interview was just fine right up to the point that a sitting State Senator was named as a sponsor for a bill – that never officially existed.

Lobbyists Quick Reference

DEFINITION OF LOBBYING: Attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by directly communicating with any legislator....

• Designated Lobbyist (ID number begins with 3, files financial reports quarterly): The Secretary of State’s “point of contact", who is required to file their Lobbyist Registration and Lobbyist Quarterly Expenditure Reports as well as the Principal's Registration and Annual Expenditure Reports. The Designated Lobbyist signs all reports filed for himself and for the Principal he represents. The Designated Lobbyist can be an individual or a firm whose primary professional function is lobbying in Arizona.

PRINCIPALS, PUBLIC BODIES AND THEIR LOBBYISTS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO THE FIRST LOBBYING ATTEMPT OR, IN ANY EVENT WITHIN FIVE (5) BUSINESS DAYS AFTER ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITY

http://www.azsos.gov/election/lobbyist/lobbyist_reg_reporting.htm

Info for lobbyists on AZ SOS site:

http://www.azsos.gov/election/lobbyist/

This is the AZ Lobbyists Handbook, from the AZSOS website.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/lobbyist/lobbyisthandbook.pdf

Oh- and BTW, Craig Outhier also made an error when he referred to Dina’s educational degree—which Dina herself should have made efforts to have corrected. I wonder if she has done this?

 

[MyBelle]

Well, for starters, there never was a "bill" in the 2013 session. Just an "idea" for a "bill". It isn't a bill until it's submitted and numbered during the session. Knowledgeable folks immediately look to see what the bill's number is, so they can pull up the history, calendar, and the progress of the bill. That is the level of governmental transparency that is open to every citizen, in every state. And it takes merely seconds to search for this, once a citizen logs onto a state government website. Some states even archive video of committee hearings online.

One of the issues related to the truthfulness of Dina’s claims in the Phoenix Magazine article is whether or not Dina, or anyone from Maxie’s House BOD, has had ANY contact with State Senator Barto attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any actual, or potential legislation. It appears they have had fairly substantial contact, from, Dina’s comments in the interview. Dina says the bill she is promoting was authored late in the 2013 session, with Senator Barto as sponsor, but it “never made it to committee”.

It took me less than one minute, as I read the article the first time, to ascertain that no bill matching Dina’s description was ever submitted or numbered in the 2013 session, with or without Senator Barto as a sponsor, in either the House or Senate of the AZ legislature.

And that brings us to lobbying rules in Arizona—probably the strictest state in the nation for lobbyists. IMO, legislators get kinda cranky when they are name dropped too early in the process of developing the ideas for a bill, and then they might be less receptive when there is negative publicity. (This is “Lobbying 101”, on the “don’t do this” list.)

So you see, Dina has placed Senator Barto, AND herself, AND Maxie’s House BOD, in somewhat of a difficult position with her “name dropping” in the Phoenix Magazine article. Dina’s own words place her relationship with Senator Barto, for the purpose of influencing legislation, as early as the 2013 AZ Legislative session (Jan to May 2013, or at least 8-10 months ago).

The Phoenix Magazine article was published in August, and it is now October. As of today, no one from Maxie’s House BOD (including Dina, and Michael Chetworth, quoted in the article) is listed as a registered lobbyist. David Bodney was the only one with a record of being a registered lobbyist, and he has been terminated since January 2009, when he represented another children’s advocacy group.

http://www.azsos.gov/scripts/Lobbyist_Search.dll/ZoomLOB?LOB_ID=3206368

So, that would be pretty clearly outside of the 5 days prescribed by the AZSOS website, which opens them all up for potential sanctions (misdemeanor charges—yeesh!).

If Craig Outhier had done 15 min of internet research before he submitted his interview of Dina, he would have discovered that Senator Barto has not made any public comments, or identified Dina’s issue in any way as something she is sponsoring, or intends to sponsor in 2014. That is why it was, IMO, very important for him and his editors to reach out to Senator Barto for comment—to validate Dina’s claims, when there is no evidence of her publicly supporting this issue.

IMO, he wasn’t acting as a journalist, but more as a “transcriptionist” for whatever Dina wanted to say. That is pretty lazy “journalism”, IMO—perhaps even incompetent journalism. It is more than just a “simple” mistake.

As I said in another post, his interview was just fine right up to the point that a sitting State Senator was named as a sponsor for a bill – that never officially existed.







http://www.azsos.gov/election/lobbyist/lobbyist_reg_reporting.htm

Info for lobbyists on AZ SOS site:

http://www.azsos.gov/election/lobbyist/

This is the AZ Lobbyists Handbook, from the AZSOS website.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/lobbyist/lobbyisthandbook.pdf

Oh- and BTW, Craig Outhier also made an error when he referred to Dina’s educational degree—which Dina herself should have made efforts to have corrected. I wonder if she has done this?

Again, what does the article state that you know is false? Please provide a link.

The article clearly states the bill was not going to be introduced that session so why would anyone waste their time looking for it? Senator Barto could easily ask for a correction or clarification if she wasn't happy with the article and I've seen none appear.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

Again, what does the article state that you know is false? Please provide a link.

The article clearly states the bill was not going to be introduced that session so why would anyone waste their time looking for it? Senator Barto could easily ask for a correction or clarification if she wasn't happy with the article and I've seen none appear.

JMO

BBM. The article does not say the bill was not going to be introduced. In fact, it heavily implies that it WAS introduced (written, sponsored, and "never made it to committee").

I guess the logic of the deception may difficult to understand. Let me give an analogy.

Let’s say my neighbor tells me her son isn’t going to be able to participate in his graduation ceremony at XYZ College. I might express regret and ask why. My neighbor tells me her son missed the cutoff to apply for graduation.

Then let’s suppose that I find out that her son was never enrolled as a student at XYZ College. Then it becomes VERY clear to me why my neighbor’s son isn’t participating in the graduation ceremony, and it is even clearer that his non-participation has nothing to do with missing an application cutoff date. The only thing that remains unclear is why my neighbor is telling me the fabricated story about her son missing the cutoff to apply for graduation from a school he was never enrolled in, KWIM?

1. Dina speaks of a “bill” that never existed during the legislative session.
2. Dina speaks of this bill being authored late in the session. There was no bill submitted, so when it was authored is irrelevant.
3. Dina speaks of a sponsor for the bill. There was no bill, therefore there was no official sponsor. And the person she says is the sponsor has not acknowledged, verified, or claimed this “bill”, or idea for a bill, in any public form.
4. Dina says “it never made it to committee before the legislature adjourned”. See my analogy above. It’s like my fictitious neighbor’s son who was never enrolled in XYZ College, and his mother telling me he missed the cutoff for graduation.

Dina was heavily implying that some process at the legislature prevented the bill from being assigned to committee after it was introduced. It’s a practiced and manipulative form of deception for Dina, IMO—the same thing as stating that she “took a leave of absence from her established professional practice”, when she never had a license to practice in the first place. There is a kernel of truth in all of her deceptive statements, IMO. I personally don't perceive Dina to be a truthful or trustworthy source of information, so I take a lot of what she says in interviews with a few pounds of salt and skepticism.

It's okay with me if some posters don't agree with me, or my explanations. I may never be able to provide enough rationale to persuade some posters. I strive to be accurate, and supply lots of relevant and accurate links to support my opinions. I think that is the goal of a discussion board like this one.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM.


~snipped ~

The article does not say the bill was not going to be introduced. In fact, it heavily implies that it WAS introduced (written, sponsored, and "never made it to committee").

I guess the logic of the deception may difficult to understand.

BBM. The article is very clear the bill was written and did not make it to committee. Nowhere does it imply that it was introduced to the full legislature. I do agree that the logic of deception is difficult to understand and I'll do more rolling and scrolling.

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.”

 

[screecher]

BBM. The article is very clear the bill was written and did not make it to committee. Nowhere does it imply that it was introduced to the full legislature. I do agree that the logic of deception is difficult to understand and I'll do more rolling and scrolling.

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.”

BBM in red

Link? Different from article? Perhaps from the peeps in gov?

 

[bourne]

BBM. The article is very clear the bill was written and did not make it to committee. Nowhere does it imply that it was introduced to the full legislature. I do agree that the logic of deception is difficult to understand and I'll do more rolling and scrolling.

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.”

Show us the LINK to Senator Barto's list of bills wherein the "bill" for Maxie's Law made it to the committee. Otherwise what you say is baseless opinion with zero evidence.

 

[K_Z]

BBM. The article is very clear the bill was written and did not make it to committee. Nowhere does it imply that it was introduced to the full legislature. I do agree that the logic of deception is difficult to understand and I'll do more rolling and scrolling.

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.”

BBM, with red color for emphasis.

A bill introduced by a State Senator would NEVER be "introduced to the full legislature". That is not the process in Arizona, or any other state I'm familiar with. A bill is introduced in the House or the Senate, depending on whether a State Representative or a Senator is the one sponsoring it. If Senator Barto had introduced the bill, it would ONLY have been introduced in the State Senate, and ONLY referred to a Senate committee.

So I never said that, nor did I say Dina implied that. Dina conveniently omitted the details that the "bill" was not a bill, because it was never submitted or numbered. THAT is why "it never made it to committee".

A State Senator's bill, when submitted, gets a numeric designation "SB 1234". A House bill has s designation "HB 1234".

Dina may very well be working with someone in Senator Barto's office to develop the idea to the point that it could be introduced in Jan 2014. Or she may not, and Dina may have mischaracterized whatever contact she had with the Senator or her office. The point is that Senator Barto's office has not confirmed this, and we only have Dina's word that Senator Barto is involved. That is not how legislators roll-- if they are sponsoring something, they publicize it themselves, or partner with the idea proposers. Rarely, if EVER, do state legislators give the authority to someone else to announce that they are sponsoring legislation, without confirming it publicly. And Senator Barto has said nothing about this-- and continues to remain silent about it.

And right now, IMO, that is a very awkward situation for both Dina and the Senator. If Dina is being less than truthful about the Senator's involvement and future sponsorship, or mischaracterizing whatever contact they have had, the Senator may be so annoyed that she may not have anything to do with Dina or her issues in the future.

And if Dina is being truthful, and Senator Barto IS working with Dina and the Maxie's House BOD, they are in a bit of a bad situation, because they do not have a registered lobbyist. For at least 10 months, including one legislative session. There could be uncomfortable consequences for both of them.

Either way, that makes BOTH Dina AND Senator Barto look bad. Dina did not do Senator Barto any favors by name dropping her as a "sponsor" in the way that she did in that interview.

And we haven't even factored in the controversies and the WDS Dina is currently embroiled in.

That is why this is such an interesting dilemma-- is Dina telling the truth about her relationship with Senator Barto? It should be very easy to establish.

Dina, or the Phoenix Magazine, should simply ask Senator Barto to make a statement to the media, or do a press conference with her, stating that the Senator is intending to sponsor this legislation in January 2014, and that she is working with Dina and Maxie's House to develop a bill. That is all it would take to clear this up. I just keep wondering why it hasn't happened so far?

 

[screecher]

Bringing my old post over. (The discussion was in response to the video released by Maxie's House on Youtube, "Parental Disclosure Act". (Link in first post in this thread.)

Old 03-13-2013, 11:00 AM
K_Z

This ^^^

 

[MyBelle]

This ^^^

Here is a link that is designed to aid school children in learning about the Arizona process for introducing a bill. A bill isn't assigned a number until it is introduced to the full legislature. Hope this helps clear the confusion.

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/hbillaw.pdf

 

[screecher]

Who is confused? Not this poster.

Perhaps Dina Romano ought to sit in on those classes? So she may learn the proper steps to succeed in any endeavor she chooses?

K_Z explanations are awesome!

Thanks K_Z! :rockon:

 

[*Lash*]

Respectfully snipped -

And right now, IMO, that is a very awkward situation for both Dina and the Senator. If Dina is being less than truthful about the Senator's involvement and future sponsorship, or mischaracterizing whatever contact they have had, the Senator may be so annoyed that she may not have anything to do with Dina or her issues in the future.

And if Dina is being truthful, and Senator Barto IS working with Dina and the Maxie's House BOD, they are in a bit of a bad situation, because they do not have a registered lobbyist. For at least 10 months, including one legislative session. There could be uncomfortable consequences for both of them.

Hi KZ!

I missed the class on the consequences of not having a registered lobbyist? Could you reiterate, please? TIA

In my opinion, Dina simply dropped Senator Barto's name. It reminds me of the picture of Dina standing in front of her dressing room door at the Dr. Phil show.

 

[bourne]

Here is a link that is designed to aid school children in learning about the Arizona process for introducing a bill. A bill isn't assigned a number until it is introduced to the full legislature. Hope this helps clear the confusion.

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/hbillaw.pdf

Finally, a relevant link! So glad you found one.

"Arizona Bill is introduced in the House by a Member, a group of Members, a Standing Committee or a Majority of a Committee, after being written in proper form by the Legislative Council."

Ok, so where's the proof that an Arizona Bill reflecting Maxie's Law was written up, accepted, being reviewed and being *sponsored* by Senator Barto?

 

[K_Z]

Respectfully snipped -



Hi KZ!

I missed the class on the consequences of not having a registered lobbyist? Could you reiterate, please? TIA

In my opinion, Dina simply dropped Senator Barto's name. It reminds me of the picture of Dina standing in front of her dressing room door at the Dr. Phil show.

Thanks for asking, Lash.

Arizona has some of the strictest lobbying laws and penalties in the nation. It seems to me that they take lobbying very seriously in Arizona, or they would not have set up a system that can impose criminal penalties. That would certainly catch my attention if I were attempting to influence legislation in Arizona, especially since I hold several professional licenses. (See the links below on licensed professionals and criminal charges.) It’s always good to know what the rules (and penalties) are, before one decides to break them, IMO.

This is from page 14 of the AZ Secretary of State ”Lobbyist Made EZ” Handbook:

http://www.azsos.gov/election/lobbyist/lobbyisthandbook.pdf

What is the penalty for a violation of the lobbyist laws?

A knowing violation of any of the lobbyist laws is a Class 1 misdemeanor, unless another penalty is specifically prescribed.

The Secretary of State is required to refer matters to the Attorney General for enforcement when the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe a person is violating any provision of the lobbyist statutes.

The following links (laws) are exempt from copyright, so I will copy in their entirety.

Arizona Class 1 Misdemeanors:

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/13_707.htm

13-707. Misdemeanors; sentencing

A. A sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be for a definite term to be served other than a place within custody of the state department of corrections. The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the following maximum limitations:

1. For a class 1 misdemeanor, six months.

2. For a class 2 misdemeanor, four months.

3. For a class 3 misdemeanor, thirty days.

B. A person who is at least eighteen years of age or who has been tried as an adult and who stands convicted of any misdemeanor or petty offense, other than a traffic offense, and who has been convicted of one or more of the same misdemeanors or petty offenses within two years next preceding the date of the present offense shall be sentenced for the next higher class of offense than that for which the person currently is convicted. Time spent incarcerated within the two years next preceding the date of the offense for which a person is currently being sentenced shall not be included in the two years required to be free of convictions.

C. If a person is convicted of a misdemeanor offense and the offense requires enhanced punishment because it is a second or subsequent offense, the court shall determine the existence of the previous conviction. The court shall allow the allegation of a prior conviction to be made in the same manner as the allegation prescribed by section 28-1387, subsection A.

D. A person who has been convicted in any court outside the jurisdiction of this state of an offense that if committed in this state would be punishable as a misdemeanor or petty offense is subject to this section. A person who has been convicted as an adult of an offense punishable as a misdemeanor or petty offense under the provisions of any prior code in this state is subject to this section.

E. The court may direct that a person who is sentenced pursuant to subsection A of this section shall not be released on any basis until the sentence imposed by the court has been served.

Incidentally, for licensed health care professionals, such as Psychologists, there is mandatory reporting of criminal charges to the state licensing board, including misdemeanors. And it isn’t really up to the individual licensee to determine what misdemeanors may affect patient safety or not—any attorney will advise a licensee to err on the side of caution and report any misdemeanors and let the Board decide if disciplinary action is required.

http://www.psychboard.az.gov/agency/generalContentPage.asp?pageID=2#

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/32/03208.htm&Title=32&DocType=ARS

32-3208. Criminal charges; mandatory reporting requirements; civil penalty

A. A health professional who has been charged with a misdemeanor involving conduct that may affect patient safety or a felony after receiving or renewing a license or certificate must notify the health professional's regulatory board in writing within ten working days after the charge is filed.

B. An applicant for licensure or certification as a health professional who has been charged with a misdemeanor involving conduct that may affect patient safety or a felony after submitting the application must notify the regulatory board in writing within ten working days after the charge is filed.

C. On receipt of this information the regulatory board may conduct an investigation.

D. A health professional who does not comply with the notification requirements of this section commits an act of unprofessional conduct. The health professional's regulatory board may impose a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars in addition to other disciplinary action it takes.

E. The regulatory board may deny the application of an applicant who does not comply with the notification requirements of this section.

F. On request a health profession regulatory board shall provide an applicant or health professional with a list of misdemeanors that the applicant or health professional must report.

I don't know how often Arizona has chosen to bring Class 1 misdemeanor charges against illegal lobbyists, but the serious penalties are pretty clearly designed to be a potent deterrent against illegal lobbying of any kind, and an incentive to follow the lobbyist laws.

 

[kittychi]

Everyone who is sticking their neck out for Dina might want to get an update on the truth so as not to look too foolish!

 

[MaybeNotToday]

Everyone who is sticking their neck out for Dina might want to get an update on the truth so as not to look too foolish!

Have you read the book yet Kittychi? Would you consider that the truth?

 

[kittychi]

Have you read the book yet Kittychi? Would you consider that the truth?

No, I have not read the book yet.

I was talking about "Parental Disclosure Act" Proposal, which is what this thread is about.

People are going to bat for Dina based on what she has said about her bill. I am just suggesting that they may want to be sure they are getting the straight scoop instead of depending on Dina for info on the status of the bill.

 

[K_Z]

I thought it could be helpful to look at the progress of one of Senator Barto’s sponsored bills from the 2013 AZ legislative session, as a comparison to illustrate how very difficult the process will be for Dina’s idea for a bill to pass both houses within one legislative session.

SB 1072 was written to address the issues surrounding moving/ relocation of parents in co-parenting divorce situations. Basically, how the notification would be done, and where the “magic line” is for moving within AZ.

This type of bill is “roughly” equivalent to what Dina is proposing, in that it is a proposal for an entirely new “stand alone” law, related to co-parenting in divorce, and requires notification and cooperation of the co-parent. IMO, it is substantially more objective and straight forward than Dina’s proposal, and this bill still did not make it to becoming law within one legislative session. And this bill had a very large Relocation Work Group for about 2+ years, working out the difficulties of the issues, and the minutiae of the proposed bill language, before the bill was introduced.

From comments in the linked video of the first hearing (below), there were at least 4-6 family court judges on the large Relocation Work Group, in addition to family court attorneys, child advocacy group reps, domestic violence advocacy reps, divorced parents, etc. Despite this robust and diverse group of stakeholders, SB 1072 failed to complete the process in both houses, and did not advance (did not become law).

Senator Barto sponsored SB 1072 in 2013. We know without even looking up dates that it was submitted very early in the legislative session, from the low number of the bill (#72 of 1493 bills submitted in the AZ Senate 2013 session.) Knowing it was submitted early means the sponsor, Senator Barto, was giving the bill the maximum amount of time to make it thru the entire process in both houses within the session, since a bill dies at the end of the session if it isn’t passed. That alone shows a commitment to the bill on the part of the sponsor, who paved the way for this bill to have the best possible chance at passing both houses during the 5 month session (Jan 14 to June 14, 2013).

And the very large Relocation Work Group, with their substantial and lengthy study of the issues contributed to her efforts to launch the bill with the greatest chance of passage.

Here is the text of SB 1072—it’s short, only 3 pages, and an easy read. Pay attention to stricken language, and amended language. (The BLACK text is the original text, lol!)

http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1072/id/792313

And here is a link to the progress of the bill, showing the dates of action in both houses. SB 1072 was introduced January 17—the 3rd day of the session. It was “live” for almost the entire session.

http://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1072/2013

It passed thru the Senate (albeit narrowly), and had its 3rd reading March 18, and was sent to the House the next day. Still with almost 3 months left in the session, and it failed to complete the process. It would be interesting to see if it is introduced in 2014—the areas of disagreement seemed “fixable” to me.

Here is very interesting (lol! I think it is interesting!) archived video of the first committee meeting hearing of this bill, with participation and comments from Senator Barto. This bill comprises about the first 40 min of video. I think this is helpful to see how Senator Barto has handled introduction of a “divorced parents’ issues” bill. It also may be interesting and helpful to anyone who has not had opportunity to attend a state government committee hearing on a bill.

If Dina’s idea for a bill becomes an introduced bill in the next AZ legislative session, the archived committee hearings will be available for anyone to view on the web.

At this point, I also wonder if there is any kind of working group examining the issues Dina has raised in her ideas for legislation, such as the Domestic Relations Subcommittee mentioned in testimony?

And I also wonder if Dina’s idea for a bill is introduced and gets a committee hearing, will Jonah testify at all? And if he does, will he testify for, or against Dina’s idea for the bill?! That would make for an interesting committee hearing, IMO!

Pour a cuppa your favorite beverage if you choose to watch. It’s a fairly typical (IMO) hearing, with testimony both for and against. IMO, the “against” testimony raises very pertinent and interesting issues from attorneys and domestic violence advocates, while the “for” testimony is very straight forward testimony from divorced spouses.

http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=11693