When the Senate Transportation Committee Meeting convened, there were only 4 of the 9 Senate Committee members present and since ABATE spoke first, much if not all of the arguments were unheard.
But... I have been told by the PAC that all the real "politicking" is done in the halls not at the actual meetings. If that is correct, and I believe it so, then our 6 to 2 shut down speaks pretty loudly about our time and effectiveness in the halls and then Quigley's presentation would have had little effect at the actual meeting. If he was successful in turning around one vote, however, we still would have lost big time.
Interestingly, there are 266 words pertaining to the Senate Transportation Committee meeting in the PAC report (the actual report is longer and reports on other issues as well). Of those 266 words, 110 words are devoted to Richard Quigley. For my membership dues, I'd rather have read about our efforts in Sacramento such as: how many Senators the PAC met with, the nature of each relationship and conversation, why did we only have 7 witnesses compared to the opposition's 22, where are we weak, what can be improved, the history of the PAC's health insurance program that was presented by Senator Polanco at the last second, was this policy agreed on by the Board and membership or just a PAC idea..., and since we were so badly beaten... what next?
Twenty-nine (29) witnesses spoke. Of those, only 7 were pro AB-244 against an overwhelming 22. Here is the list with credentials:
Con:
Further, Senator Johnston took issue with our position on the dangers we presented about helmets. His point was embarrassingly logical. If we claim helmets are dangerous, how can we use the safety issue as a defense for a law forcing 21 and unders to wear them?
I'm not convinced we were prepared for this hearing. Granted we can't pay for the testimonies as the Insurance Industry can, but 7 to 22? You mean there aren't a couple of doctors in all of California who ride or have seen neck trauma from helmets who would testify? I asked Osborn personally if he would ask Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado to testify about his helmetless state and I was told that he (Oz) was holding that favor for the Governor's Office. I knew it then as I know it now. We'd never get out of the Senate. Imagine yourself on the Committee. How would you not side with a barage of cops, doctors, university professors, mothers, health services, insurance reps, hospital personnel, the Auto Club and a host of volunteer community clubs for God sakes? We knew the Senate was not a favorable arena and the PAC showed up with out the proper defense, plain and simple!
Well, now that the current PAC and Board have taken 244 as far as we can, it's time to consider this point and our strategies overall. And given the in-fighting on the Board, it's also time to consider changing Board personnel as well. As with any political issue, there are many sides and you will no doubt hear them all. Keep your mind open, listen to the logical ones, the concrete ones will determine reality.
So we've hit a stone wall at the Senate. But the good news comes from Florida where... a Florida Court ruled their helmet law unconstitutional! For my money, I say let's take this battle to the courts! If less than half of the Senate Committee Members don't have enough respect to show up and hear our presentations from many who traveled from all over the state, then it's pretty obvious the game is fixed and we'll be trying to climb that wall for a long long time. But we can all start working the courts today to take out the helmet law for everyone. And you can do this both as individuals and as an organization.
As you consider your place in motorcycle rights, ABATE and importantly the Board leadership, consider carefully what you want, the direction you want and who you want to represent you. Above all, study the success and precedent set in Florida. This win was also the same scenario in the win in the State of Washington.
Steven Shmerler
Back to Senate Hearing Opinions