Here is the roll call vote for the Motion to Discharge the Health Care Amendment from Committee. The motion required a 2/3 vote to discharge and failed 92-101. The HCA Campaign wants to thank those legislators who cast a courageous vote to discharge the HCA from committee over the objection of leadership. You have our respect and gratitude.
Please share widely!
My Rep. voted nay. Say it ain’t so, Koutoujian.
my rep jeffrey sanchez AND my senator dianne wilkerson BOTH voted nay as well. sickening. sanchez has a solid track record of bowing to “leadership” but wilkerson used to consistently stand up and do what she said she would do. like when she held firm and voted against sending the hca to study back in july. now it looks like her tune is changing – i wonder what deal was made, what she was told she’ll get in return for her “good girl leadership vote”.
<
p>
i’ll post the answers i get from my leges on this, if they even respond-sanchez usually does not.
<
p>
it would be very instructive and constructive if others would post responses from leges as well.
<
p>
and please make a quick thank you message call (617-722-2000 state house) for yes votes – likely that those leges voted the right way for human rights on the gay marraige item too, so a double thanks would be in order – oh i how i wish i could make that call to my own leges…
I was planning on drafting e-mail correspondence to Kay Khan and Koutoujian at lunch. Pete is one of the primary architects, and big backer, of the new health care legislation. I could see why a yes vote would fly in the face of that to some degree. But you’ve got to move it out of committee. Again, Article 48 is terribly written, with absolutely no provisions contained for failure to move it out of committee in a timely fashion.
<
p>
Although I’m not in Kay Khan’s district, she’s a Newton rep. and I respect her greatly. I don’t understand her vote and would like an explanation. If I get one, I’ll publish it.
“Because…we…can.”
well, maybe I didn’t really mean honest as in a non-politician’s “honest” answer, maybe I meant “see if you can get any answer at all!”.
<
p>
thanks for the reality check. what a world. at least it’s not static. our species is evolving, right?
“…likely that those leges voted the right way for human rights on the gay marraige item too”
<
p>
Don’t thank everyone yet. Correia, D-Fall River and Casey, D-Winchester voted the right way on HC, but both continue to be anti-equality. Sure there are a few more.
so i’m printing out both roll call vote results to have in front of me as i make calls.
<
p>
btw did any other amendments die for lack of a 2nd required vote? e.g. the finneran rainy day fund item?
Voted yes on anti-marriage, no on health care.
<
p>
Awful.
He seems quite ensconsed. He’s chair of the Medford Democrats, too.
I’m active on my ward committee and know a LOT of Democrats (more active recently) who would be glad to find someone to replace Donato. We’ve started to have serious discussions about this seat and potential for a progressive gain. Anyone in Medford/Malden care to help?
I’m in. Let the draft Charley movement begin.
<
p>
PS – If you don’t run I will!
I’m not sure a group to “defeat” Donato would be the best approach. That seems too personal. I think a group created around change and a specific set of goals that would either endorse or run a candidate against Donato might work better. This leaves the door open for Donato to change his views and for this group to endorse him – however unlikely that may be.
There must be more ‘Process Conservatives’ out there than you guys think – the entire GOP Caucus voted Yes! So maybe they DID care about the SJC ruling?
<
p>
Of the Cape Dems, Atsalis and Turkington voted No, and Turner and Patrick voted Yes.
In the Senate, only two of five voted Yes. Perhaps the House caucus hadn’t let the Senate side know what the Process was…
Sorry, I missed one R in a sea of Ds on the Senate side.
Both Marie Parente and Emile Goguen, who are supposed to “let the people vote” both voted yes on the marriage amendment and no on the health care amendment.
although somehow i’m not surprised at their hypocracy.
Here are the good guys – the legislators who voted against the same-sex marriage amendment and for the health care amendment (thankfully, both of my legislators are on this list):
<
p>
HOUSE
Cory Atkins D-Concord
Ruth B. Balser D-Newton
Jennifer M. Callahan D-Sutton
Joseph R. Driscoll D-Braintree
James B. Eldridge D-Acton
Christopher G. Fallon D-Malden
Barry R. Finegold D-Andover
Linda Dorcena Forry D-Boston
Anne M. Gobi D-Spencer
Mary E. Grant D-Beverly
Dennis Guyer D-Dalton
Bradford Hill R-Ipswich
Kevin G. Honan D-Boston
Bradley H. Jones Jr. R-North Reading
Louis L. Kafka D-Sharon
Jay R. Kaufman D-Lexington
John Keenan D-Salem
Peter V. Kocot D-Florence
James Brendan Leary D-Worcester
David P. Linsky D-Natick
Barbara A. L’Italien D-Andover
James J. Marzilli Jr. D-Arlington
Michael J. Moran D-Boston
Patrick Natale D-Woburn
Harold P. Naughton Jr. D-Clinton
Matthew Patrick D-Falmouth
Anne M. Paulsen D-Belmont
Alice H. Peisch D-Wellesley
Douglas W. Petersen D-Marblehead
Denise Provost D-Somerville
John F. Quinn D-Dartmouth
Tom Sannicandro D-Ashland
John W. Scibak D-South Hadley
Carl Sciortino D-Somerville
Frank Israel Smizik D-Brookline
Robert P. Spellane D-Worcester
Christopher N. Speranzo D-Springfield
Thomas M. Stanley D-Waltham
Ellen Story D-Amherst
David B. Sullivan D-Fall River
Benjamin Swan D-Springfield
Kathleen M. Teahan D-Whitman
Timothy J. Toomey Jr. D-Cambridge
Cleon Turner D-Dennis
Marty Walz D-Boston
Alice K. Wolf D-Cambridge
<
p>
SENATE
Edward M. Augustus D-Worcester
Jarrett T. Barrios D-Cambridge
Cynthia Stone Creem D-Newton
Susan C. Fargo D-Lincoln
Patricia Jehlen D-Somerville
Brian A. Joyce D-Milton
Thomas M McGee D-Lynn
Mark C. Montigny D-New Bedford
Robert D. O’Leary D-Barnstable
Marc R. Pacheco D-Taunton
Pamela P. Resor D-Acton
Bruce E. Tarr R-Gloucester
Richard R. Tisei R-Wakefield
Steve A. Tolman D-Boston
Susan C. Tucker D-Andover
Wow. This list includes: 1) every current member of the legislature whose election I have campaigned for (Carl Sciortino, Pat Jehlen, Denise Provost)
(and I bet the ones I campaigned for who didn’t win, like Tim Schofield and Claire Naughton and Sonia Chang-Diaz, would’ve been on this list too)
<
p> 2) every legislator whose district I have ever lived in (Frank Smizik, Ruth Balser, Pat Jehlen, Tom Stanley, Denise Provost, Tim Toomey, Marty Walz, Cynthia Creem, Susan Fargo) with one exception (Trav).
<
p>
Upset at the legislature, happy with my legislators.
Perhaps, Cos, we should get you to move every 6 months and all our legislative problems would be over.
What we really need is for every candidate I campaign for, to win! 🙂
Unless it escaped your tunnel-visioned notice Tim Schofield’s equally progressive opponent who defeated him in the primary is on that list and is one of the good guys.
<
p>
Tim is now a Moran supporter and has buried the hatchet.
Why can’t you?
And here are the Democratic legislators who voted for the SSM amendment and against the HCA (booooo!!!):
<
p>
HOUSE
Bruce J. Ayers D-Quincy
John J. Binienda D-Worcester
Christine E. Canavan D-Brockton
Gale D. Candaras D-Wilbraham
Geraldine Creedon D-Brockton
Sean Curran D-Springfield
Paul J. Donato D-Medford
James H. Fagan D-Taunton
David L. Flynn D-Bridgewater
Colleen M. Garry D-Dracut
William G. Greene Jr. D-Billerica
Michael F. Kane D-Holyoke
Paul Kujawski D-Webster
William Lantigua D-Lawrence
James R. Miceli D-Wilmington
James M. Murphy D-Weymouth
David M. Nangle D-Lowell
Robert J. Nyman D-Hanover
Thomas M. Petrolati D-Ludlow
Angelo M. Scaccia D-Boston
Joyce A. Spiliotis D-Peabody
Walter F. Timilty D-Milton
A. Stephen Tobin D-Quincy
Anthony J. Verga D-Gloucester
<
p>
SENATE
Robert S. Creedon D-Brockton
Richard T. Moore D-Uxbridge
Steven C. Panagiotakos D-Lowell
Robert E. Travaglini D-Boston
Truly, WTF. How do you allow a vote for one then vote to adjourn on the HCA? What is the thought process?
These are the Democratic legislators who voted against the SSM amendment AND the HCA:
<
p>
HOUSE
Demetrius J. Atsalis D-Hyannis
Garrett J. Bradley D-Hingham
Arthur J. Broadhurst D-Methuen
Antonio F. D. Cabral D-New Bedford
Stephen R. Canessa D-New Bedford
Michael A. Costello D-Newburyport
Robert K. Coughlin D-Dedham
Robert A. DeLeo D-Winthrop
Brian S. Dempsey D-Haverhill
Salvatore F. DiMasi D-Boston
Christopher J. Donelan D-Orange
Mark V. Falzone D-Saugus
Robert F. Fennell D-Lynn
Michael E. Festa D-Melrose
Jennifer Flanagan D-Leominster
Gloria L. Fox D-Boston
William C. Galvin D-Canton
Thomas A. Golden Jr. D-Lowell
Patricia A. Haddad D-Somerset
Geoffrey D. Hall D-Westford
Lida E. Harkins D-Needham
Rachel Kaprielian D-Watertown
Thomas P. Kennedy D-Brockton
Kay Khan D-Newton
Robert M. Koczera D-New Bedford
Peter J. Koutoujian D-Waltham
Stephen Kulik D-Worthington
Stephen P. LeDuc D-Marlboro
Elizabeth A. Malia D-Boston
Ronald Mariano D-Quincy
Charles A. Murphy D-Burlington
Kevin J. Murphy D-Lowell
Thomas J. O’Brien D-Kingston
Eugene L. O’Flaherty D-Chelsea
Vincent A. Pedone D-Worcester
Anthony Petruccelli D-Boston
Kathi-Anne Reinstein D-Revere
Robert Rice D-Gardner
Michael J. Rodrigues D-Westport
John H. Rogers D-Norwood
Byron Rushing D-Boston
Jeffrey Sanchez D-Boston
Theodore C. Speliotis D-Danvers
Harriett L. Stanley D-West Newbury
Marie P. St.Fleur D-Boston
William M. Straus D-Mattapoisett
David M. Torrisi D-North Andover
Eric Turkington D-Falmouth
Joseph F. Wagner D-Chicopee
Patricia A. Walrath D-Stow
Martin J. Walsh D-Boston
Steven M. Walsh D-Lynn
James T. Welch D-West Springfield
<
p>
SENATE
Robert A. Antonioni D-Leominster
Steven A. Baddour D-Methuen
Frederick E. Berry D-Peabody
Stephen M. Brewer D-Barre
Stephen J. Buoniconti D-West Springfield
Harriette L. Chandler D-Worcester
John A. Hart D-Boston
Robert A. Havern D-Arlington
Joan M. Menard D-Somerset
Therese Murray D-Plymouth
Stanley C. Rosenberg D-Amherst
Karen E. Spilka D-Ashland
James E. Timilty D-Walpole
Dianne Wilkerson D-Boston
Thanks for these 3 tallies!!! i’m trying so so hard not to have a leaden heart, so fodder for the fight really helps…
(these are the Democrats only)
<
p>
HOUSE
Paul C. Casey D-Winchester
Robert Correia D-Fall River
John P. Fresolo D-Worcester
Frank M. Hynes D-Marshfield
Michael F. Rush D-Boston
James E. Vallee D-Franklin
Brian P. Wallace D-Boston
(the following legislators are not returning)
Shirley Owens-Hicks D-Boston
Marie J. Parente D-Milford
Philip Travis D-Rehoboth
<
p>
SENATE
Michael W. Morrissey D-Quincy
Stan is my senator, a great champion of SSM, and on this list. I expect his reasoning is that he opposed the health care initiative on the merits (I asked him why, if so) and had no problem using a procedural weapon against it that he would have used (and may yet use) against the anti-SSM amendment. We’ll see what he says.
Stan answered by return email within a few minutes. I’m not sure it’s proper to quote his email verbatim, so I’ll paraphrase:
<
p>
1) On the merits, while he favors health care he is not ready to privilege it over housing, education, and environment in the constitution while the universal health care bill has a chance to work. He voted for it before to help prod the legislature toward the universal health care bill.
<
p>
2) He was disappointed that the health care initiative advocates filed a brief in favor of the bad guys’ position before the SJC, and was thus in no mood to help them out (though he might have done had it been closer).
<
p>
He didn’t answer my question about the amendment directly, but I think it follows from the above that he is not very concerned with the right of enough petitioners, plus a quarter of the legislature, to put an amendment on the ballot. You can certainly disagree with his position, but I don’t think it’s inconsistent, as the title of the comment listing this category implies.
He added later that he disagrees with the 50-vote provision of Article 48 and is filing legislation to change this (by constitutional amendment).
Isn’t it the case that legislators from across the ideological spectrum are still backing the health care reform law, as is, last I heard, Governor Patrick? (Recall during the primary debates, when CG said the Connector’s numbers weren’t going to work, and DP said the political compromise was too delicate to mess with until the law was given a chance).
<
p>
And is it possible that an HCA moving forward could undermine the difficult process of making the law work? Perhaps the HCA would do nothing more than give constitutional teeth to the new law. But given the anxiety over the frailty of the compromise (translation: big biz has veto power), I can see how they would be hesitant to change the dynamics at all.
<
p>
I haven’t seen this potential conflict discussed on BMG (correct me if I’m wrong), except in AnnEm’s very informative posts, where she makes the case that the Mass. law is no substitute for single-payer.
<
p>
But I haven’t heard or seen many others come out against it.
<
p>
How widespread among progressives is this outrage over keeping a lid on the HCA?
<
p>
Is it just about hypocrisy? Then it only applies to those who voted to move the anti-marriage amt. but not the HCA.
<
p>
I’d like to hear whether backers of the new health care law are okay with a 2008 referendum on HCA.
The reasons for leaving in committee:
<
p>
1. The Legislature passed comprehensive health care access, cost and quality reform in April, 2006 and the law is now being implemented over the next year. The Legislature wants to see how this rolls out and what changes might be needed to bring about universal health coverage before placing a basic rule in the Constitution.
<
p>
2. There is serious concern that the health care amendment would lead to extensive and costly litigation by some who may feel that they aren’t getting everything that they believe the amendment would guarantee. This could waste money on both sides of any such debate that could be better spent on providing health care.
<
p>
3. There is also concern that, it could crowd out of the budget other important programs beyond education that is now “protected” in the Constitution and health care that would be “protected” in the Constitution of funds got especially tight during a recession.
<
p>
4. There has been at least one legal brief presented suggesting that, since the Supreme Judicial Court, ruled that Massachusetts is in compliance with the education guarantees of the constitution, even though many believe education is not fairly and adequately funded, that the amendment for health care – based as it is on the education amendment — would not offer any greater protection than what people are now getting through the new health care reform law.
In other words, yes, he opposed it on the merits, and didn’t have a problem with using procedural tools – or he saw the procedural vote as actually being in substance a vote on the merits of the amendment and voted based on that.
<
p>
2. yeah right, as my neices might say. like hc financing and spending at present is oh so prudent and guided by stewardship in both the public and private realms. gimme a break. we’re all getting soaked thru the nose on hc spending in this state, double and triple times over–the state budget (hc is the largest item by far), unremitting insurance premium increases while their “non-profit” ceo’s rake in over $1mil up to $3mil in annual salaries and they spent $7.5 last year alone in lobbying the lege on chap 58, and constant cost-shifting on to individuals in a very unequitable manner. gee, i guess we should not attempt to set clear and enforcable hc system standards since some people might disagree. gosh, thanks for setting me straight on that. i’ll go tell the folks in MA for whom lack of affordable insurance is the 3rd leading cause of death (folks aged 55-64), many of them who are likely to be forced into the position of submitting reams of paperwork to be shuffled through the new layers of state hc bureaucracy that must be created to grant “permission to remain uninsured” under the new individual mandate in chap 58.
<
p>
3. one of the most major components of the HCA is establishing standards to establish an affordable and equitably financed hc system to provide care for all. the perventive care savings alone will be huge–over $1Bil annually. and the savings from reducing wasteful layers of bureacracy are huge as well. come on, use some common sense here, please. don’t take my word for it, take a look at this post too Unsung Developments of 2006. a major goal of the HCA standards for fundamental system reform is to FREE UP STATE FUNDS FOR USES OTHER THAN EXHORBITANT HC SPENDING.
<
p>
4. i’m not familiar with the legal brief you refer to but i do know that what we must succeed with on a macro-level is creating a social movement for health justice. a core element of this movement is educating our population about the causes and fundamental solutions for the current hc system crisis, a crisis of access, cost and uneven quality. we must have the leadership and vision to set ourselves on a firm path to system reform that is meaningful (not merely politically expedient), sustainable, and effective. the HCA is a thoughtful and mature development that grew out of 20 years-plus efforts by health policy professionals, health care providers, patients and families, and social justice activists attempting to reform the system by many other means, most without lasting success. we cannot afford to keep going 2 steps forward and 1 or 3 steps back the way we have been (this is also the tragic and tortured path the new law is destined to take); countless lives and unimagineably huge sums of money are depending on us trying what we believe will secure the HCA goals.
<
p>
introducing the HCA again after adding “dental care” to the language, but this time going through the legislative route instead of a citizen intitiative process is one option. does anyone have thoughts on that idea?
That was first presented as a legislator petition. What they LEARNED was that BECAUSE a legislator sponsored the petition, THE LEADERSHIP CAN AMEND THE LANGUAGE, no matter what people signed!
<
p>
I REALLY don’t think you want to go there, even if Finneran IS retired to Eastham!
<
p>
Why not reintroduce your existing petition? It wasn’t acted upon, so it isn’t a duplicate. Why any need for a language change at all?
even though it was a citizen intitiative the language was amended before the first concon vote. it’s what finneran did by orchestrating the insertion of “subject to approval by the voters on statewide referendum” (which the Boston Business Journal reported at the time to have been the brainchild of none other than former senate prez tom birmingham who was working at the behest of A.I.M., a powerful business org.).
<
p>
but can the language of a proposed amendment be changed more freely when introduced as a lege amendment? and btw finneran is not “retired”, he’s the ceo of the mass. biotech council, the lobbying group for the drug co. industry in the state, right?
<
p>
re: adding deantal care. as a nurse and a thoughtful citizen, person, mom, etc, i feel that the current HCA language overlooked including dental care as a health care service that warrents inclusion. it deserves special protection just as mental health care does because it is inhumane, uncivilized, stupid/not cost effective to exclude these services. really, how on earth did the mouth come to be understood as not a part of the body requiring “coverage” by health insurance?!! (i know the answer given to me by a dentist, it was due to the dentists/dental lobby opting OUT of inclusion in the federal legislation that established medicare and so private insurers followed that stupid precedent). sorry if i’m not being as eloquent as i might be here.
<
p>
and last but not least, do it all over again??? i think you know what a gargantuen undertaking is involved, both in time, human effort and in big money required to launch a successful signature gathering operation and a statewide campaign leading up to being on the statewide ballot. or leading up to not being on the statewide ballot.
I was involved with the Legislative Dental Commission, which recommended MassHealth screening for caries for pregnant women to fight birth defects, and other such preventative bills. Saw a lot of scary pictures of what decay and gingivitis can do.
<
p>
No objection to adding dental – but David, help me out. Even somebody as omniscient as Finneran (we jsut see a lot of him down here, I know he’s not really retired) isn’t allowed to change the language on a CITIZEN petition, as opposed to a LEGISLATOR petition – are they?
section 3:
<
p>
You’ve not been listening to me. I told you straight up months ago that this amendment was dead. It was just a matter of how.
<
p>
The GC leadership, your own allies, Gov. Romney all lined up and shot it in the heart last summer. When the ConCon arrived, the spotlight was off HCA. There were no HCA protesters in the front yard. Ever stop to think why that was? The engine ran out of steam when the Health Mandate Compromise passed, that’s why.
<
p>
It was an easy vote for 101 people. Procedurely dead wrong, but inevitable. A case where, your rep might rationalize, the ends justified the means.
and the belief that if something is right then it’s worth fighting for until the bitter end. now it’s time to consider what makes sense to do next. i do not get joy from bloodying my head against a wall (trying to participate as a citizen in the democratic process of our state gov’t), much as you might be led to think about me at times.
<
p>
and just what “ends” justified the means here?
The ends: a majority of the leg didn’t want the HCA.
The means: a sneaky maneuver under the cover of mist.
Gary’s points are all well taken. I think, by and large, the debate around the HCA being voted out-of-committee is premised on the notion that if the SSM Amendment “had” to be given an up or down vote under Article 48, then so did the HCA.
<
p>
The HCA is in a slightly different situation since it hasn’t been voted out of Committee. With reference to committee actions, Article 48, Part III, section 1 reads as follows:
<
p>
<
p>
Once it’s out of committee, I think we can all unequivocally agree that the HCA, like the SSM amendment is required to get an up or down vote. Fair is fair.
<
p>
But what about the fact that it’s in committee. Are the committee members violating Constitutional duty by NOT voting it out of Committee? Are they obligated to consider the bill on its merits while in committee, or are they to put those concerns aside until the vote in the general court?
<
p>
It seems to me the place to consider the merits of the bill is before the full court when it comes to vote the same way the SSM amendment was voted on yesterday. The language of article 48 is clear – the measure SHALL be considered and reported on. At that point, Article 48 goes on later to say, the measure SHALL be voted on in the general court. I think that’s the time to consider the merits.
I don’t SUPPORT the HCA, BUT it was subject to the same legal status. It should have been taken out of ‘study’, and given an up or down vote.
The referree committee is obligated to report to the general court along with its recommendations, but certainly can’t report without consent of the GC.
<
p>
Your question: Are they obligated to consider the bill on its merits while in committee?
<
p>
Probably not.
<
p>
At least not according to 413 Mass 25. Whether the committee decides to report, or not, does not change the obligations of the General Court.
<
p>
BTW, 413 Mass 25 was a 1992 case involving a citizen’s petition requiring release of certain public information of banks and corporations. The committee never reported. 413 Mass 25 says it doesn’t matter whether the committee reported or not.
I’ll look it up and bill this underrrrrr….hmmmmmm… “the Penske File”, and see if HR has a sense of humor.
But it raises an interesting issue for the current SJC. If it is the case I’m thinking of, the GC failed to report the proposed law out of committee, something that must happen for the rest of the Article 48 procedure to kick in.
<
p>
The business community sued to keep the initiative off the ballot. The SJC decided that the Legislature couldn’t just stop the initiative process by refusing to report the bill out and “deemed” it reported.
<
p>
Then the Legislature had its usual options of enacting the proposed legislation or not – leaving it to the supporters to gather additional signatures to put it on the ballot.
<
p>
Unless the SJC is willing to step up to the plate and come up with some meaningful remedy for initiative amendments the Legislature will have won this battle and rewritten the state constitution all by itself.
<
p>
Barbara Roop
Thanks for your post. It asks an important question that is a source of confusion.
<
p>
First the Art. 48 Part III reference on committees is about what happens when an initiative is first submitted to the Legislature. It is assigned to a committee which must hold a hearing and must report it out.
<
p>
We had our hearing in April of 2004 and the bill was reported out ought not to pass – as virtually every constitutional amendment is. We then eventually got our first approval – 153 to 41 – in July 2004.
<
p>
Once approved the Amendment’s language was fixed in stone. The only issue is whether or not to approve it.
<
p>
Last July when the Amendment came up for a vote Senator Moore made a motion to send it to a special committee under Special Rule F almost at the end of the ConCon Calendar. It was a procedural vote designed to kill the amendment based on the Senate President’s own statements from the rostrum.
<
p>
My reading of the Doyle opinion just issued by the SJC would make this procedural vote as much a violation of the duty to take final action as a vote to adjourn.
Doyle, slip opinion, p.11
<
p>
It was perfectly appropriate for the Legislature to send the Amendment to committee to look at some of the legal and policy implications it might have — AS LONG AS THEY ACTUALLY STUDY THEM AND REPORT OUT SOME FINDINGS IN TIME FOR FIANL ACTION BEFORE THE END OF THE SESSION.
<
p>
This committee never met and was never intended to. After almost 6 months without a meeting the only way to get a vote on the merits was to discharge the Amendment from committee which takes a 2/3 vote of those present and voting – 134 members if everyone is in there. A supermajority vote to allow final action to see if there are 50 supporters to send it to the ballot.
<
p>
Apparently we don’t have 134 legislators who feel so strongly about their constitutional duty and/or the Amendment to get the vote on the merits mandated by Article 48.
<
p>
We did, however, have 92 legislators who voted to discharge the Amendment from committee – more than enough to get 50 votes for approval to proceed to the ballot.
<
p>
Barbara Roop
Wow.
<
p>
<
p>
That would be my interpretation also. Thanks for the clarification!