AB 1921 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Here is the full text of A.B. 1921 (see below). This is going to its first hearing tomorrow. It has just been introduced.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Thank you, Dr. McKenzie, for posting this Bill and most importantly, Donie Vanitzian's analysis. In my opinion, Donie has always been "right on the money," and hopefully those in CA will take notice. This is a brilliant, knowledgable woman who, among other credits, understands the devastating impact on families who have been victimized and made homeless, by an abusive Board. The selective discrimination and targeting, by many of these groups, needs to be exposed and stopped!
Well, it is good to post the opinion of Donie Vanitzian -- but when has she put herself on the line to stand up for anyone who has been terrible wronged by other attorneys, and/or law makers?
She can write all she wants, but she needs to stand in the forefront for homeowners.
It seems to me that Donie Vanitzian has been putting herself on the line by her writing, which has attracted a great deal of notice. With a book and an LA Times column, she has brought plenty of attention to the cause of homeowner rights.
This is Brian Hebert. I'm the executive director of the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC), which drafted the text of AB 1921. Thanks for posting the link to the bill. I welcome further public input.
You might also want to post a link to our recommendation, which includes the full text of the proposed law but also includes a table of contents, a narrative explanation of the more important substantive changes proposed in the bill, descriptive comments for every bill section that explain the derivation of the new sections, and a disposition table that shows where every provision of existing law is continued in the bill. These resources will make it much easier for people to review the bill and offer constructive criticism.
Anyone who has questions or comments about the proposed law can send me email (bhebert@clrc.ca.gov) or post them here. I will do my best to respond.
I've read Donie Vanitzian's article very carefully and would like to offer a few responses. With respect to Ms. Vanitzian, I won't bother responding to her attacks on the ethics and competence of the CLRC or the California Legislature. She's entitled to her opinion. Nor will I respond to her general complaints about existing law. The proposed law is a mostly nonsubstantive cleanup measure. It was never intended to cure all existing problems with California CID law. Complaints about existing law are not the same as complaints about the proposed law. I would like to stick to talking about what the proposed law would do, rather than the infinite number of things that it doesn't do.
With those caveats, I see three main complaints about the proposed law made in the article:
(1) Ms. Vanitzian says that the proposed law was drafted in less than a year without meaningful public input.
That's incorrect. This project started in May 2005 (with Memo 2005-18, available on our website) and concluded with a final recommendation in December 2007. That's 2.5 years of open public meetings and discussions. All of our written materials are public documents that were uploaded to our website (and are still there) and emailed to a self-subscription list of over 400 individuals. All of the major interest groups were included in the process. We received literally hundreds of pages of comments, all of which were analyzed and discussed in public. Dozens of adjustments to the draft were made in response to the comments. It's simply untrue and unfair to suggest that this process was in any way hurried or secretive.
Now that AB 1921 has been introduced, we're continuing to get constructive criticism, which is being given the same attentive treatment.
(2) Ms. Vanitzian complains that reorganization of existing law will be confusing for those who know the current organization. That's true.
However, that's a temporary problem that falls most heavily on current experts.
Most of the 8 million or so CID homeowners in CA are not experts in the current law. Reorganization will not be confusing for them. Instead, those homeowners will benefit from a body of law that is organized more logically and clearly. This is especially true because the proposed law would import currently overlapping applicable law from the Corporations Code, directly into the Davis-Stirling Act. This will allow homeowners to read from a single comprehensive source of law, rather than reading two different bodies of law together and trying to figure out how to reconcile them.
The advantages of this approach are shown in my response to Ms. Vanitzian's third objection.
(3) Ms. Vanitzian objects to the rule governing proof of giving notice, which states that a properly executed affidavit establishes prima facie evidence of delivery. She says this is "newly hatched" law. With respect, she's wrong about that. It is drawn verbatim from an already applicable provision of the Corporations Code (Section 7511(b)). The fact that an expert in CID law doesn't know that this is already the law illustrates how hard it must be for non-experts to understand existing law, which is not well organized and is split between two different codes.
This also illustrates the benefit of reading our recommendation as a supplement to the bill. The comment to that section plainly states that it is derived from Section 7511.
Ms. Vanitzian also suggests that prima facie evidence is unrebuttable. With respect, that's also incorrect. California Evidence Code Section 602 is clear in stating: "A statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption."
Those are my responses to the issues that I saw raised in the article. If anyone has any other issues, or thinks I missed something important in Ms. Vanitzian's article, feel free to comment. I'm happy to explain the CLRC's recommendation and am open to any concrete criticisms. But if you write just to say that I'm an evil incompetent, I'll probably ignore you. :)
where's donni's post or blog here on mchkinzy posting? i don't see it. it was mckinzy who posted no donni.
mckensy says donni is putting herself on the line then this sharon stevenns person makes donni her personal scapegoat. brian hebert falls from sky to say something that is noth8ing but same as usual he does.
owners in my homeowner's association been writing clrc since nat stirling was in charge and then brian hebrt and we got nowhere!!!!!!!
is mckenzy now part of the clrc cuz hebert right here instructs the public in this blog to respond to the clrc by posting on mckenzy blog. we all want to know if mckenzy is part in clrc and brian hebert.
hebert misleading the public. everything donni vanizin wrote in article was true. article does not mentioned the words evil, incompetent, or hebert, but brian hebert mentions them to describe himself. sound like hebert has big problem.
hebert couldn"t respond to our homeowner'swhen we wrote him before but he now have time to go outside the clrc and write big blog nonsense.
we want to know is hebert stpeaking for clrc on this blog or himself? he's not interested in welcome further public input. he's sucking uup to mckinzy postng this nonsense because vanitzn slammed the legislature good! she just said what we all waaanted to say for long time.
Good to see that Mr. Hebert has decided to comment on Ms. Vanitzian’s critique of AB 1921.
As suggested by Mr. Hebert herein ( “Anyone who has questions or comments about the proposed law can send me email (bhebert@clrc.ca.gov) or post them here. I will do my best to respond”), in the recent past, The Cotobuzz Journal has tried on several occasions to have Mr. Hebert respond to criticisms launched against the CLRC and Mr. Hebert. All we have gotten to date from him is “no comment”.
Wondering if Mr. Hebert has decided to change positions?
Perhaps he may want to clarify the term anyone, as in “anyone who has questions”, to avoid a Clintonian “is”, or a Romney “see”
J. L. Buzz Aguirre, Publisher, The Cotobuzz Journal www.cotobuzz.com
6 comments:
Thank you, Dr. McKenzie, for posting this Bill and most importantly, Donie Vanitzian's analysis. In my opinion, Donie has always been "right on the money," and hopefully those in CA will take notice. This is a brilliant, knowledgable woman who, among other credits, understands the devastating impact on families who have been victimized and made homeless, by an abusive Board. The selective discrimination and targeting, by many of these groups, needs to be exposed and stopped!
Well, it is good to post the opinion of Donie Vanitzian -- but when has she put herself on the line to stand up for anyone who has been terrible wronged by other attorneys, and/or law makers?
She can write all she wants, but she needs to stand in the forefront for homeowners.
It seems to me that Donie Vanitzian has been putting herself on the line by her writing, which has attracted a great deal of notice. With a book and an LA Times column, she has brought plenty of attention to the cause of homeowner rights.
Professor McKenzie,
This is Brian Hebert. I'm the executive director of the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC), which drafted the text of AB 1921. Thanks for posting the link to the bill. I welcome further public input.
You might also want to post a link to our recommendation, which includes the full text of the proposed law but also includes a table of contents, a narrative explanation of the more important substantive changes proposed in the bill, descriptive comments for every bill section that explain the derivation of the new sections, and a disposition table that shows where every provision of existing law is continued in the bill. These resources will make it much easier for people to review the bill and offer constructive criticism.
Anyone who has questions or comments about the proposed law can send me email (bhebert@clrc.ca.gov) or post them here. I will do my best to respond.
I've read Donie Vanitzian's article very carefully and would like to offer a few responses. With respect to Ms. Vanitzian, I won't bother responding to her attacks on the ethics and competence of the CLRC or the California Legislature. She's entitled to her opinion. Nor will I respond to her general complaints about existing law. The proposed law is a mostly nonsubstantive cleanup measure. It was never intended to cure all existing problems with California CID law. Complaints about existing law are not the same as complaints about the proposed law. I would like to stick to talking about what the proposed law would do, rather than the infinite number of things that it doesn't do.
With those caveats, I see three main complaints about the proposed law made in the article:
(1) Ms. Vanitzian says that the proposed law was drafted in less than a year without meaningful public input.
That's incorrect. This project started in May 2005 (with Memo 2005-18, available on our website) and concluded with a final recommendation in December 2007. That's 2.5 years of open public meetings and discussions. All of our written materials are public documents that were uploaded to our website (and are still there) and emailed to a self-subscription list of over 400 individuals. All of the major interest groups were included in the process. We received literally hundreds of pages of comments, all of which were analyzed and discussed in public. Dozens of adjustments to the draft were made in response to the comments. It's simply untrue and unfair to suggest that this process was in any way hurried or secretive.
Now that AB 1921 has been introduced, we're continuing to get constructive criticism, which is being given the same attentive treatment.
(2) Ms. Vanitzian complains that reorganization of existing law will be confusing for those who know the current organization. That's true.
However, that's a temporary problem that falls most heavily on current experts.
Most of the 8 million or so CID homeowners in CA are not experts in the current law. Reorganization will not be confusing for them. Instead, those homeowners will benefit from a body of law that is organized more logically and clearly. This is especially true because the proposed law would import currently overlapping applicable law from the Corporations Code, directly into the Davis-Stirling Act. This will allow homeowners to read from a single comprehensive source of law, rather than reading two different bodies of law together and trying to figure out how to reconcile them.
The advantages of this approach are shown in my response to Ms. Vanitzian's third objection.
(3) Ms. Vanitzian objects to the rule governing proof of giving notice, which states that a properly executed affidavit establishes prima facie evidence of delivery. She says this is "newly hatched" law. With respect, she's wrong about that. It is drawn verbatim from an already applicable provision of the Corporations Code (Section 7511(b)). The fact that an expert in CID law doesn't know that this is already the law illustrates how hard it must be for non-experts to understand existing law, which is not well organized and is split between two different codes.
This also illustrates the benefit of reading our recommendation as a supplement to the bill. The comment to that section plainly states that it is derived from Section 7511.
Ms. Vanitzian also suggests that prima facie evidence is unrebuttable. With respect, that's also incorrect. California Evidence Code Section 602 is clear in stating: "A statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption."
Those are my responses to the issues that I saw raised in the article. If anyone has any other issues, or thinks I missed something important in Ms. Vanitzian's article, feel free to comment. I'm happy to explain the CLRC's recommendation and am open to any concrete criticisms. But if you write just to say that I'm an evil incompetent, I'll probably ignore you. :)
Thanks for your respectful attention,
Brian Hebert
where's donni's post or blog here on mchkinzy posting? i don't see it. it was mckinzy who posted no donni.
mckensy says donni is putting herself on the line then this sharon stevenns person makes donni her personal scapegoat. brian hebert falls from sky to say something that is noth8ing but same as usual he does.
owners in my homeowner's association been writing clrc since nat stirling was in charge and then brian hebrt and we got nowhere!!!!!!!
is mckenzy now part of the clrc cuz hebert right here instructs the public in this blog to respond to the clrc by posting on mckenzy blog. we all want to know if mckenzy is part in clrc and brian hebert.
hebert misleading the public. everything donni vanizin wrote in article was true. article does not mentioned the words evil, incompetent, or hebert, but brian hebert mentions them to describe himself. sound like hebert has big problem.
hebert couldn"t respond to our homeowner'swhen we wrote him before but he now have time to go outside the clrc and write big blog nonsense.
we want to know is hebert stpeaking for clrc on this blog or himself? he's not interested in welcome further public input. he's sucking uup to mckinzy postng this nonsense because vanitzn slammed the legislature good! she just said what we all waaanted to say for long time.
Good to see that Mr. Hebert has decided to comment on Ms. Vanitzian’s critique of AB 1921.
As suggested by Mr. Hebert herein ( “Anyone who has questions or comments about the proposed law can send me email (bhebert@clrc.ca.gov) or post them here. I will do my best to respond”), in the recent past, The Cotobuzz Journal has tried on several occasions to have Mr. Hebert respond to criticisms launched against the CLRC and Mr. Hebert. All we have gotten to date from him is “no comment”.
Wondering if Mr. Hebert has decided to change positions?
Perhaps he may want to clarify the term anyone, as in “anyone who has questions”, to avoid a Clintonian “is”, or a Romney “see”
J. L. Buzz Aguirre, Publisher, The Cotobuzz Journal www.cotobuzz.com
Post a Comment