Taylor vote change was 'disingenuous'

Editor,

I find Mike Taylor's response to my letter in the Aug. 24 issue has implications that need to be corrected.

I beg to differ with Mike that the first vote "is not the vote of record," because all votes are in the record (Journal). The early votes are highly important in that they are highly predictive of the final fate of a bill.

To imply that the House amendments were the reason for his changing his vote is a bit disingenuous, I think. There were a total of 11 amendments offered on the House floor. Nine of them died due to a majority voting against them. One (Qulici's) was to correct a drafting error. One that passed had no significant impact on the bill. To imply that the House added amendments that changed the bill that caused him to vote against the bill seems highly questionable to me.

Montana Power, the Republican majority in the Legislature, and the Racicot-Martz administration had total control of this bill. Mike's "no" vote on third reading in the Senate was totally safe for him to make. Only two other Republican Senators voted "no" — Gage of Cut Bank and Bishop of Billings.

I sat next to the Democrat who carried SB390 on the floor in the House. I spoke and voted against this bill because I was sure it would not improve conditions for the Montana consumers. I was impressed by the lobbying efforts of Montana Power and the Racicot-Martz administration on this bill. However I am still right nine years later.

Are consumers better off nine years later as a result of SB390?

Ray Peck, Ed.D.

Helena