Nicole Parra, D-Hanford, can say bye bye to her Capitol digs, cause she's been bounced across the street for defying her party on a budget vote. She's holding out for a better deal on a water bond.
Here is the story just filed by The Bee's E.J. Schultz:
SACRAMENTO -- Hanford Democrat Nicole Parra was booted from her Assembly office today as punishment for bucking her party on Sunday night's budget vote.Assembly Speaker Karen Bass gave Parra until the end of the day to move into a one-room office across the street from the Capitol in a building normally reserved for legislative staff members.
It's not unprecedented for leaders to move rebellious members to smaller offices, but it's believed this is the first time a lawmaker has been sent out of the Capitol building.
Nicole ParraParra has said she won't vote for a budget until lawmakers also reach a deal to put a water bond on the November ballot that could include money for dams. On Sunday, she was the only Democrat who abstained on the state budget vote, which failed on party lines.
Parra was not immediately available for comment.
"It's unfortunate," said her chief of staff, Derek Chernow. Parra "felt what she did was the best for her district."
But other Democrats said Parra was taking the state "hostage" with her demand.
"Californians have been waiting for us to pass a budget now for over a month in a half," said Assembly Member Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank. "It's outrageous that any member, Democrat or Republican of this Legislature, would force the children and the elderly and the disabled people of California to continue to suffer without a budget because of the narrow interests of their own district."
Check fresnobee.com for further updates and The Fresno Bee tomorrow for full coverage.
Paul Krikorian with his comment: "It's outrageous that any member, Democrat or Republican of this Legislature, would force the children and the elderly and the disabled people of California to continue to suffer without a budget because of the narrow interests of their own district."
How about the farmers without water?
Let's see how the children elderly and disabled do without food on the table if we don't have water for the Central Valley.
I guess flushing toilets, long hot showers in LA and SF take precidence over food.
Thank you Parra for representing your district. We need more people like you in Office.
Frankly I don't care right now if a Republican takes your seat, and I would not doubt if more people will change over to being Independent or Republican over this.
Speaker Karen Bass show an ounce civility!
I never thought I’d say it - my new heroine! And a Democrat! (At least for now, on this subject).
Anybody really surprised here! Vote for higher taxes in a weak economy or move to the broom closet!
Funny that "conservatives" complain about higher taxes, yet applaud someone for holding out for megabucks for new water projects to irrigate subsidized crops on marginal farmlands.
"Marginal farmlands"?
It might be a good idea, Mike, to climb down out of your ivory tower, visit a grocery store once in a while (libs probably have their food stuffs delivered to them by us peons) and check out the ever-increasing food prices - one of the many end results of not having enough water!
It is government representatives like Nicole Parra that do great harm to their party when they do not vote along party lines on
major issues. It seems that
loyalty to corporate Ag interests is evident in this case. Is Nicole more solicitous for her loyalty to a certain corporate interest more then she is to the real needs of her constituents?
Also her support of a
Republican candidate reveals that she is showing
loyalty to the Republican
Party. Perhaps she should
forgo her Democratic image
and become a Republican.
Speaker Bass should hold her accountable for her
action to prolong a budget debate by her lack of compliance.
T.C., try googling "selenium soil contamination" or "soil salinity" sometime. As for food production, a lot of that water is used to grow cotton, hay and irrigated pastures. Try eating some of that sometime, and let us know how it tastes.
Just a reaction by the House Madame throwing a hissy fit when one of her working girls don't toe the line. What next using her chastizing belt whipping'em in line?
Ms. Para seems to understand that all politics are local.
By representing the will of her constituents, may she experience a rare form of liberation.
Bravo!
How refreshing . . . a democrat that has a spine and a soul. Bravo to Nicole Parra for showing loyalty to her constituents, and the farming industry that has built, and continues to fuel the Central Valley, and feed the world.
As usual, Mike D. displays his ungrateful, and irrational mindset. Have you ever been to a farmers market Mike? If you so hate what our valley represents, why live here?
"Holding out for a better deal...) for her corporate-'farm' dance-partners...Pat nailed it.
I grew up on a farm, Redpeach. Do you have any substance to go with your accusations? Calling someone "irrational" is cheap. If you think I'm irrational, demonstrate it. (But I won't be holding my breath waiting for you.)
I don’t know guys. I can appreciate the “standing up for what you believe in” and I don’t agree that someone should just “vote the party line”; it is my hope our representatives actually think and don’t follow each other like sheep. But hostage is a good word for what she has done and the question is…is she doing more harm than good? Sure, she’s “plucky” and makes a statement but is it going to help the water issue? I’d hate to see a water deal get slapped on the ballot just to get the budget passed if the solution to the water problem hasn’t adequately evolved yet. And now that she’s been “removed”, “censured”, “spanked”, does she have the clout left she will need to really make a difference in developing a solution to the complex water issues when they do hit the table? I truly believe you should make a stand for what you believe in but don’t make it on quicksand. Not only does she risk alienating the legislature whom she will need to achieve a water deal, she risks alienating the public who are being hurt by the lack of a budget. She has really hit my pet peeve as well: you know the very common legislative practice of attaching a controversial rider to a bill under consideration of the legislature?... it is an appalling practice. It has caused this country/state to reject some excellent legislation due to unacceptable riders and accept horrible riders in order to pass an excellent bill. I am so against it and find it counterproductive. What Para has done here is based on the same principle. I don’t like it much. That said….but booting her out of her office? That is just childish and catty. How many of our tax dollars are being spent for that? I hope they know they can’t hire outside laborers to do the moving until the budget is passed….HA!
Parra was elected by her constituents, not Karen Bass. She has a responsibility to act on behalf of those who elected her, not "the party."
Bass' actions are exactly the kind of politics we don't need in America--punishing someone who doesn't vote as the powerful wish they would. I find this extremely disturbing. How long until this kind of treatment trickles down to the voting citizen?
Fortunately for all those taxpayers whom she represents, I believe that Ms. Parra has the capacity to operate from smaller digs.
Unfortunately in California these days, from the top down, office size is not necessarily an indication of office integrity, it's the name on the shingle. In this case "Parra" will mean that the occupant is serving her constuency.
The party of democrats can put Parra in smaller rooms, but she still has a vote on the floor.
Two consequences come to mind when I see this sort of overt hostility to a Central Valley office holder. One is how I am going to lobby against taxes (bonds) for future expansion of office space in Sacramento. The other, a clear message Central Valley voters in a certain vacated district are going to send on election day. That message will be...represent us first, for that is what we are accustomed to.
Yes, Para is right in being steadfast in her representation of her constituents. But the Central Valley does not exist in a vacuum. The entire state is dependent upon the budget. I don’t condone voting for a budget you don’t believe in but that’s not what she is doing. She’s refusing to vote at all. Central Valley water is critical not just for us but for the State as a whole. Five versions of a water plan were submitted and did not make it on the November ballot. I have not read them all but perhaps they didn’t make it because they aren’t quite up to snuff yet. Passing a budget does not mean giving up on the water issue. Even though the official deadline is passed, the governor and legislature can still approve late additions into September and have done so in the past. If making sure a water bond is in the budget is the reason for holding it up; that’s not even crucial. The budget can be changed after it is enacted. It been done repeatedly. Focus on the budget… flesh it out… get one passed. Then focus on the water issue. The State is swinging in the wind; the costs of letting us swing are substantial. Digging her heels in isn’t the only option. Kudos, point made Ms. Para, now lets get cracking. Karen Bass? Shame on you!!
Yes, Para is right in being steadfast in her representation of her constituents. But the Central Valley does not exist in a vacuum. The entire state is dependent upon the budget. I don’t condone voting for a budget you don’t believe in but that’s not what she is doing. She’s refusing to vote at all. Central Valley water is critical not just for us but for the State as a whole. Five versions of a water plan were submitted and did not make it on the November ballot. I have not read them all but perhaps they didn’t make it because they aren’t quite up to snuff yet. Passing a budget does not mean giving up on the water issue. Even though the official deadline is passed, the governor and legislature can still approve late additions into September and have done so in the past. If making sure a water bond is in the budget is the reason for holding it up; that’s not even crucial. The budget can be changed after it is enacted. It been done repeatedly. Focus on the budget… flesh it out… get one passed. Then focus on the water issue. The State is swinging in the wind; the costs of letting us swing are substantial. Digging her heels in isn’t the only option. Kudos, point made Ms. Para, now lets get cracking. Karen Bass? Shame on you!!
Kim, you can say that again.
Yea, I accidentally did. I guess I am a heavy handed clicker.
I am glad that the doubling up of a post did not happen only to me. It embarrassed me. Now I can live happily ever after. Because I am computer illiterate, they could have accused me of having killed Cock Robin in cyber space, and I could not have proofed differently.
As for Nicole Parra. She is a good looking politician.
Nicole Parra, I am PROUD of you, you are here in the valley and you know first hand the current shortages of water. It hit me personally, my well literally went dry this month, I just paid for a new one this week, 15 thousand dollars, this is happening to all my neighbors too, maybe when a few of these yahoo's start getting hungry they will stop to think you know what you are doing. You will have my vote for EVERY thing you ever need it for from this day on.
I grew up on a farm here in the Valley, worked with several large farming organizations and I now work for a firm that spends a great deal of its time on water issues. Farming in the Valley runs a bit deeper than cotton, hay and irrigated pastures. Travel to the east coast and see the volume of fruit being sold in boxes from Reedley, Selma and other Valley towns. A significant portion of the world's food comes from right here in the Valley.
All that aside, the real issue here is about the foundational form of which our government was established - representation. Ms. Parra has exercised her constituational right - more so, her obligation - to speak for those in her district. Even if the rest of California disagrees with her and her constituents wants/needs, she is doing what she was elected to do - God bless her for it. Whether her bill passes or not, she's doing her job. Her constituents don't like the budget in it's current form. I have to assume she carefully weighed all of her different options in making her point before choosing this very visible and consequential path.
Mr. Krikorian's statement is just plain weak - that's just typical emotionalism and scare tactics used by too many politicians and "victims" today to draw the masses to his viewpoint. The FACT is that if California's current proposed budget doesn't have enough appeal to be passed by a sufficient number of votes, then it isn't right yet - and certainly shouldn't be passed simply by the bullying actions of one party.
The very freedom that this nation was founded upon started with a simple act of rebellion when people could no longer take the tyranny. I consider Ms. Bass' behavior to be an act of tyranny - "I'll exercise my power over you because you didn't vote the party line (you didn't give me what I want)." He behavior is equivalent to a 2-year old who throws a tantrum because she doesn't get her way. Work a little harder to bring a budget to the table that has more appeal to the majority and she won't be in a position of having to bully those in her own party to get it passed. What a concept...
Maybe this is one of those great moments when we're reminded that this is a nation of, by and FOR the PEOPLE.
I wonder how Ms. Bass would feel if she were put out on the sidewalk for pulling such an immature and grandstanding stunt.
I'm not in Ms. Parra's district, but if I had office space in Sacramento, I'd donate an office to Ms. Parra and I'd make sure it's larger and nicer than the space Ms. Bass has.
Nobody said that Valley farming consisted only of cotton, hay and irrigated pastures. But why are we using precious water, developed at high costs, for such crops? Especially when you consider that cotton is highly subsidized by the taxpayers.
Parra may have been within her rights to withhold her vote, but it was highly irresponsible. The budget is way past overdue, and is holding up other needed legislation.
To withhold her vote on a constitutionally-required budget in order to basically make a statement is nothing to be praised. And it hardly required any courage, seeing how Big Ag is such a sacred cow here in the Valley. How much do you want to bet that her future clients in her lobbying business are composed largely of big agricultural-related interests?