Subject: Re: Bill Julien
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:37:00 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks, Hedy:

Not good. John White has a similar view, i.e., Loretta doesn't have many 
choices given that the Legislature hasn't executed.  John did say, however, 
that if we can provide the legal analysis to support doing something other 
than "suspend," Loretta is likely to be amenable.  Seems like it would be 
useful to try to get the analysis, assuming that  there's legal analysis to 
support an alternative to "suspend."  

Hertzberg and I are trading calls.  Will report back as soon as I hear 
anything.

Best,
Jeff

	Hedy Govenar <[email-masked]>
	07/26/2001 04:02 PM
		 
		 To: Paul Kaufman <[email-masked]>, Jeff Dasovich 
<[email-masked]>, Bev Hansen <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Bill Julien

I spoke with Bill and gave him the background on the DA issue (Turn's
core/noncore, the green portfolio, etc) and asked him about some
possibilities - i.e. could Loretta delay action until after the
Legislature acts on SB18, and/or AB 82, etc.
He responded that Loretta likes the SB18 approach, which she sees as
cheaper and cleaner.  But she also is very loyal to the state and
believes the timing is dependent upon the Treasurer's assessment of the
need.  Right now Angelides accepts counsel's view that DA has to be
eliminated to market the bonds.  Loretta believes the only authority the
Commission has is when to suspend DA, not whether to suspend it.
Angelides is continuing to press her to eliminate it, but she had hoped
the Legislature would take action to give the Commission some
flexibility.  That hasn't happened.  Their view is that the language of
AB 1x needs to be changed legislatively, since their authority is so
limited.  He expects action in the near future, but doesn't know exactly
when.