/PanARMENIAN.Net/ National and grassroots Turkish American associations joined power to defeat California Assembly Bill 961, a proposed law that sought to punish companies who did business in the Ottoman Empire or do business in Turkey today. The bill was introduced by Armenian Assemblyman Paul Krikorian and supported by nationalists Armenian groups, TurkishNY reports.
On the front line were activists from ATAA component organizations, the Turkish American Association of California (TAACA) and the Association of Turkish Americans of S. California (ATASC). Ergun Kirlikovali and Karahan Mete lead over 25 local Turkish Americans to provide statements at the public hearings of the Business and Professions and Judiciary Committees.
ATAA President Nurten Ural submitted a statement to the California Assembly that A.B. 961 was an unconstitutional creation of foreign policy and an unconstitutional interference against the private sector. President Nurten stated:
"A.B. 961 is nothing more than Armenian ethnic politics to legislate Turkish history and a genocide conviction against Turkey, and to vent that condemnation by punishing companies, including but not limited to energy (e.g., BP, Shell, Exxon), insurance (e.g., New York Life, AXA), and other sectors (e.g., Nestle), who did business with the Ottoman Empire nearly one hundred years ago and to prohibit them from doing business with the State of California. A.B. 961 contravenes good history, good law, and good social responsibility in business. A.B. 961 contradicts federal foreign affairs efforts to support truth and reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia."
thats no suprise for me
ReplyDeleteturGAYS have too much money and power. how can PK and his JEWnca ever stand up against this powerful (helps rule the world for zionists) enemy of ours with out the mass millions of dollars that turGAY and its zionists can spend at drop of a hat. JEWnca's 2.5 millions is joke againt turGAY and zionists 2.5 BILLION/yr they use to fight against us
Earlier Asbarez story clarifies it a bit: http://tinyurl.com/oq64b5
ReplyDeleteCalifornia is in severe financial straits. So obviously the thing to do would be make a list of every company who has done any business with not only Turkey but also the Ottoman Empire over the past one hundred years (!) and boycott them. Piece of cake and really practical!! Gosh, I wonder why this bill didn't pass...
Celebrating Armenian Turkish friendship!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3qdVnJLuA
Since I cut my ties with AAA and ANCA over their encouraging statement for SS after the March 1 massacre, I am out of the loop on proposals like this. It's not a bad bill. But there are two reservations that I have:
ReplyDelete1. bills like this get defeated and have no chance of passing. Does this harm the cause?
2. looks like bills like this have motivated the Turks to get organized. Will they out-organize us?
Anyway, here is the complete text:
BILL NUMBER: AB 961 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY
Assembly Member Krekorian
FEBRUARY 26, 2009
An act to add Article 14 (commencing with
Section 10485) to
Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Public
Contract Code,
relating to public contracts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 961, as introduced, Krekorian.
Public contracts: state contract
eligibility: genocidal regimes.
Existing law authorizes contracting between state agencies and
private contractors and sets forth requirements for the procurement
of goods and services by state agencies and the various
responsibilities of state agencies and the Department of General
Services in implementing state contracting procedures and policies.
Existing law prohibits a scrutinized company, as defined, that is
involved in specified activities in Sudan, from entering into a
contract with a state agency for goods or services, subject to
specified requirements and exemptions.
This bill would prohibit a scrutinized company, as defined, that
was engaged in business with perpetrators of genocide, from entering
into a contract with a state agency for goods or services. The bill
also would require a prospective bidder for those state contracts,
that currently or within the previous 3 years has had business
activities or other operations outside of the United States, to
certify that the company is not a scrutinized company and would
impose civil penalties, as specified, for a company that provides a
false certification.
The bill would allow the Director of General Services, under specified
conditions, to permit a scrutinized company to enter into state contracts
for goods and services.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no.
Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
ReplyDeleteSECTION 1. Article 14 (commencing with Section 10485) is added to
Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, to
read:
Article 14. Prohibition on Contracts with Companies that Aided
Genocidal Regimes 10485. For purposes of this article, the
following definitions apply:
(a) “Genocide” means any of the following events:
(1) The atrocities committed by the Ottoman and
Turkish governments against Armenians from 1915 to 1923,
inclusive, which constituted the Armenian Genocide, and the
massacres of Armenians committed by the Ottoman Empire from
1894 to 1909, inclusive.
(2) The Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany against Jews from 1938
to 1945, inclusive, and the persecution and massacre of Roman,
Slavic, Polish, Soviet, disabled people, homosexuals, and political
and religious dissidents by the Nazi regime.
(3) The oppression, forced labor, and murder of the Cambodian
people by the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 to 1979, inclusive.
(4) The aggression and ethnic cleansing committed by the Rwandan
Hutu majority against minority Rwandan Tutsis that constituted the
Rwandan genocide of 1994.
(5) The aggression and ethnic cleansing committed by elements of
the Bosnian Serb army against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina
from 1992 to 1995, inclusive.
(b) “Scrutinized company” means a company, and any affiliates of
that company, that was engaged in business with the perpetrators of
genocide and that still holds looted or deposited assets of a victim
of a genocide or his or her heirs.
10485.5. (a) A scrutinized company is ineligible to, and shall
not, bid on or submit a proposal for a contract with a state agency
for goods or services.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Director of General
Services may permit a scrutinized company, on a case-by-case basis,
to bid on or submit a proposal for a contract with a state agency for
goods or services, if it is in the best interests of the state to
permit the scrutinized company to bid on or submit a proposal for one
or more contracts with a state agency for goods or services.
(2) In making this determination, the Director of General Services
may consider attempts by a scrutinized company to settle claims
against it by a victim of genocide, or his or her heirs, or evidence
refuting those claims presented by the scrutinized company.
10486.
(a) A state agency shall require a company that submits a
bid or proposal with respect to a contract for goods or services,
that currently or within the previous three years has had business
activities or other operations outside of the United States, to
certify that the company is not a scrutinized company.
(b) A state agency shall not require a company that submits a bid
or proposal with respect to a contract for goods and services to
certify that the company is not a scrutinized company if the company
has obtained permission to bid on or submit a proposal for a contract
with a state agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 10485.5.
10486.5. (a) If the Department of General Services determines
that a company has submitted a false certification under Section
10486, the company shall be subject to all of the following:
(1) The company is liable for a civil penalty in an amount that is
equal to the greater of two hundred fifty thousand dollars
($250,000) or twice the amount of the contract for which a bid or
proposal was submitted.
(2) The state agency or the Department of General Services may
ReplyDeleteterminate the contract with the company.
(3) The company is ineligible to, and shall not, bid on a state
contract for a period of not less than three years from the date the
state agency determines that the company submitted the false
certification.
(b) The Department of General Services shall report to the
Attorney General the name of the company that the Department of
General Services determined had submitted a false certification under
Section 10486, together with its information as to the false
certification, and the Attorney General shall determine whether to
bring a civil action against the company. The company shall pay all
costs and fees the plaintiff incurred in a civil action, including
costs incurred by the state agency and the Department of General
Services for investigations that led to the finding of the false
certification and all costs and fees incurred by the Attorney
General.
10487. (a) If any one or more provision, section, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance is found to be
invalid, illegal, unenforceable, or unconstitutional, the same is
hereby declared to be severable and the balance of this act shall
remain effective and functional notwithstanding such invalidity,
illegality, unenforceability, or unconstitutionality.
(b) The Legislature hereby declares it would have passed this act,
and each provision, section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase or word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more provision, section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, or word be declared invalid, illegal, unenforceable,
or unconstitutional.