Controller Announces No Pay for Legislators Absent Balanced Budget by June 15 Deadline

SACRAMENTO – In response to recent questions regarding the impact of Proposition 25, Controller John Chiang today announced he will permanently withhold Legislators’ salary and per diem beginning on June 16 if they fail to approve a balanced budget in the next two weeks.

"Presenting the Governor with a balanced budget by the Constitutional deadline is the most important, if not most difficult, job of the California Legislature,” Chiang said. “In passing Proposition 25 last November, voters clearly stated they expect their representatives to make the difficult decisions needed to resolve any budget shortfalls by the mandatory deadline, or be penalized. I will enforce the voters’ demand.”

Proposition 25, titled the “On-Time Budget Act of 2010,” was approved by voters November 2, 2010. The initiative lowered the vote requirement for passing a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. It also required members of the Legislature to forfeit their salary and reimbursement for travel and living expenses incurred from June 16 until “the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor.” Payments forfeited will not be paid retroactively.


Recently, questions have been raised regarding whether the budget passed by the Legislature had to be balanced, or if the budget bills passed in March would suffice. The Controller’s analysis of these issues concludes Proposition 25 cannot be read in a vacuum, and must take into account the provisions of Proposition 58 (passed by voters on March 2, 2004), the intent language found in Proposition 25, and the voter information and campaign materials upon which the voters relied.

Proposition 58 states, “[T]he Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that ...exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as of the date of the budget bill’s passage.” Because Propositions 58 and 25 overlap in the same section of the Constitution and address the same topic, they must be read together. A copy of the Controller’s full legal analysis can be found here.

Turmoil Within the Orange County Republican Party



OCGOP "Freedom" does not appear

to extend to all of its members.


Hasn't the OCGOP learned anything?

Tonight is the April Central Committee meeting and it is sure to be a boisterous and contentious evening. 

Deviating from his usual modus operandi, OC Chairman Scott Baugh stepped in front of the camera over the weekend to call for the ousting of Fullerton resident and Committee member Marilyn Davenport for an email which he says "drips of racism." 

Instead of tackling the issue in-house Baugh was seen on several local TV stations with the standard politically correct rhetoric not normally found in the OC Republican Party's higher ranks.

Davenport's email which started the latest OCGOP turmoil shows a picture of President Obama superimposed on a chimpanzee in what some believe to be a racist image.  Keeping it in perspective, Davenport thought the image was amusing given the caption, "Now you know why no birth certificate."  She also believes there is a double standard within the media and certain political circles which supports political cartoons as free speech so long as it doesn't include Obama.  Davenport believes the email sent to a small circle of "friends" has been blown out of proportion by a GOP insider.  After all, not every depiction of a monkey implies racism.  President Bush was the figure superimposed on the face of a monkey just a little more than two years ago.

Davenport may not be alone in her lack of racial cognition. In an online poll on KFIAM640.com, 58% said the image sent by Davenport was not racist while 75% felt a similar image of Bush was not racist. 

Several sources close to the story have told me the email was "leaked" to the OC Weakly through the Schroeder/Fleischman camp as reprisal for the continued spat between Assemblyman Chris Norby and former State Senator Dick Ackerman. 

Historically, certain OCGOP elements have tried in vein to control the 72nd Assembly District.  I have heard that Jon Fleischman was behind the Mike Duvall outing (not that Duvall's actions were acceptable).  Later, Norby and Linda Ackerman duked it out for control of Duvall's 72nd Assembly seat.  Now this.

Anyone that has been forced to sit through "sensitivity training" knows that the image in the email could and likely would be considered racist.  My guess is that Davenport has never had to sit through sensitivity training and simply didn't recognize the racist overtones of depicting an African-American man, although as Davenport notes he's half Caucasian, as an ape. 

Now with Baugh choosing to play this out in the media it is reasonable to assume that the 72nd AD divide with the rank and file OCGOP will continue to grow. For the past few years the 72nd AD has grown to be much more free-thinking than some OCGOP insiders would like.  Further agitating certain factions, the Executive Committee of the OCGOP has two women from the 72nd AD as well as Mrs. Deborah Pauly from the 60th AD.  Odd how those targeted lately were Caucasian women in a position of power within the OCGOP... It's only a matter of time before more North Orange County conservatives come under fire for standing up to the "Repuglicans".

Sometime between Saturday and Sunday Baugh was notified that the Central Committee's by-laws did not authorize him to remove an unruly or politically-incorrect elected member.  As of late Sunday evening Baugh was on TV admitting he had no authority to remove an elected official but he hoped to put pressure on her to resign. 

Davenport has refused to resign.

Tonight, the Central Committee will meet and, assuming the by-laws allow for a last minute change to the agenda, take up the matter for discussion. 

AB 1198, The first good thing to come from Sacramento in a long time

The first good thing to come from Sacramento in a long time.  That’s the way I describe Assemblyman Norby’s new bill, AB 1198.

AB 1198 would repeal the requirement that the department determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and other specified provisions relating to the assessment or allocation of regional housing need.

In short AB 1198 takes the MANDATE out of housing needs, the fuel of housing authorities and redevelopment agencies.  If enacted, AB 1198 would take the wind out of the sails of these shadow agencies that have been bleeding taxpayers for decades. 

Fullerton recently approved the formation of the Fullerton Housing Authority to address the housing mandate and waste more money upsetting the free-market of land development.

Not to be mistaken, I think more can and should be done to help the homeless in Fullerton, but housing authorities won’t fix that problem. 

AB 1198 will crush much of the reason the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) exists. 

I commend Assemblyman Chris Norby on his newly introduced legislation and stand ready to help him move it forward any way I can.

You can track California legislation, including AB 1198 HERE. 

CRA: 2010 CRA Scorecard Rates State Legislators

Only 5 Legislators Receive 100% Ratings; 55 Get Zeros

The annual Legislative Scorecard published by the California Republican Assembly is out and only five of 120 legislators serving in Sacramento received perfect 100% ratings – a dramatic decrease from 2009 when thirteen received perfect scores.

“It’s disappointing that only five legislators would stand firm on conservative positions,” said CRA President Celeste Greig. “But we congratulate the Assembly Members and Senators who received perfect scores. They continue to demonstrate their commitment to Republican principles and should be thanked.”

Specifically, President Greig noted that Assemblyman Chuck DeVore was the only member of the Assembly with a perfect score, while Senators Sam Aanestad, Dave Cogdill, Jeff Denham and Mimi Walters all received perfect scores in the Senate. CRA’s scorecard is derived from votes cast on diverse bills ranging from increased fees on lobster fishermen to punishing employers by criminalizing wage disputes.

CRA Parliamentarian Tom Hudson, who compiled the scorecard, noted that there were elements that made this year’s scorecard difficult.

“The confirmation of Abel Maldonado as Lieutenant Governor was a very complicated vote for Republicans,” Hudson noted. “CRA was right to oppose the confirmation of tax-raising Senator Maldonado, who had a terrible record in the Legislature. However, many Republican legislators were motivated to get him out of the State Senate so that he could be replaced with a better Senator.” As a result, the vote for Maldonado does not carry as much negative weight as other bad votes in this year’s scorecard, he added.

The scorecard also focuses on other bills which may not seem important on the surface, but clearly demonstrate the divisions within the Democrat and Republican caucuses.

The total number of zeros on this year’s scorecard decreased for the second year in a row from 56 to 55.

“Democrats seem to be feeling the pressure from their constituents,” added Greig. “While they are still very partisan, they’re votes are changing very slightly.”

The highest scoring Democrat on the CRA scorecard was Senator Lou Correa who received a 35%. On the Assembly side, Assemblywoman Alyson Huber was the highest scoring Democrat with a paltry 24%.

“As usual, the highest scoring Democrats rank far lower than the lowest ranking Republicans,” said Greig.

Of the 120 legislators, the lowest scoring Republican was Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, who received a score of 63%, with Senator Tom Harman the lowest scorer in the Senate at 81%. Most notable is that seven Republican Assembly Members had lower scores than Harman.  (Senators Emmerson and Blakeslee were not scored this year because of the complicated circumstances surrounding their special elections to the Senate. However, both would have scored well below Senator Harman’s 81%.)

The Assembly overall voted far more liberal than the Senate. The Average score for the Assembly was 1.96% for Democrats and 80.68% for Republicans, while in the Senate it was 5.18% for Democrats and 92.02% for Republicans.

A message from Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation

Is your state going to be serious about its budget, or kick the can down the road?  I live in California, which has elevated to Superbowl level its skills at dodgy budget tricks to put off reckoning with deficits.  But many other states have papered over, postponed or obscured their budget problems rather than addressing them directly.

It is high time for some real, practical, and effective budget solutions.  The new State Budget Reform Toolkit -a joint project of the American Legislative Exchange Council, Reason Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Washington Policy Center, Evergreen Freedom Foundation and State Budget Solutions-provides just that.  It offers a practical set of budget management and procurement best practices to guide state policymakers as they work to solve the current budget shortfalls, assisting legislators in prioritizing and more efficiently delivering core government services.

You can get the Toolkit here . Some of the things it covers include :

• Priority-Based Budgeting/Budgeting for Outcomes
• State Pension Reform
• Privatization and Competitive Contracting
• State Tax and Spending Limitations
• Balanced Budget Requirements
• Non-Partisan Revenue Forecasts and Independent Budget Certification
• Performance Assessment and Management
• Performance Audits
• Independent Recovery Audits
• Budget Transparency
• Budget Timeouts
• The Item-Reduction Veto
• Sunset Review Processes for State Agencies, Boards, and Commissions
• State Privatization and Efficiency Councils
• Statewide Real Property Inventories
• State Hiring Freezes
• Restructuring State Retiree Health Care Plans
• Activity-Based Costing
• Employee Incentive/Gainsharing Programs, and more.

Please share this with others in your state who may be able to use it or encourage the solutions it offers.  And if you have any questions about it or about how to implement the solutions, don't hesitate to ask me.

Adrian


Adrian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Adrian Moore
Vice President
Reason Foundation
(661)477-3107

California Assemblyman Chris Norby to speak at Fullerton CRA

This Thursday, Assemblyman Chris Norby will be speaking at the Fullerton Unit of the California Republican Assembly (CRA).  Norby represents several cities in North Orange County's 72nd Assembly District, including his home town of Fullerton. 

The CRA is encouraging all conservative constituents to attend this meeting.

Assemblyman Norby will be presenting "Sacramento: Looking into the great abyss". 

Date

Thursday, January 20^th

Time

Dinner 6:15 pm – 7 pm (on your own)

Meeting 7:00 pm -8:30 pm

Place

Sizzler Restaurant

1401 North Harbor Bl.(Brea Bl.)

Fullerton California 92835

Questions: Please call Zonya Townsend 714 525-9441

Assemblyman Norby's Christmas Open House 12/16

www.asm.ca.gov/Norby
Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov

Christmas Open House

WHAT:
Christmas Open House

WHEN:
Thursday, December 16th
4pm - 7pm

WHERE: 

Assemblyman Norby's District Office
210 W. Birch St., Suite 202 Brea, CA 92821

The office is located on the second floor of the building. Enter in through the side door next to the police office.

RSVP to the District Office: (714) 672-4734.

DISTRICT OFFICE 210 Birch St., Suite 202 Brea, CA 92821 714-672-4734, 714-672-4737 fax

CAPITOL OFFICE P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249 916-319-2072, 916-319-2172 fax

Norby Speaks on School Funding and Redevelopment Agencies

Judge: Local Schools Get Blight Funds
What is the best way to fight blight in our cities? Subsidize private development or public education? Spend public money on new shopping centers or new schools?

In his CRA vs. Genest ruling, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly decided for the kids. He upheld the legislature's authority over redevelopment agency money, an important step in achieving a balanced budget and returning those funds to their original purpose.

This ruling restores $2.7 billion in education revenues previously lost to redevelopment agencies, including $166.9 million for Orange County schools.

Redevelopment was created 60 years ago to end urban blight in California. It was never intended to be a permanent drain on the budget. Agencies are supposed to sunset after 40 years but are routinely extended indefinitely, and their indebtedness now tops $93 billion.

Redevelopment diverts an ever-growing share of property tax dollars into subsidizing big box retailers, auto malls, theaters, stadiums and low-income housing. Last year, redevelopment agencies diverted $5.4 billion in local taxes - 12% of all property taxes. That amounted to $2.7 billion taken from public schools and $646 million from counties. There is no money to backfill these losses.

Redevelopment agencies are typically operated by California's cities, who see it as a way to maximize local revenue. But most of that revenue winds up in the pockets of developers to stimulate private projects. None of it can be used for salaries or operations. Tax exemptions, rebates and land acquisition - often under threat of eminent domain - typically benefit developers and giant retailers.

L.A.'s Hollywood/Highland Mall got a $98 million public subsidy and has lost 60% of its original value. In Orange County, Costa Mesa's Triangle Square stands virtually empty after being built with redevelopment funds on land acquired through eminent domain, while Cypress used eminent domain to take church property for a Costco. From San Diego to Sacramento, public funds have been used to bankroll sports franchises and plans are on the books to hand out even more.

The state is littered with deserted shopping centers, half-empty malls, abandoned auto dealers and shuttered movie theaters that were originally financed through public redevelopment subsidies. This fiscal free-for-all distorts land use decisions and pits city-against-city to outbid each other for businesses - at public expense.

In the 1970's redevelopment the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency destroyed that city's entire downtown, leveling functioning businesses in historical buildings. Only a year after building its Fullerton location in 1984, the Price Club (now Costco) store threatened to move to Anaheim, unless it received more tax subsidies than the original deal provided. In the 1990's, Fullerton lost several auto dealerships to Buena Park, who lured them away to its new auto mall - at public expense.

Redevelopment has produced few benefits that private investors could not have done on their own. The Public Policy Institute's study "Subsidizing Redevelopment in California" compared 114 different redevelopment project areas statewide to similar areas without redevelopment. It concluded that redevelopment agencies were not responsible for any net economic growth and that they were being financed at the expense of local schools and public services.

A 2000 Los Angeles Times report compared differing neighborhoods in that city and found that redevelopment projects actually hindered development, as private owners waited for public assistance rather than investing on their own, and others - under threat of eminent domain - dared not invest at all.

Look at three commercial centers at the intersection of Orangethorpe and Harbor in Fullerton. The northeast and southwest corners received millions in public incentives, while the southeast corner was improved solely by private developers. There is little difference in vacancy rates.

Judge Connelly has a good grasp of state and local funding issues. He has served on the Sacramento City Council and the State Legislature. His ruling keeps these funds within the cities from which they came - to fund local schools. Funding education is a far more effective way to relieve blight than building more shopping centers.

Many city officials are understandably unhappy with the decision, as they find their redevelopment projects now in jeopardy. To the extent that these monies fund public improvements and infrastructure, they deserve protection. What cities really need is more general fund revenue that can be used for maintenance and public safety. I would support transferring remaining redevelopment monies into municipal general funds.

(Reprinted from Norby Notes 6; May, 2010, Issue 06; www.asm.ca.gov/Norby, Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov)

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision - SB 972

****UPDATE****
I met with Ca. Assemblyman Chris Norby's staff at his district office last Friday, June 11, 2010. His staff indicated that SB 972 looked like it would be on the Governor's desk very soon. They didn't see any reason why it would be stalled any further.
****UPDATE****

This showed up in my email this morning. After reading the background on this, I see the need to get this passed as quickly as possible. Read it and pass it along where you can.

###

TAKE ACTION - SUPPORT ACEC LEGISLATION - DUTY TO DEFEND OBLIGATIONS FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Take Action!

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision

ACEC sponsored SB 972 responds to the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and an Appeals Court's ruling in UDC. These terrible rulings can force design professionals to pay an indemnitee's attorney fees even when a firm was neither negligent nor in breach of contract. Moreover, in the UDC case the court ruled that the engineering firm had a duty to defend the indemnitee, even though the plaintiff did not even allege that the engineering firm was negligent.

It is literally impossible for a design professional firms to obtain insurance to cover other's attorney fees in these circumstances. These cases force companies to literally "bet the firm" every time a contract signed. That is terrible for business and job growth and frankly is just not right.

SB 972 is important and urgently needed. Already in response to these court rulings, design professional firms are increasingly confronted with onerous and uninsurable indemnity demands in contracts and tenders for the defense of lawsuits not involving allegations of professional negligence. Relief, as envisioned by SB 972, is critical.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!! SEND THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS SO THEY CAN TAKE ACTION TOO!!

Thanks,
Mark Smith
ACEC CA Legislative Advocate
916-335-5072

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision - SB 972

****UPDATE****
I met with Ca. Assemblyman Chris Norby's staff at his district office last Friday, June 11, 2010.  His staff indicated that SB 972 looked like it would be on the Governor's desk very soon.  They didn't see any reason why it would be stalled any further.
****UPDATE**** 


This showed up in my email this morning.  After reading the background on this, I see the need to get this passed as quickly as possible.  Read it and pass it along where you can. 

###

TAKE ACTION - SUPPORT ACEC LEGISLATION - DUTY TO DEFEND OBLIGATIONS FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Take Action!

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision

ACEC sponsored SB 972 responds to the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and an Appeals Court's ruling in UDC. These terrible rulings can force design professionals to pay an indemnitee's attorney fees even when a firm was neither negligent nor in breach of contract. Moreover, in the UDC case the court ruled that the engineering firm had a duty to defend the indemnitee, even though the plaintiff did not even allege that the engineering firm was negligent.

It is literally impossible for a design professional firms to obtain insurance to cover other's attorney fees in these circumstances. These cases force companies to literally "bet the firm" every time a contract signed. That is terrible for business and job growth and frankly is just not right.

SB 972 is important and urgently needed. Already in response to these court rulings, design professional firms are increasingly confronted with onerous and uninsurable indemnity demands in contracts and tenders for the defense of lawsuits not involving allegations of professional negligence. Relief, as envisioned by SB 972, is critical.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!! SEND THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS SO THEY CAN TAKE ACTION TOO!!

Thanks,
Mark Smith
ACEC CA Legislative Advocate
916-335-5072

Assemblyman Chris Norby Invites You...

www.asm.ca.gov/Norby

Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov

Town Hall Meetings


Dear Community Members,

Please join me for a town hall meeting. I am hosting a series of community meetings to discuss how legislation is affecting you, hear your thoughts and ideas, and answer any questions you have.

There are three upcoming dates:
Thursday April 22nd, 7-9 PM, Fullerton Senior Multi-Service Center, 340 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832
Thursday April 29th, 7-9 PM, Whitten Community Center, 900 S. Melrose Ave., Placentia, CA 92870
Thursday May 6th, 7-9 PM, Downtown Community Center, 250 E. Center St., Anaheim, CA 92805


For more information, contact my district office in Brea at 714-672-4734.


Sincerely,
Assemblyman Chris Norby

Chris Norby Takes On Redevelopment In Sacramento - AB 1859

Redevelopment Accountability

This bill would require all new, expansions or extensions of redevelopment areas to be subject to review by county LAFCOs (Local Agency Formation Commissions). Currently, redevelopment agencies can be created and expanded without oversight, negatively impacting county revenue, with lawsuits as the only recourse. LAFCO oversight will better mediate revenue disputes between counties and cities resulting from redevelopment diversions and avoid costly litigation.

 

Check the status of AB 1859 by clicking here.

 

We sent him to Sacramento to do a dirty job and I am pleased to see he took our votes seriously. If Norby can get this bill passed and signed I will be very happy and impressed. Everything is an uphill battle in Sac City. The impression I get from reading newspapers and talking to folks is that no one wants to work very hard at anything and the town is full of legislators who have moved their families near the capitol. While that may be great for the legislators and their families, the constituents are the ones suffering. Chris's wife and children are all down here which I think helps him remain motivated and grounded in the 72nd Assembly District. If you don't live in the 72nd Assembly District, you should contact your legislator and tell them to support AB 1859. If passed, I think this bill will help your local tax dollars continue going into their currently allocated programs such as sewer, road, school purposes without diversion into buying property and flipping it to a private developer who will make money while all new taxes generated go into the redevelopment agency. Stop me if I'm wrong on this, but it sure seems like a good idea!

Norby Wins the Primary for the 72nd Assemby District

Congratulations to Chris Norby! Well done!!  Here are the stats:

Special Election - 72nd Assemby District

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: November 17th is our special election here in the 72nd Assembly District. Cast your ballot or be cast! 

 

For the latest election results, go to http://www.ocvote.com/, where you can also verify your polling site and current voter information.

Mud Slinging in Orange County

It absolutely amazing to see how dirty a local small election has become.  The mud seems to be coming from one side only, Ackerman, and appears to be having a reverse effect.  A recent poll released by Flashreport.org shows Ackerman falling behind significantly.  Click here for the details of the poll. 

This state is in dire straights and it's time the voters clean house in Sacramento.

The Race Is On!

With just a few weeks to go, no one can guess who will win the battle over the 72nd Assembly District. Since the seat was vacated amidst multiple sex scandals involving Mike DuVall, Republican candidates Chris Norby and Linda Ackerman have been running hard. Based on the mailers I've received, Ackerman clearly has a lot of money to burn and some deep Sacramento pockets. She also has mastered the art of deceptive negative campaigning. Norby, on the other hand has been relatively quiet. There are the usual yard signs but not much else which is typical of Norby. He isn't the showman that Ackerman is nor does he have the deep pockets of questionable contributors. There is a Democratic candidate, MacMurray, who seems to have also secured funding because his signs are littering every road in northern Orange County. His agenda, based on a robo-call I received, indicates he is all about spending money on education. Been there, done that... The real front runners, Norby and Ackerman, have a long history in Fullerton. Norby was raised in Fullerton and has continuously lived across the street from Fullerton Community College. Ackerman lived in Fullerton for about 19 years before moving to Irvine for about 10 more years. It wasn't until DuVall resigned that she "moved back" to Fullerton. In a townhall-style phone call by her campaign, a resident asked about her "carpetbagging". She talked in a big circle about how she raised her kids in Fullerton, she worships in Fullerton, she has doctors in Fullerton... Yeah, that didn't really explain her sudden relocation back to Fullerton. There are several issues I have with casting my vote for her. I'm sure she is a nice woman who did a great job supporting her husband's ambitions and raising her kids. My concern is her lack of experience holding an elected office. In contrast, Norby has been in politics for a long time, maybe 20 years. Is that too long and does that mean he is a career politician? Before answering that we need to consider an important fact. As a Fullerton City Council member he received a small stipend for his time spent at council meetings. To my knowledge, and I suppose it's time I research it, Fullerton does not pay a salary to the council memebers; they work as elected volunteers. It wasn't until his election to the County Board of Supervisors that he received a paycheck for his time. So, although he may be a "lifer" with respect to politics, he is certainly not a career politician. Before being elected to the Board of Supervisors, he was a teacher in Brea. That was his career while politics and local government were his hobby. Looking at his voting record as a County Supervisor, it is pretty clear that he is a fiscal conservative. I have heard his associates say during an open meeting that they will discuss their individual concerns later. Norby promptly advised the other members that they can not have secret or private discussions on matter for consideration. He then explains his position and gives thoughtful consideration to the input from the other participants. I'm sure he hasn't always voted in the manner I would like but that's to be expected. I'm sure this race will continue to heat up and eventually gain more media attention. So far, the only media outlet to question these candidates was KCAL9/KCBS2 News Central. The reporter, Dave Lopez, was trying to track down another one of DuVall's alleged girlfriends. It was terribly entertaining watching him chasing her around the Summet House restaurant, a 5-star-type of eatery. We'll see...