Lack of support by both parties is real reason flawed foreclosure bill failed to move forward

By MARK SCHOESLER

Ninth District Senator (R-Ritzville)

My colleague from Seattle, Sen. Adam Kline, is free to lament the failure of his bill to force lenders into mediation with borrowers (“Banks should return taxpayer favor,” published July 8).

But Kline's parting shot at “our Republican friends” could have misled readers into thinking legislators on my side of the aisle kept his legislation from passing. That just isn't the case. Kline simply needed consent from enough of his fellow Democrats, and when the vote was taken the support wasn't there.

The legislation in question, Senate Bill 6648, took an unusual turn right out of the gate. I serve on the Senate Financial Institutions, Housing and Insurance Committee, where one would expect a bill concerning banks and mortgages to make its first appearance. Not SB 6648. It went to the Senate committee on labor and commerce, on which Kline serves. Why the financial institutions committee was bypassed I can only speculate, but Kline and his fellow labor-committee members voted to move an amended version of the bill forward.

Bills that involve the collection or expenditure of money ultimately come before the Senate Ways and Means Committee. Kline didn't mention it to the Cheney Free Press readers, but his legislation involved both. The cost of his proposed new rule was estimated at more than $3 million for the next two-year budget cycle. SB 6648 also would have imposed a fee, estimated at $50, each time a lender filed a notice of a foreclosure sale.

SB 6648 came up for a vote before the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 9. It's important to note that it takes at least 12 votes, a majority of the committee's 22 members, to move a bill forward. There are 14 Democrats on the committee, including Kline; I am among the eight Republican members. It's also important to point out that while committee members are asked for a voice vote on each bill, the “aye” or “no” isn't binding; what counts is how they sign the voting sheet that is passed around.

Someone listening to the committee's voice vote that day might have thought SB 6648 had passed. However, the voting sheet had only nine signatures recommending passage – from Kline and eight other Democrats. Four Democrat committee members simply didn't sign, and a fifth signed as “without recommendation,” which isn't a “yes.” Why is anyone's guess, but had Kline convinced three more Democrats to side with him the bill would have remained alive. Why that wasn't disclosed in his guest column is also anyone's guess.

Kline's inference that state government deserves more power over lenders because of a federal-level bailout is a hoot. The foreclosure process is already well-regulated; SB 6648 would have meant even more regulation and fees, and according to public testimony on the bill, made the process take so long that banks could be in jeopardy of violating consumer protection laws. When the head of the Washington Association of County Officials – who is pretty much a neutral party in this case, because counties simply collect the fees – testifies against a bill like this, it must have significant flaws.

Perhaps Kline is frustrated that his fellow Democrats rejected his plan to institute yet another fee, only to later adopt the largest tax increase of its kind in state history. If so, why take a swipe at Republicans? Clearly the concerns about SB 6648 were bipartisan. If my colleague across the aisle wants his idea to go farther next legislative session he might have to reckon with that.